Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Innovation systems governance in Bolivia: Lessons for agricultural innovation policies

Contents:

Author Info

  • Hartwich, Frank
  • Alexaki, Anastasia
  • Baptista, Rene
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    "Traditional approaches to innovation systems policymaking and governance often focus exclusively on the central provision of services, regulations, fiscal measures, and subsidies. This study, however, considers that innovation systems policymaking and governance also has to do with the structures and procedures decision makers set up to provide incentives for innovating agents and the interaction and collaboration among them, thus enabling innovation. Based on the concepts of agent-centered institutionalism and innovation systems, governance can be understood to refer to integrating multiple government and non-government actors in different actor constellations depending on roles, mandates, and strategic visions. Any effort to govern the system composed of those agents needs to take into account the limitations that any policymaking body has in dictating how agents behave and interact. In consequence governance in innovation systems has less to do with executing research and administering extension services and more to do with guiding diverse actors involved in complex innovation processes through the rules and incentives that foster the creation, application, and diffusion of knowledge and technologies. The report presents results from a study that analyzed to what extent the Bolivian Agricultural Technology System (SIBTA), as part of the country's agricultural innovation system, has complied with a set of governance principles—including participation of stakeholders (especially small farmers) in decision making, transparency and openness, responsiveness and accountability, consensus orientation and coherence, and strategic vision—and compares those principles with benchmarks of innovation systems governance in five other developing countries. Data in Bolivia were collected by means of an expert consultation and interviews with a wide range of key actors and stakeholders from various organizations involved in agricultural innovation in the system. The empirical findings of the study suggest the following: A research and technology transfer program such as SIBTA constitutes only part of an innovation system and there are other important complementary functions with which the government has to comply to foster innovation. Rather than aiming to carry out research and extension, governments should focus on overall planning on the macro level and bringing the above functions together so they reach the innovating agents. To do this they need to involve themselves in planning and policy analysis, the setting of consultation platforms, supporting the building of innovation networks, and setting up specific funding mechanisms. Setting up decentralized semiautonomous agencies that administer funds and design innovation projects does not automatically lead to sufficient participation of local producer organizations and technology providers. More participation requires special rules and incentives to collaborate and the special efforts of all involved, and eventually further decentralization on the regional level. Weak leadership and limited commitment, rather than a decentralized structure or the delegation of too much power, have prevented governments from taking a more active role in governing their innovation systems. Decentralization, however, should not stand in the way of a national strategic vision, and mechanisms need to be put in place to discuss and harmonize national- and local-level priorities. Simply being responsive to the demands of farmers does not necessarily imply that one is generating the best technical solutions. Generating adequate innovations requires the participation of many: leading and other producers, knowledge and technology providers, buyers, input sellers, funding agencies, advisory services, and others. It also requires analysis and identification of technological and market opportunities. Policymakers should foster in-depth analysis of farmers' demands on the local level through decentralized organizations, which simultaneously help to orient these demands to where technological and market opportunities lie. This requires improved analytical and planning capacities as well as intensive communication with the farmers and agents who benefit from new and promising technologies." from Authors' Abstract

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00732.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in its series IFPRI discussion papers with number 732.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 2007
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:732

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006
    Phone: 202-862-5600
    Fax: 202-467-4439
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Agricultural innovations; Governance; Innovation Policy; Agricultural Innovation System;

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Björn Johnson & Olman Segura-Bonilla, 2001. "Innovation Systems and Developing Countries Experiences from the SUDESCA Project," DRUID Working Papers 01-12, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    2. Pierre, Jon (ed.), 2000. "Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198297727.
    3. Birner, Regina & Davis, Kristin & Pender, John & Nkonya, Ephraim & Anandajayasekeram, Ponniah & Ekboir, Javier & Mbabu, Adiel & Spielman, David & Horna, Daniela & Benin, Samuel & Cohen, Marc J., 2006. "From "best practice" to "best fit": a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide," DSGD discussion papers 37, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Hall, Andrew & Mytelka, Lynn & Oyeyinka, Banji, 2005. "Innovation Systems: Implications for agricultural policy and practice," ILAC Briefs 52512, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    5. Birner, Regina & Davis, Kristin & Pender, John & Nkonya, Ephraim & Anandajayasekeram, Pooniah & Ekboir, Javier M. & Mbabu, Adiel N. & Spielman, David J. & Horna, Daniela & Benin, Samuel & Kisamba-Muge, 2006. "From "best practice" to "best fit": a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services," Research briefs 4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Chaminade, Cristina & Edquist, Charles, 2005. "From theory to practice: the use of systems of innovation approach in innovation policy," CIRCLE Electronic Working Papers 2005/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.
    7. Keynan, Gabriel & Olin, Manuel & Dinar, Ariel, 1997. "Cofinanced Public Extension in Nicaragua," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 12(2), pages 225-47, August.
    8. M. Cimoli, 1998. "National System of Innovation: A Note on Technological Asymmetries and Catching-Up Perspectives," Working Papers ir98030, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Ramazan Uctu & Hassan Essop, 2012. "The Role of the South African Government in Developing the Biotechnology Industry – from Biotechnology Regional Innovation Centres to the Technology Innovation Agency," Working Papers 19/2012, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    2. World Bank, 2010. "Designing and implementing Agricultural Innovation Funds : Lessons from Competitive Research and Matching Grant Projects," World Bank Other Operational Studies 12614, The World Bank.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:732. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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