Functions of the Intermediary Organizations for Agricultural Innovation inMexico: TheChiapas Produce Foundation

Abstract

Innovation intermediary organizations (IIOs) may build bridges between the demand and supply of knowledge. The understanding concerning the scope and functions of these intermediaries in the case of the agricultural sector is scarce, particularly for developing countries. The aim of this article is to discuss the functions played by IIOs operating in the segment of small farmers in the agricultural sector in the context of a developing country. The analysis allows extracting policy implications having in mind small farmers with different economic conditions and levels of innovativeness. This article uses a case study methodology. The main sources of information are interviews with members of the board and staff of the Produce Foundation, responsible for managing public resources to promote innovation processes in the agriculture sector in a specific state, Chiapas, as well as with farmers, technological suppliers, and researchers in this state.

Introduction: governance of innovation in emerging countries: understanding failures and exploring options

“…It is for that reason that one witnesses a great boom in the literature and political debates in several emerging countries concepts such as the 'bottom of the pyramid' (BOP) (Prahalad and Hart 2002;Cholez et al 2012), grassroots innovation (Gupta 1995), frugal innovation (Bhatti 2012) and innovation for inclusion (see Arocena and Sutz, Chapter 13 in this book;and Alzugaray et al 2012;Garrido and Lalouf 2012), or even concepts such as social innovation (see Thomas et al, Chapter 17 in this book;and Nicholls et al 2015), which is also seen as a complement to (and for many a determinant of) technological innovation (Edwards-Schachter et al 2012). A survey of such approaches is found in a special issue of Review of Policy Research (Bortagaray and Ordóñez-Matamoros 2012), where new institutional arrangements are recognized as key 'bridges' between innovation and society (see Arocena and Sutz, Chapter 13 in this book;and Dutrénit et al 2012).…”

Modelos de intermediación en la extensión agrícola

“…En este contexto, el estudio estructurado de la intermediación de la innovación en el sector agrícola es relativamente nuevo (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008;Yang et al, 2014) y en el sector agrícola de los países en desarrollo (Kilelu et al, 2011) es escaso, pues éste posee características particulares que deben tomarse en cuenta al momento de caracterizar a los intermediarios de la innovación (Dutrénit et al, 2012). Para cerrar esta brecha en la literatura, el presente artículo tiene como objetivo contribuir a generar una tipología de las estructuras de intermediación en los procesos de extensión, referidas en este trabajo como "modelos de intermediación", para lo cual se abordaron tres preguntas fundamentales: i) ¿Qué características de los intermediarios son más importantes en el proceso de extensión?, ii) ¿Bajo qué condiciones operan los intermediarios?, y iii) ¿Qué estrategias utilizan para intervenir en el proceso de extensión?…”

“…In this context, structured study of innovation intermediation in the agricultural sector is relatively new (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008;Yang et al, 2014) and the agricultural sector in developing countries (Kilelu et al, 2011) is scarce, since this have unique characteristics that must be taken into account when characterizing innovation intermediaries (Dutrénit et al, 2012). To close this gap in the literature, this article aims to contribute to generate a typology of intermediation structures in the process of extension referred to in this work as " models of intermediation", for which three fundamental questions were addressed: i) What features of intermediaries are most important in the process of extension?, ii) Under what conditions do intermediaries operate?, and iii) What strategies use to intervene in the extension process?…”

“…Based on the mode of operation of those involved and the type of innovation, literature uses different terms to refer to the process of knowledge intermediation, among which highlights: innovation intermediaries (Howells, 2006;Klerkx and Bishop 2009), innovation intermediary organizations (Tura et al, 2011;Dutrénit et al, 2012), open innovation intermediaries (Alexander and Martin, 2013;Hallerstede, 2013), innovation intermediaries in open collaboration or crowdsourcing (Silva and Ramos, 2011;Billington and Davidson 2013), base or grassroots intermediaries (Hargreaves et al, 2013), collateral organizations -boundary organizations (Cash, 2001) or simply intermediaries (Peng et al, 2014). base o grassroots (Hargreaves et al, 2013), organizaciones colaterales -boundary organizations- (Cash, 2001) o simplemente intermediarios (Peng et al, 2014).…”

Corporate Social Responsibility Applied for Rural Development: An Empirical Analysis of Firms from the American Continent

“…Governments and civil institutions are also favored from the active participation of firms through CSR. Benefits like resources maximization, regularization of land tenancy, transparent operations, combatting poverty, and solutions for legal conflicts and other socio-economic problems are some of the outcomes generated through CSR in rural areas [16,17,[44][45][46][47]. Since every actor is connected and interrelated, its active participation results are relevant to overcome the difficulties and challenges faced by firms when participating in rural development, minimizing problems such as additional bureaucratic procedures, additional resources, and difficulties in demonstrating tangible economic benefits, among others [48].…”