African Experience in the Application of

the Development Aid Effectiveness

Principles: The Case of Kenya Daniel
Kipleel Borter
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/african-experience-in-the-application-of-the-developm
ent-aid-effectiveness-principles-the-case-of-kenya-daniel-kipleel-borter/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The African Experience 4th Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-african-experience-4th-edition-
ebook-pdf/

US Army's Effectiveness in Reconstruction According to

the Guiding Principles of Stabilization Diane E. Chido

https://ebookmass.com/product/us-armys-effectiveness-in-
reconstruction-according-to-the-guiding-principles-of-
stabilization-diane-e-chido/

Aid, Trade and Development : The Future of

Globalization (Second Edition) Constantine
Michalopoulos

https://ebookmass.com/product/aid-trade-and-development-the-
future-of-globalization-second-edition-constantine-michalopoulos/

Principles of Economics, 10th Edition (The Pearson

Series in Economics) Karl E. Case

https://ebookmass.com/product/principles-of-economics-10th-
edition-the-pearson-series-in-economics-karl-e-case/
Learning and Development Effectiveness in
Organisations: An Integrated Systems-Informed Model of
Effectiveness 1st ed. Edition Thomas N. Garavan

https://ebookmass.com/product/learning-and-development-
effectiveness-in-organisations-an-integrated-systems-informed-
model-of-effectiveness-1st-ed-edition-thomas-n-garavan/

Development Delusions and Contradictions : An Anatomy

of the Foreign Aid Industry David Sims

https://ebookmass.com/product/development-delusions-and-
contradictions-an-anatomy-of-the-foreign-aid-industry-david-sims/

US Army's Effectiveness in Reconstruction According to

the Guiding Principles of Stabilization 1st ed. Edition
Diane E. Chido

https://ebookmass.com/product/us-armys-effectiveness-in-
reconstruction-according-to-the-guiding-principles-of-
stabilization-1st-ed-edition-diane-e-chido/

The Experience of Beauty in the Middle Ages Mary

Carruthers

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-experience-of-beauty-in-the-
middle-ages-mary-carruthers/

Aid Effectiveness for Environmental Sustainability 1st

Edition Yongfu Huang

https://ebookmass.com/product/aid-effectiveness-for-
environmental-sustainability-1st-edition-yongfu-huang/
 AFRICAN HISTORIES
AND MODERNITIES

African Experience in the

Application of the Development
Aid Effectiveness Principles
The Case of Kenya
Daniel Kipleel Borter · Nadeem Malik
 African Histories and Modernities

Series Editors
Toyin Falola, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Matthew M. Heaton, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
This book series serves as a scholarly forum on African contributions
to and negotiations of diverse modernities over time and space, with
a particular emphasis on historical developments. Specifically, it aims to
refute the hegemonic conception of a singular modernity, Western in
origin, spreading out to encompass the globe over the last several decades.
Indeed, rather than reinforcing conceptual boundaries or parameters, the
series instead looks to receive and respond to changing perspectives on
an important but inherently nebulous idea, deliberately creating a space
in which multiple modernities can interact, overlap, and conflict. While
privileging works that emphasize historical change over time, the series
will also feature scholarship that blurs the lines between the historical and
the contemporary, recognizing the ways in which our changing under-
standings of modernity in the present have the capacity to affect the way
we think about African and global histories.

Editorial Board
Akintunde Akinyemi, Literature, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
Malami Buba, African Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies,
Yongin, South Korea
Emmanuel Mbah, History, CUNY, College of Staten Island, USA
Insa Nolte, History, University of Birmingham, USA
Shadrack Wanjala Nasong’o, International Studies, Rhodes College, USA
Samuel Oloruntoba, Political Science, TMALI, University of South
Africa, South Africa
Bridget Teboh, History, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA
Daniel Kipleel Borter · Nadeem Malik

African Experience
in the Application
of the Development
Aid Effectiveness
Principles
The Case of Kenya
Daniel Kipleel Borter Nadeem Malik
Melbourne, VIC, Australia University of Melbourne
Parkville, VIC, Australia

ISSN 2634-5773 ISSN 2634-5781 (electronic)

African Histories and Modernities
ISBN 978-981-19-8367-2 ISBN 978-981-19-8368-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8368-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: David Malan

