Governments of low-income countries and international development donors are increasing their funding for research at least in part on the assumption that research has positive impacts on socioeconomic development. Four pathways are commonly cited to describe how research will contribute to development: 1. Investment in research will drive economic growth; 2. Investment in research will increase human capital; 3. Investment in research will lead to the development of pro-poor products and technologies; 4.

At an average above 6.0 percent per year over the past two decades, Uganda' s growth rate was impressive by all standards. In parallel, poverty declined significantly, not only in urban areas, but also to some extent within the rural areas. This combination was possible because the key drivers of growth were labor-intensive services sectors, some of which are agriculture based. In fact, Uganda's growth process has reduced overall poverty faster than what has been observed in many other developing countries.

This article summarizes current research on public entrepreneurship and presents a detailed case study of a successful entrepreneurial change in a public sector organization. A five-step change process used to enhance entrepreneurial behaviors was implemented in a public sector organization and the qualitative and quantitative results demonstrated substantial performance improvements over 4 years (i.e., quantitative performance in some areas was more than 10 times greater).

This paper represents a guidance to USAID on elements to incorporate into a strategy to improve agricultural research, and a technical brief to guide USAID investments in NARS strengthening. The paper is the final output from a one-day Roundtable which was held on March 5, 2013 and that brought together some 30 specialists in agricultural research and agricultural research systems to discuss which USAID interventions would best strengthen NARS in developing countries.

Given the search for new solutions to better prepare cities for the future, in recent years, urban agriculture (UA) has gained in relevance. Within the context of UA, innovative organizational and technical approaches are generated and tested. They can be understood as novelties that begin a potential innovation process. This empirical study is based on 17 qualitative interviews in the U.S. (NYC; Philadelphia, PA, USA; Chicago, IL, USA).

The question of how agricultural research can best be used for developmental purposes is a topic of some debate in developmental circles. The idea that this is simply a question of better transfer of ideas from research to farmers has been largely discredited. Agricultural innovation is a process that takes a multitude of different forms, and, within this process, agricultural research and expertise are mobilised at different points in time for different purposes. This paper uses two key analytical principles in order to find how research is actually put into use.

This chapter starting presenting the current status of agricultural research systems in SSA at national and regional levels against a backdrop of key policy changes and progressive elaboration of agricultural knowledge frameworks registered in the last decade or so. The section argues for endogenous mechanisms to encourage sustainable funding of agricultural research in the region. Section 2 discusses key trends and some innovative approaches that are helping bridge the supply and demand mismatch in AAS.

This thematic note discusses the role of innovation brokers in bridging communication gaps between various actors of innovation systems. On the basis of recent experience in the Netherlands, it outlines the success of brokers in finding solutions adapted to the needs of farmers and industry, and thus their positive impact on innovation adoption. This section also examines some issues on how brokers function, particularly with regard to balancing interests, funding their activities, and the role of government.

This paper traces the evolution of the innovation systems framework within the agricultural sector in Sub-Saharan Africa, and presents a conceptual framework for agricultural innovation systems. The difference between innovation ecology/ecosystems and intervention-based innovations systems is highlighted, given that these two concepts are used at different levels in promoting and sustaining agricultural innovations.

In recent years the there has been an increasing recognition of the potential of the innovation systems concept to provide new ways of making more effective use of agricultural research and improve its impact on socially desirable outcomes. This paper documents the experiences of a group of researchers in India who experimented with this framework and tried to operationalise its principles in project design. The paper comments on some of the implications of using this approach and the challenges it presents for implementers of agricultural research projects in developing countries.