Innovation and Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riad20

A dialogue between innovation studies of

economic development and transition studies: an
illustration from Argentina’s agriculture sector

Anabel Marin & Patrick van Zwanenberg

To cite this article: Anabel Marin & Patrick van Zwanenberg (2023): A dialogue
between innovation studies of economic development and transition studies: an
illustration from Argentina’s agriculture sector, Innovation and Development, DOI:
10.1080/2157930X.2023.2170855

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2023.2170855

Published online: 13 Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riad20
INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2023.2170855

A dialogue between innovation studies of economic

development and transition studies: an illustration from
Argentina’s agriculture sector
Anabel Marina,b and Patrick van Zwanenbergc,d
a
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK; bConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas
y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina; cConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET),
Centro de Investigaciones para la Transformación (CENIT), Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina;
d
SPRU – Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A dominant perspective within the field of development economics Received 4 November 2022
is that structural change away from the industries that developing Accepted 18 January 2023
countries traditionally specialize in, such as agriculture and mining,
KEYWORDS
is necessary to support a broad process of development. In this Structural change for
paper, we ask whether and how structural change within, as well sustainability; agriculture;
as away from, such industries might help create more Argentina; transition studies;
economically successful, socially just and environmentally benign innovation studies of
trajectories of progress. Combining insights from innovation development
studies of economic development with ideas from socio-technical
transitions studies, we analyse two cases of alternative,
potentially transformative agricultural ventures in Argentina. We
explore their practices, relative to mainstream ventures, and
reflect on their potential to contribute to more sustainable
trajectories of change within and out of the mainstream
agricultural sector, and the ways in which they can be supported
to do so.

1. Introduction
For over 60 years, the field of development economics has been concerned with fostering
structural change and diversification, away from industries considered to have low
potential to contribute to processes of growth and economic development (Prebisch
1950; Humphreys et al. 2007). In this paper, we ask whether there is potential for struc-
tural change and diversification within as well as away from industries, in ways that
enable them to play a more progressive role in development; one that not only supports
improved economic and innovation outcomes, but also human well-being more broadly,
social equity and environmental integrity.
In order to reflect on this question, we combine insights from innovation studies of
economic development with those from socio-technical transition studies. Both bodies
of literature are concerned with understanding structural change but do so in different
ways. Innovation studies applied to problems of economic development have usually

CONTACT Anabel Marin a.marin@ids.ac.uk

© 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

assumed that existing market leaders define the best practices and terrain for ‘catching
up’, and have focused on market, business, institutional and technological determi-
nants of this process (Bell 2010; Kim 1998). Transition studies propose a more con-
tingent view of structural change; one that emphasizes the existence and value of
diverse social and technological practices, competing possible trajectories of change,
and the role that human agency and power in variously hindering or enabling
those trajectories (Kemp, Schot, and Hoogma 1998; Köhler et al. 2019). We suggest
that these analytical perspectives, although they have been applied to different pro-
blems, when linked together, can be useful for exploring the potential for sustainable
pathways of change, both within and away from problematic industrial practices in
developing country settings. This is the analytical research problem that we address
in this paper.
In order to address this problem, we outline an empirical approach that combines
insights from both bodies of research and we use this to analyse two distinctive cases
of ‘alternative agricultural ventures’ in Argentina. The analysis characterizes those ven-
tures in terms of the degrees of alignment with and distance from the most well-estab-
lished but, in sustainability terms, problematic socio-technical practices in the
agricultural sector. By analysing these cases, we seek to begin to understand how alterna-
tive businesses can contribute to more sustainable trajectories of change.
The paper makes two contributions. The first is to illustrate empirically how these two
analytical perspectives might be used in conjunction. The second is to point to ways in
which innovation studies of development might be enriched with insights from socio-
technical transition studies. The practical policy implications of these suggested shifts
in analytical perspective are important and are discussed in the paper.

2. Theoretical discussion
2.1. Innovation studies of economic development
A prevailing view within the field of innovation studies of economic development is that
some economic activities provide more opportunities for enabling sustained growth,
and therefore to promote economic development than others (Prebisch 1954; Hum-
phreys et al. 2007). This is because they are more dynamic and offer more opportunities
for applying new knowledge, learning, and creating linkages with other sectors (or diver-
sification) (Hirschman 1958; Klevorick et al. 1995; Cimoli and Porcile 2009). That view
rests on the assumption that the dominant technologies characteristic of any particular
industrial activity are largely given, particularly for developing countries.
In line with these ideas, significant efforts have been devoted to understanding diver-
sification away from industries considered poor in terms of economic development
impact. Hirschman (1958) first introduced the importance of backward and forward lin-
kages as key to encouraging diversification. Building on these ideas, different bodies of
research within the field of innovation studies of economic development have explored
macro, meso and micro determinants of structural change and diversification. The
studies concerned with macro determinants have focused on how existing economic
structures and knowledge distances between sectors affect the possibilities of linkages
and diversification (Hausmann, Rodrik, and Velasco 2006), whilst micro and meso-level
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 3

approaches have highlighted the importance of firm-level investments and sectoral pol-
icies and institutions (Malerba 2002; Bell and Pavitt 1993).
Although this body of work has underpinned numerous policy initiatives, many devel-
oping countries remain heavily specialized in industries associated with poor develop-
ment outcomes (Ocampo 2017). A complementary question to ask, therefore, is
whether change can also take place within industries so that they can play a more pro-
gressive role in development, and if so, how? Although analyses of innovation in devel-
oping country settings have explored changes within industries, this work has focused
mainly on how to encourage technological learning and upgrading along existing tech-
nological trajectories (Bell 2010). We are interested in possibilities for change that
enable greater social equity and improved environmental outcomes, as well as improved
technological performance; that is, in changes within industries so that they can facilitate
multiple development objectives (Ciarli, Savona, and Thorpe 2021; Van den Bergh 2007;
Mazzucato 2018). We call this structural change for sustainability (see Box 1). On this
issue, transition studies can make an important contribution.

Box 1: Key concepts

Structural change: traditionally refers to changes between sectors, moving from simpler, less dynamic, to more
complex sectors, which use knowledge more intensively and promote linkages.

Now it is used more broadly to include technological upgrading within sectors – improvement along existing market
and technology trajectories.

Inclusive structural change is used to refer to changes that have a positive impact on labour inclusion and income
distribution.

Structural change for sustainability: socio-technical change that may be both within as well as between sectors, and
that facilitates multiple development objectives.

Sources: Cimoli and Porcile (2009); Ciarli, Savona, and Thorpe (2021).

