INNOVATION SYSTEMS AND KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITIES IN THE

AGRICULTURE AND AGRIFOOD SECTOR: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Jean-Marc Touzard, Ludovic Temple, Guy Faure et Bernard Triomphe

De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of Innovation Economics & Management »

2015/2 n°17 | pages 117 à 142

Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.cairn.inforevue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2015-2-page-117.htm
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

© De Boeck Supérieur. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les
limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la
licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie,
sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de
l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage
dans une base de données est également interdit.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 INNOVATION SYSTEMS AND
KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITIES
IN THE AGRICULTURE
AND AGRIFOOD SECTOR:
A LITERATURE REVIEW1
Jean-Marc TOUZARD
INRA, UMR Innovation, Montpellier
[email protected]
Ludovic TEMPLE
CIRAD, UMR Innovation, Montpellier
[email protected]
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Guy FAURE
CIRAD, UMR Innovation, Montpellier
[email protected]
Bernard TRIOMPHE
CIRAD, UMR Innovation, Montpellier
[email protected]

The concept of Innovation Systems (IS) exists not only in a significant

amount of research on innovation since the late 1980s but also increasing­ly
in the documents of public policies on innovation and of international
development agencies (OECD, EU, World Bank, etc.). In general, this con-
cept aims to understand how a set of institutions, organizations, networks
and actors can interact to foster innovation in a given national, regional,
or sectoral space, or in a space constructed by companies or around the
development of a technology (Carlsson et al., 2002). Originally used to
study technological innovations in industry and the development of “know­
ledge economies” (Foray, 2009), the concept was extended to the analysis of
agricultural and agrifood activities (World Bank, 2006). It seems to have

1. This article is a new version of a paper published in French in Innovations 43(1), 13-38 :
Touzard, J.-M., Temple, L., Triomphe, B., Faure, G. (2014), Les Systèmes d’Innovation dans
l’agriculture et l’agroalimentaire : une revue de la littérature.

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 117

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

found fertile ground in this domain because of the existence of specialized

research and development institutions and a renewed interest in agricultural
innovation in pursuit of sustainable development (McIntyre et al., 2009).
Adaptations of the concept of IS to this sector have been proposed, such
as that of “Agricultural Innovation System” (EU SCAR, 2012), but since
there seem to be a multiplicity of definitions and usages, a critical review is
called for.
This article aims to analyse how different “knowledge communities”
(Conein, 2004) use the concept of IS in agriculture or agrifood systems, and
how these uses question the specifics of innovation in this sector: do these
communities’ scientific publications reflect a simple application of a general
IS approach to a sector? Or do they instead give rise to more original propo­
sals which include the conditions under which innovation can take place in
the agriculture and agrifood sector? To answer these questions, we base our
work on a literature review and a bibliometric study undertaken on a selec-
tion of international journals on agriculture and innovation.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

In the first part, we review the evolution and diversity of studies on the
concept of IS in order to propose an analytical framework based on three
areas: the concept’s theoretical and analytical frame of reference, its area
of application, and its purposes and uses. In the second part, the results of
the bibliometric work are presented in terms of indicators derived from the
above framework. These results are discussed in the third part. They suggest
that there exist four distinct knowledge communities, each of which ques-
tions in a different manner the specific character of the work mobilizing IS
to study agricultural and/or agrifood innovation.

THE CONCEPT OF INNOVATION SYSTEM:

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS, AREAS
OF APPLICATION, USES

Origin and evolution of the concept of innovation system

The concept of Innovation System (IS) was created by authors who exa­
mined the history of several innovations and observed that their “successes”
could be attributed to the existence of institutions and networks through
which researchers and entrepreneurs from public and private sectors could
collaborate, learn from each other, share resources and act to address eco-
nomic and technical changes. Analysing the success of the Japanese eco­
nomy in the 1970s and 1980s through this perspective, Freeman (1987) was
the first to use the term “national innovation system” to describe government

118 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

institutions involved in defining and implementing research and innovation

policies. Nelson (1993) and Lundvall (1992) then extended Freeman’s defi-
nition to include all institutions and industrial actors undertaking research
activities and promoting the dissemination of knowledge for technological
innovation at the country level.
Research using the notion of IS that has followed this initial work has
primarily developed around evolutionary approaches to innovation, gradu-
ally forming the “Science Policy and Innovation Studies” (Martin, 2012).
The concept of IS has even been retained as one of the four pillars of this
research community which, though dominated by economic approaches,
also involves researchers from management science, history and sociology
(Fagerberg, Verspagen, 2009). It is in this framework that most versions of
the concept of IS have been developed (Edquist, 2004), going beyond the
initial approaches whose scope was limited to the national innovation sys-
tem: “regional innovation systems” in the vein of work on innovative clusters or
districts (Cooke et al., 1998); “technological systems” or “Corporate Innovation
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Systems” to take into account the interactions between institutions and firms
outside of established political and administrative frameworks (Carlsson,
2006); and sectoral innovation systems, which analyze institutional con-
ditions specific to innovation in a sector of activity (Malerba, 2002). At
the same time, the components of IS were being identified, incorporating
the contributions of adjacent scientific communities (Carlsson et al., 2002):
taking mechanisms for disseminating innovation into account; more pre-
cise characterization of institutions and different “knowledge bases”;
analysis of enterprise or actors networks… Relationships between spe-
cific entities have also been emphasized, such as in the “triple helix”
model which links industry, universities and the State (Leydesdorff,
Etzkowitz, 1998).
Other lines of research have sought to integrate or adapt the concept
of IS. For example, regulationist research has done so to analyse the trans-
formations of capitalism and its various national forms (Amable et al.,
1997), including at territorial and sectoral scales (Lung, Bouneau, 2009).
Institutions dedicated to research and innovation then find their place in
a broader economic analysis, where they complement the canonical insti-
tutional forms regulating the wage relations, money and competition. The
concept of “social system of innovation and production” has been proposed
to account for innovation-related institutional complementarities and to
incorporate technological dynamics (Amable, 2003). Sociologists under-
taking “Science and Technology Studies” have also used the notion of IS,
but without adopting it as a distinct analytical category. It was thus used
to describe the national context of the development of a technology or a

