IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/polpwa/329699.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping Linkages between Actors in Cattle Marketing Innovation System of Northeastern Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Madugu, Altine Justine

Abstract

The focus of this study was to analyze and map linkages among actors in the innovation system of cattle marketing in northeastern Nigeria. Specifically, linkages/interactions between actors and those of the innovation system network were determined. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data from 48 respondents and a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) session involving sixteen (16) participants each was conducted in three out of the four Adamawa Agricultural Development Project (AADP) zones of Adamawa State. Analytical tools used were descriptive statistics such as means, tables, and charts while the inferential statistical tool used was the Social Network Analysis (SNA). The results of the FGD interaction sessions revealed that the sixteen (16) actors had ninety-nine (99) ties in the network; these were classified into nine (9) key and seven (7) non-key actors with each group performing specific roles in the system. Furthermore, the result of the social network analysis revealed a network density of 0.83, indicating that 83% of all direct linkages were present. However, the network cohesion was 0.40, showing that only 40.0% of the connections were reciprocated, which implied that about 40% of the actors are not well connected. The result further revealed that both extension agents/Village Based Agents and the cattle dealers association had the highest degree and closeness centrality (73% and 6 links each), implying that they are the actors with more connections, closest to others and thus directly able to influence the decisions of other actors in the network; they can also be considered as the most important channels/agents for the diffusion of innovations in the system. The result of the network diagram revealed that there were strong, weak, unidirectional and reciprocal links among actors in the system. A strong link signifies high/dense interaction while a weak link signifies low/loose interaction among actors. Furthermore, unidirectional links indicate a one-way interaction/communication process while a reciprocal link signifies a feedback communication process. The study concluded that there is a great potential for increasing the interconnectedness, interaction, and collaboration between actors in the network. It was recommended that actors in public and private sectors should link, collaborate and interact more to produce a denser network for faster and more effective diffusion of technologies. Furthermore, the use of social media is strongly advocated to further strengthen linkage and networking among/between actors in the innovation system.

Suggested Citation

  • Madugu, Altine Justine, 2022. "Mapping Linkages between Actors in Cattle Marketing Innovation System of Northeastern Nigeria," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 22(1), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:polpwa:329699
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.329699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/329699/files/5_MADUGU%20AJ.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.329699?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurens Klerkx & Andy Hall & Cees Leeuwis, 2009. "Strengthening agricultural innovation capacity: are innovation brokers the answer?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(5/6), pages 409-438.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Colvin, John & Blackmore, Chris & Chimbuya, Sam & Collins, Kevin & Dent, Mark & Goss, John & Ison, Ray & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Seddaiu, Giovanna, 2014. "In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 760-771.
    2. Saint Ville, Arlette S. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Phillip, Leroy E., 2017. "How do stakeholder interactions influence national food security policy in the Caribbean? The case of Saint Lucia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 53-64.
    3. Swaans, Kees & Cullen, Beth & van Rooyen, André & Adekunle, Adewale & Ngwenya, Hlami & Lema, Zelalem & Nederlof, Suzanne, 2016. "Dealing with critical challenges in African innovation platforms: Lessons for facilitation," IFPRI book chapters, in: Devaux, André & Torero, Maximo & Donovan, Jason & Horton, Douglas E. (ed.), Innovation for inclusive value-chain development: Successes and challenges, chapter 10, pages 303-328, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Sean McKenzie & Hilary Parkinson & Jane Mangold & Mary Burrows & Selena Ahmed & Fabian Menalled, 2018. "Perceptions, Experiences, and Priorities Supporting Agroecosystem Management Decisions Differ among Agricultural Producers, Consultants, and Researchers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    6. Glover, Dominic & Poole, Nigel, 2019. "Principles of innovation to build nutrition-sensitive food systems in South Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 63-73.
    7. Hall, Andy, 2011. "Putting agricultural research into use: Lessons from contested visions of innovation," MERIT Working Papers 2011-076, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. Roldán-Suárez, Elizabeth & Rendón-Medel, Roberto & Camacho-Villa, Tania Carolina & Aguilar-Ávila, Jorge & Toledo, José, 2020. "Innovation in the rural sector of Mexico: the role of the innovation broker," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    9. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    10. Hall, Andy & Dijkman, Jeroen & Sulaiman, Rasheed, 2010. "Research Into Use: Investigating the Relationship between Agricultural Research and Innovation," MERIT Working Papers 2010-044, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    11. Schut, Marc & Cunha Soares, Núria & van de Ven, Gerrie & Slingerland, Maja, 2014. "Multi-actor governance of sustainable biofuels in developing countries: The case of Mozambique," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 631-643.
    12. Reddy, Vamsidhar & Hall, Andy & Sulaiman, Rasheed, 2011. "The when and where of research in agricultural innovation trajectories: Evidence and implications from RIU's South Asia projects," MERIT Working Papers 2011-024, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Yang, Huan & Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2014. "Functions and limitations of farmer cooperatives as innovation intermediaries: Findings from China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 115-125.
    14. Niu, Chiyu & Ragasa, Catherine, 2018. "Selective attention and information loss in the lab-to-farm knowledge chain: The case of Malawian agricultural extension programs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 147-163.
    15. Bjerke, Lina & Johansson, Sara, 2022. "Innovation in agriculture: An analysis of Swedish agricultural and non-agricultural firms," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Singh, K.M. & Shekhar, Dibyanshu & Meena, M.S., 2015. "Modern Extension Approaches for Livelihood Improvement for Resource Poor Farmers," MPRA Paper 68414, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Dec 2015.
    17. Vamsidhar Reddy, T.S. & Hall, Andy & Sulaiman V., Rasheed, 2010. "New Organisational and Institutional Vehicles for Managing Innovation in South Asia: Opportunities for Using Research for Technical Change and Social Gain," MERIT Working Papers 2010-054, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    18. Marina Knickel & Sabine Neuberger & Laurens Klerkx & Karlheinz Knickel & Gianluca Brunori & Helmut Saatkamp, 2021. "Strengthening the Role of Academic Institutions and Innovation Brokers in Agri-Food Innovation: Towards Hybridisation in Cross-Border Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    19. Hoffecker, Elizabeth, 2021. "Understanding inclusive innovation processes in agricultural systems: A middle-range conceptual model," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    20. Cees Leeuwis & Birgit K. Boogaard & Kwesi Atta-Krah, 2021. "How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(4), pages 761-780, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:polpwa:329699. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wesggpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.