Business associations in Kenya: the success factors

Abstract

Governments create the political and economic environment in which their countries' businesses operate, usually described as the ‘enabling environment’ or ‘investment climate’. In response, business associations seek to influence public policy to make it easier for their members to “do business”. Scholars suggest that interest groups are able to form lasting relationships with governments based on a resource exchange mechanism. This paper suggests that, at least in developing countries, a more nuanced explanation is necessary. Business associations, in particular, need proactively to pursue a logic of ‘competence’ as well as a logic of ‘positive relationships’. This paper assesses the outcomes of advocacy projects undertaken by business associations in Kenya in the period 2008–2013, considers the degree to which the associations contributed to the decision to change policy and then analyses the factors perceived by business associations to have led to their success in influencing public policy. We find evidence to support the expectation that business associations must develop a wide range of competences whilst building relationships with multiple stakeholders. The findings will be relevant to practitioners as well as to researchers and donors. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Interest group representation on government committees in Kenya

“…There are around 700 business interest groups in Kenya, with around 400 at the national level and a further 300 at the county level (BAF 2020 ). Most struggle to engage effectively in dialogue and advocacy with perhaps around 20 to 30 that can realistically expect to influence policy makers, many of which have achieved considerable success (Irwin and Githinji 2016 ). Much of the work of business membership organisations focuses on engaging with policy makers to persuade them to do something or not do something.…”

The private sector in knowledge brokering for international development: what the experts say

“…Intrinsic factors included the lack of knowledge of stakeholder positions, lack of follow up, and lack of funding. The private sector actors' own conflicts of interest, overt or perceived by partners, were found to frequently constrain their knowledge brokering efforts (Irwin and Githinji, 2016;Mbadlanyana et al, 2011;Sherrington, 2000;Sitas et al, 2016).…”

“…For example, private sector actors in Brussels are strategically locating themselves geographically within policy making locales (Dotti and Spithoven, 2017). Further, the literature shows that private sector is willing to invest in communication platforms and package their evidence for multiple groups but also host platforms which enable stakeholders to hold engagements (Hare et al, 2014;Irwin and Githinji, 2016;Reyers et al, 2015;Sherrington, 2000;Sitas et al, 2016;Van Kammen et al, 2006) What contribution is the private sector able to make to the partnership? (Please select more options as appropriate) Investing in knowledge brokering; seeking knowledge from credible sources; building strategic partnerships; facilitating productive dialogue; investing in communication systems; and 'don't know/not sure'.…”

The impact of democracy on interest group system institutionalization

“…Studies about interest groups in places other than the United States of America or the EU, however, are still very rare. There are only a couple of existing analyses of interest groups elsewhere (Johnson 2008;Hrebenar et al 2008;Köppl & Wippersberg 2014;Biggemann et al 2014;Meier 2014;Gates 2014;Gozetto et al 2014;Irwin & Githinji 2015). There is also a dearth of studies which analyse variation among countries using interest groups and advocacy either as the dependent or the independent variable (Pijnenburg & Thomas, 2004;Kanol 2015a).…”