2.2. Transition studies

Transition studies is concerned with how to steer and accelerate transformations in
entire socio-technological systems so that their environmental performance is radically
improved (Köhler et al. 2019). Transition theory draws on evolutionary economics,
but it incorporates a more sociological conception of technology in which path depen-
dence and structural change are not only shaped by knowledge and markets, but also
from users’ habits and expectations, for instance, or the ways in which institutions and
policy privilege certain kinds of technological practice (Rip and Kemp 1998). Impor-
tantly, transition researchers have insisted that neither the generation of innovative var-
iants or selection processes should be understood in overly deterministic ways. Actors
make choices about the kinds of knowledge and artefacts they wish to develop; they
anticipate and influence the reactions of others; and they try to increase the chances of
survival of the products of their innovative efforts (Schot 1998).
Building on this ‘quasi-evolutionary’ perspective, the field gives a prominent role in
processes of system change to alternative ideas, knowledge and practices that are devel-
oped in spaces that the literature refers to as ‘niches’, that are to some degree protected
4 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

from the selection pressures generated by existing systems (Schot and Geels 2008).
Niche-based actors are seen not only as actively developing alternative technologies,
practices and businesses but also building wider networks of support and trying to
influence prevailing selection environments (Kemp, Schot, and Hoogma 1998). For
example, niche actors may influence user preferences, lobby for supporting regulations,
or represent their novel practices as solutions to changes that are causing problems for
incumbent systems (Smith and Raven 2012). In some circumstances, niche practices
may become competitive and translate into more mainstream business, in others, they
never develop beyond experimental activities.

2.3. Linking the two approaches

We suggest that there are at least two reasons why transition studies can help enrich
innovation studies of economic development in thinking about processes of structural
change. First, by focusing on the objective of environmental sustainability – a blind
spot in much of the innovation studies of economic development literature – transitions
perspectives help to accommodate ideas about the multiple objectives of development,
and point to how apparent trade-offs between those multiple objectives might be recon-
ciled through processes of structural change within existing industrial sectors. Second,
transition studies emphasize the important role of non-market forces in both variety
creation and processes of selection. This is an important broadening of perspective for
low- and middle-income country contexts where, typically, markets perform poorly
and non-market forces are often of greater importance to the organization of economic
activity.
In the next section, we illustrate empirically how these two perspectives might be used
in conjunction in the case of agriculture in Argentina.

3. Methodology
3.1. Empirical evidence
The empirical analysis in this study began with a characterization of the most extended
agricultural practices in Argentina, based on both statistical and published information
and interviews. A provisional list of alternative agricultural ventures was identified based
on two criteria: (i) ambitions to improve some dimensions of social, environmental and
economic performance, relative to that of mainstream agricultural practice; and (ii) pro-
visional evidence that some of the socio-technical-economic practices adopted by candi-
date alternative ventures were distinct from mainstream agricultural practice. Our
definition of alternative ventures is similar to the idea of niches, in that they are experi-
menting with different ideas, knowledge and technological practices.
Improved performance was defined as follows: (a) economic if the ventures promote
diversification between and/or within industries, knowledge intensification, and learning
and upgrading (Imbs and Wacziarg 2003; Hallak et al. 2018); (b) environmental if the
ventures sought to develop or adopt technological practices that improve biodiversity
and health and that reduce water and soil pollution (Van den Bergh 2007); and (c)
social if the ventures sought to expand inclusion of relatively marginalized groups, via
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 5

the creation of productive employment and involvement in both strategic decision-

making and benefit sharing (Ciarli, Savona, and Thorpe 2021; Konovsky 2000).
From an initial selection of eight alternative ventures, interviews enabled the identifi-
cation of two cases, one of which was radically different from mainstream agriculture in
terms of both practices and sustainability ambitions, and the second of which was more
closely aligned. The two cases are Coopsol, a cooperative that produces and exports
organic and fair-trade honey, and Don Mario, a company that develops seed varieties
using advanced genomic and bioinformatic tools.

3.2. Method of analysis

Drawing on innovation studies and transitions studies, we define ten socio-technical-
economic practice dimensions (see Table 1). Comparing these dimensions between
mainstream agricultural practice and the alternative ventures enables us to explore the
kind of socio-technical disruption that alternatives entail, the extent to which selection
pressures are likely to be favourable or adverse, and the kinds of actions required for
the alternative ventures to expand. This characterization also allows us to make partially
explicit the economic development, environmental sustainability and social equity impli-
cations of both mainstream practices and alternative ventures.
Innovation studies of economic development characterize firms and their close
environment in terms of market, business, institutional and technical dimensions.
These are often used to explore the potential for upgrading, knowledge intensification,
diversification and hence structural change (Katz 1984; Cohen 2010; Crépon, Duguet,
and Mairessec 1998). Three of these are micro-level and relate to firms’ strategies regard-
ing market, technical and organizational aspects: (1) products and services produced, (2)
production processes used, and (3) organizational model (see Table 1) (Bell and Pavitt
1995; Cohen 2010). These dimensions are useful for example, for differentiating
between firms that produce commodities from those that produce differentiated products
and to distinguish firms according to the knowledge intensity of their production pro-
cesses (Hallak et al. 2018; Bell and Pavitt 1995). Organizational models, in the innovation
literature, are often distinguished to capture differences in the capacities of firms to

Table 1. Key socio-technical dimensions considered in the empirical analysis.

Firm level Innovation studies of development (1) Product
(2) Process
(3) Organizational model
Firm and Meso Level interactions Innovation studies of (4) Industrial organizational
development enriched by ideas of transition research model
(5) Market and user demand
(6) Policy and institutions
(7) Knowledge base a. Focus of innovation
b. Favoured technologies
c. Key innovative actors
d. Sources of knowledge
e. Knowledge codification
and appropriability
Firms and meso level Transition studies (8) Guiding principles
(9) Cultural values
(10) Agency, power within the
incumbent system
6 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

