This paper shares the first results of an ongoing collaborative action research in which ten development organisations explored different Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) approaches with the aim of dealing more effectively with complex processes of social change. There are four reasons why we think this paper may be of interest: 1) The paper illustrates a practical example of action research whereby the organisations themselves are becoming the researchers.
Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies.
Este instrumento busca contribuir con los países al proceso de formulación de políticas públicas diferenciadas para la agricultura familiar, basado fundamentalmente en la construcción participativa, involucrando a los actores sociales y los agentes públicos en la gestión de su propio desarrollo, considerando la viabilidad técnica y política a las decisiones tomadas y a la implementación de soluciones.
This paper offers a perspective on the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System. The first chapter gives an introduction to the subject and explains the role of SCAR and of the Strategic Working Group AKIS. The second chapter investigates the AKIS and their role in innovation, including the policy context of the European Innovation Partnership “Agricultural productivity and sustainability”. Chapter 3 discusses the relation in a globalised world between Agricultural Research (AR) and Agricultural Research for Development (ARD).
Des changements dans les agendas des politiques publiques des Comités Nationaux de l’Agriculture Familiale des Philippines, du Honduras, du Burkina Faso et du Sénégal seront soutenus techniquement et économiquement. La création d’un nouveau Comité au Tchad sera également appuyée.
The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system.
RIU is a research and development programme designed to put agricultural research into use for developmental purposes and to conduct research on how to do this. The programme is funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). It follows earlier investments by DFID in agricultural and natural resources research, supported through its renewable natural resources research strategy (RRNRRS). While this strategy delivered high-quality research, the uptake of this research and its impact on social and economic progress was modest.
On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of Innovation System research, this paper presents an extensive literature review on this large field of innovation research. Building on an analytical basis of the commonalities “system” and “innovation”, the authors analyze the four main Innovation System approaches: National Innovation Systems (NIS), Regional Innovation Systems (RIS), Sectoral Innovation Systems (SIS) and Technological Innovation Systems (TIS). The analysis is structured systematically along ten comprehensive criteria.
Se presenta en este documento la metodología de Escuela – Empresa desarrollada por el Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural de Colombia – Programa Oportunidades Rurales- y el Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA) en 2010, como respuesta a los desafíos de fortalecimiento en capacidades de microempresarios rurales en Colombia, con una perspectiva de aplicación circunscrita inicialmente a los temas de comercialización, pero con una proyección de aplicación más allá de esta temática.
Early applications of the innovation systems framework to developing-country agriculture suggest opportunities for more intensive and extensive analysis. There is ample scope for empirical studies to make greater use of the theoretical content available in the literature, and to employ more diverse methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative. Further, there is room to improve the relevance of empirical studies to the analysis of public policies that support science, technology, and innovation, as well as to policies that promote poverty reduction and economic growth.