Toward A Theory on the Reproduction of Social Innovations in Subsistence Marketplaces

Abstract

Social innovations and their diffusion are critical in bridging the multiplicity of deprivations experienced by those in subsistence contexts. Yet they often do not diffuse as expected. To better understand this prevalent problem, this article develops a theory of diffusion that explains the reproduction (duplication) of social innovations in subsistence contexts. The theory utilizes a bottom-up perspective that considers what attributes of innovations and capacities of actors matter to reproduction, particularly for subsistence user-producers. Adopting an inductive, case-based approach, the authors draw on examples of social innovations in sub-Saharan Africa. Based on the authors' research and extant literature, this article builds a typology that captures different modes of reproduction. The typology delineates three archetypes of reproduced social innovations: mimetic, facilitated, and complex, and notes how frugal innovations can emerge from these archetypes. These archetypes are based on the interactions of: (1) a product's resource and knowledge complexities, and (2) the knowledge capabilities or resources of various actors, including subsistence user-producers and bridging agents. The typology thus illuminates the conditions under which subsistence user-producers might independently reproduce a social innovation (mimetic innovations), when they need assistance from bridging agents (facilitated innovations), and when the mix of resources and knowledge are beyond their capacity (complex innovations). Moreover, by exploring reproduction experiences of subsistence users, this article recognizes the implications of low literary, close social networks, and physical limitations. By examining who controls the knowledge and resources imperative to reproduction, the authors go beyond a focus on the social benefits of innovations to consider how intellectual property and profits matter to different actors. This article pulls together these various insights and identifies key implications that social innovators and intermediaries should consider when working to reproduce social innovations in subsistence contexts and with subsistence user-producers.

Social Innovation in an Interconnected World: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…Steinfield and Holt () adopt a bottom‐up perspective to examine subsistence marketplaces in their article “Towards a Theory on the Reproduction of Social Innovations in Subsistence Marketplaces.” End users are viewed not only as beneficiaries of social innovations, but as capable reproducers of social innovations. Based on an in‐depth case study, the authors develop a typology of the reproduction of social innovations and find that users are capable of reproducing despite the constraints they face in accessing resources and learning required knowledge.…”

“…What benefits of such technologies might be conditional on the type of innovation sought? Steinfield and Holt () examine a set of technologies that enable the creation of social value when adopted and implemented. What broader technologies (e.g., blockchain, cloud technology, and others) might be at work to enhance social value creation and social progress through innovation?…”

Structures, Systems and Differences that Matter: Casting an Ecological-Intersectionality Perspective on Female Subsistence Farmers’ Experiences of the Climate Crisis

“…Patriarchal practices/sexist beliefs that women require less education to do ‘their’ housework further the likelihood that poorer females, particularly those who are older, will be low-literate (Omwami 2011). As we elaborate, low literacy reduces the ability of farmers to adopt solutions (Steinfield and Holt 2019), augmenting their vulnerability to the effects of the climate crisis. Deficient infrastructure also exists, resulting in a lack of access to markets as unpaved roads can be difficult, timely, and costly to traverse.…”

“…As Steinfield and Holt (2019) and Viswanathan et al (2014) describe, low-literate consumers process information in concrete ways as they struggle to think abstractly. Thus, in our study, they might understand that, per CA methods, they needed to cover their fields (with weeds or maize stalks), yet they would not understand how much covering they needed nor the real reason why.…”

“…They have fewer financial resources and often less government aid to cope with environmental crises. Due to low literacy, they face cognitive predilections that can undermine their capacity to adopt preventive measures (Steinfield and Holt 2019). Thus, the agency they enact will look very different than the political power or activism yielded by more affluent consumers.…”