RE-ESTABLISHING GRASSROOTS INVENTORS IN NATIONAL

RE-ESTABLISHING GRASSROOTS INVENTORS IN NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM IN LESS INNOVATIVE ASIAN COUNTRIES
C. N. WICKRAMASINGHE
Faculty of Commerce and Management Studies,
University of Kelaniya,11600, Sri Lanka
nalakacw@yahoo.com
NOBAYA AHMAD*, S.N.S.A. RASHID** and Z. EMBY***
Faculty of Human Ecology
University Putra Malaysia,43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
*nobaya@putra.upm.edu.my, **sharifah@putra.upm.edu.my
***zahid@putra.upm.edu.my


This paper conceptualizes novel segmental development strategy through Niche Empowerment on the prioritized area of “innovations.” It argues the importance of a mechanism to improve the utilization and adaptation of available information and local knowledge to create valued activities that generate localized innovations. To do that, without thinking what they do not have, they must try to make use what they have at fullest capacity. More focused mechanism to identify and empower grassroots inventors as supply side community to invent what country needs, moreover help them to commercialize their inventions, would give opportunity to overcome lack of inventions and bridging the cognitive divide of stagnating countries in digital age.
Key words: Grassroots Innovations, community development, Digital Divide, Developing countries, empowerment, Knowledge Economy
1. Introduction
The Knowledge Management (KM) has contributed to the acceleration of the knowledge diffusion and technology innovations in the world. However, present KM practice has focused towards the formal organizational structures and it has over looked the importance of Grassroots level social knowledge (Alavi & Laidner, 2001). Owing to the inherent limitations in defining the appropriate KM approach in the stagnating developing countries, they have not received equal benefits. Continuous improvements of information and communication technologies (ICT) has influenced the expansion of innovations and technology transfer from developed to developing countries. However, due to the disparity in the access and utilization of ICT for technological development, developing countries have been segmented as newly industrial countries, middle-of-the-road and less dynamic or stagnating countries (Wickramasinghe & Ahmad, 2009). With the emergence of the concepts of Community Informatics (CI) and local innovations, community- based initiatives are growing rapidly in less dynamic and stagnating countries. Community knowledge centre, community technology centre, community access programs, Internet, and cybercafés have allowed the community members to improve the social knowledge by interacting more locally and globally (Simpson, 2005). However, the existing digital divide is continuously creating limitations for stagnating countries’ communities to gain the required knowledge level to be competitive and sustained in a digital age. The digital divide is more serious than the binary concept of “have” and “have not” the access to ICT; what matters is its impact on the knowledge creation and diffusion in less innovative countries.
Even though the importance of local innovations for the developing countries highlighted in the literature, the level of technical innovations in the developing countries has been inherently lower (Zachariassen, 1977). As per the patent data, the Sub Saharan African, Caribbean, and Asian countries generally have lower level of residence patent applications (WIPO, 2007). In general, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, Caribbean region, and Latin American regions have comparatively marginalized in technological development, and lacks of innovations are becoming the cause for further marginalization (Arunachalam, 1999; Chantasasawat, Fung, Lizaka, & Siu, 2004). The ICT revolution increases the level of competitive inventions in some of the Asian developing countries, but still there is significant disparity among the Asian countries (Wickramasinghe & Ahmad, 2009).
The aim of this paper is to emphasize the seriousness of the cognitive divide that will arise due to the continuously widening digital divide in stagnating countries in the digital age. It also intends to describe the importance of the amalgamation between ICT, patent systems, and community development movements to improve the grassroots level inventors, and then in conclusion, the paper suggests a community level solution for the economically stagnating countries to narrow down the innovation gap that they are having due to the cognitive divide.
Starting with a discussion of the digital divide, reasons for it and the possible seriousness of the consequences of it especially to developing countries, the paper proceeds to the construction of a relationship between ICT, innovations and modern economic development. Then it discusses the changing nature of the innovation systems in the world by giving focus to patent systems in Third World countries. Furthermore, it points to the importance of grassroots inventions and indigenous knowledge in modern societies. Finally, this paper discusses the grassroots inventors as a supply-side community within the context of demand-driven community development practices. In conclusion, the paper creates a new framework for the local innovation system to empower grassroots inventions in developing countries by combining the elements of bridging the digital divide, building up the supply-side community capacity, and empowering grassroots inventors with a flexible patent system.