introduce new products or processes, but since we are interested in structural change for
sustainability, we use this category to distinguish firms that use hierarchical versus more
horizontal and participative styles of management because of the potential impact on
inclusion (Konovsky 2000). More inclusive models are likely to be conducive to more
just forms of structural change.
The next four dimensions are useful for characterizing differences between main-
stream and alternative ventures, in terms of the interaction of firms with their meso-
level contexts (see Table 1): (4) industrial organizational models, (5) markets and user
relations, (6) policy and institutional support, and (7) knowledge base (Malerba 2002;
Klevorick et al. 1995; Lundvall 1985; Cimoli and Porcile 2011). For example, concen-
trated market structures can be less conducive to different kinds of change since they
require more significant, challenging actions for alternatives to prosper, whilst the invol-
vement of users may favour adaptive, socially useful innovations (Lundvall 1985). These
four dimensions have also been used by researchers in transition studies (drawing on the
innovation literature) to characterize and differentiate between mainstream socio-tech-
nical systems and potential alternatives (Geels 2002).
In order to better anticipate and characterize the economic, social and environmental
development potential of specific practices, we chose to disaggregate the dimension of
‘knowledge base’ into five subcategories: (a) focus of innovation efforts; (b) favoured
technologies; (c) key innovative actors; (d) sources of knowledge; and (e) knowledge
codification and appropriability (Malerba and Orsenigo 1997; Cohen 2010; Smith
2007). This allows us to explore whether, for example, knowledge used is created
locally or transferred from abroad, whether it is embodied in machinery or can be
shared widely, or whether innovation focuses only on productivity increases or also,
or alternatively, on other ends, such as reducing pollution.
The last three practice dimensions are drawn exclusively from transition studies and
refer to broader non-market and non-technological characteristics of incumbent and
alternative socio-technical practices. These are (8) guiding principles, (9) cultural
values and (10) agency and power (Geels 2002; Smith 2007). Again, these three dimen-
sions allow us to appreciate the degree of ‘fit’ or ‘lack of fit’ between mainstream and
alternative ventures, the kinds of actions required to prosper/advance, and/or the poten-
tial sustainability implications of each set of practices.

3.2. Data collection

Qualitative information was collected from multiple sources within and beyond the
alternative ventures. This was obtained during fieldwork conducted in the context of
three research projects. The principal project was on transformative alternatives in the
agriculture, mining and forestry sectors of Argentina, Chile and Brazil,1 which involved
semi-structured interviews with managers and partners of both Coop sol and Don Mario,
and other experts from business associations, universities and government. In two sub-
sequent projects we updated some of our information about Coopsol and Don Mario.
The two projects were: ‘Knowledge Intensive Business Services in the seed industry in
Argentina’2 (a focus on Don Mario only) and Private and public strategies for success
in modern agri-food markets (a focus on both Don Mario and Coopsol).
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 7

4. Empirical analysis
We first describe the main socio-economic-technical practices of the typical venture
within the mainstream agricultural sector, and the principal sustainability problems
that the sector creates. The description addresses each of the ten criteria, summarized
in Table 2, but to provide a coherent narrative, we do not do so in sequential order.
Instead, we include within the text numbers in brackets that correspond to the practice
dimensions listed in column 2 of that table.

4.1. Mainstream ventures

Argentina’s agricultural sector is dominated by large-scale, capital-intensive production
of a small number of commodity crops (2). The typical production venture in the sector
is a farm of 690 hectares that cultivates soy and maize, using transgenic seed varieties (1
and 2) (INDEC 2018). Production is capital and input intensive, with very low use of
labour in the countryside although it is supported by skilled urban workers (2). Favoured
technologies include agrochemical inputs, transgenic seeds and specialized machinery
(7b) (Bisang, Anlló, and Campi 2015).3
The farm may be run by its owner, or more often, by contractors who rent land and
machinery (70% of all production) (Anllo, Bisang, and Katz 2015). The organizational
model is a traditional, hierarchical one; decisions are taken by owners or contractors
without involving workers or users (Bisang, Anlló, and Campi 2008) (3). The guiding
principle is to maximize short-term profits, more so in the case of farms run by contrac-
tors that do not own the land and therefore do not have concerns about its longer-term
viability, for example, in relation to soil degradation (8 and 9). Production is typically
sold in advance to large grain traders, who sell in the international market (personal com-
munication, agricultural producers). Most exports go to middle-income countries for
animal feed, or as input to industrial food production. (https://www.bolsadecereales.
com/). Demand is determined by price and conditions of delivery (5). Key innovators
are input providers, large contractors and intermediary organizations, such as associ-
ations of agricultural producers (7d). The innovation focus of the former is chemicals,
seeds and machinery whilst contractors and intermediary organizations innovate in pro-
cesses (e.g. zero tillage techniques) (Anllo, Bisang, and Katz 2015) (7a). News embodied
in inputs and machinery and is codified and proprietary, and so though with a cost, it
diffuses relatively easily (7a and7e). This knowledge is mainly developed by foreign
firms, although some domestic input providers innovate with seeds and some areas of
machinery (Marin and Stubrin 2015). Practice innovations are more difficult to codify
and appropriate. Public organizations have played an important role in diffusing both
(7c). The principal objective of both product and process innovations has been to
increase production per hectare and minimize short-term costs in a system completely
shaped by markets (9).
The typical venture is supported by an extended network of actors and organizations.
The agricultural sector as a whole possesses significant political power, with representa-
tives in the main conservative political parties; alliances with influential institutions such
as the two main newspapers, which aggressively support the interests of the sector; and
significant participation in key national regulatory bodies, such as on chemical licensing
8 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

Table 2. Socio-economic and technical practices of mainstream and alternative ventures.

Socio-technical dimensions Mainstream Coopsol Don Mario
Firm-level Innovation (1) Product Commodity Differentiated – Differentiated, through
studies of through certification knowledge
development and adaptation to application and
niches adaptation
(2) Process Large-scale, input and Labour and social Knowledge-intensive.
capital intensive capital intensive s. R&D and field based
(3) Organizational Network between Cooperative – Traditional hierarchical
model firms, traditional decentralized within firm, highly
hierarchical within decisions, interconnected with
the firm distributed external partners
capacities
Firm and Meso Level (4) Industrial Competitive, but Atomized, low to Global and domestic
interactions organizational increasing entry medium barriers to seed markets are very
Innovation studies model barriers entry, but higher concentrated.
of development barriers in market
enriches by ideas of niches
transition research (5) Market and For export, global, Global sophisticated Conventional farmers,
user demand price competition, markets – buy from multiple
low interaction with according to price contexts. Farmers are
clients and quality involved in seed
improvement
(6) Policy and International Limited support from When aligned with
institutions regulations, strongly local institutions and interests from large
supported by regulations farmers obtains
domestic support, when there
institutions are misalignments,
support is weak
(7) Knowledge (a) Increase New products for Fast adaptation to
base productivity, reduce emerging niches multiple
costs environments, first-
mover advantages
(b) GM, agrochemicals Locally produced Cross-breeding
and specialized artefacts, adapted to supported by
machinery organic production biotechnology.
Cheaper and more
flexible than
transgenesis
(c) Input providers, The cooperative, Farmers, multipliers,
international and farmers, other firms, research
national, S&T and International NGOs, institutes and input
intermediate local universities providers
institutions
(d) Embodied in Locally generated, In-house R&D, scientific
inputs/specialized adapted to local research, field testing
professionals conditions and
global standards.
Traditional and
scientific
(e) Highly codified, Dispersed, but Public and proprietary.
easy to transfer embodied in Dispersed
entrepreneurs and
local farmers and
international
institutions
Firms and meso-level (8) Guiding Short term maxim Long-term business Long-term profit
Transition studies principles profit-seeking, and local seeking, international
exploiting existing development. Social expansion. Creating
knowledge and and environmental new knowledge and
market sustainability. innovation
Creating new
markets

