Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation

Abstract

Within agricultural innovation systems (AIS), various stakeholder groups inevitably interpret 'innovation' from their own vantage point of privilege and power. In rural developing areas where small-scale and subsistence farming systems support livelihoods, dominant policy actors often focus heavily on participatory modernization and commercialization initiatives to enhance productivity, access, and quality. However, existing social hierarchies may undermine the potential of such initiatives to promote inclusive and sustainable farmer-driven innovation. Focusing on the chronically food insecure smallholder agricultural systems operating in Yatta Sub-county, Eastern Kenya, this paper explores how power dynamics between stakeholders can influence, and can be influenced by, participatory agricultural innovation initiatives. Findings suggest that there are often significant disparities in access to, and control over, platform resources between smallholder farmers and other stakeholder groups, resulting in large asymmetries. We discuss how these power dynamics may increase the risk of agricultural intervention, further marginalizing already disempowered groups and reinforcing power hierarchies to the detriment of smallholders. This study highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the institutional contexts that facilitate and maintain relationships of power within agricultural innovation systems, as well as the complexities associated with promoting transformational agricultural innovation.Sustainability 2020, 12, 461 2 of 21 break down barriers to the participation of small-scale farmers in platforms [9][10][11][12][13]. Agricultural innovation platforms have been defined as stakeholder linkages that are purposively created and maintained to address specific agricultural innovation challenges or opportunities [11,[14][15][16][17] within their institutional context [18]. Using innovation platforms to strengthen the social networks that link famers to diverse stakeholders in the agri-food system has the potential to facilitate the identification of collective interests and needs [11], promote greater trust and co-operation [7], and expose individuals to resources and adaptation strategies beyond the realm of their own experience [19,20]. Within smallholder and subsistence farming systems, innovation platforms are generally created through agricultural development initiatives, utilizing participatory and inclusive approaches in order to develop locally appropriate technologies [21] and ensure the equitable participation of all relevant stakeholder groups [22,23].Community-based interventions inherently entail trade-offs between stakeholder groups with varying degrees of power and interest [24], an issue often not well addressed in practice [1,9,[24][25][26]. According to Cullen et al. [1], existing power hierarchies may cause innovation platforms to fall short of their claims of inclusive, farmer-driven innovation, unless thorough consideration is given to issues of power [27]. The participation of smallholder far...

Stakeholders engagement for solving mobility problems in touristic remote areas from the Baltic Sea Region

“…The remaining three (residents, visitors, and others) can be qualifies to the category “participating stakeholders”. Taking into consideration the concept of Eidt et al [ 28 ], who divide specific groups of stakeholders with regard to their level of power and interest, it should be observed that all five, which were indicated in the strategies of the analyzed areas, can be categorized as “players”. They are characterized by relatively high interest and high power with regard to the project associated with improving mobility in the analyzed areas.…”

“…The aim of stakeholder participation is to “enhance multilateral influence and interaction between all actors” [ 27 ]. Stakeholders could be described depending on the level of power and interest they have: “players” have high interest and high power, “context setters” have high power and low interest, “subjects” have high interest but low power and “crowds” have low interest and power [ 28 ]. Cohen et al [ 24 ] identify three main public stakeholder groups:…”

Rural Financial Development Impacts on Agricultural Technology Innovation: Evidence from China

“…Therefore, improving the level of agricultural technology innovation has become the main focus of academic research. Scholars mainly focus on three aspects: innovation subjects [29,30], the external environment [31][32][33], and industrial agglomeration [34,35]. First, from the perspective of innovation subjects [25], they must have a certain level of innovation capability to ensure the smooth progress of agricultural technology innovation.…”

Application of innovation platforms to catalyse adoption of conservation agriculture practices in South Asia

“…IP members can utilize pre-existing networks to influence work areas (ISPC, 2015), but there also needs to be fluid membership, which depends on the innovations being pursued (Davies et al, 2015). It is important, though, to ensure that vulnerable stakeholders are not further disadvantaged through this process (Eidt et al, 2020).…”

“…The problems encountered with of the IPs in Nepal were partly due to weak institutional support from DADO and NARC. Supportive institutional conditions can assist with integration with government interventions and access to schemes and programs, further assisting with scaling (Totin et al, 2020), but this needs to be balanced to ensure existing power relations are not further strengthened to serve their own interests, rather than for broader community benefits of minorities (Eidt et al, 2020).…”