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 119

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

socio-technical network (Naubahar, 2006; Hacket et al., 2008) or to con-

sider interactions of key actors as “innovation intermediaries” (Meyer, Kearnes,
2013). Reference to IS is also present in research into innovation manage-
ment (Smits, Kuhlman, 2004; Shane, 2008) and in work on the transition of
socio-technical systems that claim critical affiliation with the evolutionary
approaches of Sectoral Innovation Systems (Geels, 2004).
Influenced by this body of academic work, national and international
development agencies have appropriated the concept of IS. Since the 1990s,
OECD has broadened the definition of IS by including “framework condi-
tions” necessary for innovation, such as tax regimes, regulations, culture and
behaviour (OECD, 2001). The World Bank has also shared its definition of
the concept of IS as a “network of organizations, enterprises, and individuals
focused on bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of organiza­
tion into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect the
system’s behaviour and performance” (World Bank, 2006). It has deepened
its commitment through the publication of a “Sourcebook” for decision
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

makers and investors of the Bank and its partners, offering an overview of
the concept and its application (World Bank, 2012). The European Union
has also introduced the concept as part of its overall strategy to move towards
a “knowledge-based economy” (Borras, 2004). National and regional innova-
tion policies have followed suit, for example, in France with the generalizing
of the concept of the regional innovation system by giving it a normative
content (Prager, 2010).
Starting from its initial definition, the concept of IS has therefore
been enriched and diversified under the influence of several disciplines
and theoretical currents (dominated by evolutionary reference) as well as
of confrontations in different application settings (country, region, sector,
companies network, etc.) with different uses (descriptive, analytical, nor-
mative, etc.). The approaches are divided between a restricted vision of an
IS, limited to institutions and networks dedicated to innovation (the insti-
tutional and formal context of innovation processes), and a broader vision
that encompasses informal structures and innovation and learning processes
themselves (Malerba, 2002). The diversity of existing definitions of IS none-
theless has a common conceptual basis, which goes beyond the principles
propounded by the evolutionary core: an interactionist view of innovation,
extending the analysis to a multiplicity of actors and the environment in
which they operate; a key role accorded not only to knowledge and insti­
tutions but also (in a more or less explicit manner) to social relationships
and networks; a systemic framework seeking to understand patterns in the
complex network of actors and institutions participating in the innovation
process.

120 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

A framework for analysing research

on Innovation Systems
This brief look at how research on IS has evolved leads us to propose a
generic analytical framework to determine how the concept is mobilized in
scientific articles and policy-related work and documents, particularly in a
domain such as agriculture and agrifood systems. This analytical framework
is organized around three axes, already suggested by Amable (2003) and
Martin (2012), and, more broadly, by research on the history of the concepts
in the social sciences (Christin, 2010).
The first axis questions the system of thought, the paradigm or theoreti­
cal framework with which the author(s) associate the concept of IS. This
reference may be explicit or implicit. The IS concept can be restricted to
a scientific discipline or one of its streams (for example, evolutionary or
institutionalist economics) or can even be promoted as an interdisciplinary
category. But in addition to the disciplines, it is necessary to specify which
elements and relationships are taken into account to define the IS: indi-
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

vidual actors or categories of actors, organizations, companies, the State,
institutions, public policies, networks, knowledge, information systems,
technical objects, learnings, processes, etc. This first axis helps clarify the
innovation approach or paradigm associated with the concept of IS by
exploring its institutional, cognitive, relational and systemic dimensions. It
also allows us to determine the vision of IS the text forms part of: i) limited,
formal and often functionalist (institutions dedicated to research, education
and innovation), ii) extended to informal aspects of the social context of
innovation (networks, cultural norms, etc.), or iii) even wider by including
innovation processes used in enterprises, i.e., an “innovation and production
system” (Malerba, 2002).
The second axis corresponds to the concept’s domain and space of applica­
tion, i.e., to both the specific nature of the activities and objects that concern
the innovation or to which the IS is dedicated, as well as to the extension of
the system itself. Does it refer to i) a politico-administrative space in which
the IS institutions are at work (national, regional or sectoral space) or ii) a
topological space consisting of a set of enterprises (a multinational group
or consortium) or one constructed on the basis of the observation of the
innova­tion process itself (technological system, socio-technical system)?
The concept can also span several scales and spaces. Indeed, their combina-
tion is a major challenge that current thinking on innovation has to deal
with in the context of economic globalization (Carlsson, 2006). The tempo-
ral dimension is also a key element in defining the analytical domain: Is it a
long-term study (historical or longitudinal approach) or does it pertain to a
shorter period (a state of the IS)?

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 121

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

The third axis accounts for the social use of the concept, the purposes for
which it is meant, or even categories of actors or the social classes it can
benefit. Is the IS concept simply used to describe (or recall) the institutional
context of an innovation being studied? Or is it being used instead to pro-
duce new knowledge about the institutions and networks of innovation or
even about more wide-ranging transformations of an economic and social
system or changes in the relationship between science and society? The IS
can then be regarded as an object of knowledge in itself. But the concept can
also be directly exploited to formulate policies for innovation or research
and to recast the relationships between research institutions and economic
actors. Often associated with these normative approaches, the IS can also be
used to assess the impacts of research institutions on development by analy­
zing their bearing on the emergence and diffusion of innovations.

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

OF THE BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY

Selection of articles
The analytical framework described above allows us to explore the scientific
output that uses the IS concept in research on agriculture and agrifood sys-
tems. We have therefore undertaken a bibliometric study2 using three search
engines: CAB3, Web of Science4, and Scopus5. These databases were chosen
because between them they account for most of the international literature
on agriculture and agrifood systems across a variety of scientific disciplines,
although some French journals and social science journals are not present in
these databases. The queries were made on the terms “Innovation System”
(IS), “IS + agrifood”, “IS + agriculture”, “IS + biotechnology” and “IS +
rural” in English, French and Spanish. The search was conducted on the
title, abstract and keywords of the articles, for a period spanning from 1995
to 2011.
We then read the summaries of all the articles that the searches threw up.
After weeding out those we judged not relevant, we were left with a final set

2. With the assistance of Marie-Christine Duchamp of Cirad.

3. CAB is the database of the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International. It lists
publications on agriculture and the life sciences since 1972: 7400 international journals, 7 mil-
lion references.
4. Web of Science (WoS) is a module of the platform of the Institute for Scientific Information.
It is multidisciplinary and lists more than 10,000 journals.
5. Scopus is a database of abstracts and citations spanning 19,000 scientific journals.

122 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

of 155 articles. Most of them pertained directly to agriculture and agrifood

systems. We included some that dealt with biotechnology and rural develop-
ment if they appeared related to agriculture or agrifood systems (e.g., GMO
seeds, biopesticides or biofuels). Of this corpus, 59% of the articles referred
primarily to agriculture (as sector or activity), 19% to biotechnology, 17% to
industry or agrifood products and 5% to resource management (water, forest,
biodiversity) or rural development (Table 1).

