


































African Journal of Agricultural Marketing Vol. 2 (2), pp. 095-100, February, 2014. Available online at 
www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 
 
 
 
 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

Hi-tech potential in plantain and banana improvement 

system in Nigeria 
 

James Akinsefi
1
* and Jude Okobia

2
 

 
1
SARO Agro allied Nigeria Limited, P. M. B. 1490, Okesha, Ilesha, Nigeria. 

2
Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria. 

 
Accepted 8 October, 2013 

 
The stakeholders were classified into five major groups according to their actions in the system; the 
groups include research agency, government agency, technology transfer agency, marketers and 
plantain and banana farmers. Four states which are zonal headquarters of Plantain Resource Training 
Centre, Abia, Akwa Ibom, Edo and Ogun states were selected and sampled for data collection. A total of 
95 respondents were sampled for data collection. Percentages, means and factor analysis were used in 
data analysis and presentation. The research and technology transfer groups contributed over 90% of 
the technological capability in plantain and banana innovation system IITA, NIHORT and NSPRI were 
revealed as the major technology generating agencies in the plantain and banana innovation system. 
The study concluded that constant interactions and exchange of ideas among stakeholders encouraged 
learning and optimization of technological capability in the plantain and banana innovation system 

 
Key words: Banana, plantain, stakeholder, technological capability, innovation system. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Innovation systems represent a significant change from 
the conventional, linear perspectives about agricultural 
research and development (R and D). It involves the 
analysis of complex relationships between innovative pro-
cesses that are generated among multiple agents, social 
and economic institutions. The concept refers to the 
system where all stakeholders are involved in the genera-
tion, diffusion, adoption and use of knowledge. However, 
contemporary thinking on the production and use of 
knowledge suggests that institutional factors are a central 
component of capacity development (Edquist, 1997; 
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2005). It is apparent that there is a 
generic problem with capacity development approach that 
focus on research components only to produce 
knowledge, with failure to develop complementary struc-
tures to put that knowledge into use within the economy 
(Hall, 2002; Chataway et al., 2005). Learning and capa-
city development in a contemporary sense is a multidi-
mensional concept that requires skills or contributions 
 
 

 
*Corresponding author. E -mail: james_akinsefi@yahoo.com. 

Tel: +234-8022105146.  

 
 
 

 
contributions from both scientific and non-scientific 
sources. The problem remains that technologies in plan-
tain and banana hitherto are fragmented with no support 
base from complimentary organisations. Relationship has 
been more of competition rather than cooperation which 
has affected the development of the crop and underplays 
its important in food security in Nigeria. The capability to 
interact, acquire, adapt and utilize this knowledge in 
plantain and banana innovation system in Nigeria is what 
this study set out to examine. 
 
 
Objective of the study 
 
The general objective of the study was to examine the 
technological capabilities of stakeholders in the banana 
and plantain innovation system in Nigeria. Specifically, 
the study: 
 
1. Examined the learning and technological capabilities of 
selected key actors in banana and plantain innovation 
system.   
2. Established the contribution of each stakeholder in 

technology availability and use.  



Akinsefi & Okobia              095 
 
 

 
METHODOLOGY 
 
Study area 
 
The study was carried out in the banana and plantain belt in 
southern Nigeria (Figure 1) made up of 11 states (Abia, Akwa-Ibom, 
Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ogun, Ondo, Oyo and 
Rivers). The sampling states were classified into 4 zones on the 
basis of agro-ecological, socio-political and socio-cultural homo-
geneity. Each zone has a zonal headquarters known as Plantain 
Resource Training Centre (PRTC). The zonal headquarters (Abia, 
Akwa-Ibom, Edo and Ogun) which serve as the main hub of 
technology validation and dissemination for IITA (main source of 
banana and plantain technology) and training centre for banana and 
plantain production, utilization and marketing were selected. For the 
purpose of this study the population consisted of stake-holders from 
a general list of participants that were part of banana and plantain 
innovation system compiled from a review of literature on banana 
and plantain innovation system in Nigeria. The list was revised and 
the agents in the innovation system were classified according to 
their activities within the system. The classifications included 
research group (6) (IITA Onne, NIHORT Ibadan, RMRDC Abuja, 

