Post-harvest R&D could make a valuable contribution to pro-poor rural development. Evidence suggests, however, that technological innovations need to be supplemented by institutional innovations that encourage broader participation from researchers, entrepreneurs and users of the technology. Furthermore, greater attention will need to be given to the wider institutional context in which innovation takes place. This paper presents the concept of a post-harvest innovation system as a way of exploring these issues and explains the capacity-development view of research that this perspective brings. Examples of post-harvest innovation systems are presented to illustrate the critical importance of partnerships and the influence of the institutional context on the outcome of research. Ways of implementing this in research programmes are then discussed.
AltshulH. (1998), Output to Purpose Review of DFID's Crop Post-Harvest Programme, Natural Resources International, Chatham.
2.
BiggsS. D. (1990), ‘A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion’, World Development, Vol 18, pp 1481–1499.
3.
BiggsS. D., and MatseartH. (1999), ‘An actor oriented approach for strengthening research and development capabilities in natural resource systems’, Public Administration and Development, Vol 19, pp 231–262.
4.
BiggsS. D., and SmithG. (1998), ‘Beyond methodologies: Coalition-building for participatory technology development’, World Development, Vol 26, pp 239–248.
5.
BiggsS. D., and UnderwoodM. P. (2001), Review of the Crop Post-Harvest Research Programme: Partnerships and Innovation Systems, Natural Resources International, Aylesford.
6.
ClarkN. G. (2002), ‘Innovation systems, institutional change and the new knowledge market: Implications for Third World agricultural development’, Journal of the Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol XI, Nos 1 & 2.
7.
EdquistC., ed (1997), Systems of Innovation Approaches: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, Pinter, Cassell Academic, London.
8.
EdquistC., and JohnstonB. (1997), ‘Institutions and organisations in systems of innovation’, in EdquistC., ed, Systems of Innovation Approaches: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, Pinter, Cassell Academic, London.
9.
FreemanC. (1987), Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London.
10.
GrimbleR., and WellardK. (1997), ‘Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principle, contexts, experiences and opportunities’, Agricultural Systems, Vol 559, No 2, pp 173–179.
11.
HallA. J. (2002), ‘Innovation systems and capacity development: An agenda for north–south research collaboration?’The International Journal of Technology Management and International Development, Vol 1, special edition.
12.
HallA. J.SivamohanM. V. K.ClarkN.TaylorS., and BockettG. (1998), ‘Institutional developments in Indian agricultural R&D systems: The emerging patterns of public and private sector activity’, Science, Technology and Development, Vol 16, No 3, pp 51–76.
13.
HallA. J.ClarkN. G.SulaimanRasheed V.SivamohanM. V. K., and YoganandB. (2000), ‘New agendas for agricultural research in developing countries: Policy analysis and institutional implications’, Knowledge, Policy and Technology, Vol 13, No 1, pp 70–91.
14.
HallA. J.SivamohanM. V. K.ClarkN.TaylorS., and BockettG. (2001), ‘Why research partnerships really matter: Innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for the developing new technology for the poor’, World Development, Vol 29, No 5, pp 783–797.
15.
HallA. J.ClarkN. G.SulaimanRasheed V., and TaylorS. (2002a), ‘Institutional learning through technical projects: Horticultural technology R&D systems in India’, The International Journal of Technology Management and International Development, Vol 1, No 1, pp 35–48.
16.
HallA. J.SulaimanRasheed V.ClarkN. G.SivamohanM. V. K., and YoganandB. (2002b), ‘Public–private sector interaction in the Indian agricultural research system: An innovation systems perspective on institutional reform’, in ByerleeD., and EcheverriaR. G., eds, Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization: Experiences from the Developing World, CAB International, Wallingford.
17.
HayamiY., and RuttanV. W. (1981), Agricultural Development: An International Perspective, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
18.
International Development Enterprises (India) (2002), Annual Report 2002, IDE, New Delhi.
19.
LundvallB. A., ed (1992), National Systems of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London.
20.
LynamJ. K., and BlackieM. J. (1994), ‘Building effective agricultural research capacity: The African challenge’, in AndersonJ. R., ed, Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues for the International Community, CAB International, Wallingford, pp 106–134.
21.
RogersE. M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, 3 ed, The Free Press, New York.
RolingN.G. (1994), ‘Agricultural knowledge and information systems’, in BlackburnD.J., ed, Extension Handbook – Process and Practices, 2 ed, Thompson Educational, Toronto.
24.
SulaimanR. V., and HallA. (2002), ‘Beyond technology dissemination – can Indian agricultural extension re-invent itself?’Policy Brief No 16, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi.
25.
UnderwoodM. P. (2002), Annual Poverty Relevance Review of DFID's Crop Post-Harvest Programme Projects in South Asia – 2002, CPHP South Asia Regional Co-ordination Office, Patancheru, India.