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore
189721, Singapore
 Acknowledgements

Many people have helped us in conducting the research and writing

this book. First and foremost, we wish to recognise the role of the
rural farming communities in Kenya for sharing their views on the issues
discussed in the book. Without their unconditional support, this book
could never have seen the light of the day.
We thank the government officials, donor representatives, policy
experts, and CBO and NGO representatives for their willingness, enthu-
siasm to participate and volunteer information for this research. We
appreciate the Ministry of Agriculture and especially the State Depart-
ment of Livestock at the headquarters and various field locations that
were visited for their support for this work. No space will be enough to
thank research respondents especially the focus groups that convened at
Wote and Kathonzweni in Makueni, Molo, Bahati, Subukia, and Njoro in
Nakuru and Matuga, Shimba Hills, Lukore and Kinango in Kwale.
We are indebted to Dr. Lilian Kirimi of Tegemeo Institute of Agricul-
tural Policy and Development, without whom we could never navigated
the direction of this research in a jumble of possibilities and the different
ways and styles we could adopt in formulating our argument. Finally, we
acknowledge various other individuals and officials for their enduring help
accessing research respondents, including David Musyoki and Mr. Sila
of Makueni, Francis Kangumo and Haji Mzee of Kwale and Matthew
Mutuku and David Muthima of Nakuru, and Rosemary Mwanza of
ASDSP among others.

v
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 6
1.2 Research Questions 15
1.3 Research Design 18
1.4 Data: Selection, Collection and Analysis 20
1.4.1 Selection 20
1.4.2 Data Collection Methods 21
1.4.3 Key Informant Interviews 22
1.4.4 Focus Group Discussions 23
1.4.5 Document Content Analysis 24
1.4.6 Participant Observation 24
1.5 Data Analysis 25
1.6 Structure of the Book 26
References 27
2 Aid Effectiveness, International Policy Transfer
and Development and Post-Development Theory 33
2.1 The Historical Background of Aid and Aid
Effectiveness 34
2.2 Reforms, Conditions and Aid Effectiveness 37
2.3 The Aid Effectiveness Principles and the Concept
of Ownership 42
2.4 Aid Effectiveness Principles and Africa’s Agriculture
Sector 47

vii
viii CONTENTS

2.5 Aid Effectiveness Principles And Non-DAC Donors 48

2.6 International Policy Transfer and Diffusion and Aid
Effectiveness Principles 49
2.7 Theory of International Policy Diffusion 52
2.7.1 Coercion 52
2.7.2 Learning 53
2.7.3 Competition, Cooperative Interdependence
and Symbolic Imitation 54
2.8 Other Mechanisms 56
2.9 Policy Diffusion and Situating Aid Effectiveness
Principles 57
2.10 Aid Effectiveness Principles and Development
and Post-Development Literature 59
References 62
3 Aid and Agriculture Sector in Kenya: A Focus on Major
Stakeholders 75
3.1 Small-Scale Farmers: General Perspective 76
3.1.1 Small-Scale Farming as an Occupation
and the Food Security Objective 78
3.1.2 Small-Scale Farmer Organisation
and the Missing Farmer “Voice” 84
3.2 Overview of Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Fisheries Development 90
3.2.1 The Ministry’s National Office
and Donor-Funded Programmes 93
3.2.2 County Offices and Donor-Funded
Programmes 97
3.3 Non-governmental Organisations
and Community-Based Organisations 103
3.4 The Private Sector 107
3.5 Conclusion 110
References 112
4 Aid Effectiveness and Kenya’s Agricultural Policy
and Strategy-Making Processes 129
4.1 Agricultural Policy Initiation Processes 130
4.1.1 The Ministry Bureaucracy and the Politicians 133
4.1.2 Input of the Policy Experts 136
 CONTENTS ix