NSPRI Port Harcourt, FIIRO Oshodi and universities faculties of 
agriculture Nsukka, Ibadan, Umuahia); governmental agencies 
group (5) (Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA) Abuja, Federal 
Ministry of Commerce (FMC) Abuja, Plantain and Banana 
Development Program (PBDP) Ibadan and National Food Drug 
Administration and Control (NAFDAC) Abuja and National Biotech-
nology Development Agencies (NABDA) Abuja and technology 
transfer group (7) (state’ ADPs - zonal headquarters of PRTC) in 
the plantain-growing belt (Abeokuta, Benin, Uyo, Umuahia), Food 

for All International (FFAI) Port Harcourt, Agriculture and Impact 
Assessment Centre (AGRICPACT) Port Harcourt, Plantain and 
Banana Growers Association west and their eastern counterparts 
Shagamu and Ughelli, Nigeria Agip Oil Company (NAOC) Port Har-
court and Shell Development Company Port Harcourt (SPDC), and 
agricultural departments. Other stakeholders group includes 
Farmers (60) and marketers (20) related to plantain and banana.  

The plantain and banana sections of the research institutes and 

the faculty of agriculture of universities in the plantain-growing belt 
were taken as a population. Furthermore, governmental and non 
governmental agencies with related activities to plantain and 
banana as well as plantain and banana farmers and marketers 
were sampled.  

A total of ninety five respondents were sampled (Table 1) and 
responses from the most senior and experienced officers working 
on plantain and banana in these agencies were recorded and 
analyzed, because they are better able to recall with consistence 
practices over a long period of time, particularly the study period of 
2001 - 2006. For farmer’s and marketer’s groups fifteen farmers 
and five marketers were sampled in each of the four zonal PRTC 
state. However, data from 1 of the marketer respondents cannot be 
used because of observed inconsistencies (the recall ability of the 
respondents was in doubt, with many missing information).  

A validated structured questionnaire and interview schedule was 
used for primary data collection. Data were collected on technolo-
gical capabilities, learning and learning alliances among stake-
holders in the innovation system. The variables measured include 
manpower resources (number of BSc, MSc, PhD and other staff 
categories available to each stakeholder group); trainee profiles 
(number of BSc, MSc, PhD and other trainee categories handled by 
each stakeholder group).  
Land available to stakeholders was measured in hectares while 
percentage land available for banana and plantain research was 
calculated as land for Musa research/total land available × 100. 

Number of laboratory owned by the stakeholders and workshop 
attendance were measured and presented in percentages. The 
statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS, 10) was used for 

 
 
 

 
data analysis. 
 
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
Availability of skilled resources for technology 

generation 
 
Five major groups of stakeholders were identified in the 
review of policy acts and initiatives in plantain and 
banana innovation system (Faturoti et al., 2007). The 
stakeholders include farmers, marketers, research and 
technology transfer agents and government agencies.  

Table 2 reveals the categories and academic levels of 
staff in the various organizations that comprised the 
stakeholders’ groups in banana and plantain innovation 
system. A break down of staff and categories revealed 
that IITA (20.1%) had the highest number of workforce 
engaged in plantain and banana among the stakeholders, 
followed by Akwa-Ibom ADP in the technology transfer 
group (12.1%). Other stakeholders also contributed 
various categories of workforce as shown in Table 2. 
Contribution of the research group to the workforce was 
43.1%, technology transfer group 47.1%, while the 
government agencies involved in plantain and banana 
innovation system contributed 9.8% of the total workforce 
in the innovation system. Assessment of the resource 
availability in terms of innovation generation and deve-
lopment, recorded by data in Table 2, revealed that the 
research agencies had the highest number of staff with 
PhD (61%). These are capable of stimulating, designing 
and generating innovations on plantain and banana. The 
percentage of staff with PhD in the system from techno-
logy transfer group was 26% while government agencies 
contributed 13%. The result reveals that there is high 
potential for new technologies to originate from research 
into the system. The result though expected, will need to 
be applied with caution to avoid the pitfall of on farm 
technology delivery system characterized by top-down 
approach (Hall et al., 2001). Innovation system requires 
the interaction and cooperation of all stakeholders from 
the stage of generation to the diffusion of technologies. 

