how the systems would be used. Unlike the government view on scaling up, the
grassroots initiative was about more than providing families with water. There was
a desire to address local power relations that affected not only access to water (and
the injustices arising from reliance on water tanked in by vendors) but to expand
it to other development issues too. In its original form, Cisterna attempted,
through the organization of the self-build process, to build up capabilities for
addressing social change, thereby giving people the confidence and power to
organize them selves, articulate demands, do projects and coordinate their maintenance. Protests in the region subsequently reinstated a self-build track into the
programme (Fressoli et al., 2014).
A similar ethos can be found among some participants and promoters of FabLabs
and Hackerspaces, and the grassroots use and development of digital fabrication technologies. It is argued the development of technical proficiency in specific
projects is accompanied by the cultivation of wider and deeper social capabilities that have wider application, and can build among participants the power to
do further grassroots innovation and participate practically in other developments. However, the processes of empowerment do not stop with capabilities. The
experi ence of the initiatives within the People’s Science Movement in India
indicates how the organization of alternative economic arrangements can be an
important underpinning to the subsequent effectiveness of any grassroots capabilities
realized through innovative initiatives (Abrol, 2005). Specific improvements in
productive processes in rural sectors like leather and food processing, required con -
comitant adaptations and developments in economic organization, such as creating
co-operatives and negotiating new relations between occupations (and sometimes
having to transcend cultural divisions of caste) in order for the innovations to be
put to work by people. We pick this point up on below.
Encountering institutions of science, technology and
innovation
Grassroots innovation movements present contrasting approaches to innovation
compared to conventional science, technology and innovation (STI) institutions.
The protagonists involved, their priorities and practices are typically distinct from
the actors and processes policy-makers envisage when, say, promoting innovation systems for clean technologies. The mechanisms for developing innovations,
through incentives, investments and forms of appropriation, look and operate
differently. And there are contrasts in the forms of knowledge production emblem -
atic for each. Table 7.1 provides a schematic contrast between mainstream STI
institutions and grassroots innovation movements.
While the emphasis among grassroots innovation movements is ‘exercising
control over the innovation process’ (Letty et al., 2012, p1), in practice such control
can require engagements with more powerful STI institutions. These encounters
can take the form of partnerships with investors and firms in the scaling up of an
innovation, for example, or with public research laboratories in the upgrading of
Green transformations from below? 107
grassroots initiative was about more than providing families with water. There was
a desire to address local power relations that affected not only access to water (and
the injustices arising from reliance on water tanked in by vendors) but to expand
it to other development issues too. In its original form, Cisterna attempted,
through the organization of the self-build process, to build up capabilities for
addressing social change, thereby giving people the confidence and power to
organize them selves, articulate demands, do projects and coordinate their maintenance. Protests in the region subsequently reinstated a self-build track into the
programme (Fressoli et al., 2014).
A similar ethos can be found among some participants and promoters of FabLabs
and Hackerspaces, and the grassroots use and development of digital fabrication technologies. It is argued the development of technical proficiency in specific
projects is accompanied by the cultivation of wider and deeper social capabilities that have wider application, and can build among participants the power to
do further grassroots innovation and participate practically in other developments. However, the processes of empowerment do not stop with capabilities. The
experi ence of the initiatives within the People’s Science Movement in India
indicates how the organization of alternative economic arrangements can be an
important underpinning to the subsequent effectiveness of any grassroots capabilities
realized through innovative initiatives (Abrol, 2005). Specific improvements in
productive processes in rural sectors like leather and food processing, required con -
comitant adaptations and developments in economic organization, such as creating
co-operatives and negotiating new relations between occupations (and sometimes
having to transcend cultural divisions of caste) in order for the innovations to be
put to work by people. We pick this point up on below.
Encountering institutions of science, technology and
innovation
Grassroots innovation movements present contrasting approaches to innovation
compared to conventional science, technology and innovation (STI) institutions.
The protagonists involved, their priorities and practices are typically distinct from
the actors and processes policy-makers envisage when, say, promoting innovation systems for clean technologies. The mechanisms for developing innovations,
through incentives, investments and forms of appropriation, look and operate
differently. And there are contrasts in the forms of knowledge production emblem -
atic for each. Table 7.1 provides a schematic contrast between mainstream STI
institutions and grassroots innovation movements.
While the emphasis among grassroots innovation movements is ‘exercising
control over the innovation process’ (Letty et al., 2012, p1), in practice such control
can require engagements with more powerful STI institutions. These encounters
can take the form of partnerships with investors and firms in the scaling up of an
innovation, for example, or with public research laboratories in the upgrading of
Green transformations from below? 107