This study, conducted by the World Bank at the request of the Government, is motivated by the need to understand Malaysia’s progress in facilitating the shift to a knowledge-focused economy.
This report elaborates on how to use the agricultural knowledge and innovation systems framework to promote innovation at different levels with special focus on European issues related to the implementation of Horizon 2020. It is of value as a conceptual and methodological reference regarding the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS).
Given the diversity and context-specificity of innovation systems approaches, in March 2007 the World Bank organized a workshop in which about 80 experts (representing donor agencies, development and related agencies, academia, and the World Bank) took stock of recent experiences with innovation systems in agriculture and reconsidered strategies for their future development. This paper summarizes the workshop findings and uses them to develop and discuss key issues in applying the innovation systems concept. The workshop’s recommendations, including next steps for the wider
Multi-stakeholder partnerships network which is typified by the FARA-led Integrated Agriculture Research for Development (IAR4D) of the SSA-Challenge Program is an innovation platform (IP) composed of stakeholders bound together by their individual interests in a shared commodity or outcome. The result from such innovation platforms is largely influenced by the strength of the network. In this paper, similarities within and across platforms are assessed using the simple matching procedure. Results indicate consistency in conduct of Innovation Platform activities.
Innovation systems can be defined in a variety of ways: they can be national, regional, sectoral, or technological. They all involve the creation, diffusion, and use of knowledge. Systems consist of components, relationships among these, and their characteristics or attributes. The focus of this paper is on the analytical and methodological issues arising from various system concepts. There are three issues that stand out as problematic. First, what is the appropriate level of analysis for the purpose at hand?
This synthesis report presents the outputs of the workshop organised by CTA at its headquarters in Wageningen, The Netherlands, 15-17 July 2008. The outputs are presented in two main parts, each corresponding to one of the workshop objectives, and ends with a section on the way forward as suggested by the workshop participants. It also includes a first attempt to come to a consolidated generic framework on AIS performance indicators, based on the outputs of the different working groups.
This report reviews the evidence of impact of capacity strengthening on agricultural research for development (AR4D) in developing countries. The study was commissioned by DFID as part of the documentation process of the project Strengthening Capacity for Agricultural Research for Development in Africa (SCARDA).
This paper argues that impact assessment research has not made more of a difference because the measurement of the economic impact has poor diagnostic power. In particular it fails to provide research managers with critical institutional lessons concerning ways of improving research and innovation as a process. Paper's contention is that the linear input-output assumptions of economic assessment need to be complemented by an analytical framework that recognizes systems of reflexive, learning interactions and their location in, and relationship with, their institutional context.
This learning module on Applying innovation system concept in agricultural research for development has been prepared to serve as a tool in achieving the objective of strengthening the capacity of project staff and other researchers and actors who are believed to have a key role to play in ushering in market-led agricultural transformation. This includes national, regional, international and private sector agricultural researchers, university lecturers, and others engaged in biophysical as well as social science research.
Many capacity development (CD) programs and processes aim at long‐term sustainable change, which depends on seeing many smaller changes in at times almost invisible fields (rules, incentives, behaviours, power, coordination etc.). Yet, most evaluation processes of CD tend to focus on short‐term outputs focused on clearly visible changes.