Table 1 – Distribution of articles on Innovation Systems according to domains

Number of articles Frequency

Agriculture (production, support, research, sector, etc.) 92 59%

Biotechnology (research, patent, use in production, etc.) 29 19%
Agrifood systems (processing, products, etc.) 26 17%
Rural development, resource management (water,
7 5%
forests, etc.)
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Total Agriculture or Agrifood systems + related rural
155 100%
and biotechnology

Figure 1 – Yearly number of publications which referred to the IS concept

in connection with agriculture or agrifood systems between 1996 and 2011
(N = 155)

Four journals have more than four references each and together account
for nearly 20% of the articles: Research Policy, Agricultural Systems, Food

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 123

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

Policy and Outlook on Agriculture. A chronological analysis of the 155 arti-

cles (Figure 1) highlights a significant increase in annual production starting
in 1996, divided into three periods: low production from 1996 to 2000 (one
or two articles per year); moderate growth between 2001 and 2006 (from 4
to 10 articles per year); strong growth from 2007 to 2011 (over 20 articles
per year since 2009).

Construction of the variables and of their modalities

We selected two or three variables per axis of our analytical framework, and
specified their modalities (Table 2):
–– Two variables indicate the theoretical and analytical framework
that the articles refer to (first axis): a classification according to theo-
retical disciplines and currents, when the reference is explained in
the summary or clearly stated by the authors; and an inventory of
the occurrence of analytical categories in the summary (institution,
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

knowledge, network, etc.);
–– Three variables are used to characterize the domain of applica-
tion and extension of the IS being studied (second axis): the primary
activity (which structured the database used for this article), the loca-
tion of innovations or IS (by country categories), and the scale of the
analysis (from local to international);
–– Two variables were used to decode the uses and purposes of the IS
concept in each article (third axis): the references to a purpose in
the abstract, for example, policy recommendations or impact assess-
ment; and the manner in which the IS concept is used in the study,
such as the subject of research or, conversely, a single contextual
element.

Table 2 – Variables and modalities chosen according

to the three axes of IS analysis

Axis of analysis Variables and their modalities used for the bibliometric study

1.1. Theoretical reference (author expertise and references):

Axis 1. • evolutionary, institutionalist, actor-network/STS,
Theoretical • agricultural economics/rural sociology/farming system, without
foundation and reference
construction of the 1.2. Analytical category used (citations within the abstract):
analytical framework • institutions, networks, actors, knowledge, policy, research, food
systems, etc.

124 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

2.1. Activities targeted by the IS (citations and expertise):

• Agriculture, biotechnology, agrifood systems, rural development
2.2. Geographical location of the study (citation and evaluation of
Axis 2.
abstract):
Area of application,
• Least developed countries, emerging countries, countries in transition
nature and extent
(Far and Middle East),
of the phenomena
• Western OECD, Mediterranean OECD, comparative studies
studied
2.3. IS scale (citation in abstract):
• national (NIS), regional (RIS), local, international, sectoral (SIS), etc.
• topological space defined by enterprises or a technology
3.1. Purposes:
• Orienting public policies, evaluating impact of research
Axis 3.
• Supporting enterprises, analysing an innovation or science/society links
Use and purposes of
3.2. Methodological use of the IS concept:
the concept
• Treating the IS as a global object, studying one component of an IS
• Using the IS as an explanatory aid, contextualization of a study

Two main theoretical frames of reference

used by the authors
In general, the theoretical frame of reference is rarely specified in abstracts,
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

titles and keywords. A third of the articles do not refer to a particular frame
of reference (Table 3); they usually correspond to descriptive analyses,
sometimes written by authors from the engineering sciences or tech­nical
disciplines (agronomy, agrifood technology). In the rest of the articles,
two theoretical frames of references dominate. The first, used in work that
refers to sociology, rural economics, or, more broadly, to “farming system”
approaches, is the most common (31%). It pertains mainly to the analy-
sis of agricultural innovations or assessments of the role of agricultural
research. The second is the evolutionary framework for innovation (22% of
references), which can be identified by the use of specific terms (adoption,
technological trajectory, absorption capacity, spillover, etc.), and is mainly
found in articles from journals such as Research Policy or those devoted to
biotechnology. In addition, historical or institutionalist approaches can be
identified but are less common (10%) and some articles (5%) have a more
methodological character (e.g., method of network analysis).

Table 3 – Disciplinary references of articles on IS in agriculture

and agrifood systems

Number Frequency
Without any explicit theoretical reference 51 33%
Sociology, rural economics, Farming System 48 31%
Evolutionary theory, industrial economics 34 2%
Institutionalist or historical approaches 15 10%
Technical or methodological contribution 7 5%
TOTAL 155 100%

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 125

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

The identification of IS-associated analytical categories highlights gene­

ral concepts such as “research” (present in 61% of abstracts), “institution”
(45%) or holistic concepts encompassing relationships between activities
(48%): a product industry (banana, cassava, wine, etc.), a sector or sub-
sector (fruits, bioenergy, etc.), a supply chain, a cluster, etc. The inclusion
of terms such as “policy” (34%), “knowledge” (32%) or “actors” (27%)
suggests a common analytical foundation to many articles. In contrast, only
14% of the articles mention “network” in their abstracts, indicating that this
dimension is so far only fully considered by a fraction of the articles mobi­
lizing the IS concept.

Table 4 – Frequency of occurrence of the categories in article abstracts

Number of articles Frequency

Research 96 62%
(Agri)Food sector, chain or system 74 48%
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Institution/institutional 69 45%
Policy 53 34%
Knowledge 49 32%
Actor 42 27%
Networks 22 14%

Note: a given article can refer to more than one category

Prevalence of three geographical blocks

and national scales of analysis
The articles focus mainly on three geographical areas (Table 5). The Least
Developed Countries (Sub-Saharan Africa for the most part) are the ones
concerned most often, with 34% of publications pertaining to them and
usually focusing on the analysis of agricultural innovations. One reason for
this prominence is the use of the IS approach by researchers associated with
the CGIAR6 and the World Bank to propose a restructuring of agricultural
research and to accelerate “North-South” technology transfers. African
researchers (mainly from Nigeria, Ghana and East Africa) also mobilize the
IS concept to analyse innovations related to local societies. Western OECD
countries (mainly Canada, USA, UK, Australia, the Nordic countries) form
the second most prominent geographical region (22%), with themes that
focus on the relationships between the public and private sectors, or on
biotechnology (agricultural supplies, varietal breeding, biofuels). Emerging

6. Consultative Group on International Agronomic Research

126 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

Countries (Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, China, India, etc.) constitute the

third geographical area, with an increasing number of articles (21%) con-
cerning them and pertaining to agriculture, agrifood systems or the use of
biotechnology and bioenergy. Countries in transition and Mediterranean coun­
tries find occasional mention (6%, with articles mainly on Spain), as are
comparative articles exploring the international dimension of IS (less than
15% of articles).

