Africa's "rainbow revolution". Agricultural research trust funds set up to lever matching research contracts from commercial enterprises, donors and government organizations, have not succeeded; although farmer-managed funds are meeting with some modest success.

The Agricultural Research Council (ARC) model. Some large countries with complex research systems have established agricultural research councils to coordinate the work carried out at research institutes. The ARC typically is a public body which has-inter alia-the functions of managing, coordinating or funding research programs. Management of the councils has proved effective because they are both autonomous and accountable to users and donors for planning and executing research. In India, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has coordinated the higher agricultural education system since the 1950s and in 1996 established an agricultural education accreditation board (http://www.icar.org.in/aeac/ednac.htm). In Africa, the role of ARCs has varied widely as some have moved beyond a policy and coordinating role to undertake research themselves (Bingen and Brinkerhoff, 2000). However, the councils that have proliferated have failed to live up to expectations, become bureaucratized (Chema et al., 2003) and been unable to influence national research budgets or coordinate agricultural research among institutions to reach out to small-scale farmers (Byerlee, 1998; Rukuni et al., 1998; Bingen and Brinkerhoff, 2000).

The National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) model. This model is common in Latin American countries, where agricultural research has been conducted primarily at the national level. They control, direct and manage all publicly funded agricultural research; they may be autonomous or semiautonomous in budgetary support, scientist recruitment, financial norms and disciplines with experiment stations as the basis for research organization. Their creation in the 1950s and early 1960s was driven mainly by the recognition of the leading role of technological change in the modernization of agriculture. In the late 1990s, rural development and poverty alleviation efforts became differentiated from research and technology development, accompanied by the increasing participation by private sector entities in financing and implementing R&D activities. These shifts were driven by changes in the wider socioeconomic and political context within which the NARIs operated (i.e., state reform, deregulation, economic liberalization), and changes in the scientific processes underlying agricultural research (i.e., privatization of knowledge, plant breeders´ rights, patent protection for R&D results. In Latin America, two important constraints have limited the role of the NARIs: the decline in government funding and the weak incentives for coordination and cooperation among research system components within each country. In two cases the NARIs also had responsibility for extension: the National Institute of Agriculture (INTA), Argentina, and the National Institute of Agriculture (INIA), Chile. In 2005 INTA created a Center for Research and Technological Development for smallscale family agriculture (CIPAF), with three regional institutes. This signaled a decisive transition from the supplypush Transfer of Technology approach that hitherto char

acterized the NARI model throughout Latin America, to a client-oriented demand-pull approach based on participatory action-research (http://www.inta.gov.ar/cipaf/cipaf.htm). Since 2003 Brazil has promoted biotechnology as a national policy priority for the Brazilian Agriculture and Livestock Research Company (EMBRAPA) in order to boost productivity in both family farms and large scale agroenterprises. EMBRAPA is collaborating in the federal government's Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) program (http://www.fomezero .gov.br), taking a lead role in the global Cassava Biotechnology Net (CBN) through the Biotechnology Research Unit of Mandioca e Fruticultura (http://www.cnpmf.embrapa .br) and in Participatory Plant Breeding, principally through EMBRAPA-CNPMF, Cruz das Almas, Bahia, together with the Bahian Company of Agricultural Development (http:// www.ebda.ba.gov.br), Caetité, southeast Bahia and farmer communities also located at Caetité.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) model. This model was dominant in communist countries and in the immediate postcolonial era and still prevails in countries where there is less agricultural research capacity. It is characterized by centralized governance and bureaucratic practice. However, in recent years new organizational patterns have begun to emerge that provide greater flexibility. Collectivization and nationalization resulted in significant and often irrational concentration of agricultural production in state or quasi cooperatives managed as industrial enterprises, affecting the whole social and economic life of villages and rural areas in countries such as Tanzania and in the former soviet bloc countries (Swinnen and Vranken, 2006). Adjustment to new economic and political conditions has demanded significant AKST role changes (Petrick and Weingarten, 2004) including redefinition of the role of government in agricultural research; separation of research funding, priority setting and implementation; decentralization of agricultural research both geographically and in terms of decision making; strengthening of system linkages among multiple innovation partners including CSOs, traders, input and processing industries (Swinnen and Vranken, 2006; Petrick and Weingarten, 2004).

Universities and other higher education models. Universities are institutions placed amidst three coordinating forces: the academic oligarchy, the state and the market (Clark, 1983). These three forces are seldom in balance; they act in a continuous and dynamic tension, which often brings about intellectual, practical and organizational conflicts and ruptures (Bourdieu, 1988) often leading to diffuse and contradictory missions (Weick, 1976; Busch et al., 2004). In agricultural universities (schools/colleges or faculties) there are many such divides between purpose and mission; social and scientific power, among managers, teachers, researchers and extensionists; between the established canonical agricultural disciplines and disciplines, such as sociology, ethics and public administration (Readings, 1996; Delanty, 2001). Urgent societal demands, such as those posed by hunger, poverty, inequality, exclusion and solitude, and more recently also natural resource degradation and climate change have had to find their place against the background noises of collaboration and dissent. Universities, nonetheless, are widely