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