Business associations in Kenya: the success factors
Published date | 01 May 2016 |
Author | David Irwin,Mary Githinji |
Date | 01 May 2016 |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1573 |
■Academic Paper
Business associations in Kenya: the
success factors
David Irwin
1
*and Mary Githinji
2
1
Irwin Grayson Associates, Riding Mill, UK
2
Business Advocacy Fund, Nairobi, Kenya
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.
INTRODUCTION
Globally, business associations and other interest
groups seek to influence public policy, and hence,
there is considerable debate in relation to how they
gain attention, whether public officials are allies
and whether they are successful. Baumgartner et al.
(2009) suggest that much of the literature portrays
governmental actors as simply the targets of advo-
cacy who take relatively neutral positions, although
Baumgartner et al. (2009) do not share this view. In-
deed, they are more than simply targets of advocacy
because they effectively control access and so are of
immense importance in determining whether inter-
est groups are able to develop a relationship with
policymakers. The purpose of this paper is to ana-
lyse the factors perceived by business associations
to have led to their success in influencing public
policy in Kenya whilst undertaking advocacy
projects supported by the Danish International
Development Assistance (DANIDA) funded Busi-
ness Advocacy Fund (BAF), during the period
2008–2013. It assesses the outcomes of their advo-
cacy projects, considers the degree to which their
efforts contributed to the decision to change policy
and then explores the success factors.
Many scholars argue that state interest group rela-
tions can be explained through a resource exchange
relationship existing between a public sector agency,
whose officials are short of time and resources (Jones
& Baumgartner, 2005) and the interest groups that
seek to interact with it (Bouwen, 2002; Poppelaars,
2007; Eising, 2007; Beyers & Braun, 2014). Interest
groups gain access to policymakers and may be able
to influence policy in exchange, inter alia, for techni-
cal expertise and expert knowledge, information, le-
gitimacy, consent or co-operation in introducing the
policy, so the better able the interest group is to de-
liver the needs of the public sector (objective
research, carefully argued policy positions etc.), the
*Correspondence to: David Irwin, Jacaranda, Long Rigg, Riding
Mill, NE44 6AL, UK.
E-mail: david@irwin.org
Journal of Public Affairs
Volume 16 Number 2 pp 162–180 (2016)
Published online 2 July 2015 in Wiley Online Library
(www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/pa.1573
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
more likely they are to secure access and influence
(Bouwen, 2002; Beyers & Braun, 2014). These
resources have been variously labelled as ‘access
goods’(Bouwen, 2002) or ‘policy goods’(Beyers &
Braun, 2014). Braun notes that public servants
regularly consult interest groups, including business
associations, and observes that consultation pro-
vides an opportunity for interest groups to exert
influence (2012b: 810); Maloney et al. suggest that
civil servant policymakers look for interest groups
to help with policy formulation, whereas legislators
look for information and opinion (1994: 19–20). Of
course, interest groups are also proactive, not
waiting to be asked, but offering a view on a range
of issues and thus constantly seeking to develop
new relationships.
Whilst the ability of business associations to pro-
vide resources worthy of exchange implies a level
of competence, Beyers (2008) has argued that re-
source exchange is insufficient to explain interest
group strategies and influence. He sets out a num-
ber of requirements including framing, argumenta-
tion and strategy. Although Beyers (2008) does not
use the term, Klüver and Saurugger (2013: 186)
quote this requirement as acting professionally. But
what, precisely, is acting professionally? Klüver
and Saurugger (2013: 187) write about the need for
interest groups to be professional but then define it
as ‘the hiring of professionals …including lawyers
and economists’rather than looking at the overall
approach and behaviour of the organisation. Irre-
spective of what it is called, the real questions are
what behaviour is required of business associations
that hope to secure access and indeed to influence
public policy and whether business associations
have a sufficient understanding of what those re-
quirements mean in practice?
This paper sets out to answer that second ques-
tion, with a focus on business associations that are
rather less developed than those in the west, al-
though it is argued that the findings are generaliz-
able. This paper is structured as follows. The next
section reports on the factors seen by scholars to
lead to influencing success. Success only occurs in
a political context, so the following section briefly
describes that context. The methodology for this re-
search is then described. This is followed by results,
discussion and conclusions.
Interest groups, public advocacy and success:
previous evidence
Whilst resource exchange describes the ‘what’,
Fraussen (2013) attempts to explain the ‘why’:
why do public officials wish to interact with inter-
est groups? He suggests that it might be to sup-
port particular causes or constituencies (implying
that it is the politicians who benefit from the ex-
change) or that it is to secure backing from a
respected or credible group for a particular policy
proposal and thus gains some legitimacy (again
implying that it is the politicians who benefit).
However, whilst interest groups do target minis-
ters and parliamentarians, often their targets are
public officials. Officials may have a need for in-
formation, but there may be other reasons as well:
they may gain gravitas from being well-informed;
they may be promoted as a result of doing their
job well and see that working with an interest
group may help them; they may have a genuine
desire to see the private sector thrive; and they
may have an aspiration to work for the private
sector and think that offering support will assist
them to find employment.
If interest groups are particularly helpful, it is
easy to see that public servants will develop a posi-
tive relationship with them. Fraussen (2013) sug-
gests that recognising certain interest groups is a
form of patronage that legitimises the interest group
and may help it attract members and additional re-
sources. He does also note, however, that interest
groups do need enough members, resources and
well-educated staff to fulfil their role effectively.
Whatever the reason, provision of well-researched
evidence to policymakers appears to be a sine qua
non for effective lobbying (Klüver, 2012a). In the
USA and Europe, at least, policymakers often work
very closely with interest groups specifically to ac-
quire evidence that will support their policy pro-
posals (Klüver, 2012a). Baumgartner et al. (2009)
commonly found government officials who, far
from being neutral, were acting as advocates, often
collaborating with others regarded as sharing simi-
lar views and actively lobbying others to adopt a
particular position. Thus, Klüver (2012a) argues that
interest groups need to organise themselves in such
a way that they are abreast, even ahead, of public
sector thinking and are able to respond quickly to a
need for information. Indeed, it seems that interest
groups who pursue an insider strategy are likely to
have better access, are more likely to be consulted
and so are more likely to be able to influence policy
than outside groups (Page, 1999: 206). This suggests
a need for interest groups to be highly professional,
but Klüver concludes that interest groups have been
‘largely treated as black boxes without any attention
to their internal configuration’(2012a: 505). Further-
more, there is considerable emphasis in the literature
on the quality of information (Braun, 2012a; Klüver,
Business associations in Kenya 163
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Public Affairs 16, 162–180 (2016)
DOI: 10.1002/pa
To continue reading
Request your trial