2. Background of the issue
Emergence of Digital technologies, Internet and mobile phones is connecting geographically dispersed regions through information more than during any other era of mankind. It has made the pathway to globalization and turned countries into ‘Information Societies’. In an Information Society, citizens are expected to access available information and strengthen their social and economic life better than earlier. Information is expected to empower the citizens to increase their knowledge and rational behaviors as employees, consumers and citizens. Even though the expectation was high, level of participation for the Information Society did not achieve the expected limits. The majority of the average population is excluded from technology access for various reasons (Husing & Selhofer, 2002). This exclusion is not only for the modern digital ICT such as computers, the Internet, mobile phones or satellite communication, but also for the analog media such as radio, television and fixed phones. Even though the world is excited about mobile and satellite phones, some parts of the world are still having very few fixed-line phone connections. Therefore, the saying that “half the world is yet to make a phone call” is still pertinent to highlight the significance of the disparity in access to communication (BBC, 2003).
Owing to this debate on partial inclusion of the population to access the ICT, the term ‘Digital Divide’ has established in the world. The Digital Divide marks “the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographical areas at different socio economic levels with regard to their opportunity to access information and communication technologies and their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities” (OECD, 2001). According to this definition, it is clear that there are at least four layers of the digital divide. The digital divide can be at individual level, entity level, national level and international level. Despite the fact that the layers are separated conceptually, they are actually interconnected. A digital divide in one layer can be either an effect or a cause of a digital divide in another layer.
The main reasons for the digital divide are identified as lack of economic resources and infrastructural capabilities required to use technologies (Husing & Selhofer, 2002). This argument is applicable for all the layers identified from individual to international level of access to ICT. Even though the economic reasons are highlighted, the current digital divide is multi-dimensional. The International and national level disparities happens to be explained by economic reasons, but most of the inner-layers of the digital divide, entity and individual layers, are influenced by the attitudes, capabilities and the knowledge of handling the technology (Wills & Tranter, 2006). Digital literacy and computer literacy are playing major roles to expand or narrow the gap of the digital divide. Some researchers have revealed that “lack of interest on computers and internet” is also contributing to the digital divide (Lenhart, 2001).
According to the literature, the symptoms of a possible “knowledge gap” due to an information divide were identified even before the computer and internet revolution (Tichenor, Olien, & Donohue, 1970; Goldmark, Kraig, & Eginton, 1977). “Segments of the population with higher socio economic status tend to acquire information at faster rate than the lower segments, so that the gap in knowledge between these segments tends to increase rather than decrease” (Tichenor, Olien, & Donohue, 1970). Therefore, the countries that went up the development ladder with the first generation information revolution of printing machines are already experiencing a higher socio-economic standard. It laid the knowledge foundation to create, absorb and adapt modern ICT as a knowledge disseminator. Countries that failed to see the benefits of the first revolution showed very slow progress in their socio-economic development until the second and third revolutions in ICT. China, India, Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong and Taiwan are becoming modern day innovative countries with the knowledge created and disseminated by the expansion of digital technologies. Unfortunately, at present some of the countries that affected by the existing knowledge gap are desperate to move ahead with the knowledge revolution created by modern digital technologies.
It seems that the digital divide is not the outcome of low economic standard, but it is becoming the cause of it (BBC, 2003). However, the less-developed countries have not considered the consequences of the Digital Divide. The digital divide would exclude citizens from up-to-date information on events, technologies, inventions and possible problems. The segments that do not have access to information will gain lesser knowledge and be trapped by deep marginalization. Most of the Sub-Saharan African and South Asian countries are showing very marginal improvements in utilizing ICT in a wide variety of socio-economic activities in order to gain better economic standards. Existing marginalization leads them not to be involved in ICT revolution, and they believe they have other priorities. The argument that providing access to information for the people is as important as providing food for the hungry, health facilities for ill people and employment to unemployed youth is not yet justified in most of the developing nations (BBC, 2003).