(Continued)
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 9

Table 2. Continued.
Socio-technical dimensions Mainstream Coopsol Don Mario
(9) Cultural values The large-scale Create value by Profit from first mover
competitive preserving local advantages. Supports
agricultural sector – ecologically and open and
in the Pampean socially rich collaborative model
region – sustains the environments of innovation
Argentinean
economy
(10) Agency, The most powerful Built through Built on internal
power within economic sector in networking, resources and
the incumbent the country multiple alliances capabilities plus
system with different kinds selective alliances
of stakeholders

and transgenic crop authorization (Gras and Hernández 2016; Newell 2009). Domestic
public scientific institutions support mainstream agriculture by performing research
and diffusing technologies that complement the efforts of private firms (6 and 10).
Markets for crops have historically been characterized as competitive, because of low
entry barriers. Increasing requirements for investment in capital goods over the last two
decades have increased the minimum profitable scale, and so crop markets are becoming
more oligopolistic (4) (INDEC 2018).
Over the last two decades, the mainstream agricultural sector in Argentina has been
very successful in supporting the domestic economy and providing the basis for a
limited degree of diversification. The sector perceives itself, and for some, it is perceived
as, one of the main sustainers of the Argentine economy (9). Nevertheless, it has also
created significant economic, social and environmental challenges.

4.1.1. Problems with the mainstream sector that are opening opportunities for
alternatives
The main economic challenge is that of concentration, of three kinds. (i) Production: in
2019, 78% of agricultural exports (half of the total exports) were concentrated in oil seeds,
corn, wheat and barley. (ii) Economic: average farm sizes have increased from 524 to 690
hectares over the last decade, and in 2018, 11% of producers exploited 75% of all agricul-
tural land. (INDEC 2018, https://www.bolsadecereales.com/) (iii) Knowledge: a handful
of firms supply the sector with seeds, herbicides and machinery.
The main social challenges are associated with exclusion since mainstream production
requires hardly any labour. Increased concentration of land also excludes smaller farmers
from the benefits created by agricultural activity, as well as from key decisions (Gras and
y Hernández 2016).
Environmental challenges are present in multiple forms, including soil erosion, defor-
estation, loss of both natural and crop biodiversity, high water and energy usage, and
health problems caused by the increased use of herbicides and insecticides (Oesterheld
2008; Pengue 2009; Zorzoli 2018).
In this context, pressure from civil society for a more sustainable agricultural sector
(Svampa 2018), new knowledge and technological opportunities, and a segmentation
of both domestic and international markets have contributed to the emergence of
alternative agricultural ventures that seek to address at least some of these challenges.
10 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

4.2. Coopsol
Our first case, Coopsol, exemplifies a radically different way to do business compared to
mainstream agriculture. Coopsol is a cooperative (3), based in the north of Argentina,
that produces organic and fair-trade honey, most of which is exported to Europe and
the USA (5 and 1).
The production process is labour and social capital intensive, and it takes advantage of
diversity rather than limiting it. Production requires locally produced artefacts such as
hives (2 and7d) (7b and 7d).
Innovative efforts are focused on creating new products oriented to emerging market
niches, taking advantage of unique Coopsol characteristics (7a). All workers are
business partners and participate in key decision-making processes (3) (3 and 9). Coop-
sol’s activities are guided by profit-making principles, but also those of local develop-
ment and environmental preservation (8) (see Box 2). It sells to premium markets of
high-income countries (5). Production capacities are distributed amongst large
groups of farmers (2, 3 and7a). Beekeeping does not require very complex skills or
large investments in capital, so entry barriers and market concentration are low –
80% of production is performed by smallholders. But, the national honey market is con-
centrated, with five companies responsible for total honey exports in Argentina (4).
Coopsol gains scale by distributing production capacities across a large group of
farmers and concentrating its efforts on areas such as international trade, research
and branding (3).

Box 2: Coopsol: combining multiple development objectives

Coopsol has been economically successful. In 2019, it had a turnover of US$1.6 million and was associated with 600
families utilizing d25,000 beehives. It is the largest organic honey production value chain in Argentina.

Coopsol helps to preserve Chacós environmental resources by promoting beekeeping in areas where the alternatives
are either large-scale farming, or for small producers, charcoal production, both of which involve deforestation
Coopsol also contributes to social goals. Small-scale beekeeping is not sufficient to support a family, so Coopsol
works with local NGOs such as Gran Chaco to encourage beekeepers to diversify their production. The cooperative
also works with the International Bank of Development to build digital infrastructure to facilitate communication.

The cooperative works in regions that are part of the American Gran Chaco, the
second largest forested area of the continent after the Amazon, and diversity of ecosys-
tems. Coopsol aims to and contributes to preserving them (8, 9) (see Box 2).
Key innovators are small farmers and public research institutes, though international
donor institutions and certifying institutions are also key (7c). Farmers innovate mostly
in social practices. Research institutions develop knowledge to support product differen-
tiation (7c, see Box 2).
Ventures like Coopsol in Argentina are not represented in mainstream institutions
related to the agricultural sector and existing regulations do not support their activities.
Argentina has adopted international regulations which facilitate exports of organic pro-
ducts, but there are no domestic policies that help producers transition to organic pro-
duction or to certify it. Nor are there policy measures to protect organic production from
contamination by input-intensive agriculture (6). As a result, companies like Coopsol
have to invest significantly to create the knowledge and networks needed to become
established and expand (see Box 2) (10).
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 11

Box 3: Coopsol: Actions required to expand

Due to the lack of ‘fit’ with the mainstream agricultural system Coopsol has had to take actions to expand, which go
well beyond those typically performed by entrepreneurs. It not only has to create its own market but also the
infrastructure and system-level capacities required to succeed.

To do so, Coopsol has developed alliances with national and international actors, which have been important for
financing and technical issues, R&D, territorial work and advocacy.

Coopsol began with financial support from f the Italian NGO Fondazione Sipec and the US Inter-American
Foundation. It is now profitable but still uses donor funds for special projects. For example, in 2008, it obtained
European funding to enrol more honey producers. The Inter-American Development Bank is financing a connectivity
program to enable farmers’ to fulfil traceability standards.

