Frank Hartwich et al. / Int. J. Food System Dynamics 3 (2010) 237-251
has enabled IHCAFE to continue being a relevant agent, despite its limitations in terms of staffing and
finance. IHCAFE may consider a more sophisticated strategy to institutionalize this function. This also
points to the issue if any of the agents could be the sole provider of innovation-relevant information. The
study suggests that single sided relations with farmers are not effective. Rather it is the combination of
support from public and private agents, together with the information from peers in the own community,
that ultimately trigger the producer’s decision to innovation.
Policy makers and designers of development programs should take into account the way public and
private agents collaborate in successful innovation trajectories. Development agencies would face
substantial limits if the producer does not have a good perspective to market their products. And modern
buyers, as well as input providers, do much more than selling inputs and buying products, they come with
substantial knowledge and can facilitate its diffusion as well as the use of new technologies.
References
Borgatti, S.P., M.G. Everett and L.C. Freeman (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network
Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Bandiera, O. and I. Rasul (2006). Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. Economic
Journal 116 (514): 869-902.
Besley, T. and A. Case (1994). Diffusion as a Learning Process: Evidence from HYV Cotton, Princeton University
Department of Economics Working Paper 5/94.
Blowfield, M.E. (2003). Ethical Supply Chains in the Cocoa, Coffee and Tea Industries. Greener Management
International 43(3):15-24.
Conley, T.G. and C.R. Udry (2001). Social learning through networks: The adoption of new agricultural
technologies in Ghana. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (3): 668-673.
Dosi G. (1982). Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the
Determinant and Direction of Technological Change. Research Policy 11: 147-162.
Dosi, G. 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the
determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 11(3): 147-162.
Flora, C.B. and J.L. Flora (1993). Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: A necessary ingredient. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 529: 48-58.
Flora, C.B., J.L. Flora, and S. Fey (2004). Rural communities: Legacy and change. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO:
WestviewPress.
Flora, J.L., J.S. Sharp, C.B. Flora, and B. Newlon (1997). Entrepreneurial social infrastructure and locally initiated
economic development in the nonmetropolitan United States. Sociological Quarterly 38: 623-645.
Foster, D. and M. Rosenzweig (1995). Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and technical
change in agriculture. Journal of Political Economy 103: 1176-1209.
Granovetter M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American
Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481-510.
Gresser, C. and Tickell, S. (2002). Mugged. Poverty in your coffee cup, Oxfam International, London.
Hartwich, F. and U. Scheidegger (2010). Fostering Innovation Networks: the missing piece in rural
development? Rural Development News 1(2010).
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35: 715-728.
Humphrey, J. (2003). Opportunities for SMEs in Developing Countries to Upgrade in a Global Economy, ILO
SEED Working Paper No. 43, Geneva.
Humphrey, J. and Memedovic, O. (2006). Global Value Chains in the Agri-food Sector, UNIDO Working Paper,
Vienna.
Humphrey, J. and Schmitz, H. (2000). Governance and Upgrading: Linking Industrial Cluster and Global Value
Chain Research, Institute of Development Studies Working Paper No. 120, Brighton.
IHCAFE (2009). Informe de Cierre, Cosecha 2007-2008, Instituto Hondureno del Café, Tegucigalpa.
250