Table 5 – Geographical distribution of issues covered by articles on IS

Number Frequency

Least developed countries 52 34%

Western OECD countries 34 22%
Emerging countries 33 21%
European Mediterranean OECD 9 6%
Countries in transition 7 5%
International (comparisons) 20 13%
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Total 155 100%

The articles can also be differentiated on the basis of scales of analy-

sis (Table 6). National and sectoral scales dominate in more than 60% of
the articles. This is due to the fact these articles mainly study either the
relationships between agriculture and the National Innovation System
or Agricultural Innovation Systems. Some of them also analyse innova-
tion in national supply chains. The Regional Innovation Systems (12%)
prima­rily concern OECD countries. Research articles on innovation at the
international level and on internationalization of IS are equally few (12%),
although these issues are often addressed through the role of multinational
corporations and international institutions. Finally, articles approaching
the IS concept from a network of actors or of companies are even fewer in
number (10%) and quite heterogeneous, confirming the preponderance of
analyses closely linked to politico-administrative frameworks for agriculture.

Table 6 – Scale of Innovation Systems discussed in the articles

Number Frequency

National Innovation System 56 36%

Sectoral Innovation System, AKIS or AIS 47 30%
Regional Innovation System 18 12%
Internationalization of IS 18 12%
IS considered from a network of companies 16 10%
Total 155 100%

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 127

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

An orientation towards policies on research,

innovation and development
The main purpose of the use of IS in agriculture (46% of publica-
tions – Table 7) pertains to the formulation or orientation of public policies
on innovation, research and development. This is often referred to explicitly
in the abstract, with the domain varying, depending on the nature of the
public entity and its area of intervention (knowledge transfer, funding, pro-
motion of biotechnology, etc.). Assessing the impact of research is a sepa-
rate objective, attributable to 17% of the articles. Methodological issues are
very present in these articles, as also the construction of arguments to jus-
tify research investments. References to direct support to companies, on the
other hand, are few in number (8%) and concern, for example, the role of
technology platforms or of “facilitators” who provide a link between public
and private entities. Finally, nearly a third of the articles do not refer to a
political or economic purpose, but instead aim for production of knowledge
on innovation or on research institutions. A few articles concern discus-
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

sions on sustainable development or cast a critical look at the models of
innovation.
In 22% of the articles, the IS is an object of study as a whole, as a system.
Most often however (42%), articles focus on one IS component (research,
advisory organizations, relationships between companies and institutions,
etc.). Less than a quarter of the articles mention the IS only as an exter-
nal factor, influencing the innovation process or an organization’s strategy.
Finally, in 15% of the articles the IS is mentioned simply as a context of the
study.

Table 7 – Uses and purposes of IS in agriculture and agrifood systems

Number Frequency

Orienting public policy 72 46%

Assessing the impact of research 27 17%
Supporting enterprises and sectoral actors 12 8%
Analyzing an innovation, research/society links 46 30%
Considering the IS as a complete system to be studied 34 22%
Studying one component of an IS 65 42%
Using the IS as an explanatory factor 34 22%
Addressing the IS as a context of the study 21 15%

128 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

Identification of article profiles by multiple

correspondence analysis
To summarize these findings and identify combinations of theoretical foun-
dations, areas of application and uses of IS, we conducted a factor analysis7
(Multiple Correspondence Analysis) using the Burt table which brought
together all the variables described above. The first three principal axes have
a significant weightage (50% of the inertia) and allow us to describe the
main orientations of the articles (Figure 2).
The first factorial axis (23% of the inertia) distinguishes (i) articles that
pertain to agriculture, to LDCs, to rural economics or sociology, to a compo-
nent of IS and to policy recommendations from (ii) the articles on biotech-
nology and agrifood systems, on OECD countries or which use evolutionary
reference or the concept of the Regional Innovation System. We find here
a convergence between the oppositions of “North vs. South”, “upstream/
downstream technologies vs. agricultural production systems” and “evolu-
tionary approaches vs. more ruralist work”.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

The second factorial axis (14%) is marked by the presence of the “no
theoretical reference” and “use of IS as a context” modalities. It thus distin-
guishes articles with a limited reference to the concept of IS for operational
or descriptive studies with those that analyze the IS as a whole or one of its
components, with reference to an established theoretical framework.
The third factorial axis (13%) isolates the specific contribution of a
historical or institutionalist reference in conjunction with the lack of any
policy recommendation. So it distinguishes (i) a critical stance and one that
is detached from the action from (ii) approaches more focused on develop­
ment or policy actions (with or without reference to other theoretical frame-
works).
This factor analysis shows the weightage of the “theoretical framework”
variable, each modality of which (except for strictly methodological work)
contributes significantly to the different factorial axes, and is linked to
certain modalities of other variables. A contingency analysis between the
modalities of the theoretical reference and those of the other variables clari-
fies this observation (Table 8).

7. With the assistance of Salif Derra, doctoral student, Montpellier Supagro, Innovation JRU.

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 129

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

Figure 2 – Results of the Factor Analysis

(projection of the variable on the axes 1 2, axis 3: + and -)

+
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

ECSORU: rural economy/sociology; PETU: part of the IS; POLICY: policy usage; PMA (LDC): least developed
countries; AGRI: agriculture; EMERG: emerging countries HIST: history; EVOLU: evolutionary; BIOT: biotechno­
logy; SRI: regional innovation system; OCDE: OECD countries; IAA: agrifood systems; CETU: context of the study;
NOREF: no theoretical reference

Table 8 – Contingency table between theoretical references

and 3 other variables

Theoretical Domain of activity** Countries** Use of the concept**

foundation

AGRI BIOT IAF RUR LDC EMER OECD POLIC GLOB PSTU FACT CSTU
RUECSO 48 42** 3* 1** 2 27** 7 7* 30* 10 28* 8 1*
EVOLU 34 4** 15** 14** 1 3** 8 16** 12 15** 10 7 1*
HIST 15 9 2 3 1 2* 4 5 1** 2 4 7* 2
NOREF 51 31 10 7 3 20 11 14 26 5** 17 12 17**

148 articles (methodological articles excluded); tests Chi2 **: p<0.01; *: 0.01<p<0.05
Columns: AGRI: agriculture BIOT: biotechnology IAF: agrifood systems RUR: rural economy/sociology LDC: least
developed countries EMER: emerging countries OECD: OECD countries POLIC: policy usage GLOB: IS focus of
the study PSTU: part of the IS; FACT Explanatory factor CSTU: context of the study
Lines: RUECSO: Rural economy / sociology; EVOLU Evolutionary, HIST History NOREF: no theoretical reference

