|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear discussants, My name is Moses Ochieng, working for CARE-USA in Bangladesh in the area of Microfinance. My main interest in science and technology is in the area of innovation of which I am completing a doctoral thesis titled "innovation management in rural manufacturing SMEs". What I find not interesting is the way the discussion has been structured. The limitation of having the discussions around 'boxes' or 'themes' is that it forces people, and especially those interested in innovation, to think very narrowly. I cannot imagine a discussion around innovation either in product (technology either in equipment or seeds) or process related to agriculture that does not touch on water, markets, public and private institutions (in financing and reducing risks associated with innovation), research institutions, users, entrepreneurs, transport and communication, and information technology. To be a bit provocative, the lack of understanding of the processes of innovation has led to one main confusion- that innovation and invention are being considered as being the same thing. Is there such a thing as 'Specialist innovators'? I don't think so, what I know exist are specialist inventors. Innovators, although some are involved in research work and can see commercial application to what is going on behind these 'sacred walls', tend to be ordinary people with a business 'bent' who see beyond the ordinary. Will Masters argument revolves around the pre-1970's approaches to innovation which was essentially a 'science-pushed' linear process, beginning with basic science and ending in sales. However, the contemporary and prevailing thinking view innovation as being a systemic phenomenon where innovation cannot be understood purely in terms of independent decision-making but that it is an interactive, cummulative and co-operative phenomenon in which interactive learning and collective entrepreneurship are fundamental. Learning in turn is considered as being largely a social process, particularly in the context of transfer or accumulation of tacit knowledge especially those in the 'heads' of poor farmers. Having said that, I beg to differ with Will's argument (without the risk of taking it out of context) that poor farmers have a limited role to play in the innovation process. Yes, where innovation is science-led and unlikely to succeed, but no, where the innovation is demand-led, and is likely to succeed. The question to me is where is the starting point in the innovation process? My analysis is that it is not in research and more research but in proactive entrepreneurship. DFID could play a 'catalytic role' in stimulating rural entrepreneurship that enables poor farmers adopt or use the latest technology by funding either start-up of potential 'winners' or introducing an 'innovation award' similar to the SMART Award etc. I don't agree witht the proposition of Will on prizes for innovation since it is only targeted at 'successful' innovations. The approach of 'buying' innovations whose measurable benefit cannot be recovered through product sales is a non-starter. This approach will only benefit 'northern' research organisations and wasteful public research institutions at the expense of local entrepreneurs. Due to business concept 'rights' I am unable to provide suggestions since a private company I am involved in is already working on some of these issues. I strongly believe that the link between private businesses (read entrepreneurs), public research and finance organisations, public and private R&D facilities and marketing organisations, has the key to unlock the technological gap that currently exist in many developing countries and especially the 'oxen-driven' agricultural economies of sub-saharan Africa. James Biscoe has provided two practical examples in 'closing the water cycle' an area I have explored extensively during my student days but ran into the problem of funding the start-up. Unfortunately the likes of Biscoe are but 'lone voices in the wilderness'. Nobody is really interested in providing permanent solutions to poor farmers since this may threaten their own livelihoods. Due to the large capital outlay required, DFID and other development organistions can play what I still consider as a 'catalytic' role by engaging more with the private sector and especially would-be entrepreneurs. Although billions of dollars continues to be poured into research (Will Masters gives the figure of $1billion per year in Africa) yet poor farmers will continue being poor, relying on nature, and die of starvation probably in the next 20 years. What do we have to show for it? More research and more research. This must stop and gear shifted to action-research and support for local entrepreneurs to sieze emerging opportunities. Sorry for my research friends, no offence, but please give more support to local innovative entrepreneurs. Andy Catley in the 'livestock, growth, trade and opportunity gives an example of the use of private clinic or pharmacy as being the most economically feasible approach in providing veterinary services in Kenya yet donors continue to support other less feasible approaches. -----Original Message----- From: Will Masters [mailto:<address removed> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:58 PM To: <address removed> Subject: "Demand-led" versus "supply-led" innovation Colleagues, I'm glad that the science and technology portion of this exchange is heating up! I would like to applaud Dana Dalrymple's latest posting, and would add the following: Ultimately, all successful innovation must fill users' needs, or else it will not be adopted. But this does NOT mean that the users can or should be "leading" the innovation, or even that users must participate directly in the innovation process. Of course end-users must participate in the final stages of refinement of any innovation, but to the extent that the whole innovation process is made demand-led and participatory, it will be pursuing approaches that are already known and available to the users: in other words, it won't be as innovative as it might be. One can think of a continuum, from what users know and can do to what specialized researchers know and can do. It seems clear to me that poor farmers know more than anyone else can possibly know about their own circumstances: what they can't do is how to make large changes in the available technology, through new crop genetics, new mechanical devices, etc. As I see it, the key question is whether specialist innovators have a real incentive to meet users' needs. If they do, they will use their specialized knowledge and skills to do something genuinely new, something that the users can use but couldn't make for themselves. Dana Dalrymple's "supply-led" innovators have been successful where users' needs are relatively easy for outsiders to see. To make a gross generalization, I think this was more the case for the large and relatively homogeneous cultivation systems that benefited from the past green revolutions, than it is for the patchy, agro-pastoral systems of Africa and parts of South Asia, the Andes, etc. that have not yet experienced a green revolution, and where it is not at all obvious to anyone what technologies are likely to work best. So, how to reward innovators to produce what users need, but can't make for themselves? One proposal is to introduce some "pull" mechanisms for the funding of research, to complement the "push" mechanisms by which donors fund projects and programs. The terminology is due to Michael Kremer, who considers pull mechanisms to be all payments that are tied to adoption and impact: most notably that would be royalties from patents, but it would also include "prize" payments paid for public domain technologies. The trick in designing a pull mechanism is how to compute the value of payments, and make a low-transaction cost mechanism for donors to reward innovators. A particular proposal for how to do this is detailed in a recent journal article, available on-line at: http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a14-masters.htm <http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a14-masters.htm> I won't go into details here -- there are also longer write-ups of the proposal available on my own website, at: http:// www.earth.columbia.edu/cgsd/masters-news <http://www.earth.columbia.edu/cgsd/masters-news> I know that DfID has been interested in the pull mechanisms in the past -- indeed their work with Michael Kremer stimulated the work that is referenced above. I would be very keen to hear what the community is now thinking about this kind of payment device, and its potential to help answer the question of how to make R&D more demand-led, without losing its innovative character. Will Masters ------------------------------------------ William A. Masters Center on Globalization and Sustainable Development, The Earth Institute at Columbia University http://www.earth.columbia.edu/cgsd/masters <http://www.earth.columbia.edu/cgsd/masters> Visiting Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University Professor of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University ------------------------------------------
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.