Coopsol’s work with farmers in the Gran Chaco is undertaken in association with local NGOs, such as el Futuro está en
el Monte, that focus on the preservation of the resources and culture of the area. Coopsol also created the Consorcio
Bio del Norte Argentino to link the efforts of producers to pursue organic and fair-trade certification. R&D projects on
the nutritional and medicinal characteristics of its unifloral honeys are also being conducted with two National
Universities (10).

4.3. Don Mario

Don Mario develops soy, maize and wheat varieties. Unlike commercial crops, a bulk
product, seeds are a highly differentiated, knowledge-intensive and dynamic product.
The firm develops varieties for a range of different agro-ecological environments and
so differs from those developed by large multinational companies (MNCs), which seek
to capture global markets with standardized innovations – e.g. genetically engineered
transgenes (1 and 7a).
Don Mario’s production process is knowledge-intensive, based both in R&D labs
and geographically dispersed fields experiments. Innovation processes are based on
breeding supported by advanced biotechnological tools (e.g. molecular markers)
and bioinformatics (2). Innovations obtained with these technologies cannot be
patented, so the firm’s approach to innovation is essentially an open-source
model, unlike the patent-based business models adopted by the large MNCs, demon-
strating that firms can capture rents with free flows of knowledge (7a, 7b, 8 and 9)
(see Box 4).

Box 4: Don Mario: obtaining profits with an alternative more sustainable model of innovation
Don Mario’s business has multiple positive economic outcomes. It contributes to diversification. It develops a
product that uses new knowledge developed by the company, in partnership with other actors in the innovation
system, and it has innovated and grown using an open-source model, which is beneficial to the wider economy
because it enables wide access to new knowledge, embodied in new seed varieties. The company also makes
significant use of skilled workers in both urban and rural areas and has multiple research partnerships with more
than 50 research institutions in Argentina and abroad. Through some of these agreements, Don Mario supports
postgraduate research, which advances knowledge useful for the company but which remains available to be used
by others (9).

Don Mario is a medium size company with 800 employees, in which decisions are
made by managers designated by the owners. It is a highly professionalized firm, 80%
of whose workers are skilled, nearly half of whom are dedicated full time to R&D
12 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

(2 and 3). The guiding principle of Don Mario is that of international expansion and
the maximization of long-term profits. Innovation demands relatively long-term
investments (a minimum of five years for novel seed varieties) and involves substan-
tial risks. The company also prioritizes its autonomy and independence over short-
term benefits, declining several purchase offers by the multinational agro-chemical
companies that have taken over many independent seed firms over the last three
decades (8).
Don Mario first supplied the Argentinean market, but now exports to 16 countries
with subsidiaries in Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, South Africa, Italy and the
United States. Though the company’s seeds are mainly developed for conventional
large-scale farmers, its technological approach allows it to supply different forms of agri-
culture, such as organic (5, 8 and 9). The global seed market is extremely concentrated,
with three companies controlling more than 60% of the market (4).
Much of the knowledge required by Don Mario is developed in-house, within its
own R&D facilities but the company has multiple partnerships with research institutes
and other science-based firms. The company also relies heavily on links with farmers
and seed multipliers to understand market needs (7c and 7d). It has a large field-
testing network which is used to experiment with varieties developed in the labs. Inno-
vation efforts focus on identifying unknown variability within species that can be useful
in developing new seed characteristics (7a and 7b). The results are not patentable
(under Argentina’s existing institutional rules) and so the company’s seeds, which
embody new knowledge, can be used by others for further breeding without restriction
(7e). Don Mario uses cross-breeding techniques supported by biotechnology to inno-
vate, a less expensive and more flexible technology than transgenesis, the technology
used by large MNCs in the sector, although it is now investing in gene editing (7b).
It licenses transgenic events from MNCs, and incorporates these into some of its var-
ieties (7d).
Don Mario benefits from policies and regulations insofar as the company is closely
connected to the mainstream agricultural sector. However, where the interests of Don
Mario conflict with those of other actors in that sector, existing institutions and rules
typically do not support the company. The primary example is the intellectual prop-
erty rights system for seeds, which currently privileges both the MNCs that dominate
the market for transgenes and large landowners. That system allows MNCs to use
patents to protect their transgene innovations, a much more powerful institutional
tool for capturing rent than the plant variety rights available to Don Mario for its con-
ventional seed breeding-based innovations, whilst landowners are also able to save and
re-plant seeds purchased from Don Mario without paying royalties under existing
legislation for non-transgenic seeds. Another example is the lack of support from
public R&D, which has historically directed most funding to projects aligned with
the biotechnology industry, led by large MNCs, benefiting domestic firms like Bio-
ceres, which are dedicated to identifying genetic constructs for transgenic seed inno-
vation (6) (Marin, Stubrin, and Palacín Roitbarg 2022). Don Mario relies on its
internal capacities and assets to respond to challenges related to issues such as regu-
lation (10, Box 5).
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 13

Box 5: Don Mariós actions required to expand

Where Don Mario’s interests diverge from the typical agricultural venture, a strategic response has been required by
the company. For instance, Don Mario has used private contracts with large farmers that require a fee if farmers save
and replant their seeds, as they are permitted to do under existing legislation. Another problem for the company has
been to obtain a ‘fair’ share of the income distribution from their contribution to improved seed varieties as
compared to the contribution from patented transgenes. Don Mario typically obtains only 30% of the total price,
while the MNCs providing transgenic events obtain the remainder. With intellectual property regulations favouring
landowners, large farmers and MNCs in negotiations over the distribution of rents, Don Mario needs to try and
influence the regulatory system to provide more supportive rules for its open-source business model. In doing so, the
company has developed capabilities that are non-conventional, at least within the innovation studies of economic
development literature (10).