130 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITIES
AND AGRICULTURAL SPECIFICITIES OF IS

Several knowledge communities use the concept

of IS in agriculture
The bibliometric analysis suggests that there exist four groups of articles
with different theoretical references. These groups can be the expression
of knowledge communities (Wenger, 1998) involved in the construction
of different meanings and uses of IS for agriculture and agrifood systems.
These communities are more or less structured groupings of scientists using
the concept of IS, in association with political or economic actors. They can
be characterized according to cognitive processes or attributes that consti-
tute them, by using the classification developed by research in sociology and
economics of knowledge (Cohendet et al., 2010): “practicing” communi-
ties, sharing knowledge around common activities; “epistemic” communi-
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

ties which are structured for a common cognitive project; communities “of
interest”, sharing information because of common positions, ideas or charac-
teristics. The results of our bibliometric analysis can then be interpreted in
terms of this classification and by relying on our broader knowledge of agri-
cultural research and stakeholders. We suggest four knowledge communities,
each associated with a different form of “theoretical framework” of the factor
analysis (Figure 3).
The first community brings together university researchers (in economics
or management) who refer broadly to evolutionary approaches to innovation
and actors who formulate innovation policies (e.g., Directorate Generals of
Research in the EU), development agencies and firms related to biotechno­
logy or agrifood systems, mainly in OECD or emerging countries. In their
articles, the concept of IS is generally not specified in relation to agriculture.
Instead, the established categories of NIS, SIS, RIS or clusters are used or
indeed the “triple helix” model. In this community, we find both academic
work as well as studies directly pertaining to national innovation strategies
(Menrad, 2004) or regional ones (Asheim, Coenen, 2005), or even to the
explicit promotion of biofuels and GMOs by companies (Qaim, 2009). The
authors refer to the innovation processes and the role of knowledge, but
their visions are often quite close to diffusionist theses, according a key role
to research and the evaluation of the conditions under which innovations
are acceptable, with increasing attention to environmental issues (Cunha et
al., 2011). The technological object (food processing, biofuels, GMOs, ICTs
in agriculture, etc.) lends itself well to this type of analysis. We can suggest
that this group constitutes a “community of interest”, sharing a positive vision

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 131

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

of progress through biotechnology and consisting of researchers who have

found an opportunity to apply a theoretical framework, proponents of poli-
cies of innovation, and firms that want to exploit the concept to create an
environment conducive to the diffusion of the technologies they produce.
This vision’s attachment to technological and economic development and
the reliance on a generic theoretical framework can be associated with the
analysis of a loss of specificity of the agricultural sector in globalization: com-
modification and financialization, re-industrialization of agriculture through
biotechnology, etc.
The second community brings together sociologists and economists of
agricultural and rural development (countries of the South as well as of the
North), leaders of organizations in agricultural research and development
at the national or international levels (CGIAR, Directorate Generals of
Agriculture in the EU, etc.), and agronomists involved in development pro-
grammes, especially in the LDCs. In this community, specific concepts now
associated with IS are mobilized: Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

System (AKIS), Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) (Klerkx et al.,
2010.), Rural Innovation System (Spielman et al., 2011.), etc. Scientists
in this community originate mainly from a research tradition built around
agriculture (work on agricultural development, analysis of systems of agro-
nomic research, Farming System approaches, etc.) and are associated with
agricultural research and development institutions. A “reformist” thought,
concerned with sustainable development, is prominent in this community
(Coudel et al., 2012) and examines the confrontation between top-down
processes (whose proponents are the institutions) and bottom-up processes
(initiated by farmers and rural entrepreneurs) (Faure, Compagnone, 2011).
It also explores how both “traditional” as well as “entrepreneurial” sec-
tors are taken into account (Adeoti, Olubamiwa, 2009), the articulation
between different forms of knowledge (Ekboir et al., 2008) and how agri-
cultural institutions can contribute to the challenges of poverty reduction,
food security, natural resource management (World Bank, 2006; Roling,
2009), etc. More original forms of organizing relationships between research
and companies are discussed or suggested, for example, through the use of
regional consultation platforms or of “participatory approaches” (Abate et
al., 2011). Furthermore, this community has the characteristics of an “epis-
temic community”, at least one under construction. Indeed, scientific arti-
cles are supplemented by reports, educational materials, calls for projects,
and a desire to help promote new knowledge about an approach based on
IS in agriculture (EU SCAR, 2012). In this community, it is the taking into
account of sectoral specificities which justifies the creation of categories, approaches
and concepts themselves specific for innovation and IS.

132 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

The third community is made up of scientists who refer to the evolutionary

framework or rural sociology but mainly reflects other influences (history and
sociology of science, institutional economics, regulation theory, etc.). This
work is less directly linked to political or economic actors. These tend to be
studies on histories, summaries, comparative analyses, theoretical questions
on the transformation of agricultural and agrifood activities (Allaire, Wolf,
2004; Lindkvist, Sanchez, 2008; Cypher, 2011). There exists a more criti-
cal viewpoint, detached from the interests of economic and political stake-
holders. This group is smaller than the previous two and cannot reasonably
be associated to an epistemic community specific to the agricultural sector,
even if references to the agro-ecological transition or diversity of agrifood
trajectories could create a body of new knowledge (Touzard, 2009; Sanchez
et al., 2010). Obviously, it is not around the concept of IS that a critical
approach to innovation in agriculture is developing. Other scientific com-
munities (Sociology of Science and Technology in particular) have claimed
that role, for example, around the journal Science, Technology and Human
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Values. For this third community, the issue of agricultural specificity tends to
be addressed in the form of a research question, in order to undertake comparisons
between sectors, but this does not necessarily lead to the production of spe-
cific concepts and approaches.
The fourth community consists, in contrast, of scientists, engineers and
agricultural actors directly involved in the implementation of innovation
processes or the formulation of agricultural policy. The concept of IS is
used to contextualize, analyse, or support these processes and to highlight
its institutional conditions without necessarily questioning the evolution or
the effects of the concerned institutions. Francophone work on Localised
Agrifood System (LAS) is thus starting to refer to it to take into account
the constraints and opportunities of the sectoral or national context of
local innovations (Muchnik et al., 2007). The use of IS tends to be more
descriptive or rhetorical, and is normally not key (unlike for the second
community). Scientists may deal with the engineering of development or
training which is focused on innovations in rural environments and action
research (Sanginga et al., 2009; Faure et al., 2010). Different communities of
practice can be identified behind this group. They address concrete problems
within a framework of different networks (a company and its stakeholders,
a mechanism for evaluating public policy, development projects in a region
or sector). In these communities, the specificity of the use of the concept of IS is
contrasting, to meet the challenges of solving problems that are encountered. Some
research merely makes a formal reference to the proposals of communities 1
and 2, others are content to “tinker” with the components of an IS or adapt
its use.

