Institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural R&D: Farmer levy funding of R&D in The Netherlands

Research Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 460-472

  Klerkx, Laurens ^a   Leeuwis, Cees ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Agriculture; Demand driven R D; End user participation; Innovation systems; Institutional change; R D planning

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; INNOVATION;

END-USER PARTICIPATION; INNOVATION SYSTEMS; INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE; INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT;

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

EID: 40649113614     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.11.007     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Alston J.M., Norton G.W., and Pardey P.G. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting (1995), Cornell University Press, Ithaca
2. Alston J.M., Pardey P.G., and Smith V.H. Financing agricultural R&D in rich countries: what's happening and why. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 42 1 (1998) 51-82
3. Barnes A.P. Towards a framework for justifying public agricultural R&D: the example of UK agricultural research policy. Research Policy 30 4 (2001) 663-672
4. Bessant J., and Tidd J. Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2007), John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
5. Biggs S., and Smith G. Beyond methodologies: coalition-building for participatory technology development. World Development 26 2 (1998) 239-248
6. Boon, W.P.C., Moors, E.H.M., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R.E.H.M., in press. Demand articulation in intermediary organisations: the case of orphan drugs in The Netherlands. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
7. Brennan J.P., and Mullen J.D. Joint funding of agricultural research by producers and government in Australia. In: Byerlee D., and Echeverría R.G. (Eds). Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization (2002), CABI Publishing, Wallingford 51-65
8. Byerlee D. The search for a new paradigm for the development of national agricultural research systems. World Development 26 6 (1998) 1049-1055
9. Byerlee D. Targeting poverty alleviation in priority setting for agricultural research. Food Policy 25 4 (2000) 429-445
10. Byerlee D., Alex G., and Echeverría R.G. The evolution of public research systems in developing countries: facing new challenges. In: Byerlee D., and Echeverría R.G. (Eds). Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization (2002), CABI Publishing, Wallingford 19-34
11. Cabral-Cardoso C. The politics of technology management: influence and tactics in project selection. Technology Analysis & Strategy Management 8 1 (1996) 47-58
12. Capo O., Galvez S., and Mackay R. Research project planning. In: Gijsbers G., Janssen W., Hambly Odame H., and Meijerink G. (Eds). Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook (2001), CABI Publishing, Wallingford 119-126
13. Clark N. Innovation systems, institutional change and the new knowledge market: implications for Third World agricultural development. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11 4-5 (2002) 353-368
14. Daniel H.Z., Hempel D.J., and Srinivasan N. Project selection: a process analysis. Industrial Marketing Management 32 1 (2003) 39-54
15. Davenport S., Leitch S., and Rip A. The user in research funding negotiation processes. Science and Public Policy 30 4 (2003) 239-250
16. DCB, 2002. Research Program 2003-2006. DCB, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
17. Douthwaite B., Keatinge J.D.H., and Park J.R. Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Research Policy 3 5 (2001) 819-836
18. Douthwaite B., Kuby T., van de Fliert E., and Schulz S. Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems 78 2 (2003) 243-265
19. Ekboir J. Why impact analysis should not be used for research evaluation and what the alternatives are. Agricultural Systems 78 2 (2003) 166-184
20. Emans B. Interviewen: theorie, techniek en training (Interviewing: Theory, Technique and Training) (2002), Stenfert Kroese, Groningen, The Netherlands
21. Engel, P.G.H., 1995. Facilitating Innovation: An Action-oriented Approach and Participatory Methodology to Improve Innovative Social Practice in Agriculture. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
22. Gandarillas A., Blajos J., Aguirre G., Devaux A., and Thiele G. Changing paradigms for organising R&D: agricultural research and the creation of the PROINPA Foundation in Bolivia. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 6 2 (2007) 256-276
23. Garforth C., Angell B., Archer J., and Green K. Fragmentation or creative diversity? Options in the provision of land management advisory services. Land Use Policy 20 4 (2003) 323-333
24. Geels F.W. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33 6-7 (2004) 897-920
25. Gelb E., and Kislev Y. Farmers' financing of agricultural research in Israel. Research Policy 11 5 (1982) 321-327
26. Hall A. Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: an innovation systems view of what it is and how to develop it. Journal of International Development 17 5 (2005) 611-630
27. Hall A., Bockett G., Taylor S., Sivamohan M.V.K., and Clark N. Why research partnerships really matter: innovation theory, institutional arrangements and implications for developing new technology for the poor. World Development 29 5 (2001) 783-797
28. Hall A., Rasheed Sulaiman V., Clark N., and Yoganand B. From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural Systems 78 2 (2003) 213-241
29. Hargadon A.B. Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior 24 (2002) 41-85
30. Heemskerk, W., Lema, N., Guindo, D., Schouten, C., Semgalawe, Z., Verkuijl, H., De Steenhuijsen Piters, B., Penninkhoff, P., 2003. A guide to demand-driven agricultural research. The Client oriented Research Management Approach. KIT, Amsterdam.
31. Howells J. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35 5 (2006) 715-728
32. Huffman W.E., and Just R.E. Agricultural research: benefits and beneficiaries of alternative funding mechanisms. Review of Agricultural Economics 21 1 (1999) 2-18
33. Huffman W.E., and Just R.E. The organization of agricultural research in western developed countries. Agricultural Economics 21 1 (1999) 1-18
34. Johnson N.L., Lilja N., and Ashby J.A. Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research. Agricultural Systems 78 2 (2003) 287-306
35. Kangasniemi J. Financing agricultural research by producers' organizations in Africa. In: Byerlee D., and Echeverría R.G. (Eds). Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization (2002), CABI Publishing, Wallingford 81-104