3. ICT, Innovations and Development
Modern ICT has drastically increased the diffusion of knowledge around the world. Not only the direct impact of the Internet as the knowledge depository, but also electronic versions of newspapers, podcasts and online video streaming of television channels are becoming popular. The traditional mass media are also indirectly influenced by the Internet and digital technologies, and becoming efficient and more effective in information delivery that affects everyday life of citizens (Tracy & Anderson, 2001). Therefore, modern-day citizens who are equipped with information and exposed to dynamic environments appear to be more rational and creative. By utilizing ICT smartly, societies can transfer technological knowledge among citizens and rouse their innovative capabilities to localize those technologies. However, the problem is, it would not happen automatically in stagnating countries and calculated effort is needed to cultivate it.
According to the “Knowledge Gap” theory even though the same information is available to all, receivers absorb it differently. The absorption capacity is based on their communication skills, existing knowledge of the phenomenon, relevant social context, selective exposure, acceptance and retention (Tichenor, Olien, & Donohue, 1970). A famous example of this difference is the “falling apple story” behind Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity. Before he thought about why an apple falls down rather than going up, millions of people saw apples falling down rather than going up. Isaac Newton absorbed this everyday phenomenon speculatively and discovered one of the most important theories of mankind. Therefore, not only the access, but also the cognitive level of the individual plays a significant role in the continuity and growth of knowledge. Knowledge is more complex than information and it includes tacit elements (Polanyi, 1966). Development of ICT to bridge the digital divide is not just about increasing the access and affordability of citizens, it is also about the increasing awareness and utilization of information to create knowledge.
A higher level of ICT capital stock allows a typical economy to achieve higher growth with the given level of labor and capital inputs (Tseng, 2008; United Nations, 2007). Improvement of ICT has its impact on world innovation in two ways. With the improvements of ICT, information availability has been raised multiple times; hence, innovators have been able to innovate more inventions rapidly. Secondly, ICT itself has grown as an industry with a significant number of innovations for software and ICT related products since early 1980 (Commission on Interlectual Property Rights, 2002). Drastic developments of global telecommunication itself occurred mainly due to the continuous research and development effort by companies, research institutes, as well as individual inventors who enthusiastic on innovations and patents (Trainer, 2007). However, learning and adaptation of new technologies does not transfer inventive skills and know-how knowledge from one country to another, unless it is embodied in social and cultural practices in that country. The Least Development Countries Report, 2007, published by the United Nations stated that, “unless less developed countries adopt policies to stimulate technological catch-up with the rest of the world, they will continue to behind over the other countries technologically and face deepening marginalization in global economy” (United Nations, 2007). Therefore, the importance of developing ICT and utilizing ICT to develop internationally competitive inventions is explicated in a modern day development agenda.
4. Conditions demand for innovations in less innovative countries
Innovation is an attractive tool, which enables less developed countries with creative skills to gain economic advantages (Wu, Xu, & Zheng, 2004), but one still needs to remember that the process of innovation is not the same thing as creativity (Minagawa, Trott, & Hoecht, 2007). That process needs to be stimulated by providing the incentives and opportunities. Anyone could have a good idea, but it is only an idea; creativity cannot be considered as part of innovation, if it does not offer real value to those who might use it (Cullen, 2007). The offering of real value relates with the expansion of capabilities to do valued activities. Output of the activity can be either a tangible product or an intangible product. Even though the valued activities include the activities that generate income for the economy, the whole range of public activities that contribute to physical, psychological, and social well-being of the citizens should also be considered as valued activities.