4.1.3 The Influence of NGOs, CBOs and Farmer

Organisations 138
4.1.4 Influence of Donors 142
4.2 The Essentials of Agricultural Public Policy-Making
Processes 151
4.3 The Agriculture Sector Strategy 153
4.4 Conclusion 159
References 163
5 Aid Effectiveness and Perspectives and Practices
of Donors 181
5.1 Introduction 181
5.2 Donors and the Kenyan Government System 183
5.2.1 The Case of the Swedish International
Development Agency (SIDA) 183
5.2.2 The Case of Germany’s GiZ 186
5.2.3 The Case of Multilateral Agencies 188
5.3 Donors Implementing Stand-Alone Projects
with Government Partnership: The Case of Japan’s
JICA 193
5.4 Implementing Programmes through NGOs: The Case
of USAID 198
5.5 Donors Working with Private Sector “Trade
and Economic Relationship” 202
5.6 Conclusion 208
References 211
6 The Aid Effectiveness Architecture and Kenya’s
Agriculture Sector 223
6.1 Introduction 223
6.2 Gaps: Overall Aid Coordination 226
6.3 Aid Effectiveness Architecture Within the Kenyan
Government 230
6.4 Spotlight on Coordination Efforts Among Donors 233
6.5 Donors and Government: The Fate of Joint Efforts
in Sector Coordination 235
6.6 Effectiveness Structures: A Focus on Kenyan
Government Agency 239
6.7 Conclusion 242
x CONTENTS

References 244
7 Overall Conclusion 247
References 255

Index 257
 Abbreviations

ABD Agriculture Business Development

ABSF African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum
ADB African Development Bank
AEG Aid Effectiveness Group
AES Aid Effectiveness Secretariat
AIE Authority to Incur Expenditure
APSF Agriculture Policy Support Facility
ARD Agriculture and Rural Development group
ASCU Agriculture Sector Coordinating Unit
ASDS Agriculture Sector Development Strategy
ASDSP Agriculture Sector Development Support Programme
ASPS Agriculture Sector Programme Support
AUD Australian Dollars
CAADP Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme
CAB Central Agricultural Board
CARD Coalition of African Rice Development
CBOs Community Based Organisations
CCU County Coordinating Unit
CEC County Executive in-Charge
CIGs Common Interest Groups
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DASS Decentralised Agriculture Support Structures
DCG Development Partners Coordination Group
DFID Department for International Development
DLP Director of Livestock Development

xi
xii ABBREVIATIONS

DoC Drivers of Change

DPF Development Partners Forum
DRSLP Drought Resilience and Sustainable Livelihoods Programme
DVS Director of Veterinary Services
EAAPP East African Agriculture Productivity Programme
ERS Economic Recovery Strategy
FADC Focal Area Development Committee
FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations
FIDA Finnish International Development Agency
GCG Government Coordination Group
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIZ German International Development Agency
GMO Genetically Modified Organisms
GoK Government of Kenya
HAC Harmonisation, Alignment and Coordination group
HCDA Horticultural Crops Development Authority
HPI Heifer Project International
IDA International Development Agency
IFAD International Fund for Agriculture and Development
IGAD Intergovernmental Agency for Development
II International Institution
IMF International Monetary Fund
INADES African Institute for Economic and Social Development
INGO International Non-governmental Organization
IO International Organisation
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JICS Japan International Cooperation System
JOCV Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers
KAPAP Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project
KAVES Kenya Agriculture Value Chain Enterprises
KENAFF Kenya National Federation of Farmers
KENFAP Kenya Federation of Agricultural Producers
KFA Kenya Farmers Association
KHCP Kenya Horticultural Competitive Project
KIPPRA Kenya Institute of Public Policy and Research Analysis
KJAS Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy
KLA Kenya Land Alliance
KLPA Kenya Livestock Producers Association
KWAP Kwale Agricultural Project
MALFD Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development
MAP Makueni Agriculture Programme
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MESPT Microenterprise Support Programme Trust
 ABBREVIATIONS xiii

MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework

MTIP Medium Term Investment Plan
NALEP National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme
NASEP National Agriculture Sector Extension Programme
NEPAD New Partnership for African Development
NIB National Irrigation Board
NMK Njaa Marufuku Kenya
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PALWECO Programme for Agriculture and Livelihoods in Western Commu-
nities
PCU Programme Coordinating Unit
PD Paris Declaration
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
PSI Private Sector Investment
RPLRP Regional Pastoral Livelihoods Resilience Programme
SHDCP Small-Holder Dairy Commercialisation Programme
SIDA Swedish International Development Agency
SRA Strategy for Revitalisation of Agriculture
TICAD The International Conference on African Development
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States Dollar
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Map of Kenya with Nairobi, Nakuru, Makueni and Kwale
shaded sites of field interviews 19
Fig. 2.1 Paris Declaration (PD) pyramid (OECD, 2005) 44