Therefore, a network of scientists and other stake-
holders in the innovation system to assess felt need and 
target technology generation should be established and 
adequately funded. The population of middle level 
manpower, that is, technical personnel with BSc and MSc 
degrees in the innovation system were highest in the 
technology transfer group (61%). The research group had 
31%, while government agencies that are involved in 
innovation generation and dissemination had 8%. This 
group also assists in the interpretation of scientific infor-
mation for end-users. From the results, there is the need 
to strengthen the technology transfer unit of the system 
so that new innovations can be promptly delivered to end 
users The technology transfer agents were identified to 
play a pivotal role in ensuring cohesion between techno-
logy generators and consumers in the innovation system 



 096      Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
Table 1. Composition of population and sample. 

 

Institution Total population Number sampled per institution/ individual 
Research 6 6 
Government Agencies 5 3 
Technology Transfer 8 7 
Farmers 110 60 
Marketers 20 19 
Total 149 95 

 
 
(Adesina and Baidu-Forson, 1995; Mongeet al., 2008) 
For other categories of staff in the system, research 
agencies provided 67.5%, technology transfer 20%, while 
government agencies provided 12.5%. IITA contributed 
47% of the total workforce in the research group, which 
included 29% of the scientist in the system and 50% of 
staff in the middle level manpower group. The higher 
percentage contribution of staff in plantain and banana 
innovation system by IITA may not be unconnected with 
the high level of funds available to the Institute and its 
international status which gives it the global recognition 
for plantain and banana work in tropical Africa. Also, the 
need to justify donor’s funds and mandates contributed to 
the Institute’s leading role in the innovation system and 

 
 
technological capability (Ortiz, 1997). 

In terms of capacity building in the innovation system, 

Table 2 reveals that a total of 2191 trainees of different 

categories were trained in plantain and banana innova-tion 

system from 2001 to 2006. Research stakeholders 

accounted for 4% of the trainees and government agencies 

had no trainee. This might not be unconnected with their 

traditional role of policy formulation. However, technology 

transfer agents were responsible for training 96% of the 

trainees on plantain and banana. The high number of 

trainees contributed by technology transfer agents ahead of 

other stakeholders might not be uncon-nected with her 

closeness to end- users (farmers) who are in the majority of 

those trained by the technology transfer 

 

Figure 1. Map of Nigeria showing the eleven study states. 



Akinsefi & Okobia              097 
 
 
 
Table 2. Distribution of respondents according to technical capability and capacity building. 
 
     Staff profile      Trainees profile   

 

No. Institute BSc 
MSc PhD % PhD Others 

Total % total 
BSc MSc PhD % PhD Others 

Total % 
 

   staff staff Trainee Trainee  

            
 

1 IITA ® 10 7 4 17.4 14 35 20.1 0 8 2 67 2 12 1 
 

2 MOCA ® 1 1 1 4.35 2 5 2.9 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 
 

3 RMRDC ® 0 1 1 4.35 3 5 2.9 0 2 1 33 0 3 0 
 

4 UI ® 4 0 2 8.7 0 6 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 

5 NIHORT® 3 2 3 13 8 16 9.2 35 10 0 0 17 62 3 
 

6 UNN ® 2 3 3 13 0 8 4.6 2 3 0 0 0 5 0 
 

Total ®  20 14 14 60.9 27 75 43.1 37 23 3 100 23 86 4 
 

7 NABDA(G) 0 3 1 4.35 0 4 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 

8 PBDP (G) 2 3 0 0 2 7 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 

9 NAFDAC (G) 0 1 2 8.7 3 6 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 

Total G  2 7 3 13 5 17 9.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 

10 Abia ADP (T) 4 1 0 0 1 6 3.4 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 
 

11 Agripact 4 1 1 4.35 0 6 3.4 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 
 

12 Akwa Ibom ADP 19 1 0 0 1 21 12.1 130 0 0 0 875 1005 46 
 

13 Edo ADP 3 2 0 0 2 7 4.0 20 0 0 0 980 1000 46 
 

14 Ogun ADP 0 9 0 0 1 10 5.7 5 0 0 0  5 0 
 

15 FFAI 11 0 3 13 0 14 8.0  0 0 0 45 45 2 
 

16 NAOC 11 2 2 8.7 3 18 10.3  0 0 0 40 40 2 
 

Total T  52 16 6 26.1 8 82 47.1 155 0 0 0 1950 2105 96 
 

Gran Grand total 74 37 23 100 40 174 100 192 23 3 100 1973 2191 100 
 

% Re Research contribution 27 38 61 61 68 43 43 19 100 100 100 1 4  
 

Con  Government contribution 3 19 13 13 13 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0  
 