At the international level, developed and newly industrialized countries are claiming 95% of the patents in the world (Noorbakhsh & Paloni, 2001). Apart from the traditional determinants such as natural resources, access to market and low-cost labor, current technological capabilities, an educated labor force to carry out R&D activities, and efficient intellectual property systems are becoming factors of production that are more demanding (Shefer & Frenkel, 2005). Most of the governments of developing countries are continuously changing their infrastructures, investment policies, tax policies and intellectual property rules and regulations to encourage foreign investors to invest their countries without having much effect. The developing countries with a sound combination of all the determinants are becoming dominators in attracting foreign direct investments (FDI). Especially in Asia, technologically stabilized countries led by China and India attracted 2/3 of the world FDI inflow. Remaining portions of the FDI are largely shared by countries like Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Therefore, the competitiveness to attract FDI to the developing countries in South Asia, Latin America, Africa and Caribbean regions are diminishing rapidly (Chantasasawat, Fung, Lizaka, & Siu, 2004; Noorbakhsh & Paloni, 2001). This has created a situation where 5% of the population in the world creates the majority of technologies and next 95% are forced to accept and adapt to these technologies. This technological dependency is inappropriate and costly practice for majority of the countries (Fabayo, 1996).
The current understanding and discussion of the disadvantage of less innovative countries is incomplete. The low level of technological development does not merely a problem of policy and infrastructure; it is a problem of craft utilization of available resources. The developing countries might not have natural resources, but most of them have ignored human and traditional intellectual resources. Without thinking what they do not have, they must think about what they have and make them use at the fullest capacity in technological development. Even though they are late, this lateness still can be converted to an opportunity. According to Wu, Xu and Zheng, 2004, there are at least five advantages of lagging behind the first movers. Less time is needed to grope in the darkness of technology, mature technology and skills can be acquired from first movers, leapfrogging can be achieved when a technology trajectory is clear, the success of pioneers sets a good example, and assistance is available from the first movers. In order to gain the economic and social well being of the citizens, stagnating countries need to encourage the use of digital content and patent system as incentive tools to motivate the ‘inventors’ to creative ‘local innovations’.
The strengthening of property rights, investing money on ICT infrastructure development and relaxing the import policies to satisfy the requirements of other countries or multinational companies (MNCs) to gain FDI flow has discriminated the local inventions in stagnating countries and hence, the practice is counter-productive (Fabayo, 1996; Gupta, 2009). Even though there is discussion on harmonizing the patent process by implementing a standardized universal patent process, economically and technologically marginalized countries need to give serious attention to decide the best-suited patent system for their countries, specifically addressing local issues (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, 2002). In order to convert the digital content available in the Internet to local innovations, a certain level of cognitive process needs to be executed by individuals (Nonaka, Toyama, & Konna, 2000). Hitherto stagnating countries lack the capacity to generate inventions that are new to the world. The creative imitation and reverse engineering of existing technologies would be a better solution to gain the advantages of secondary innovations (United nations, 2007; Wu, Xu, & Zheng, 2004). Therefore, modern-day patent systems in stagnating countries need to address the development of the local technologies rather than serious protection of the invention or the inventor of the west (Kingston, 2001).
5. Re-establishing Grassroots level inventors in Innovation system
In an innovation system, either formal organizations (companies, universities, and research institutes) or independent inventors invent all the innovations. Independent inventors invent their inventions without having any obligation to third party and they are group of ordinary people who utilize their knowledge and resources to solve existing technical problems of the society. Owing to the fact that developing countries do not have multinational companies, FDI and resources to invest in formal research and development activities, the contribution of independent inventors in the technological development in developing countries is expected to be high (Weick & Eakin, 2005). Even at the worst conditions, that discourage inventions, independent inventors develop the majority of available inventions that are coming to the patent system in the developing countries (IFIA, 2006). Hence, the developing countries need to identify independent inventors as the key intellectual resource that completes the local innovation system (figure 01).



Figure 01: Triangular relationship of ICT, Patent system and Inventors

Because of the independent inventors are common people of the society, they are defined as the grassroots inventors (Gupta, 2000). In the rest of the paper, grassroots level is defined as “ordinary people” and any person who invents anything outside the formal organization structure is considered as “grassroots inventor”. In most of the developing countries, private sector organizations are given permission as a driving force of the modern- economic development. However, private sector neglects the importance of R&D activities and continuous innovations as strategy to gain competitive advantages. Therefore, grassroots inventors’ community is needed to be identified special economic niche that would help to overcome the lack of innovations in stagnating countries.