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Africa gained independence from colonial rule in the 1960s. The colonial
powers like Belgium (in Congo), Portuguese (in Angola), French (West
Africa) and British were highly exploitative. In the post-colonial period,
African countries followed the colonial legacy and maintained highly
extractive and exploitative political and economic institutions that failed
to introduce broad-based development. The institutions of governance
also remained exploitative and hindered developing citizens’ capabilities
for economic development and stability (Acemoglu et al., 2001).
The 1960s was the era of high modernisation, and foreign aid to devel-
oping countries was considered essential to modernise these societies. The
main emphasis of aid was on economic growth and infrastructure devel-
opment. Therefore, newly independent African countries prioritised such
a development paradigm and received aid/investments in electric power
plants, dams, roads and industries. Kalu (2018, 61) notes that the inter-
national community supported the newly independent states with grants,
loans and other technical support. He further explains that:

Along these lines, most foreign aid to Africa in the 1960s was geared
towards supporting the implementation of the national development plans
of that era. In addition to loans, African states also received foreign aid
and technical support towards industrialisation and the implementation of
national development plans designed to unleash economic growth in the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023
D. K. Borter and N. Malik, African Experience in the Application
of the Development Aid Effectiveness Principles, African Histories
and Modernities, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8368-9_1
2 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

countries. The multilateral financial institutions, most notably the World

Bank, were an important channel for these forms of support. Bilateral
support also came from advanced nations, including, in many cases, the
countries’ former colonial administrators. (Kalu, 2018, 61)

From the 1960s till the early 1970s, the national development policies
gained traction and were considered helpful for economic growth and
development (Killick, 1983). Since African countries started from scratch,
investments in agriculture, manufacturing and financial sectors such as
banking, energy, aviation, railways, health, education and other social
services were considered impressive, producing some results in economic
growth (Killick, 1983). However, by the mid-1970s, it was realised
that the national development policies did not provide the required
results despite some economic growth. The poverty levels also increased,
pointing to a kind of growth that was not inclusive. Therefore, the burden
of responsibility fell on African governments. The World Bank considered
that channelling development aid to African states through governments
gave too much power to a few people within governments’ circles, leading
to rent-seeking, leaving no space for private investors to contribute to
economic growth and development (Asongu & Nwachukwu, 2018).
Thus, more role of the markets and financial liberalisation was empha-
sised. Such developments also accorded with the global movement in the
1970s and 1980s towards the free-market economic paradigm promoted
by President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Consequently, from the mid-1970s, the focus of Western foreign aid
shifted from giving money to governments to pursue mega infrastructural
and industrial projects to alleviating poverty through direct measures. The
United Nations agencies started focusing on health and sanitation, educa-
tion, immunisation and vaccination against deadly diseases in Africa. The
foreign aid to health and social programmes produced some successes,
especially in reducing infant mortality rates in African countries. However,
despite these successes,

African states failed to move towards a discernible path to progress and

prosperity in the 1980s. Rather, news from Africa was dominated by
hunger and misery, political crisis, military dictatorship, and dizzying levels
of official corruption. (Kalu, 2018, 64)
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

Consequently, donors criticised the African governments’ rent-seeking

behaviour and inefficiency that, according to them, led to flawed
economic policies and economic structures. The World Bank and the
IMF became sceptical of governments’ design and implemented appro-
priate national development plans. By the 1980s, these international
financial institutions’ conditional grants to restructure the economies
of African societies came up with the structural adjustment programme
(SAP) prescriptions such as privatisation, reduced subsidies on essential
goods, downsizing government jobs, liberalising the financial sector and
trade (Moser et al., 1997) SAP did not produce the required results and
further increased poverty to miserable levels. However, the blame for
the failure fell on the victims. The Bretton Woods Institutions blamed
the African states for failing to implement the SAP reforms instead of
considering the programme itself was flawed (Moser et al., 1997).
The failure of SAP led to a new development paradigm in the 1990s,
namely ‘good governance’ based on the neoliberal economic paradigm.
The earlier ‘good government’ paradigm emphasised the government’s
sole role in public policy-making and the provision of public goods.
On the contrary, the ‘good governance’ paradigm introduced non-state
actors such as civil society and the market having an equal say in public
policy-making and providing public goods (Malik, 2016). So new actors
were brought forth on the development scene. Though the earlier SAP
policies found their way through the good governance paradigm, the
world witnessed a remarkable rejection of the big plans and projects
that characterised the high modernisation period. In place of hydroelec-
tric engineering feats, geographically based industrial zones and political
experiments in ‘third world welfare states’, many social policy initia-
tives and international development programmes tied to smaller, more
efficient, face-to-face, culturally appropriate and voluntary civil society-
based organisations have increased. This has spawned a sea of buzzwords,
acronyms and theoretical assumptions such as social capital, capacity
building, governance and accountability, empowerment, participatory
development and non-governmental, community-based and third sector
organisations (NGOs, CBOs). These new civil society approaches to inter-
national development assistance have become hegemonic and ubiquitous
across all development industry sectors, from small grass-roots organ-
isations to large multilateral donors such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (Malik, 2016). This experiment also did
not produce good results (Malik & Rana, 2020).
4 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

