Research
and
development
institutions
are
becoming
increasingly
committed
to
scaling
up
the
adoption
and
impact
of
technical
institutional
and
policy
innovations
that
improv
e
household
livelihoods.
Scaling
up
is
a complex
subject;
Uvin
and
Miller
(
1999
)
developed
a taxonomy
and
arrived
at
17
different
kinds
of
scaling
up
focusing
on
structure
(
when
a
programme
expands
its
siz
e
)
strategy
(
degree
of
political
involvemen
t
)
and
resource
bas
e
(
organisational
strengt
h
)
. The
International
Institute
of
Rural
Reconstruction
(
IIRR
2000
)
gives
a useful
and
succinct
functional
definition
of
scaling
up:
efforts
to
‘bring
more
qualit
y
benefits
to
more
people
over
a wider
geographical
area
more
quickl
y more
equitabl
y an d
more
lastingly
’. Different
users
of
the
term
consider
different
issues.
Proponents
of
th e
technology-transfer
paradigm
often
imply
that
the
main
issue
in
scaling
up
is
to
replicat
e
the
use
of
improved
practice
s —
for
example
more
farmers
using
mineral
fertilise
r —
an d
they
focus
on
such
issues
as
delivery
of
inputs
and
demonstration
of
benefits
(
Qui
̃
nones
and
Gebre
1996
)
. Others
such
as
Krishna
et
al.
(
1998
)
consider
scaling
up
in
much
broade
r
terms
that
is
as
a
process
of
adaptation
innovation
feedback
and
expanded
huma
n
capabilit
y. In
line
with
the
latter
approach
Cooper
and
Denning
(
2000
)
identified
te n
essential
and
generic
elements
of
a successful
scaling-up
strateg
y as
noted
in
Dennin
g
(
2001
)
. Our
paper
summarises
the
main
lessons
learned
from
the
case
studies
that
appea
r
in
this
issue
and
presents
them
by
element
.
Publication year
2001
Authors
Franzel, S.; Cooper, P.J.M.; Denning, G.L.
Keywords
Agroforestry, Farming systems, Living standards, Research and development