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 133

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

These four communities agree broadly on the main characteristics of IS

(innovation as a process, key role of institutions and knowledge, systemic
approach). They differ however in the types of actors that belong to them
(with different positions and practices within IS), in the theoretical refe­
rences and uses of the concept of IS, and in the terminology and question-
ing on agricultural and agrifood specificities. While these communities are
linked to each other by key authors (e.g., A Hall), they are also marked by a
significant dualism between communities 1 and 2: a conceptual and metho­
dological distinction arising from the opposition between an agro-industrial
model linked to the development of biotechnology and an “alternative”
model centred on peasant agriculture and agroecology (Vanloqueren, Barret,
2009).

Figure 3 – The four knowledge communities on IS in agriculture and agrifood

systems (Diagram derived from factor analysis)
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Re-examining the agricultural specificity of innovation,

IS and IS research
Identifying these knowledge communities brings us back to the issue of the
construction of definitions and uses of the concept of IS specific to agri-
culture and agrifood systems. Indeed, the four identified communities differ

134 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

from each other in this respect. Are agriculture and agrifood systems only
a domain of application of a generic concept or is this sector a “scientific
niche” in which agricultural realities lead to the emergence of new ques-
tions and proposals? This question can be approached on the basis of the
arguments developed by the epistemic community since it seeks to produce
agriculture-specific IS (AIS, AKIS, etc.). Its arguments start from an iden-
tification of the agricultural sector’s characteristics that are liable to induce
original features in this sector’s innovation processes and its IS:
–– Configurations of particular actors and organizations orient inno-
vation in the agriculture and agrifood sector. Centres of research,
training and development dedicated to agriculture are confronted by
a multitude of independent farms, a concentration of upstream and
downstream firms, and the existence of specific actors playing the role
of “brokers” (Klerkx, Leeuwis, 2009), such as NGOs, consulting firms,
trade unions, etc. These configurations can explain, for example, the
importance of collective action in agricultural innovation, the role
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

that public or professional organizations have in providing economies
of scale for R&D activities, forms of innovation networks articula­
ting local and distant links (Chiffoleau, Touzard, 2014; Spielman et
al., 2011) or even particular modes of supporting and monitoring the
innovation, which engenders tension between private oligopolies,
governments, professional organizations and consumers (control of
seeds, biotechnologies, food products, etc.).
–– More broadly these actors are part of sectoral institutional mecha­
nisms which have existed for a long time, with clearly identified
agricultural policies, as well as specific forms of organization of pro-
duction (family labour, pluriactivity, etc.), trade (long vs. short supply
chains, certifications, geographical indications, etc.) and consump-
tion (Temple et al., 2011). This institutional framework combines
objective rules and compromises between social representations that
support a diversity of innovation regimes (Allaire, Wolf, 2004). The
example of geographical indications, mainly applied to agrifood pro­
ducts, illustrates a form of labelling of the product that is based on a
codification of practices and innovations, and which requires collec-
tive action and important political negotiations to modify the scope
of possible innovations.
–– Beyond these institutions, the sector is characterized by a diver-
sity of agrifood models or systems and their hybrid forms (Colonna et
al., 2010.). One can even wonder whether a specificity of the agri-
cultural/agrifood sector does not lie in the coexistence of a variety of

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 135

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

agrifood models, sometimes reduced to a dualism between an “agro-

industrial” model, nowadays linked to the development of biotech-
nologies, and “alternative” – even traditional – models (in the South
in particular). Innovation and the IS would then both form part of
each of these agrifood systems (path dependence) as well as in their
economic interactions and political confrontations (Touzard, 2009).
–– More fundamentally perhaps, the relationships with nature of agri-
cultural and agrifood activities and products (biological systems, links
to the land and ecosystems, food intake, etc.) have an influence on
innovation and the institutions that support them. These relation-
ships raise heritage-related issues, a high inertia of investments as well
as a high instability due to seasonality, constraints and environmen-
tal considerations (degradation and natural resource management),
climatic risks, the perishability of many products and health issues
(Colonna et al., 2012). This uncertain environment not only affects
the definition of specific areas of application of research and inno-
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

vation but also the conditions of implementing technical change.
Innovation appears to be both more risky than in other sectors and
therefore often faces what could be interpreted as resistance or inertia
from the producers. These relationships with nature can also be con-
sidered as one of the foundations of the symbolic dimension of food
(Muchnik et al., 2007), applied to possible or forbidden domains of
innovation.
–– Many authors insist more generally on functions and externalities
of agriculture and consequently its contribution (positive or negative)
to the production of public goods: satisfaction of food needs and impacts
on health, implication of agricultural activities in the management of
natural resources, production of landscapes and cultural and symbolic
goods, land use, etc. The recognition and governance of these public
goods justify the combination of collective action and government
intervention (Ostrom, 2011) and helps substantially in publicizing
the debates on innovations in agriculture (Coudel et al., 2010).
–– The involvement of the knowledge base in productive and innova-
tive agriculture and agrifood processes is also highlighted as original
by various authors (Labarthe, 2005; Klerkx, Leeuwis, 2009). Multiple
areas of technical and organizational learning, the need for local adap-
tation of and experimentation with generic knowledge, the impor-
tance of “tacit knowledge” as well as the increasing involvement of
citizen consumers in the conditions of production all orient training
requirements and forms of mediation associated with the construc-
tion of this knowledge (Goulet, Vinck, 2012). Through its expertise,

136 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

research itself is participating in a new way in public debates on food

innovation. Going beyond its usual contributions to the development
of a technology, it is contributing to the legitimization of IS in agri-
culture and agrifood systems.
–– Finally, perhaps more than other sectors, agriculture and agrifood
systems are confronted by a revival of issues that call for the consi­
deration of agricultural innovations in a long-term perspective: adap-
tations to climate change (agriculture is the economic sector most
affected), the rise of food security worries, long-term commitments
to processes of managing biodiversity and natural resources, struc-
tural review of the role of the State (regionalization) and redefini-
tion of public/private relationships (Touzard, Temple, 2012). These
more complex issues reinforce the need to include agricultural
innovation in multidisciplinary and forward-looking approaches
(Coudel et al., 2012).
While it is true that, at the end, agriculture and agrifood systems have
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

characteristics which are not always exclusive to this sector, the combina-
tion of these characteristics provides a specific set of conditions for inno-
vation and ways of supporting it, and therefore for IS. These particular
sectoral features can justify the use of specific approaches and concepts,
such as “Agricultural Innovation Systems”. But they also call for developing
research on Sectoral Innovation Systems (Malerba, 2002) by comparing the
agricultural and agrifood example to other sectors in order to strengthen the
conceptual structure for studying innovation.