Consequently, the need for international donors to call for a review of

the global aid system since 2000 became more pronounced. Such correc-
tive actions resulted from disappointment from foreign aid emphasised by
‘scholars, policy-makers and practitioners’ (Brown, 2020). As mentioned
above, the recipient countries were often blamed for the failure of aid
effectiveness. However, Brown (2020, 1230) notes that:

In the mid-1990s, a parallel vision of aid parallel vision of aid effectiveness

began to evolve under the leadership of the Organisation of Economic Co-
operation and Development and, in particular, its Development Assistance
Committee (OECD/DAC), the main club of traditional Western donors.
The most prominent result of this process, the 2005 Paris Declaration on
Aid Effectiveness, was ground-breaking. It recognised that recipient coun-
tries’ deficient institutions were partly to blame for a lack of effectiveness
in the past. However, crucially, it also recognised that the disappointments
and sometimes failures of past aid were not solely due to problems in recip-
ient countries and that donors also needed to change how they worked.
The Paris Declaration’s principles quickly constituted the overarching norm
for 21st-century development cooperation.

Overall, there is considerable literature on how donors can help Africa’s

growth and development by adopting procedures for improving aid
effectiveness. It is argued that donors must reduce resource flows’ uncer-
tainties and volatilities to aid African recipient countries. Shortfalls in aid
disbursements relative to pledges create significant difficulties for recipient
country governments in planning development projects and delivering
vital services.
It is also argued donors would be better served if they adopt the prin-
ciples of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which emphasises the
need to allow recipient countries to define their development priorities
and programmes. In contrast, donors assist in helping recipient coun-
tries achieve those priorities. This is a clear departure from the traditional
top-down aid approach of the last decade. Moreover, with many African
countries now possessing well-educated and well-trained civil servants,
donors can be reassured that they are knowledgeable in their countries’
economic and political affairs and capable of implementing development
aid projects and programmes.
However, the existing studies on aid effectiveness have mainly focused
on aid and its impact on the development of recipient countries. These
studies have generally been concerned with whether aid works and
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

effectively achieves its objectives—however, this book focuses on the oper-

ational issues around the otherwise good policies governing aid. Thus,
rather than analysing whether aid works, the book examines the imple-
mentation of aid policies. Consequently, the book contributes to the
literature on aid effectiveness policies concerning Kenya, which generally
relate to Africa in two ways. The first is by providing a comprehen-
sive analysis of the Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation
(PEDC) implementation that combines the perspectives of development
agencies, government officials and the ultimate beneficiaries (in this case,
the small-scale farmers of Kenya). This is a strength that previous studies
have not adequately addressed as most have based their analysis of the
implementation of PD either on the perspective of donors (e.g. Armon,
2007; Brown, 2012; Knack, 2014; Molenaers & Nijs, 2011) or on
the perspective of recipient governments (e.g. Booth, 2012; Hayman,
2009; Whitfield & Fraser, 2008). Brown’s (2012) and Molenaers and
Nijs’ (2011) analyses are donor centred, whereas Whitfield and Fraser
(2008), Booth (2012) and Hayman (2009) have analysed recipient weak-
nesses and strengths in isolation. Therefore, the existing literature lacks
a balanced and simultaneous analysis of donor and recipient government
perspectives.
Secondly, by focusing on PEDC implementation in the agriculture
sector, this book contributes to the literature that seldom highlights the
separate role of ultimate beneficiaries (from that of the government)
as necessary for making aid effectiveness policies work. The agriculture
sector is particularly relevant in this kind of inquiry because agricul-
ture plays a pivotal role in developing Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as
the primary source of income, food, employment and effectiveness in
reducing poverty. Thus, farmers as beneficiaries have a more central
role in implementation. Providing a perspective of the implementation
of PD based on farmers’ roles and experiences is, therefore, critical in
analysing the effectiveness of donor-funded agricultural programmes—
empirical evidence is rarely provided in the literature. So far, only a
few theoretical studies, for example, Booth (2012) and (Cabral, 2008),
have attempted to merely highlight the distinctions between the recip-
ient governments and the poor people they represent and the need
for this distinction to be factored in PD (and the subsequent PEDC);
however, their studies do not capture the perspectives of small-scale
farmers. This book contributes to this literature by capturing the actual
6 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

