Inclusive innovation in rural communities: three case studies of rural electrification in Peru

Abstract

Indigenous people in Latin American countries are often socially excluded, with their communities characterised by limited access to basic social services (education and health), basic infrastructure (roads, energy, potable water and sewage), underemployment, lack of democratic representation, cultural discrimination and other restrictions on the full exercise of citizenship. Under the inclusive development approach, policies and policy instruments of science, technology and innovation (STI) are believed to contribute to rural communities’ social inclusion. Recent models within the inclusive development framework understand innovation in terms of both outputs and social processes that considers the participation of different types of actors, including marginalised groups. The concept of inclusive innovation, then, refers to a structural change in which rural communities are active citizens in the decision-making and learning processes that aim to find new solutions to given problems. Peru faces a significant challenge in reducing poverty, especially in rural areas where Indigenous communities, in particular, experience extreme poverty. According to Peru’s national strategy of STI, the transfer of technology, in the form of the delivery of the goods and services needed by marginalised rural communities, is a mechanism for social inclusion. One key technology transfer intervention is electrification through projects that aim to foster the development and capacity of rural communities by transferring new energy technologies such as photovoltaic panels and mini/micro-hydropower systems. While access to energy is recognised as a social right, there is little evidence about how technology transfer interventions for rural electrification are contributing to the reduction of social exclusion in poor Indigenous communities. Considering the complexity of an innovation process for social inclusion, this thesis explores the extent to which technology transfer interventions for rural electrification contribute to social inclusion. The thesis presents three case studies of Indigenous communities who had participated in the same rural electrification project in Cusco region in Peru. The methods used in the case studies were rapid rural appraisal, unstructured interviews and participant observation. The data gathered using these methods answered research questions concerning the process of adoption of the new energy system, the impact of the energy usage in the community, the involvement of the communities in the process of innovation, and the emergence of inclusive learning institutions. Further, in order to explore the orientation of innovation policies towards social inclusion, the study used focus groups and semi-structured interviews with STI stakeholders in Cusco city and the nation’s capital, Lima; and unstructured interviews with STI stakeholders in rural localities. The empirical findings on the adoption of the new energy system showed that the lighting of rooms in the home had made the daily life of families more comfortable. In addition, the collective management of the energy system had enhanced the organisation of the community. However, the results demonstrated that the rural electrification project was a top-down intervention that had excluded community members from the design and implementation of the energy system. Technical training was also incomplete, restricting the access to information, exchange of knowledge and learning interactions among the users. This limited the users’ ability to adapt the new system to their own energy needs. Furthermore, the provider/client relationship between the energy provider and the local people seemed to be common in other capacity-building activities by other technology providers in the case study communities. Even though the STI stakeholders interviewed in this research recognised the importance of participatory processes in technology transfer interventions, their concept of inclusive innovation corresponded to the mainstream or traditional innovation models that tend to address exclusion simply in terms of innovation outputs. This work provides the first comprehensive assessment of different factors that interact in the process of innovation, such as the technical attributes of the new technologies, community capitals, local knowledge and modes of learning and the capacity of political institutions to support learning and collaborative networks. The study confirms previous findings and contributes additional evidence that indicates that technology transfer interventions for social inclusion in Latin America are framed largely as economic opportunities. Consequently, the users, who are positioned as consumers, are often excluded from participating in decision-making and learning processes and collaborative relationships within STI activities. These findings are particularly relevant because they enhance our understanding of the complexity of innovation for social inclusion and recognise those dynamics and interactions that occur in unequal structures and perpetuate the subordinated position of excluded groups. Finally, this study provides important insights into the role of citizenship for structural change that involves the reorientation of top-down technology transfer interventions into more inclusive innovation processes. Therefore, the study has a number of practical implications for the participation of Indigenous communities as citizens through the building of collaborative relationships over time, the support of horizontal learning processes and the strengthening of local institutions.