36. Kelley T.G., Ryan J.G., and Patel B.K. Applied participatory priority setting in international agricultural research: making trade-offs transparent and explicit. Agricultural Systems 49 2 (1995) 177-216
37. Klein Woolthuis R., Lankhuizen M., and Gilsing V. A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 25 6 (2005) 609-619
38. Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., in press. Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy.
39. Kodama F. Emerging Patterns of Innovation: Sources of Japan's Technological Edge (1995), Harvard Business School Press, Boston
40. Lacy W.B. Research, extension, and user partnerships: models for collaboration and strategies for change. Agriculture and Human Values 13 2 (1996) 33-41
41. Leeuwis C. Integral technology design as a process of learning and negotiation. A social science perspective on interactive prototyping. In: Leeuwis C. (Ed). Integral Design: Innovation in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (1999), Mansholt Institute, Wageningen 123-144
42. Leeuwis C., and Van den Ban A. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension (2004), Blackwell Science, Oxford
43. Lettl C. User involvement competence for radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 24 1-2 (2007) 53-75
44. Levidow L., Sogaard V., and Carr S. Agricultural public-sector research establishments in Western Europe: research priorities in conflict. Science and Public Policy 29 4 (2002) 287-295
45. Lundvall B.A., 1992. National systems of innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter London.
46. Martin S., and Scott J.T. The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy 29 4-5 (2000) 437-447
47. Martin D.K., Giacomini M., and Singer P.A. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy 61 3 (2002) 279-290
48. Middendorf G., and Busch L. Inquiry for the public good: democratic participation in agricultural research. Agriculture and Human Values 14 1 (1997) 45-57
49. Pardey P.G., Sandra Kang M., and Elliott H. Structure of public support for national agricultural research systems: a political economy perspective. Agricultural Economics 3 4 (1989) 261-278
50. Patton M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (1990), Sage, Newbury Park
51. Phillipson J., Gorton M., Raley M., and Moxey A. Treating farms as firms? The evolution of farm business support from productionist to entrepreneurial models. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 22 1 (2004) 31-54
52. Probst, K., Hagmann, J., 2003. Understanding participatory research in the context of natural resource management: paradigms, approaches and typologies. AgREN Network Paper 130.
53. Röling N.G., Hounkonnou D., Offei S.K., Tossou R., and Van Huis A. Linking science and farmers' innovative capacity: diagnostic studies from Ghana and Benin. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 52 3-4 (2004) 211-235
54. Rothwell R., and Gardiner P. Invention, innovation, re-innovation and the role of the user: a case study of British hovercraft development. Technovation 3 3 (1985) 167-186
55. Schmidt D., Kort M., Knobbe M., and Dijkzeul A. Rapport draagvlak toekomstverkenning Productschap Zuivel (Report Exploration of Support for the Dairy Commodity Board) (2005), Berenschot, Utrecht, The Netherlands
56. SER, 2004. Commodity and Industrial Boards. A Means of Raising Standards in Industry. Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER), The Hague, The Netherlands.
57. Smith P. Priority setting in agricultural research: beyond economic surplus methods. Public Administration and Development 21 5 (2001) 419-428
58. Smits R. Innovation studies in the 21st century: questions from a user's perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 69 9 (2002) 861-883
59. Smits R., and Kuhlmann S. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1 1-2 (2004) 4-30
60. Snapp S.S., Blackie M.J., and Donovan C. Realigning research and extension to focus on farmers' constraints and opportunities. Food Policy 28 4 (2003) 349-363
61. Sperling L., and Ashby J. Participation in agricultural research planning. In: Gijsbers G., Janssen W., Hambly Odame H., and Meijerink G. (Eds). Planning Agricultural Research: A Sourcebook (2001), CABI Publishing, Wallingford 171-182
62. Stewart J. Models of priority-setting for public sector research. Research Policy 24 1 (1995) 115-126
63. Strauss, A., Corbin, C., 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
64. Sulaiman, V.R., Hall, A., Suresh, N., 2005. Effectiveness of private sector extension in India and lessons for the new extension policy agenda. AgREN Network Paper 141.
65. Sumberg J. Systems of innovation theory and the changing architecture of agricultural research in Africa. Food Policy 30 1 (2005) 21
66. Sumberg J., Okali C., and Reece D. Agricultural research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative: theoretical considerations. Agricultural Systems 76 2 (2003) 739-753
67. Sumberg J., and Reece D. Agricultural research through a new product development lens. Experimental Agriculture 40 3 (2004) 295-314
68. Teixeira S.R., Chamala S.A., Cowan R.T., and Western M. Participatory approach for the identification of dairy industry needs in the design of research, development and extension actions: Australian and Brazilian case studies. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44 6 (2004) 521-530
69. Tekelenburg, A., 2001. Cactus Pear and Cochineal in Cochabamba: The Development of a Cross-epistemological Management Toolkit for Interactive Design of Farm Innovation. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
70. Thrupp L.A., and Altieri M. Innovative models of technology generation and transfer: lessons learned from the south. In: Wolf S.A., and Zilbermann D. (Eds). Knowledge Generation and Technical Change. Institutional Innovation in Agriculture (2001), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston 267-290
71. Van de Fliert E., and Braun A.R. Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture: from opportunities to impact. Agriculture and Human Values 19 1 (2002) 25
72. Verstegen, J., Diederen, P., Hietbrink, O., Keulartz, O., Janssen, W., 2000. Research guidance: ontwikkeling van een aanpak aan de hand van het meerjarenonderzoeksprogramma 'energie-efficientie in de glastuinbouw'. (Research Guidance: Development of an Approach by Means of the Research Programme 'Energy Efficiency in Glasshouse Horticulture'). LEI, The Hague.
73. Woodhead R.M. Investigation of the early stages of project formulation. Facilities 18 13-14 (2000) 524-534
74. Yin R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2003), Sage, Thousand Oaks