%Tec Tech transfer contribution 70 43 26 26 20 47 47 81 0 0 0 99 96  
  

Source: Field survey, 2007. 
 

 
agents. This is in agreement with some authors 
who asserts that extension personnel are better 
placed for technology transfer and delivery 
(Conley and Udry, 2001; Dinar et al., 2007).  
The implication of these is that for optimum 
farmers’ integration and technology adoption, 
technology transfer agents need to be streng-
thened/empowered as they have the largest reach 

 

 
with farmers (end users). A breakdown of 
trainees’ categories reveals that research was 
responsible for 100% of the trainees in the 
scientist’s category (PhD level). This is not unex-
pected as research had the highest number of 
staff in that category and thus the technical 
capability to handle trainees at that level. For the 
middle level manpower trainees, research contri- 

 

 
buted 28%, while technology transfer agents 
contributed 72% of trainees in the category. The 
paucity of high level trainees (0.13%), in the study 
(Table 2), suggests the need for improvement in 
the development of high level manpower in the 
plantain and banana innovation system. This 
deserves attention so that technology generation 
can be sustained in the system. Hall et al. (2003) 



  
 
 
 
Table 3. Resources available for plantain and banana technology validation. 
 

No. Institute 
Total land Land for % land for No. of on- No. of Workshop 

 

(ha) Musa (ha) Musa farm trials laboratory attendance  

  
 

1 IITA (R) 100 10 10.00 22 3 4 
 

2 MOCA ® 300 2 0.67 3 1 3 
 

3 NIHORT® 350 3 0.86 3 2 2 
 

4 RMRDC® 3 0 0.00 0 1 0 
 

5 UNN® 20 1 5.00 1 2 2 
 

  773 16 2.07 29   
 

6 Abia ADP(T) 4 1 25.00 1 0  
 

7 AGRIPACT(T) 2 1 50.00 1 0 3 
 

8 AIbom ADP(T) 155 3 1.94 144 0 2 
 

9 EDO ADP (T) 8 2 25.00 6 0 3 
 

10 FFAI (T) 3 1 33.00 2 0 3 
 

11 NAOC (T) 27 1 3.70 3 0 2 
 

12 Ogun ADP (T) 50 2 4.00 3 0 2 
 

 Total 249 11 4.42 160 0 3 
 

 Grand total 1022 27 2.64 189 8  
  

Source: Field survey, 2007. 
 
 
had earlier reported that innovation systems are 
sustained by high turn over of trainees facilitated by tech-
nology transfer agents who are trained by the research 
group. 
 
 
Capabilities for technology validation 
 
The total land available to stakeholders for research was 
1022 ha out of which only 27 ha (2.64%) was dedicated 
to plantain and banana research and technology valida-
tion work in the innovation system (Table 3). Research 
organizations contributed 773 ha (76%) of land to the 
innovation system; out of this only 2.07% was dedicated 
to plantain and banana research. IITA committed 10% of 
its total land holding to banana and plantain research 
while other stakeholders also had negligible area of land 
available for plantain and banana research. MOCA had 
0.66%, while NIHORT with national mandate for fruits 
and vegetables committed only 0.86% of its land to 
plantain and banana. All the research stakeholders had 
laboratories, where plantain technologies were developed 
and validated for further dissemination.  

All the research stakeholders except UI and RMRDC 
had on-farm trials where research results were further 
validated, but the number of on-farm trials varied from 
one institute to the other. IITA had 22 sites, MOCA and 
NIHORT had 3 each and UNN had one site. Research 
stakeholders had 15.3% of on-farm trial in banana and 
plantain; the remaining 84.7% of the on-farm trials were 
contributed by technology transfer stakeholders in the 
system. Altogether there were 189 plantain and banana 
on-farm trials spread across 12 states of Nigeria, 
technology transfer agents alone had 160 on farm trials 

 
 