Grassroots level inventions can be modern as well as traditional. Modern inventions are defined as the products or processes that invented to facilitate current-day requirements with the assistance of relatively new technologies, products and processes (Franke & Shah, 2003). The traditional innovations, more relate to the traditional practices available within the communities. The Asian countries with a very long history have well established traditional knowledge that indigenous people have brought down with them from earlier times via oral tradition (Sen, 2005). According to Sen., Indigenous Knowledge (IK) is embedded in community practices, institutes, relationships, and rituals. IK can be technical or non-technical, rational or non-rational, tacit in nature, transmitted orally or through imitation and demonstration. In order to make use the IK for development of other communities, IK needs to be identified, validated, recorded, stored, disseminated, tranfered and exchanged in a accpetable manner. It gives opportunities for further value additions and modernization of the traditional local knowledge. Modern ICT, such as vedio recorders, tape recorders, databases and Internet can be used in various stages.
Recent discussions on promoting appropriate technologies in the developing countries have highlighted the importance of local innovations. Human development report, 2001, acknowledged the relationship between technology and development in developing countries. It concluded that poor people need more innovations and access to technology (UNDP, 2001). The Local innovations have played a crucial role in the evolution of knowledge and practice in rural development (Vinanchiarachi, 2006, p. 2). Owing to these discussions, there is an emerging trend towards promoting social and community level local innovations in the developing countries (Deka, Qutub, Barbaruah, Omore, Staal, & Grace, 2009; Wettansinha, Wongtschowski, & Waters-Bayers, 2008; Prolinnova, 2009; IFAD, 2009).The Rural communities in developing countries are observing, adapting, experimenting, and innovating as part of their daily work. In order to overcome the social problems in rural and poor agrarian communities in developing countries, organizations like UNDP, UNIDO, IFAD, World Bank and NGOs have initiated grassroots innovation development projects (Hansen & Egelyng, 2006). However, these community development movements are top-down and demand driven projects that are trying to satisfy the social needs of the pre-defined marginalizeed communities. The social and community innovation promotions have focused on rural communities and the concentration has given more to the problem oriented community innovations. It focussed on the “social innovations in communities” rather than “community of technical innovations”. The current practice of promoting community and social innovations neglects the patent applied grassroots inventors from their attention. The practitioners think the existing patent system as an obstacle for the grassroots innovation (Gupta, 2009). How to address issue of the grassroots inventor invented something with the expectation of getting a patent and commercial exploitation is remain unanswered.
Industrial boom, that started soon after the World War II created a question of grassroots inventors’ future in western countries. Schumpeter (1942) started the technological expansion debate by saying; formal institutes will replace individual inventors (Schumpeter, 1942). Nevertheless, after 15 years later in 1957, Schmookler pointed out “Most of us believe the independent inventor is dead and buried. Most of us believe too, that invention today has become the exclusive stamping ground of the Ph.D. working in the laboratories of large corporations, surrounded by mysterious instrument panels, electronic brains, but they are still exists.” (Schmookler,1957). In his study, he highlighted the importance of identify those who are engaging in inventive activities. At that period in USA, more than 35% of domestic patents were issued to independent inventors. Scotchmer has expected the end of the grassroots inventors in emerging digital revolution by saying, “the technological imperative put innovation beyond the reach of basement tinkerers” (Scotchmer, 2004). However still there are significant number of independent patent applicants in industrial countries like Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Austria, Finland, France, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Italy, and Denmark (Amesse & Desranleau, 1991; Sirilli, 1987; Sorenson & Vidal, 2004; Wills & Tranter, 2006; Moussa, 2001). In the developing countries the contribution of grassroots inventors is much higher than the industrial countries, but they are been ignored and under studied (Weick & Eakin, 2005).
This problem is significant in the countries with high proportion of independent patent to applications. Sri Lanka is a South Asian country with high ranked proportion of independent inventions in the national innovation system (Sri Lanka National Intelectual Property Office (NIPO), 2008). Even though the commercialization levels are not very promising, during 2000-2008 the independent inventors forwarded 77 percent of the patent applications in Sri Lanka and in the year 2007 and 2008 the proportions raised to 80 percent and 85 percent respectively. However, their inventions not capture the attention of either formal innovation promotion or the grassroots level innovation promotion practices. In order to avoid this scope limitation and the ignorance, the Grassroots inventors that defined in this paper comprise the independent inventors who are involving in technical inventions with the intention of intellectual property protection and commercialization of the inventions.
