reducing the need for irrigation or synthetic inputs (Gupta, 2013), or a particular
kind of clay fridge that is now patented and on the market (Fressoli et al.,
forthcoming 2014). Broader examples include movements that have seen smallscale turbine experimentation in communities in Denmark to develop into the
multimillion dollar wind-power industry that we see today (Ely et al., 2013).
Under this ingenuity framing, innovations move from inside grassroots activity
outwards: it is the ingenuity and knowledge of individuals and groups in their local
communities where the process begins (to the extent that it is possible to locate
beginnings). Innovation arises in a specific, grassroots socioeconomic location.
Support and assistance translates the innovation into more mobile, diffusible forms
that work in other socioeconomic locations, including perhaps markets or larger
scale applications.
Grassroots empowerment
A broader and more expansive definition of grassroots innovation includes ideas
and innovations whose origins may have begun outside a grassroots setting, but
whose appropriation and adaptation to local communities and their socioeconomic
situations is carried out with grassroots groups in control over the process and
deciding who benefits from the outcomes (Smith and Seyfang, 2013). Here the
initial movement is more from the outside coming into the grassroots (Bell, 1979),
and with the intention of providing grassroots innovators with new resources and
capabilities that empowers them. Such a definition includes those strands of the
appropriate technology movement, or attempts in participatory design, where
the intended beneficiaries are put at the heart of the development process.
The Social Technologies Network (STN) based in Brazil involved until recently
over 900 organizations (as of 2011) from across Latin America collaborating in the
generation, dissemination and reapplication of innovations for sustainable
development. An important aspect of the STN is the recognition of the need for
local learning and innovation when attempting to replicate a social technology in
a different place from where it was developed (Miranda et al., 2011) – a focus
on grassroots empowerment rather than scaling up in which the communities in
question are passive recipients.
It can be argued that the more expansive view weakens the notion of grassroots
innovation by opening it up to the kinds of consultancy-driven, participatory
develop ment already prevalent in many places, and whose good intentions are
confounded at times through unreflexive application that disempowers com -
munities, or empowers them selectively in ways not welcomed by the recipients.
Anil K. Gupta founded the Honey Bee Network precisely because he was frustrated with his experience in development consultancy that ended up extracting
and undermining knowledge and innovation in local communities. Donordriven projects can impose or develop models (for the next job) through their
grassroots engagement, rather than helping grassroots ingenuity flourish. Honey
Bee’s development of scouting techniques, working in the languages of the
Green transformations from below? 105
kind of clay fridge that is now patented and on the market (Fressoli et al.,
forthcoming 2014). Broader examples include movements that have seen smallscale turbine experimentation in communities in Denmark to develop into the
multimillion dollar wind-power industry that we see today (Ely et al., 2013).
Under this ingenuity framing, innovations move from inside grassroots activity
outwards: it is the ingenuity and knowledge of individuals and groups in their local
communities where the process begins (to the extent that it is possible to locate
beginnings). Innovation arises in a specific, grassroots socioeconomic location.
Support and assistance translates the innovation into more mobile, diffusible forms
that work in other socioeconomic locations, including perhaps markets or larger
scale applications.
Grassroots empowerment
A broader and more expansive definition of grassroots innovation includes ideas
and innovations whose origins may have begun outside a grassroots setting, but
whose appropriation and adaptation to local communities and their socioeconomic
situations is carried out with grassroots groups in control over the process and
deciding who benefits from the outcomes (Smith and Seyfang, 2013). Here the
initial movement is more from the outside coming into the grassroots (Bell, 1979),
and with the intention of providing grassroots innovators with new resources and
capabilities that empowers them. Such a definition includes those strands of the
appropriate technology movement, or attempts in participatory design, where
the intended beneficiaries are put at the heart of the development process.
The Social Technologies Network (STN) based in Brazil involved until recently
over 900 organizations (as of 2011) from across Latin America collaborating in the
generation, dissemination and reapplication of innovations for sustainable
development. An important aspect of the STN is the recognition of the need for
local learning and innovation when attempting to replicate a social technology in
a different place from where it was developed (Miranda et al., 2011) – a focus
on grassroots empowerment rather than scaling up in which the communities in
question are passive recipients.
It can be argued that the more expansive view weakens the notion of grassroots
innovation by opening it up to the kinds of consultancy-driven, participatory
develop ment already prevalent in many places, and whose good intentions are
confounded at times through unreflexive application that disempowers com -
munities, or empowers them selectively in ways not welcomed by the recipients.
Anil K. Gupta founded the Honey Bee Network precisely because he was frustrated with his experience in development consultancy that ended up extracting
and undermining knowledge and innovation in local communities. Donordriven projects can impose or develop models (for the next job) through their
grassroots engagement, rather than helping grassroots ingenuity flourish. Honey
Bee’s development of scouting techniques, working in the languages of the
Green transformations from below? 105