Effects of multi-stakeholder platforms on multi-stakeholder innovation networks: Implications for research for development interventions targeting innovations at scale

Abstract

Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) have been playing an increasing role in interventions aiming to generate and scale innovations in agricultural systems. However, the contribution of MSPs in achieving innovations and scaling has been varied, and many factors have been reported to be important for their performance. This paper aims to provide evidence on the contribution of MSPs to innovation and scaling by focusing on three developing country cases in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda. Through social network analysis and logistic models, the paper studies the changes in the characteristics of multi-stakeholder innovation networks targeted by MSPs and identifies factors that play significant roles in triggering these changes. The results demonstrate that MSPs do not necessarily expand and decentralize innovation networks but can lead to contraction and centralization in the initial years of implementation. They show that some of the intended next users of interventions with MSPs–local-level actors–left the innovation networks, whereas the lead organization controlling resource allocation in the MSPs substantially increased its centrality. They also indicate that not all the factors of change in innovation networks are country specific. Initial conditions of innovation networks and funding provided by the MSPs are common factors explaining changes in innovation networks across countries and across different network functions. The study argues that investigating multi-stakeholder innovation network characteristics targeted by the MSP using a network approach in early implementation can contribute to better performance in generating and scaling innovations, and that funding can be an effective implementation tool in developing country contexts.

National extension policy and state-level implementation: The case of Cross River State, Nigeria

“…The content of the national extension policy (NEP) is well articulated and aims at transforming agricultural extension in Nigeria, but a pertinent question to ask is: how workable and operative are the nationally oriented policies at the state level? The setbacks and limitations of top-down national planning in agriculture have become progressively clearer, and it has been more extensively acknowledged that, if the policies are to succeed, stakeholders at many levels (such as the public sector, private sector, civil society, researchers, youth and women representatives, and other developmental stakeholders) must play a more determining role in their design and implementation mechanisms (Brancalion et al 2016;Hermans et al 2017;Sartas et al 2018;Bisseleua et al 2018;Faure et al 2019).…”

Innovation networks effects simulation models

“…In this regard study [30] presents model, which is based on the evolutionary mechanism and allows to estimate the response rate. Study [25] has indicated that not all innovation networks dynamics factors are country specific. This allows considering the main issues of innovation network science, which is a tool to consider systems as a complex networks by mathematical abstraction for simulation of various innovation phenomena [29].…”

The influence of multi-stakeholder platforms on farmer innovation and rural development in emerging economies : Examples from Uganda

“…Generally speaking, these studies recognize MSPs as having the potential to address complex issues such as rural poverty and food insecurity (Dentoni & Ross, 2013;Warner, 2006b). Nevertheless, as we discuss in the next section, the existing literature does not agree on how MSPs influence agricultural innovation and, more broadly, rural development and thus the achievement of the SDGs (Nicolas Sartas, Schut, Hermans, Van Asten, & Leeuwis, 2018). Hence, the societal relevance of MSPs, coupled with their scientific divisiveness in terms of desirability, viability, and measurability of the expected outcomes, justify the choice of this thesis to focus on the study of the influence of MSPs on agricultural innovation and rural development.…”

“…A wide discourse on academic literature and policy currently celebrates multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) as organizational forms promoting knowledge co-creation and innovation uptake across farmers and other stakeholders for rural development (Sartas et al, 2018;Schut, Klerkx, et al, 2016) and climate resilience (Shackleton, Ziervogel, Sallu, Gill, & Tschakert, 2015). found to depend on the broader structure and dynamics of the agricultural innovation system they are embedded in (Klerkx & Leeuwis, 2008c, 2008a.…”

“…where this study is situated. Also, this question has managerial implications for decision makers of MSPs (Sartas et al, 2018 inclusive in promoting agricultural innovation and rural development (Cheyns, 2011;Dentoni et al, 2018;Hall, Matos, & Langford, 2008;Hall, Matos, Sheehan, & Silvestre, 2012).…”