5. How might Coopsol and Don Mario contribute to sustainable structural

change
The discussion above illustrates how both Coopsol and Don Mario diverge, in different
ways, from typical mainstream agricultural ventures, in terms of socio-technical practice.
Some of the implications of those differences for the ability of those individual enter-
prises to expand were noted in Boxes 3 and 5, but in this section we turn to the
dynamic consequences of ventures such as Coopsol and Don Mario; that is, their poten-
tial contribution to future trajectories of socio-technical change.
Transition researchers conceive of distinctive ‘transition pathways’ which fall into two
general types. One involves a radical reorientation of trajectories, caused by the destabi-
lization of existing systems that have failed to respond to internal or external tensions and
problems; the second involves a gradual reorientation of trajectories within well-estab-
lished systems, for instance as a result of the cumulative adoption of incremental inno-
vations that help address problems (Smith, Stirling, and Berkhout 2005; Geels and Schot
2007; Berkhout, Angel, and Wieczorek 2009). With these two broad types of transition
pathways in mind, we can differentiate between two kinds of alternative ventures
(Marin and Smith 2011). One is a path-breaking venture in that it suggests a completely
different way of providing a good or service, relative to the incumbent system and implies
transforming that system radically. For the same reason, however, such ventures are
usually marginal, at least initially, a. A second, path repairing venture, does not challenge
the principles of the incumbent system, and differs in terms of its practice dimensions to
a more limited extent, but might nevertheless make a contribution to its reform by gen-
erating new knowledge and practice.
Coopsol can clearly be understood as a path-breaking venture. Don Mario is less
straightforward because it is neither seeking to replace the incumbent practice, nor is
developing knowledge that could be used to ‘repair’ it. Instead, it seeks to create new
complementary activities (in this case, seed breeding/production), Don Mario might
therefore be better thought of as a ‘path creating’ venture (Marin and Smith 2011).
The potential to transform in this latter case derives not from the gradual reorienta-
tion or replacement of an existing mainstream practice but rather from the creation of
new, complementary activities. Those complementary activities,if they expand, may
help to address problems associated with that system by diminishing its relative econ-
omic importance. This would occur both via diversification per se as well as perhaps
14 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

by rendering that mainstream system more susceptible to challenge and reform, in this
case, for instance, by reducing the relative economic and political power of large land-
owners and farmers in the economy. Diversification out of natural resource-based indus-
tries through path-creating activities has been the trajectory followed by numerous
countries, via the development of supply sectors – e.g. in the USA, Finland, Norway
and Australia (Scott-Kemmis 2013; Andersen, Marin, and Simensen 2018). Innovation
studies of economic development have emphasized the importance of path-creating
business and have studied barriers to their development in emerging economies
(Ciarli, Savona, and Thorpe 2021; Hausmann, Rodrik, and Velasco 2006). Transition
studies have not studied these kinds of ventures in part because they have not been inter-
ested in diversification away from sectors, however, insights from these studies can be
very helpful in understanding non-market and non-cognitive barriers to their expansion.
One aspect that these two ventures have in common is their contribution to diversity.
Although we might usefully conceptualize Coopsol and Don Mario as potential path-
breaking and path-creating ventures, respectively, it is not possible to explore whether
or how the alternative socio-technical practices those ventures embody might contribute,
over the long term, to structural change via, for example, the replication of similar ven-
tures and their associated socio-technical practices, at least not in the absence of longi-
tudinal study over long time periods. Nevertheless, the important point is that the
existence of such diversity is a precondition for any possibility of structural change for
sustainability, whether in terms of gradual reorientation of existing trajectories, or the
emergence of novel trajectories within or away from the mainstream activity In this
sense it is perhaps more useful to think of both Cooposl and Don Mario as path diversi-
fying ventures that might, in the future, contribute to path-breaking, repairing or creating
dynamics, but that are also valuable in themselves since they attend to diverse multiple
objectives (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Transforming NRs: different kinds of transformative alternatives. Source: Own elaboration.
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 15

On this point, we note that some of the ideas advanced within transition studies can
help to provide a rather different lens for appreciating the value of diversity compared to
innovation studies of economic development. Both literature understand structural
change as emerging through the creation of variety and subsequent processes of selection,
and so both would view diversity as useful. However, transitions studies treat diversity as
something that ought to be nurtured and valued, not only because it favours richer selec-
tion processes (i.e. selection can be based on more options), but also because a more
diverse set of options can be useful in helping to solve different development objectives
and the needs of different groups of people. (cf Stirling 2011) With a transition theory
lens, diversification within becomes as important as diversification between industries.

6. Discussion and conclusions

One of the two contributions of this paper has been to point to ways in which innovation
studies of economic development might be enriched with insights from transition
studies. We have argued that bringing transitions perspectives to bear on innovation
studies of development helps to broaden the view that trajectories of change are exclu-
sively defined by existing market leaders, market processes and technological efforts.
Innovation studies of economic development could benefit by giving more centrality
to the idea that structural change is also influenced by how the exercise of power,
whether through institutions, policies or otherwise, shapes the space for what is possible,
viable and profitable for existing, and particularly for new, businesses.
Although not our main focus, it is worth stressing that transition studies may also
benefit from a dialogue between these two bodies of literature. Transition studies has
broadened their traditional focus on environmental sustainability, for example, to
include attention to issues of social justice and equity (Newell and Mulvaney 2013),
although so far this has not prompted the inclusion of economic development, as a
key aspect of sustainability in thinking about socio-technical change. The empirical
work here suggests one way of doing so, but the general point here is that the field of
transition studies would benefit from more attention to the contexts and concerns of
developing countries, where the challenges of sustainable economic growth, unemploy-
ment and inequality are paramount, if it is to engage with global processes of structural
change for sustainability.
The second contribution has been to illustrate how an enriched innovation studies of
the economic development approach can be used to understand the possibilities for, and
determinants of, structural change for sustainability in developing country settings
through an empirical illustration. We wish to highlight two important implications of
working through our empirical cases. One concerns a different view of the value of diver-
sity to that which dominates policy and academic perspectives on innovation and econ-
omic development. That perspective might recognize that diversity is valuable, as a
source of variety generation, but it tends to assume that convergence – between
regions, technologies and practices – is inevitable and desirable, as the most competitive
industrial practices become widely diffused. From this perspective, residual socio-techni-
cal diversity consists primarily of ‘laggard’ firms and practices; a reflection of the failure
to fully ‘catch up’ and modernize. Our view, however, is that diversity is not just a sign of
a failure to modernize, or a source of ideas/practices to generate variety and improve
16 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

processes of selection. Rather, it is a way to meet multiple development objectives. Ven-