perspectives of small-scale farmers and including this in the analysis of the

implementation of aid effectiveness policies and PD in particular.
Concerning Kenya and Africa in general, this book has important rele-
vance as part of the literature on implementing aid effectiveness policies
in agriculture. Although the agricultural sector is key in developing most
African countries (that receive aid for these purposes), there is a shortage
of literature on specific studies related to the implementation of PEDC
in this sector. Rather than focusing on PEDC and its implementation,
existing literature on aid and the African agriculture sector has mainly
deliberated on issues such as the quantity of aid to the sector (Eicher,
2003), the impact of changes in donor priorities (Herdt, 2010) and the
role of policy reforms (Dalgaard & Hansen, 2001; Dollar & Easterly,
1999; Hansen & Tarp, 2000). This book, therefore, has a theoretical
value in contributing to knowledge specific to PEDC implementation in
an African agricultural setting.
It is important to mention here that though PEDC explicates five
principles: ownership alignment, harmonisation, managing the results and
mutual accountability, in actual implementation, especially in the case of
Kenya, the first three principles of ownership alignment and harmonisa-
tion are more pronounced in practice. Therefore, our analysis, driven by
fieldwork data, has a greater focus on the first three principles.

1.1 Background
The World Bank has supported over 43 agricultural-related projects and
programmes in Kenya with a total commitment of about USD 1 billion.
Most of these have been loans with some components of grants (World-
Bank, 2020b). These projects have varied from integrated sector projects
to support specific agricultural enterprises such as coffee, tea, sugar or
livestock. Other multilateral institutions that have remained visible in
supporting the sector over the years include the African Development
Bank (ADB) and the International Fund for Agriculture and Develop-
ment (IFAD). On the bilateral front, top of the list is Swedish Interna-
tional Development Agency (SIDA), Danish International Development
Agency (DANIDA), the Netherlands government, the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), the German Agency
for International Cooperation (GIZ), Finnish International Development
Agency (FIDA) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

Over the years, these agencies, alongside the Kenyan government, have
implemented policies that can make their aid efforts more effectively
achieve desired objectives. These policies and the application of aid effec-
tiveness principles in the agriculture sector in Kenya concern this book.
Therefore, the book contributes to the policy debate regarding Kenya,
which generally has broader relevance to the African region. The field-
work that forms the bulk and the basis of this book benefited from
different people who have lived to experience different eras of donor
activity. Among them were serving and retired government officials and
some individual farmers. On average, they remembered the past as having
had more generous projects or programmes with lots of money, equip-
ment, materials, training and scholarships. They observed that ‘it was
much better than nowadays’. Although the past seemed to elicit such
grand memories, there appeared to be no long-term impact or transfor-
mation. Most of those interviewed (especially the farmers) desired that
things could return to “the way they were”. It seemed that recipients were
either unaware or chose to ignore the fact that the donor programmes
were not meant to run forever and that a key pillar to aid effort was
the sustainability of the funded projects. Many farmers said they had not
“been lucky” to benefit from these past projects and had hoped that “their
turn” would come. All these were suggestive that there was a general lack
of clear understanding of the scope and objectives of donor support.
For representatives of donor agencies, the memory of past aid activi-
ties did not seem to resonate much except through reports which were
also not readily available. This was understandable given that most of
these representatives did not last that long in their postings. Further-
more, strategies and objectives of donor interventions would have evolved
over the years rendering past activities of much less concern. Nevertheless,
some donor representatives intimated that they had been to other African
countries and regarded their experience as applicable to their current
posting. This perspective was not isolated, as some agencies viewed
African problems as similar and connected. This was demonstrated by
an example showing that the World Bank and African Development Bank
shifted their focus to regional programmes simultaneously implemented
in several countries and require collaboration between them.
This intro shows how development aid remains essential as part of the
concerted efforts to fight poverty and improve human welfare. This fight
is particularly relevant for most parts of Africa, where poverty levels are
high, especially in rural areas. Many factors favour donors’ incline to fund
8 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