6. Grassroots inventors (GRI) as a supply side knowledge community
The products, processes, or practices developed by the Grassroots inventors can be direct solution or tentative solutions (that need some modifications) for other communities. By allowing Grassroots inventors to communicate, interact, and transact between each other as a network, they can develop novel solutions and modify available product and processes (Franke & Shah, 2003). In an environment, which patent system and stakeholders of the innovation system encourage grassroots inventions, realization of bottom up solutions for the problems faced by the marginalized communities would be able to achieve at a grater pace than earlier years (Chung, 2002). By identifying, assessing, and empowering grassroots inventive community, they can be encouraged to invent the technical solutions to the requirements of the communities, societies, and countries. Therefore, Grassroots inventive communities of the society are actually provide solutions to the existing social and technical problems of the communities. As far as they supply solutions, tools and techniques to the society, they needed to be identified as “Supply side community”. The Capacity building and empowerment of supply side communities will not only give the chance to solve their problems by their own, but would solve macro level socio-economic problem of the general society as well. The Grassroots inventors have the capabilities to provide technical innovations to industrial problems of a country. Therefore, they need to be identified as important innovation niche of the less innovative economies.
As far as cooperate visions, missions and formal objectives of the formal organizations and life threatening social issues of their communities not create the boundaries on their innovations, they are “seamless inventors” who can invent the products and processors to satisfy the bottom of the pyramid needs and national level requirements while improving the technological innovations of the country.
7. Conclusion and Discussion
ICT is a powerful tool that increases the knowledge revolution and diffusion of technology. However, not all the nations are getting the benefits of it. The Digital divide is recognized as one of the major hindrance of marginalized sections of the world to be involved in knowledge revolution taking place in other parts of the world. However it is more complex than the binary concept of ‘have’ and have not’. It is a matter of how to utilize ICT to do value activities. The value activities include the innovations and knowledge creation. The disability to engage in the innovation and knowledge creation in knowledge era has given serious disadvantage for some of the developing countries. The lack of basic competencies in current era, majority of the countries in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Caribbean regions have been unable to attract FDI and improve the large-scale R&D investments to be competitive innovative nations. The less innovative countries do not have slack resources to working on it and the fulfillment of basic human needs has given a higher priority. In order to avoid the existing stagnation to be a permanent scenario, concentrated narrow scoped initiatives at the identified segments of the national innovation system would be an effective strategy within the boundaries of all the negative conditions of these countries. Without thinking what the less innovative countries do not have, they must try to make use what they have at full capacity.
Even if the scenario is unfavorable to independent inventors in the digital age, still there are large number of garage tinkerers in Asia, who convert their ideas into powerful inventions and demanding for patents. Hence, the local innovation systems need to have provisions to motivate these rare heroes. In the setting of Inventions are becoming vital important aspect of the economic development, independent inventors in less inventive countries need to be identified and considered as supply side community niche. Specific mechanism need to empower them to invent what community needs and help them to commercialize their inventions. Instead of trying to provide solutions to the problems and issues created by unfavorable economic environment, national innovation system should be changed according to the real problems and issues of the inventive community. Implementing niche empowerment strategy, countries can narrow down the focus towards requirements of limited number of inventors that can be more manageable within their available capacity. This would give opportunity to overcome the competency mismatch and bridging the cognitive divide of less innovative countries in coming ages.
The Grassroots inventors, community development, ICT, and patent systems are the major players in proposed niche innovation system for the developing countries (Figure 02). The success of proposed strategy depends on the holistic transformation of the key elements of the innovation system. The community development needs to have more holistic scope than the current practice. It should not narrow down to the demand side issues of rural villages and specific capacity building and empowerment effort in rural communities. The Patent system needs to be more flexible, affordable and encouraging the local requirements and the independent inventors. ICT policy of the country needs to bridge the digital divide of grassroots inventors. It should include the ICT infrastructure and knowledge required to utilize the resources for their innovation activities.