tures such as Coopsol that operate with different practices, technologies and logics can be
viable, and with support could flourish and replicate, so long as they are seen, not as evi-
dence of the failure to modernize, but instead as a means of providing a different
response to complex multifactorial development challenges. Coopsol is a business pro-
viding a sustainable livelihood for a rural population that has very few choices (once
‘competitive’ mainstream agriculture has arrived), except to migrate to the slums circling
the large capital cities where some informal employment can usually be found.
A second implication operates at a more micro level. We have learnt, exploring our
cases, that firm-level efforts to augment technological and organizational capabilities,
are not enough for alternative ventures to prosper. As work in the transition field
suggests, in order for alternatives to expand, scale up and replicate, entrepreneurs
need to take a number of non-market actions, for example, to persuade policy-makers
and civil society of the benefits of their activities for society, through lobbying or cam-
paigns (cf Seifu et al. 2020). In our cases, examples include changes in policies, such as
reforms to seed legislation that enable Don Mario to capture rents from their inno-
vations. These kinds of ventures are exploring new ways of doing business, by definition,
and this requires changes within incumbent institutions and to prevailing ideas about
what kinds of business are desirable. The kinds of capabilities and resources that new
ventures need to develop to perform these several non-market activities need more atten-
tion in both transition and innovation studies.
In terms of policy implications, we can consider what might happen if Coopsol, for
example, were to be recognized as a path-breaking business that deploys ideas, practices
and business models that might contribute to more sustainable forms of structural
change, instead of being perceived as a low-productivity social enterprise. If so, the
kind of policy support that it receives would change from that of charitable social assist-
ance, as at present, to that of support for improved competitiveness, e.g. in terms of
increasing Coopsol’s R&D capabilities or help in obtaining certification, or support to
cope with conflicts with the mainstream agricultural practices that undermine its viability
and ability to expand.
In the case of Don Mario, policy-makers might currently recognize that the firm is
valuable in terms of the knowledge intensity of its activities, but it is often seen also as
a relatively backward firm compared to the large MNCs that dominate the global seed
market. An indication of this view, as noted earlier, is how subsidies have supported
domestic firms like Bioceres, which seek to follow the trajectory of large MNCs and
specialize in transgenesis, but not Don Mario. Policy advice for a firm like Don Mario
might be to interact with the national science and technology system in order to reach
the technological frontier in plant breeding, understood as plant genetic engineering,
but might be blind to the economic advantages that a successful open-source model of
innovation involves. At the same time, even though transition studies might have very
useful insights to explore Don Mario, analysts working within this perspective would
be unlikely to even recognize the seed firm as a potentially transformative alternative
venture, because that potential lies primarily in economic aspects of development,
such as knowledge intensity, diversity and path creation, rather than environmental per-
formance. Yet a transition framework that incorporates economic development as a
transformative ambition might recognize the importance of the alternative technological
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 17

choices and innovation models championed by Don Mario, and again the conflicts of
interest between this company and the dominant agricultural regime might come into
clearer focus. Non-technological barriers and so political and policy support for the prac-
tices and business model of Don Mario might be emphasized in addition to R&D
support.
These are important illustrations of the value of a more integrative framework, which
combines ideas from innovations studies of economic development and transition
studies. Further research and reflection are required, however, to develop an agenda
that combines insights from these two frameworks and helps move forward this ambi-
tion. We hope this paper is an inspiration for such a new agenda.

Notes
1. https://opcionessustentables.wixsite.com/recursosnaturales/equipo.
2. http://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/6955.
3. This description applies to crop production, which explains two thirds of agricultural pro-
duction in Argentina. Within the remaining third are other activities that operate with
slightly different modes of production, but most (95%) are also large scale and input and
resource intensive.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the referees and editors for their comments and suggestions,
Rocio Palacin for helping prepare the manuscript, and the IDRC and IADB for funding part of
the research that this paper draws on.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Andersen, A., A. Marin, and E. Simensen. 2018. “Innovation in Natural Resource-Based
Industries: A Pathway to Development? Introduction to Special Issue.” Innovation and
Development 8 (1): 1–27. doi:10.1080/2157930X.2018.1439293.
Anllo, G., R. Bisang, and J. Katz. 2015. Aprendiendo con el agro argentino. Santiago de Chile: FCE-
UBA/Universidad de Chile.
Bell, M. 2010. “Innovation Capabilities and Directions of Development”, STEPS Working Paper 33,
Brighton: STEPS Centre, UK. https://steps-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/bell-paper-33.pdf.
Bell, M., and K. Pavitt. 1993. “Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts
Between Developed and Developing Countries.” Industrial and Corporate Change 2 (2): 157–
210. doi:10.1093/icc/2.2.157.
Bell, M., and K. Pavitt. 1995. “The Development of Technological Capabilities.” In Trade,
Technology and International Competitiveness, edited by I. UL-HAQUE, 69–101.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Berkhout, F., D. Angel, and A. J. Wieczorek. 2009. “Sustainability Transitions in Developing Asia:
Are Alternative Development Pathways Likely?” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76
(2): 215–217. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.04.003.
18 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

Bisang, R., G. Anlló, and M. Campi. 2008. “Una revolución (no tan) silenciosa. Claves para repen-
sar el agro en Argentina.” Desarrollo Económico 48: 165–207. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
27667836.
Bisang, R., G. Anlló, and M. Campi. 2015. Políticas tecnológicas para la innovación: la producción
agrícola argentina. Santiago de Chile: Ciepla.
Ciarli, T., M. Savona, and J. Thorpe. 2021. “Innovation for Inclusive Structural Change.” In The
Challenges of Technology and Economic Catch-Up in Emerging Economies, edited by Lee,
Jeong- Dong, Lee, Keun, Meissner, Dirk, Radosevic, Slavo and Vonortas, Nicholas. Oxford
University Press.
Cimoli, M., and G. Porcile. 2009. “Sources of Learning Paths and Technological Capabilities: An
Introductory Roadmap of Development Processes.” Economics of Innovation and New
Technology 18 (7): 675–694. doi:10.1080/10438590802564600.
Cimoli, M., and G. Porcile. 2011. Learning, Technological Capabilities, and Structural Dynamics. In
The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, W. M. 2010. “Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance.”
Handbook of the Economics of Innovation 1: 129–213. doi:10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01004-X.
Crépon, B., E. Duguet, and J. Mairessec. 1998. “Research, Innovation And Productivi [Ty: An
Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level.” Economics of Innovation and new Technology 7
(2): 115–158. doi:10.1080/10438599800000031
Geels, F. W. 2002. “Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-
Level Perspective and a Case-Study.” Research Policy 31 (8-9): 1257–1274. doi:10.1016/S0048-
7333(02)00062-8.
Geels, F. W., and J. Schot. 2007. “Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways.” Research Policy
36: 399–417. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Gras, C., and V. y Hernández. 2016. Radiografía del nuevo campo argentino. Del terrateniente al
empresario transnacional. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
Hallak, R., G. Assaker, P. O’Connor, and C. Lee. 2018. “Firm Performance in the Upscale
Restaurant Sector: The Effects of Resilience, Creative Self-Efficacy, Innovation and Industry
Experience.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40: 229–240. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.
2017.10.014.
Hausmann, R., D. Rodrik, and A. Velasco. 2006. “Getting the Diagnosis Right.” Finance &
Development 43 (1): 12–15.
Hirschman, A. O. 1958. The Strategy of Economic Development. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Humphreys, M., J. D. Sachs, J. E. Stiglitz, G. Soros, and M. Humphreys. 2007. Escaping the
Resource Curse. New York: Columbia University Press.
Imbs, J., and R. Wacziarg. 2003. “Stages of Diversification.” American Economic Review 93 (1): 63–
86. doi:10.1257/000282803321455160.
INDEC. 2018. Cuestionario del censista, Censo Nacional Agropecuario.
Katz, J. M. 1984. “Domestic Technological Innovations and Dynamic Comparative Advantage:
Further Reflections on a Comparative Case-Study Program.” Journal of Development
Economics 16 (1–2): 13–37. doi:10.1016/0304-3878(84)90100-7.
Kemp, R., J. Schot, and R. Hoogma. 1998. “Regime Shifts to Sustainability Through Processes of
Niche Formation: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management.” Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 10 (2): 175–198. doi:10.1080/09537329808524310.
Kim, L. 1998. “Crisis Construction and Organizational Learning: Capability Building in Catching-
up at Hyundai Motor.” Organization Science 9 (4): 506–521. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.4.506.
Klevorick, A. K., R. C. Levin, R. R. Nelson, and S. G. Winter. 1995. “On the Sources and
Significance of Interindustry Differences in Technological Opportunities.” Research Policy 24
(2): 185–205. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(93)00762-I.
Köhler, J., Frank W. Geels, Florian Kern, Jochen Markard, Elsie Onsongo, Anna Wieczorek,
Floortje Alkemade, et al. 2019. “An Agenda for Sustainability Transitions Research: State of
the art and Future Directions.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31: 1–32.
doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.
 INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 19