agriculture in the drive to generate economic growth in these parts of the

world. For one, the sector is the largest and is known to support much of
the non-farm sectors by producing raw materials (Brzeska et al., 2012).
It has also been argued that over two-thirds of those regarded as poor in
Africa dwell in rural areas and are dependent on Agriculture, making the
sector central to the fight against poverty (Thirtle et al., 2003).
While Africa’s agricultural sector still relies significantly on aid, the
debate on the broader topic of aid effectiveness, in general, is far
from being resolved. Different empirical and theoretical studies have
made conflicting conclusions concerning the aid and development nexus.
Nevertheless, persistent doubts have been expressed regarding aid as a
strategy for enabling developing nations to achieve their development
targets (Easterly & Pfutze, 2008; Mavrotas, 2009; Moyo, 2009; Santiso,
2001). These concerns have been alive among significant donor nations,
especially the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). Their work developed policy guidelines intended to make
aid more effective in tackling development challenges. The international
conference on financing development held in Monterrey, Mexico, in 2002
marked the beginning of these efforts.
Consequently, a High-Level Forum on Harmonisation was organised
in Rome the following year, and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effective-
ness followed in 2005. Since then, Accra HighLevel Forum in 2008 and
Busan High-Level Forums on Aid Effectiveness of 2011 also emerged. At
Busan, a decision was made to change the forum to “Global Partnership
for Effective Development Cooperation” (GPEDC) by 2012. Since then,
there have been two high-level forums of GPEDC in Mexico (2014) and
Nairobi (2016). In addition, a senior-level meeting on GPEDC was held
in New York in 2019.
The foundational principle which has persisted since is ‘ownership’—
an implication that developing countries must be at the driving seat of
their development by preparing policies and strategies aimed at achieving
development results and by leading the process of deploying domestic
and external resources in the implementation of these strategies (Booth,
2008). It marked a departure from the donor policies of the 1980s
and 1990s, remembered for their emphasis on conditional aid disburse-
ment (Santiso, 2001). The subsequent four principles of PD built on the
first principle and were designed to increase the recipient’s discretion in
managing the aid resources. The second principle, for example, required
donors to commit and base their support on the partner country’s
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

national development strategies. They also required them to link their

funding to a framework derived from these strategies and required donors
and partners to commit to working together in using country systems
(OECD-DAC, 2009). The third principle aimed to rationalise aid delivery
recognising the difficulties in aligning aid to partner country policies
and systems. This included adopting common procedures for planning,
managing and delivering aid and promoting transparency through sharing
information (Renzio et al., 2005). The fourth principle focused on results,
while the fifth aimed to promote mutual accountability between donors
and recipient countries.
The GPEDC continues in the same spirit and has outlined four prin-
ciples that significantly depart from previous policies that emphasised
fulfilling donor-dictated conditions and a step towards what some regard
as genuine development partnerships (Santiso, 2001). Since these prin-
ciples require considerable commitment from the donors and recipients,
an assumption must exist that donors and recipients have sufficient good-
will to uphold the principles. However, several political economy theories
suggest that donors and recipient governments have motivations for aid.
These theories thus suggest the possibility of antagonism of interests
between donors and recipients. This can also mean inconsistency with
the spirit entailed in aid effectiveness principles. For example, there have
been strong arguments that donors utilise aid to induce policy compliance
in recipient countries, disputing the notion that aid is given to alleviate
poverty (Mesquita & Smith, 2009). Others, e.g. Hopkins (2002), asso-
ciate aid with the economic interests of powerful groups in the donor
countries and the need for donors to maximise diplomatic, commercial
or cultural interests. Some authors have argued that poor governance,
including corruption, is rampant in many developing countries, making
it hard for aid to achieve its objectives (Wenar, 2006). If these different
motivations exist, they are likely to conflict with the values espoused by
the aid effectiveness principles. Such a scenario raises curiosity about how
the various players can be seen to be pushing for the said aid effectiveness
agenda while pursuing each one their interests.
In many aspects, the values espoused in PEDC and previously PD
attempt to curtail strategic and commercial interests that donors may
wish to attach to the aid they provide. Similar pressure is directed at
recipients to be honest and clear about their own development inter-
ests and demonstrate that they can provide the required leadership to
pursue the agreed development agenda. Therefore, this book finds itself
10 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

