models adopted by AKST stakeholders in the region where
the most diverse models of organization coexist. When one
analyzes the various stakeholders in this system, the differences
are more substantial in the public sector where traditional
national research or agricultural technology institutes
exist (NARI in Chile, INTA in Argentina, INIAP in Ecuador,
INIEA in Peru, and INIFAP in Mexico, among others)
and agricultural research departments that are directly
connected to Ministries of Agriculture (such as the DIA in
Paraguay), alongside institutes or organizations with public
funding but governed by private law (EMPRAPA in Brazil,
NARI in Uruguay and CORPOICA in Colombia, for example)
and private foundations, such as PROINPA in Bolivia
which participates in the AKST system without depending
on public funding. The latter, in comparison to NARIs and
departments, have much more flexibility to manage their
human and financial resources.
These public stakeholders in AKST systems use basically
two research models: (1) the diffuse model, in which
research is conducted by research centers or stations that
cover the most distinctive products (the majority of NARIs),
and (2) the concentrated model, in which the centers are
concentrated in a few products, ecosystems or priority issues
(EMBRAPA in Brazil). According to Alves (1985), the use of
the diffuse model, which is very common in Latin America
and the Caribbean, generates a great deal of information
and is unlikely to be concentrated in new technologies and
for this reason is a costly process that is feasible only in a
rich society whose producers have high levels of education
and which is prepared to invest large amounts in agricultural
research. Developing countries, such as those in Latin
America and the Caribbean, generally do not have the essential
inputs for the functioning of that model, but perhaps
may be able to develop it.
Salles Filho et al. (2006) found that a number of countries
have introduced institutional innovations into their
agricultural research systems, which may serve as models
for Latin America and the Caribbean. The study by Janssen
(2002), with five industrialized countries, shows the diversity
of the initiatives and the area of influence of changes,
which have produced significant impacts on the financing
and organization of research. One of the author’s conclusions
was that “the new research systems reflect the new
conditions that society is imposing on agriculture, science
and public sector management”.
In sum, the strengthening of AKST systems in Latin
America and the Caribbean, particularly in the public sector,
requires a review of its models of organization to improve
their efficiency, flexibility and focus and thereby increase
their impacts on society. In this process, it is important to review
the experiences of the region with differentiated levels
of success and to adapt them to the situation of each country.
These considerations should not contradict the models
of participatory research described in section 4.3.2 and in
Key Issues (Option 6).
4.3.5 Governance models: Strengthening and
modernization of management models
From Chapter 2 (section 2.5.30—Management of the AKST
system) we know that management of the system has become
|
|
complex, particularly since it has been recognized
that innovation comes from processes of interaction among
social actors. In other words, there has been progress towards
a contextual process of innovation, which implies a
significant change in the rules of the game and structures
of governance, thereby also increasing the vulnerability of
traditional institutions.
The general tendency of national systems of innovation—
and in particular AKST systems in Latin America and
the Caribbean—to involve many different agents and organizations
who exchange knowledge and cooperate in order
to generate it, makes knowledge networks the new configurations
of socioeconomic activity that address the need for
interaction as a key factor in the generation and circulation
of knowledge. These networks develop into subsystems
of the national system of innovation, in other words, into
specialized systems within the main system (Pittaluga et al.,
2005).
The interactions between the agents in the network emphasize
the relationships between users and producers of
knowledge and innovations. These networks are the result
of the efforts of agents to selectively internalize the various
factors necessary to control the collective process of AKST
(such as external factors). The simultaneous development of
providers and users of AKST and their ongoing and coordinated
interaction therefore further stimulate their activity
and create a kind of virtuous circle for technological change
(Pittaluga et al., 2005).
There are a number of successful examples in the region
where AKST activities have been reorganized guided by the
general idea of knowledge sharing or network formation.
Research institutions have pursued cooperation to take advantage
of knowledge sharing and complementarity of skills
and other assets, and to emphasize the approach of demanddriven
research. Efforts have also been made to strengthen
relations among universities, industries and the public in
general (Salles Filho et al., 1998).
These institutional reorganizations require novel forms
of governance, in other words decision-making methods
and approaches to common problems in which the various
actors participate. The idea of the network suggests the way
in which a variety of actors situated in a labyrinth of public
and private organizations with interest in a particular
policy connect with each other. The actors in the network
share ideas and resources and work out possible solutions
to public problems. Connections are thus made that blur
the distinctions between the state and society, and it is the
network that merges the public and private.
It will also be necessary to establish a new form of governance
in the system of Procis (cooperative technology and
innovation research programs). These programs represent
important cooperation arrangements that still lack a new direction,
more particularly in the sense of giving direction not
only to researchers from participating countries, but also to
other actors so that progress could extend beyond scientific
and technological exchange (Salles-Filho, 2006). In addition,
there is an increasing need to coordinate research and
development activities and innovation at the regional and
subregional levels through the organization of networks and
other governance structures.
|