Within agricultural innovation systems (AIS), various stakeholder groups inevitably interpret ‘innovation’ from their own vantage point of privilege and power. In rural developing areas where small-scale and subsistence farming systems support livelihoods, dominant policy actors often focus heavily on participatory modernization and commercialization initiatives to enhance productivity, access, and quality. However, existing social hierarchies may undermine the potential of such initiatives to promote inclusive and sustainable farmer-driven innovation. Focusing on the chronically food insecure smallholder agricultural systems operating in Yatta Sub-county, Eastern Kenya, this paper explores how power dynamics between stakeholders can influence, and can be influenced by, participatory agricultural innovation initiatives. Findings suggest that there are often significant disparities in access to, and control over, platform resources between smallholder farmers and other stakeholder groups, resulting in large asymmetries. We discuss how these power dynamics may increase the risk of agricultural intervention, further marginalizing already disempowered groups and reinforcing power hierarchies to the detriment of smallholders. This study highlights the need for a deeper understanding of the institutional contexts that facilitate and maintain relationships of power within agricultural innovation systems, as well as the complexities associated with promoting transformational agricultural innovation.

Agricultural mechanization in developing countries has taken at least two contested innovation pathways—the “incumbent trajectory” that promotes industrial agriculture, and an “alternative pathway” that supports small-scale mechanization for sustainable development of hillside farming systems. Although both pathways can potentially reduce human and animal drudgery, the body of literature that assesses the sustainability impacts of these mechanization pathways in the local ecological, socio-economic, cultural, and historical contexts of hillside farms is either nonexistent or under-theorized. This paper addresses this missing literature by examining the case of Nepal’s first Agricultural Mechanization Promotion Policy 2014 (AMPP) using a conceptual framework of what will be defined as “responsible innovation”. The historical context of this assessment involves the incumbent trajectory of mechanization in the country since the late 1960s that neglected smallholder farms located in the hills and mountains and biased mechanization policy for flat areas only. Findings from this study suggest that the AMPP addressed issues for smallholder production, including gender inequality, exclusion of smallholder farmers, and biophysical challenges associated with hillside farming systems, but it remains unclear whether and how the policy promotes small-scale agricultural mechanization for sustainable development of agriculture in the hills and mountains of Nepal.

Current agroecological approaches to farming have provided a limited understanding of transformations to sustainability, particularly in subsistence agrarian economies of geographically isolated regions of the world. Some suggest mitigating social and ecological impacts of modern industrial farming while others advocate for local adaptation to changes in socioecological systems, such as climate change, extreme weather events, and biodiversity loss. This article investigates effective pathways of fundamental transformations in technologies, livelihoods, and lifestyles referred to as “agricultural sustainability transitions” in the Karnali Mountains, the most impoverished region of Nepal. Findings suggest that neither management of change referred to as transition management nor adaptation to change referred to as adaptive management effectively leads to agricultural sustainability transitions in this region of the country. An integration of these two approaches, which this article theorizes as “adaptive transition management,” can help charter transition pathways through system innovation making new and improved technologies more accessible and adaptable to smallholders while developing local capacity to adapt to changes in agroecological systems.