(84.7%). This result is not a deviation from the long held 
belief that technology transfer agents are catalyst to 
technology delivery and can stimulate social interactions 
needed to foster innovation promotion (Monge et al., 
2008). Also the high number of on farm trials by the 
technology transfer agents was as a result of learning 
acquired through various workshop interactions among 
the stakeholders and principal technology generators 
(research) in the system. Only 50% of research stake-
holders had been invited by other research stakeholders 
to participate in technology development while, RMRDC, 
UI and UNN had never been invited by other stake-
holders to participate in technology development. All but 
8.3% had attended banana and plantain workshops. T he 
paucity of intra stakeholder exchange of ideas, know-
ledge and interactions is a limitation to knowledge sharing 
and interactive learning needed to make produc-tive use 
of knowledge as observed by Hall and Dijkman (2006). 
 
 
 
Farmers learning and technology adaptation 
 
Results from the sixty farmers sampled (Table 4) 
revealed a narrow base of technology awareness by 
primary farmers, that is farmers involved in on-farm trials. 
The major source of awareness and learning common to 
all the sampled farmers was field day, which is a program 
organised to showcase a technology. The innovations are 
displayed, explained and then operated by participants. 
Okunade (2007) had reported that field day demon-
stration of innovations and technologies is the most 
effective extension teaching methods in acquiring 
knowledge, skills and attitude. 

098      Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 



       
 

 Table 4. Farmers awareness and adoption of technology.    
 

          
 

   
No. State 

No of primary 
Source of awareness 

No farmers with Two main Sources of Total farmers 
 

   farmers technology sampled awareness sampled  

      
 

 1 Abia 5 ADP/IITA/field day 10 Field day/ farmers 15 
 

 2 Akwa-Ibom 5 ADP/IITA/field day 10 Field day, farmers 15 
 

 3 Edo 5 ADP/IITA/field day 10 Field day/ farmers 15 
 

 4 Ogun 5 ADP/IITA/field day 10 Field day/farmers 15 
 

   Total  20  40  60 
  

Source: Field survey, 2007. 
 
 
Table 5. Technology development, awareness, and dissemination/adoption status. 
 
 

No Innovations developed 
Institution of Dissemination Main agency of Main Year of Aware-ness Adoption status Adoption/ Awareness 

 

 
development Year dissemination awareness % (%) ratio  

   
 

 1 New varieties IITA 1999 Extension 2001 - 2007 85 82 0.96 
 

 2 Planting time NIHORT 1999 Extension 2001 - 2007 67 32 0.48 
 

 3 Type of sucker NIHORT 1997 Extension 2001 -2007 92 50 0.54 
 

 4 Hot water treatment IITA 1999 Extension 2001- 2007 92 27 0.29 
 

 5 Spacing NIHORT 1999 Extension 2001 - 2007 82 56 0.68 
 

 6 Pruning IITA 2000 Extension 2001- 2007 72 62 0.86 
 

 7 Mulching UNIVERSITY 2000 Extension 2001 - 2007 73 35 0.48 
 

 8 Fertilizer UNIVERSITY 1999 Extension 2004 - 2007 38 29 0.76 
 

 9 Post harvest IITA 2000 Extension 2004 - 2007 58 30 0.52 
 

 10 Weeding UNIVERSITY 1996 Extension 2004 - 2007 35 15 0.43 
 

 11 Sucker Multiplication IITA 2003 Extension 2004 - 2007 68 47 0.69 
 

 12 Debudding IITA 2000 Extension 2004 - 2007 55 48 0.87 
 

 13 Desuckering IITA 2000 Extension 2004 - 2007 55 28 0.51 
 

 14 Herbicide UNIVERSITY 2000 Extension 2004 - 2007 52 35 0.67 
 

 15 Staking NIHORT 1996 Extension 2004 - 2007 50 45 0.9 
  

Source: Field survey, 2007. 
 

 
Identification and examination of the levels of 

adoption of technology developed in plantain 

and banana innovation system in Nigeria 
 
A sample of innovations developed and dissemi-

nated (Table 5) revealed that 15 technologies were 

 

 
developed and widely disseminated among the 
stakeholders in the innovation system.  
The data also revealed the innovations 

developed, institution of development, year of first 
dissemination, year of awareness, awareness 
status and adoption status as well as aware/adop- 

 

 
tion ratio. The results in Table 5 revealed that 
there was a time interval between innovation 
development, dissemination and awareness; it 
also showed marked difference in awareness and 
adoption status.  