Figure 02: Key elements of proposed hybrid innovation system

All four elements of proposed innovation system are inter-related and achievement of individual element does not guarantee the achievement of desired objective or any other element. Therefore, the entire system needs to be identified holistically rather than in isolation. More focused mechanism needs to identify and empower grassroots inventors to invent what community needs and help them to commercialize their inventions. It would give opportunity to the less innovative countries to overcome lack of inventions and bridge the cognitive divide in the digital age. This would be the appropriate macro level Knowledge Management practice that give benefits to the less innovative countries to re-established the social and technical knowledge of grassroots inventors in national innovation system to interrupt the continuity of the deepen in the marginalization.


References
Alavi, M., & Laidner, D. E. (2001). Reveiw: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly , 25 (1), 107-136.
Amesse, F., & Desranleau, C. (1991). The independent inventor and the role of entreprenurship: A survey of the Canadian evidence. Research Policy , 13-27.
Arunachalam, S. (1999). Information and knowledge in the age of electronic communication: a developing country perspective. Journal of Information Science , 25 (6), 465-476.
BBC. (2003). The Digital Divide debate ; The Earth Report. Geneva.
Chantasasawat, B., Fung, K. C., Lizaka, H., & Siu, A. (2004). Foreign direct Investment in East Asia and Latin America: Is there People's Republic of China effect? LAEBA ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Beging: Latin America/Caribbean and Asia/Pacific.
Chung, S. (2002). Building a national innovation system through regional innovation systems. Technovation (22), 485-491.
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. (2002). Integrating Intellectual Property rights and Development policy. London.
Cullen, J. (2007). Information work and the oppertunity of innovation: from corporate to social product development. Business information review , 24 (3), 156-160.
Deka, R., Qutub, A., Barbaruah, M. I., Omore, A., Staal, S., & Grace, D. (2009, May 4-7). Mission Imposible? Pro-poor innovation that is socially equitable, gender fair, and environment friendly. Innovation Asia Pacific Symposium . Kathmandu, Nepal: Prolinnova Partners.
Fabayo, J. A. (1996). Technological Depenes in Africa: its nature, causes, consequences and policy derivatives. Technovation , 16 (7), 357-370.
Frank, F., & Smith, A. (1999). The Community Development Handbook: A tool to build Community capacity. Quebec, Canada: Human Development Canada.
Franke, N., & Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy (32), 157-178.
Goldmark, P. C., Kraig, B., & Eginton, A. (1977). Communication for Survival: Perspective and Proposed programs. Habitat: An international Journal , 2 (1/2), 13-35.
Gupta, A. (2000, May 20). Rewarding Traditional Knowledge and Contemporary Grassroots Creativity; the Role of intellectual property protection. Paper Presentation seminar at Kennedy School, Harward University . Boston: Harward University.
Gupta, A. (2009, July o2). Bottom up inventors. (B. Sones, Interviewer) http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/644435.
Hansen, E. F., & Egelyng, H. (2006). Supporting Local innovation for support Rural Development. Danish Institute for International Studies.
Husing, T., & Selhofer, H. (2002). The Digital Divide Index-A measure of Social Inequalities in the Adoption of ICT. ECIS 2002 (pp. 1273-1286). Gdansk: ECIS.
IFAD. (2009). Community driven Development Decision tools: for rural development programmes. Rome, Italy: Internatinal Found for Acgriculture Development.
IFIA. (2006, May 16). Independent Inventor's statistics. Retrieved August 16, 2009, from www.invention-ifia.ch: http://www.invention-ifia.ch/independent_inventors_statistics.htm
Kingston, W. (2001). Innovation needs patents reform. Research policy (30), 403-423.
Lenhart, A. (2001). Who's not online. Washington,DC: Pew Internet & American life Project.
Minagawa, T. J., Trott, P., & Hoecht, A. (2007). Conterfeit, imitation, reverse engineering and learning: reflections from Chinese manufacturing firms. R&D Management , 37 (5), 455-467.
