Nicaragua’s agroecological transition: Transformation or reconfiguration of the agri-food regime?

Schiller, Katharina; Godek, Wendy; Klerkx, Laurens; Poortvliet, P. Marijn

doi:10.1080/21683565.2019.1667939

Cited by 40 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tani (2018) analyzes the transition towards a bio-based economy through the lens of strategic niche management. Schiller et al (2020) use the MLP to analyze the transformation of Nicaragua's agri-food system with a specific focus on the interactions between niche and regime. While all these papers focus on relevant aspects of transition processes and highlight the importance of a sustainable bioeconomy, they do not -or only marginally -incorporate the dynamics of cultural evolution.…”

Section: XIVmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposing a Cultural Evolutionary Perspective for Dedicated Innovation Systems: Bioeconomy Transitions and Beyond

Schlaile¹,

Kask²,

Brewer³

et al. 2022

Journal of Innovation Economics &Amp; Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur. © De Boeck Supérieur. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit.

show abstract

Section: XIVmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposing a Cultural Evolutionary Perspective for Dedicated Innovation Systems: Bioeconomy Transitions and Beyond

Schlaile¹,

Kask²,

Brewer³

et al. 2022

Journal of Innovation Economics &Amp; Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, these interventions have a hard time to break through the existing regime because they either hit hard opposition from stakeholders that support the existing regime and stay marginal, or because they are somehow absorbed and subsequently ‘neutralized’ by dominant regime players when they institutionalize (see e.G. Rossi, 2017 ; Rossi et al, 2019 ; Schiller et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: How Transformation Happened (Or Not) In the Past: Understanding The Persistence Of Povertymentioning

confidence: 99%

How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that supporting food system transformation requires more than obtaining science-based understanding and analysis of how components in the system interact. We argue that changing the emergent properties of food systems (what we call food system synthesis) is a socio-political challenge that is affected by competing views regarding system boundaries and purposes, and limited possibilities for central steering and control. We point to different traditions of ‘systems thinking’ that each emphasize particular types of interventions for achieving system change, and argue that food systems are best looked at as complex multi-dimensional systems. This implies that we need to move beyond rational engineering approaches to system change, and look for approaches that anticipate and accommodate inherent social tensions and struggles in processes of changing food system dynamics and outcomes. Through a case study on the persistence of an undesired emergent property of food systems (i.e. poverty) we demonstrate that a multi-level perspective (MLP) on system transformation is useful in understanding both how food system transformation has happened in the past, and how desirable transformations is prevented from happening today. Based on such insights we point to key governance strategies and principles that may be used to influence food system transformation as a non-linear and long-term process of competition, negotiation and reconfiguration. Such strategies include the creation and nurturing of diversity in the system, as well as process interventions aimed at visioning, destabilization and formation of discourse coalitions. Such governance interventions imply a considerable re-orientation of investments in food system transformation as well as a rethinking of the role that policy-makers may play in either altering or reproducing undesirable system outcomes.

show abstract

“…The other dynamic, anchoring, occurs when niche-regime interactions lead to a durable connection between the two, creating new possibilities for change (Elzen et al 2012). Anchoring of the niche to the regime can take place by establishing new rules or institutions, fostering new practices, processes or technologies, or building new networks and social groups where the tenets of agroecology legitimately infiltrate the regime (Schiller et al 2019). Anchoring involves the engagement of agroecology proponents, organizations and social movements with the technological, network-related and institutional aspects of the regime.…”

Section: Release and Anchormentioning

confidence: 99%

Power, Governance and Agroecology Transformations

Anderson

Bruil²,

Chappell

et al. 2020

Agroecology Now!

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, we focus on issues of power, control and governance in agroecology transformations. Synthesizing the findings across the six domains of transformation introduced in Part II, we explore how the different ‘governance interventions’ of different actors have multiple effects on a transformative agroecology. Interventions that undermine agroecology have two effects: (i) suppressing agroecology by actively repressing and criminalizing it and (ii) co-opting agroecology by supporting it only to become equivalent to the dominant regime. Interventions that maintain the status quo enable co-existence by (iii) containing agroecology as elements of the dominant regime are strengthened and alternatives ignored and (iv) shielding agroecology from regime dynamics so it is less threatened. In contrast, agroecological transformation of agri-food systems are enabled by (v) processes that support and nurture agroecology to develop on its own terms and (vi) release agroecology from its disabling context by dismantling elements of the dominant regime and anchoring the values, norms and practices of agroecology within and between territories, and at different scales.

show abstract

Nicaragua’s agroecological transition: Transformation or reconfiguration of the agri-food regime?

Cited by 40 publications

References 56 publications

Proposing a Cultural Evolutionary Perspective for Dedicated Innovation Systems: Bioeconomy Transitions and Beyond

Proposing a Cultural Evolutionary Perspective for Dedicated Innovation Systems: Bioeconomy Transitions and Beyond

How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes

Power, Governance and Agroecology Transformations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About