models adopted by AKST stakeholders in the region where the most diverse models of organization coexist. When one analyzes the various stakeholders in this system, the differences are more substantial in the public sector where traditional national research or agricultural technology institutes exist (NARI in Chile, INTA in Argentina, INIAP in Ecuador, INIEA in Peru, and INIFAP in Mexico, among others) and agricultural research departments that are directly connected to Ministries of Agriculture (such as the DIA in Paraguay), alongside institutes or organizations with public funding but governed by private law (EMPRAPA in Brazil, NARI in Uruguay and CORPOICA in Colombia, for example) and private foundations, such as PROINPA in Bolivia which participates in the AKST system without depending on public funding. The latter, in comparison to NARIs and departments, have much more flexibility to manage their human and financial resources.
     These public stakeholders in AKST systems use basically two research models: (1) the diffuse model, in which research is conducted by research centers or stations that cover the most distinctive products (the majority of NARIs), and (2) the concentrated model, in which the centers are concentrated in a few products, ecosystems or priority issues (EMBRAPA in Brazil). According to Alves (1985), the use of the diffuse model, which is very common in Latin America and the Caribbean, generates a great deal of information and is unlikely to be concentrated in new technologies and for this reason is a costly process that is feasible only in a rich society whose producers have high levels of education and which is prepared to invest large amounts in agricultural research. Developing countries, such as those in Latin America and the Caribbean, generally do not have the essential inputs for the functioning of that model, but perhaps may be able to develop it.

Salles Filho et al. (2006) found that a number of countries have introduced institutional innovations into their agricultural research systems, which may serve as models for Latin America and the Caribbean. The study by Janssen (2002), with five industrialized countries, shows the diversity of the initiatives and the area of influence of changes, which have produced significant impacts on the financing and organization of research. One of the author’s conclusions was that “the new research systems reflect the new conditions that society is imposing on agriculture, science and public sector management”.
     In sum, the strengthening of AKST systems in Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly in the public sector, requires a review of its models of organization to improve their efficiency, flexibility and focus and thereby increase their impacts on society. In this process, it is important to review the experiences of the region with differentiated levels of success and to adapt them to the situation of each country. These considerations should not contradict the models of participatory research described in section 4.3.2 and in Key Issues (Option 6).

4.3.5 Governance models: Strengthening and
modernization of management models
From Chapter 2 (section 2.5.30—Management of the AKST system) we know that management of the system has become

complex, particularly since it has been recognized that innovation comes from processes of interaction among social actors. In other words, there has been progress towards a contextual process of innovation, which implies a significant change in the rules of the game and structures of governance, thereby also increasing the vulnerability of traditional institutions.
     The general tendency of national systems of innovation— and in particular AKST systems in Latin America and the Caribbean—to involve many different agents and organizations who exchange knowledge and cooperate in order to generate it, makes knowledge networks the new configurations of socioeconomic activity that address the need for interaction as a key factor in the generation and circulation of knowledge. These networks develop into subsystems of the national system of innovation, in other words, into specialized systems within the main system (Pittaluga et al., 2005).
     The interactions between the agents in the network emphasize the relationships between users and producers of knowledge and innovations. These networks are the result of the efforts of agents to selectively internalize the various factors necessary to control the collective process of AKST (such as external factors). The simultaneous development of providers and users of AKST and their ongoing and coordinated interaction therefore further stimulate their activity and create a kind of virtuous circle for technological change (Pittaluga et al., 2005).
     There are a number of successful examples in the region where AKST activities have been reorganized guided by the general idea of knowledge sharing or network formation. Research institutions have pursued cooperation to take advantage of knowledge sharing and complementarity of skills and other assets, and to emphasize the approach of demanddriven
research. Efforts have also been made to strengthen relations among universities, industries and the public in general (Salles Filho et al., 1998).
     These institutional reorganizations require novel forms of governance, in other words decision-making methods and approaches to common problems in which the various actors participate. The idea of the network suggests the way in which a variety of actors situated in a labyrinth of public
and private organizations with interest in a particular policy connect with each other. The actors in the network share ideas and resources and work out possible solutions to public problems. Connections are thus made that blur the distinctions between the state and society, and it is the network that merges the public and private.
     It will also be necessary to establish a new form of governance in the system of Procis (cooperative technology and innovation research programs). These programs represent important cooperation arrangements that still lack a new direction, more particularly in the sense of giving direction not only to researchers from participating countries, but also to other actors so that progress could extend beyond scientific and technological exchange (Salles-Filho, 2006). In addition, there is an increasing need to coordinate research and development activities and innovation at the regional and subregional levels through the organization of networks and other governance structures.