Furthermore, the result revealed that extension 

Akinsefi & Okobia              099 

 

 

100      Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 



 
 
 

 
(ADP/NGO) was the highest disseminating agents of 
these technologies. This result is in agreement with many 
authors on the facts that technology goes through a 
period of acquisition, adaptation, dissemination, adoption 
and diffusion; it also confirms the stepwise nature of 
adoption (Longo, 1990; Lindner et al., 1979; Rogers and 
Kincaid, 1981). 

 
Conclusion 
 
The study concluded that various stakeholders have 
different technological capability and resources that can 
be better harnessed through formal and informal interac-
tions as it was through workshop in the study. The fifteen 
technologies identified, disseminated and used in the 
innovation system emanates from different actors and are 
complimentary to each other, as proper use of one 
enhances the productivity of another. Learning is thus 
enhanced when stakeholders saw the operations of a 
technology with another stakeholder, this unimpeded 
interaction, knowledge exchange and adaptation 
removed the hitherto unhealthy competitive interaction 
among stakeholders as technology becomes the com-
monwealth of the innovation system that can be used by 
stakeholders without hindrance. The high adoption status 
of the technologies recorded was attributed to the 
complimentary roles of agents in the innovation system 
during the intervening years between awareness and 
adoption of innovations in the study.  

However the paucity of high level trainees (0.13%) in 
the study is not supportive of plantain and banana inno-
vation system and thus deserves attention if technology 
generation will have to continue in the system. IITA and 
NIHORT were identified as the major technology gene-
rating agencies in the plantain and banana innovation 
system, while the extension (ADP) was the main 
disseminating agents of the technologies. 

 
Recommendations 
 
There will be need to develop a framework for analysing 
plantain and banana innovation system using the model 
of plantain resource training centres discussed in this 
study. 

 

  
 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Adesina AA, Baidu-Forson J (1995). Farmers’ perception and adoption 

of new agricultural technology: Evidence from analysis in Burkina 
Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agric. Econ. 13: 1–9. 

Chataway J, Smith J, Wield D (2005). Partnerships for building science 
and technology capacity in Africa: Canadian and UK Experience. 
Paper prepared for the Africa-Canada-UK exploration: Building Sci-
ence and Technology capacity with African Partners, 30 January–1 
February 2005, Canada House, London.  

Conley TG, Udry CR (2001). Social learning through networks. The 
adoption of new agricultural technologies in Ghana. Am. J. Agric. 

Econ. 83(3): 668–673. 
Dinar A, Karagiannis G, Tzouvelekas V (2007). Evaluating the impact of 

agricultural extension on farms performance in Crete: a non neutral 

stochastic frontier approach. Agric. Econ. 36: 135–146. 
Edquist C (1997). Systems of Innovation Approaches: Technologies, 

Institutions and organisations. Pinter, Casell Academic, London.  
Faturoti BO, Madukwe MC, Tenkouano A, Agwu AE (2007). A review of 

policy acts and initiatives in plantain and banana innovation system in 
Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 6(20): 2297–2302. 

Hall A, Dijkman J (2006). Capacity development for agricultural biotech-
nology in developing countries: Concepts, contexts, case studies and 
operational challenges of a systems perspective. United Nations 

University (UNU-Merit) Working paper series pp 1-33.  
Hall A, Sulaiman R, Clark N, Yoganand B (2003). From measuring 

impact to Learning institutional lessons: An innovation systems per-
spective on improving the management of international agricultural 
research. Agric. Sys. 78: 213–241.  

Hall AJ (2002). Innovation systems and capacity development: agenda 
for North-South research collaboration. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 
Sustain. Dev. 1(3): 146–152. 

Hall AJ, Sivamohan MVK, Clark N, Taylor S, Bockett G (2001). Why 
Research Partnerships Really Matter: Innovation Theory, Institutional 
Arrangements and Implications for the Developing New Technology 
for the Poor. World Dev. 29(5): 783–797.  

Lindner RA, Fischer J, Parley P (1979). The time to adoption. Econ. 
Lett. 2: 187–190. 

Longo RMJ (1990). Information transfer and the adoption of agricultural 

innovations. J. Am. Soc. info. Sci. 41: 1–9. 

100      Afr. J. Agric. Mark. 