Moussa, F. (2001, November 6). The role of innovation. Key not address: XIIth World Productivity Congresss . Hong Kong: International Federation of Inventors' Association (IFIA).
Mowbray, M. (2005). Community capacity building or state opportunism. Community development Journal , 40 (3), 255-264.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konna, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Longrange Planning , 5-34.
Noorbakhsh, F., & Paloni, A. (2001). Human capital and FDI inflows to developing countries: New emperical evidence. World Development , 29 (9), 1593-1610.
OECD. (2001). Understanding the Digital Divide. Paris: OECD Publications.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimention. In P. L., Knowledge in Organization (pp. 135-147). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Prolinnova. (2009). Notes on Local innovation and Participatory Innovation Development. Notes on LI and PID Workshop (pp. 1-6). Leusden: Prolinnova Secretariat.
Schmookler, J. (1957, Aug.). Inventors Past and Present. the Review of Economic and Statistics , 39 (3), pp. 321-333.
Schumpeter, J. M. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
Scotchmer, S. (2004). Innovation and Incentives. London: The MIT press.
Sen, B. (2005). Indigenious knowledge for development: Briging research and practice together. The International Information & Library Review (37), pp. 375-382.
Shefer, D., & Frenkel, A. (2005). R&D, Firm size and innovation: an empirical analysis. Technovation (25), 25-32.
Simpson, L. (2005). Community Informatics and Sustainability: Why social capital matters. The Journal of Community Informatics , 1 (2), 102-119.
Sirilli, G. (1987). Patents and inventors: An empirical Study. Research policy , pp. 157-174.
Sorenson, L., & Vidal, R. V. (2004). Grass-roots community innovation & action in Denmark: the development Centre in Odsherred. Community Network Analysis Conference. Brighton.
Sri Lanka National Intelectual Property Office (NIPO). (2008). Patent Information Database. Colombo: NIPO.
Tichenor, P. J., Olien, C. N., & Donohue, G. A. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly , 159-170.
Tracy, K., & Anderson, B. (2001). Digital living: the impact(or otherwise) of the Internet on Everyday Life. American Behavioral scientist , 45 (3), 456-475.
Trainer, M. (2007). The role of patents in establishing global telecommunications. World Patent Information (29), 352-362.
Tseng, C. Y. (2008). Technolo innovation and knowledge network in Asia: Evidence from comparison of information and communication technologies among six countries. Technological Forcasting & Socail Change , 2008.03.07.
UNDP. (2001). Human Development Report 2001: Making new technologies works for human development. New York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (2007). The Least Developed Countries Report 2007. United Nations.
Vinanchiarachi, J. (2006, May 22-26). Grassroots Innovations serving as Rural Growth Impulses. IAMOT 2006 . Bejing, China: 15th International Conference on Management of Technology.
Weick, C., & Eakin, C. F. (2005). Independent Inventors and innovation: An empirical study. Entrepreneurship and innovation , 5-15.
Wettansinha, C., Wongtschowski, M., & Waters-Bayers, A. (2008). Recognising Local innovations: Experiences of Prolinnova partners (Revised Edition ed.). Leusden, Philippines: Porlinnova International Secretariat.
Wickramasinghe, C. N., & Ahmad, N. (2009). Revolution of Digital communication and Asian Competitive Creativity Chasm. Asian Journal of Technology innovation , 17 (1), 13-29.
Wills, S., & Tranter, B. (2006). Beyond the Digital divide: Internet diffusion and Inequality in Australia. Journal of Sociology , 42 (1), pp. 43-59.
WIPO. (2007). The WIPO Patent Report 2007 Edition. Geneva: WIPO.
World Bank Organization. (1999). World Development Report 1998/99. World Bank Org.
Wu, X. B., Xu, G. N., & Zheng, S. L. (2004). Acquiring late mover advantage through secondary innovation. International Engineering Management Conference (pp. 417-421). China: IEEE.
Zachariassen, J. (1977, February 21-24). Encouragement of Inventiveness and Innovation in Developing Countries. Paper Presentation . Colombo, Sri Lanka: The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).