CONCLUSION
Using a bibliometric and bibliographical analysis, we have shown that the
concept of IS is being increasingly used in research on innovation in agricul-
ture and agrifood systems. The growing success of the concept in this sector
appears to be related to the co-evolution of several knowledge communi-
ties, some of which are attempting to apply the theoretical and analytical
framework of Innovation Studies (Martin, 2012) while others attempt to
build a body of more original concepts and methods, relying on the work
developed in rural sociology/economics, in Farming System Approach and
in development studies. The question of the specific conditions for inno-
vation in the agricultural sector is key and is being increasingly revisited
due to issues that today place this activity in long-term perspectives and in
current societal debates. The evolution of the use of the concept in research
on agricultural innovation has, however, not yet stabilized. As far as research

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 137

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

which applies evolutionary concepts is concerned, the debate between the

recognition of a sectoral specificity (via the concept of Sectoral Innovation
System) and minimization of this issue (e.g., as is the case for the dissemina-
tion of biotechnologies) is far from being resolved. On the other hand, the
epistemic community originating from the rural sociology/economics, and
linked to the reorientation of agricultural research and development insti-
tutions, is at pains to choose between a clearer theoretical affiliation with
studies promoting IS or similar concepts (such as socio-technical systems)
and the desire to (re)build an autonomous and interdisciplinary scientific
space. In any case, the continued existence of interactions between different
communities around the usage of IS is a sign of scientific vitality.
Finally, these results call for applying our approach to other sectors than
the agrifood one. Knowledge plays a central role in IS and is generally associ-
ated with specific sectoral conditions such as existing technology, industrial
structure, demand, institutions (Malerba, Nelson, 2012). But as we show in
the case of agriculture, the building of scientific knowledge on innovation
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

could also be sectoral specific, expressing the confrontations between dif­
ferent knowledge communities where scientists are interacting with politi-
cal and economic actors. The co-evolution of different technological models
within a sector (such as “agro-industrial” vs “alternative” in agriculture)
seems to be crucial, orienting the social and scientific representations on
innovation. Research on health or energy sectors suggests similar dynamics
(Consoli, Mina, 2009), while research on ICT, automobile or aeronautics
tend to show a more consensual view on innovation (and IS) in the sector
(Touzard, 2014). A broader comparative research is thus necessary, using our
analytical framework on IS, in order to explore both the specificities of sec-
toral dynamics and the representation on innovation. This research will also
contribute to better identify the source of innovation and their contribution
to economic development.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABATE, T., SHIFERAW, B., GEBEYEHU, S., AMSALU, B., NEGASH, K., ASSEFA, K.,
ESHETE, M., ALIYE, S., HAGMANN, J. (2011), A Systems and Partnership Approach
To Agricultural Research for Development: Lessons from Ethiopia, Outlook on Agriculture,
40(3), 213-220.
ADEOTI, J. O., OLUBAMIWA, O. (2009), Towards an Innovation System in the
Traditional Sector: The Case of the Nigerian Cocoa Industry, Science and Public Policy,
36(1), 15-31.
ALLAIRE, G. (1996), Emergence d’un nouveau système productif en agriculture, Canadian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 44(4), 461-479

138 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

ALLAIRE, G., WOLF, S. A. (2004), Cognitive Representations and Institutional Hybri­

dity in Agrofood Innovation, Science Technology and Human Values, 29(4), 431-458.
AMABLE, B., BARRE, R., BOYER, R. (1997), Les systèmes d’innovation à l’ère de la globali­
sation, Paris, Economica.
AMABLE, B. (2003), Les systèmes d’innovation, in Mustar, P., Penan, H., Encyclopédie de
l’innovation, Paris, Economica.
ASHEIM, B. T., COENEN, L. (2005), Knowledge Bases and Regional Innovation Systems:
Comparing Nordic Clusters, Research Policy, 34(8), 1173-1190.
BORRAS, S. (2004), System of Innovation Theory and the European Union, Science and
Public Policy, 31 (6), 425-433.
CARLSSON, B. (2006), Internationalization of Innovation Systems: A Survey of the
Literature, Research Policy, 35, 56-67.
CARLSSON, B., JACOBSSON, S., HOLMÉN, M., RICKNE, A. (2002), Innovation
Systems: Analytical and Methodological Issues, Research Policy, 31, 233-245.
CHIFFOLEAU, Y., TOUZARD J.-M. (2014), Understanding Local Agrifood Systems
Through Advice Network Analysis, Agriculture and Human Values, 31(1), 19-32.
CHRISTIN, O. (2010), Dictionnaire des concepts nomades en Sciences Humaines, Paris,
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Métailié.
COHENDET, P., ROBERTS, J., SIMON, L. (2010), Les communautés de pratiques : une
introduction, Revue Internationale de gestion, 35, 31-35.
COLONNA, P., FOURNIER, S., TOUZARD, J.-M. (2013), Food Systems, in C. Esnouf,
M. Russel, N. Bricas (eds), Food System Sustainability, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 69-100.
CONEIN, B. (2004), Communautés épistémiques et réseaux cognitifs, Revue d’Economie
Politique, 113, 141-159.
CONSOLI, D., MINA, A. (2009), An Evolutionary Perspective on Health Innovation
Systems, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19(2), 297-319.
COOKE, P., URANGA, M. G., ETXEBARRIA, G. (1998), Regional Systems of Innova­
tion: An Evolutionary Perspective, Environment and Planning A, 30(9), 1563-1584.
COUDEL, E., DEVAUTOUR, H., SOULARD, T., FAURE, G., HUBERT, B. (2012),
Apprendre à innover dans un monde incertain, Versailles, QUAE.
CUNHA, S. K., BOSZCZOWSKI, A. K., FACCO, C. A. (2011), Greening of Sectoral
Innovation System in Brazil Soybean, Agroalimentaria, 17(32), 71-86.
CYPHER, J. M. (2011), South America’s Commodities Boom: Developmental Opportunity
or Path Dependent Reversion? Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 30 (3-4), 635-662.
EDQUIST, C. (2004), Systems of Innovation – A Critical Review of The State of the Art,
in J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, R. Nelson, Handbook of Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
EKBOIR, J., SPIELMAN, D, DAVIS, K., OCHIENG, C. (2008), An Innovation Systems
Perspective on Strengthening Agricultural Education and Training in Sub-Saharan Africa,
Agricultural Systems, 98, 1-9.
EU SCAR (2012), Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition, Brussels,
European Commission.

