Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics

Abstract

This study identifies systemic problems in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) in relation to the AIS capacity to enact a co-innovation approach, in which all relevant actors in the agricultural sector contribute to combined technological, social and institutional change. Systemic problems are factors that negatively influence the direction and speed of co-innovation and impede the development and functioning of innovation systems. The contribution in the paper is twofold. Firstly, it combines both innovation system functions and systemic problems in an integrated analysis to asses an AIS at a country level, which has not been done previously in AIS literature. Secondly, it deepens the generic literature on structural-functional innovation systems analysis by looking at the interconnectedness between systemic problems and how these create core blocking mechanisms linked to the prevalent institutional logics (historically built-up and persistent structures and institutional arrangements) of the AIS. Results indicate that the existing New Zealand AIS has three main blocking mechanisms related to three institutional logics: (i) competitive science in silos, (ii) laissez faire innovation, and (iii) science centered innovation. These findings resemble weaknesses of AIS in other countries, and provide supportive evidence that co-innovation principles in many places have not yet been translated into agricultural innovation policies due to persistent and interlocked blocking mechanism and institutional logics. They point to the absence of effective systemic innovation policy instruments that pro-actively stimulate and support co-innovation. These instruments facilitate the counteracting of individual systemic problems and have a more transformative ambition; tackling the key institutional logics that hinder co-innovation, and hence supporting 'structural system innovation'.

Using a co-innovation approach to support innovation and learning: Cross-cutting observations from different settings and emergent issues

“…Van Dijk et al (2017) talk about the influence of 'institutional context' on co-innovation and Vereijssen et al (2017) mention that 'institutional setting' is important. Institutional logics seem to be a very relevant concept for co-innovation (see also its application in Turner et al 2016) and requires more attention in co-innovation scholarship and the practical design of co-innovation projects.…”

Doing water research differently for innovation in regional water productivity in Australia

“…As others have identified (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008;Fisher and Maricle 2014;Pittens et al 2014), this change can arise from multi-stakeholder research-development processes (such as this one). However, in this case, it will depend on continued co-development and formalisation of new routines of research-development practice within research institutions such as the CCI at the University of Melbourne, which requires considerable institutional innovation as observed elsewhere (Schut et al 2015;Turner et al 2015). The potential for institutional innovation from emergent research practices, such as those described here, will depend on the co-design of and investment in: opportunities for systemic learning (Ison et al 2014) through participatory approaches to understanding and pursuing innovation in research-development involving researchers, policy-makers and expert practitioners; new adaptive governance mechanisms such as new partnerships between research institutions, governments, industry and communities (Blackmore, Ison, and Jiggins 2007;Pahl-Wostl et al 2007); and new ways of integrating policy change with practice change (Moore et al 2014).…”

Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review

“…We would therefore argue that a process of innovation and scaling has to be approached as an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary endeavour. This may also involve new roles for researchers, combining an expert role with a role of facilitating collaborative processes (Brouwer and Woodhill 2015;Hermans et al 2013;Schut et al 2011;Spruijt et al 2014;Turnhout et al 2013;Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014), and this will also require that an enabling environment is created as existing procedures, incentive systems and funding mechanisms may work against such new roles ( Roux et al 2010;Turner et al 2016).…”