Konovsky, M. A. 2000. “Understanding Procedural Justice and its Impact on Business

Organizations.” Journal of Management 26 (3): 489–511. doi:10.1177/014920630002600306.
Lundvall, B. A. 1985. “Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction.” The Learning Economy
and the Economics of Hope 19: 19–60.
Malerba, F. 2002. “Sectoral Systems of Innovation and Production.” Research Policy 31 (2): 247–
264. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00139-1.
Malerba, F., and L. Orsenigo. 1997. “Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative
Activities.” Industrial and Corporate Change 6 (1): 83–118. doi:10.1093/icc/6.1.83.
Marin, A., and A. Smith. 2011. Towards a framework for analysing the transformation of Natural
Resource-based industries in Latin America: the role of alternatives. http://nrpathways.wix.com/
home.
Marin, A., and L. Stubrin. 2015. Oportunidades y desafíos para convertirse en un innovador
mundial en Recursos Naturales (RN). El caso de las empresas de semillas en Argentina. Buenos
Aires: Documento de Trabajo CENIT.
Marin, A., L. I. Stubrin, and R. Palacín Roitbarg. 2022. “Growing from the South in the Seed
Market: Grupo Don Mario.” Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies
12(4): 656-672.. doi:10.1108/JADEE-11-2021-0307.
Mazzucato, M. 2018. “Mission-oriented Innovation Policies: Challenges and Opportunities.”
Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 803–815. doi:10.1093/icc/dty034.
Newell, P. 2009. “Bio-Hegemony: The Political Economy of Agricultural Biotechnology in
Argentina.” Journal of Latin American Studies 41: 27–57. doi:10.1017/S0022216X08005105.
Newell, P., and D. Mulvaney. 2013. “The Political Economy of the ‘Just Transition’.” The
Geographical Journal 179 (2): 132–140. doi:10.1111/geoj.12008
Ocampo, José Antonio. 2017. ‘Commodity-Led Development in Latin America’ in Alternative
Pathways to Sustainable Development: Lessons from Latin America, International
Development Policy series No.9. Geneva, Boston, MA: Graduate Institute Publications, Brill-
Nijhoff, pp. 51–76.
Oesterheld, M. 2008. “Impacto de la agricultura sobre los ecosistemas: fundamentos ecológicos y
problemas más relevantes.” Ecología austral 18 (3): 337–346.
Pengue, Walter A. 2009. “Cuestiones económico-ambientales de las transformaciones agrícolas en
las pampas.” Problemas del Desarrollo 40 (157): 137–161.
Prebisch, R. 1950. “The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems.”
reprinted in Economic Bulletin for Latin America 7 (1): 1–22.
Prebisch, R. 1954. Estímulo de la demanda, las inversiones y la aceleración del ritmo de crecimiento,
11–23. New York: En: Estudio económico de América Latina, 1954-E/CN. 12/362/Rev. 1-1954.
Rip, A., and R. Kemp. 1998. “Technological Change.” In Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol 2
Resources and Technology, edited by S. Rayner, and L. Malone, 327–399. Washington, DC:
Batelle Press.
Schot, J. 1998. “The Usefulness of Evolutionary Models for Explaining Innovation. The Case of the
Netherlands in the Nineteenth Century.” History and Technology, an International Journal 14
(3): 173–200. doi:10.1080/07341519808581928
Schot, J. W., and F. W. Geels. 2008. “Strategic Niche Management and Sustainable Innovation
Journeys: Theory, Findings, Research Agenda, and Policy.” Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management 20 (5): 537–554. doi:10.1080/09537320802292651.
Scott-Kemmis, D. 2013. How About Those METS. Leveraging Australia’s Mining Equipment,
Technology and Services Sector. Sydney: Minerals Council of Australia.
Seifu, M., A. van Paassen, L. Klerkx, and C. Leeuwis. 2020. “Anchoring Innovation Methodologies
to ‘go-to-Scale’; a Framework to Guide Agricultural Research for Development.” Agricultural
Systems 182: 102810. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102810.
Smith, A. 2007. “Translating Sustainabilities Between Green Niches and Socio Technical Regimes.”
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19 (4): 427–450. doi:10.1080/09537320701403334.
Smith, A., and R. Raven. 2012. “What is Protective Space? Reconsidering Niches in Transitions to
Sustainability.” Research Policy 41: 1025–1036. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012.
20 A. MARIN AND P. VAN ZWANENBERG

Smith, A., A. Stirling, and F. Berkhout. 2005. “The Governance of Sustainable Socio-Technical
Transitions.” Research Policy 34 (10): 1491–1510. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005.
Stirling, A. 2011. “Pluralising Progress: From Integrative Transitions to Transformative Diversity.”
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1 (1): 82–88. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.03.005.
Svampa, M. 2018. “Latin American Development: Perspectives and Debates.” Latin America Since
the Left Turn. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 13–32. doi:10.9783/
9780812294552-002.
Van den Bergh, J. C. 2007. “Evolutionary Thinking in Environmental Economics.” Journal of
Evolutionary Economics 17 (5): 521–549. doi:10.1007/s00191-006-0054-0.
Zorzoli, F. 2018. “¿Límites ecológicos y fronteras tecnológicas en el negocio agrícola? Agricultura y
ambiente en los sectores agrarios medios del noroeste argentino.” Población & Sociedad 25 (1):
163–195. doi:10.19137/pys-2018-250106