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 139

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

FAGERBERG, J., VERSPAGEN, B. (2009), Innovation Studies – The Emerging Structure

of a New Scientific Field, Research Policy, 38, 218-233.
FAURE, G., GASSELIN, P., TRIOMPHE, B., TEMPLE, L., HOCDE, H. (2010), Innover
avec les acteurs du monde rural: la recherche-action en partenariat, Versailles, QUAE.
FAURE, G, COMPAGNONE, C. (2011), Les transformations du conseil face à une nou-
velle agriculture, Cahiers Agriculture, 20, 321-326.
FORAY, D. (2009), L’économie de la connaissance, Paris, La Découverte.
FREEMAN, C. (1987), Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, London,
Pinter.
FRYKFORS, C. O., JONSSON, H. (2010), Reframing the Multilevel Triple Helix
in a Regional Innovation System, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(7),
819-829.
GEELS, F. (2004), From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-Technical Systems,
Research policy, 33, 897-920.
GOULET, F., VINCK, D. (2012), L’innovation par retrait. Contribution à une sociologie
du détachement, Revue Française de Sociologie, 53(2), pp. 195-224.
HACKET, E., AMSTERDAMSKA, O., LYNCH, M., WAJCMAN, J. (2008), The Hand­
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

book Of Science and Technology Studies, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
HALL, A. (2005), Capacity Development for Agricultural Biotechnology in Developing
Countries: An Innovation Systems View of What It Is and How to Develop It, Journal of
International Development, 17(5), 611-630.
KLERKX, L., LEEUWIS, C. (2009), Establishment and Embedding Of Innovation Brokers
at Different Innovation System Levels, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6),
849-860.
KLERKX, L., AARTS, N., LEEUWIS, C. (2010), Adaptive Management in Agricultural
Innovation Systems: The Interactions between Innovation Networks and Their Environ­
ment, Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 390-400.
LABARTHE, P. (2005), Trajectoires d’innovation des services et inertie institutionnelle :
dynamique du conseil dans trois agricultures européennes, Géographie, Economie et Société,
3(7), 289-311.
LEVIDOW, L., BIRCH, K., PAPAIOANNOU, T. (2013), Divergent Paradigms of
European Agro-Food Innovation, Science, Technology & Human Values, 38, 94-125.
LEYDESDORFF, L., ETZKOWITZ, H. (1998), The Triple Helix as a Model for Innovation
Studies, Science & Public Policy, 25(3), 195-203.
LINDKVIST, K. B., SANCHEZ, J. L. (2008), Conventions and Innovation: A Comparison
of Two Localized Natural Resource-Based Industries, Regional Studies, 42(3), 343-354.
LUNDVALL, B.-A. (1992), National Innovation Systems: Towards a Theory of Innovation
and Interactive Learning, London, Pinter.
LUNG, Y., BOUNEAU, C. (2009), Les dynamiques des systèmes d’innovation, Bordeaux,
Editions de la MSHA.
MALERBA, F. (2002), The Sectoral System of Innovation and Production, Research
Policy, 31, 247-264.
MALERBA, F., NELSON, R. (2012), Economic Development as a Learning Process: Variation
across Sectoral Systems, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

140 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17

 Innovation systems and knowledge communities…

MCINTYRE, B., HERREN, H., WAKHUNGU, J., WATSON, R. (2009), International

Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, Global report,
New-York, World Bank.
MARTIN, B. (2012), The Evolution of Science Policy and Innovation Studies, Research
Policy, 41, 1219-1239.
MENRAD, K. (2004), Innovations in the Food Industry in Germany, Research Policy,
33(6-7), 845-878.
MEYER, M., KEARNES, M. (2013), Intermediaries between Science, Policy and the
Market, Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 423-429.
MUCHNIK, J., REQUIER-DESJARDINS, D., SAUTIER, D., TOUZARD, J.-M. (2007),
Systèmes agroalimentaires localisées, Economies et Sociétés, série AG, 29, 1465-1484.
NAUBAHAR, S. (2006), Emergence and Development of the National Innovation
Systems Concept, Research Policy, 35, 745-766.
NELSON, R. (1993), National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis, New York/
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
OECD (2001), Innovative Clusters: Drivers of National Innovation Systems, Paris, OECD
publication.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

OSTROM, E. (2011), Par-delà les marchés et les Etats, Revue de l’OFCE, 120, 15-71.
PRAGER, J.-C. (2010), Méthode de diagnostic du système d’innovation dans les régions fran­
çaises, Paris, Ministère de l’Economie, de l’Industrie et de l’emploi.
QAIM, M. (2009), Economics of Genetically Modified Crops, Annual Review of Resource
Economics, 1, 665-693.
ROLING, N. (2009), Pathways for Impact: Scientists’ Different Perspectives on Agricul­
tural Innovation, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(2), 83-94.
SANCHEZ, J. L., APARICIO, J., ALONSO, J. L. (2010), The Shift between Worlds of
Production as an Innovative Process in the Wine Industry in Castile and Leon, Geoforum,
41(3), 469-478.
SANGINGA, P, WATERS-BAYER, A, KAARIA, S, NJUKI, J, WETTASINHA, C.
(2009), Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods, London, Earthscan.
SHANE, S. (2008), The Handbook of Technology and Innovation Management, Chichester,
Wiley.
SMITS, R., KUHLMAN, S., (2004), The Rise of Systemic Instrument of Innovation
Policy, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1, 4-32.
SPIELMAN, D. J., DAVIS, K., NEGASH, M., AYELE, G. (2011), Rural Innovation
Systems and Networks: Findings from a Study of Ethiopian Smallholders, Agriculture and
Human Values, 28, 195-212.
TEMPLE, L., LANÇON, F., PALPACUER, F., PACHE, G. (2011), Actualisation du con-
cept de filière dans l’agriculture et l’agroalimentaire, Economies et sociétés, Série AG, 33,
1785-1797.
TOUZARD, J.-M. (2009), Quels apports de la Théorie de la Régulation à l’analyse des
transformations agroalimentaires actuelles, Economies et Sociétés, AG, 31, 1923-1934.
TOUZARD, J.-M. (2014), Les approches sectorielles de l’innovation, in Réseau de
Recherches sur l’Innovation (ed.), Principes d’économie de l’innovation, Bruxelles, Peter
Lang, 235-245.

n° 17 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 141

 J.-M. TOUZARD, L. TEMPLE, G. FAURE, B. TRIOMPHE

TOUZARD, J.-M., TEMPLE, L. (2012), Sécurisation alimentaire et innovations dans

l’agriculture et l’agroalimentaire : vers un nouvel agenda de recherche, Cahiers Agricultures,
21, 293-301.
VANLOQUEREN, G., BARET, P. V. (2009), How Agricultural Research Systems Shape a
Technological Regime that Develops Genetic Engineering but Locks Out Agroecological
Innovations, Research Policy, 38(6), 971-983.
WENGER, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
WORLD BANK (2006), Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the
Strengthening of Research Systems, Washington, World Bank.
WORLD BANK (2012), Agricultural Innovation Systems. An Investment Sourcebook.
Washington, World Bank.
Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - - - 179.105.197.79 - 24/08/2019 15:49 - © De Boeck Supérieur

142 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2015/2 – n° 17