in the middle of what looks like altruistic values of the aid effectiveness
principles and the various interests that might exist among donors and
recipients. It may not be within reach to define these interests. Still, it
is essential to identify instances where the actions of the various players
either aid or curtail the sound implementation of the aid effectiveness
principles. With the setting of Kenya, this study limits itself to the agri-
culture sector. Thus, it seeks to document how PEDC finds its way into
the bilateral and multilateral relationships between Kenya and its donors.
As argued earlier, African countries, including Kenya, consider the Agri-
culture sector to occupy a special place in the economy. For Kenya in
particular, agriculture contributes, directly and indirectly, a total of 51%
to the GDP, employs about 60% of the country’s population and makes
up an estimated 65% of total exports, according to the recent estimates
available (GoK, 2020a). To highlight its importance, Kenya’s latest devel-
opment blueprint, Vision 2030, identifies the agriculture sector as key to
delivering the 10% annual economic growth rate envisaged (GoK, 2007).
While the role of development aid in Kenya’s economy has generally
declined over the years, its significance has remained afloat in the agri-
culture sector. On average, agriculture is ranked third in priority among
donors after health and education (Development-Initiative, 2012). This
can perhaps be attributed to the sector’s importance to the economy. In
the Medium Term Investment Plan (MTIP) between 2010 and 2018,
Kenya’s development partners were expected to contribute KShs 77
billion to the agriculture sector, which translated to 31% of the sector
development budget (GoK, 2010) compared to about KShs 3 billion in
2008 (Fan et al., 2009). Indeed, the commitments for the year 2016
were reported to have been USD 327 m which translates to about
KShs 32.7 billion. This is significant because literature reports a decline
in donor commitments towards Africa’s agriculture sector. Collier and
Dollar (2002) and Ellis and Freeman (2005) attribute these dimin-
ishing allocations to donor scepticism following the poor response of
the sector to donor funding. Kane and Eicher (2004) see this decline
resulting from NGO pressure to broaden the aid agenda to be people-
centred rather than sector-centred, where more funds are earmarked for
social services such as education and health. Some authors now credit
African Union’s New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) for
initiating Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

(CAADP) which subsequently highlighted the need to invest in agricul-

ture and thereby reviving support for the sector (Fan et al., 2009). Kenya
appears to be on this path with donors remaining supportive of the sector.
Small-scale farming enterprises dominate Kenya’s agriculture. This, on
its own, presents an interesting perspective. This is because the engen-
dering growth of the sector requires a transformation of numerous and
incongruent small-scale agricultural enterprises. These small-scale hold-
ings contrast in size, type of crop, or livestock kept literacy level of the
household head and other variations that may occur on account of where
they are situated geographically within the country. Furthermore, some
view agricultural activities as largely private, with the sector’s performance
depending on individual farmers (Cabral, 2008).
This setup should have implications on how PECD can be imple-
mented in the sector and indicate who should be involved and under
what obligations. For example, at the negotiating table with donors, how
well the sector’s interests are represented should be of utmost concern.
Can the bureaucrats of the various ministries speak for the majority of
the sector players who are small-scale farmers? Or rather, how well are
the sector’s priorities reflected by the strategies these bureaucrats adopt
during negotiations with donors? For example, Mosley and Suleiman
(2007) have suggested that aid could be more effective if directed towards
more pro-poor strategies and small-scale agriculture. Others have empha-
sised the importance of participatory planning and accountability (Brown
et al., 1999; Poulton, 2010). These ideas sound good, yet they can
be challenging to implement. One big challenge is the fragmentation
and variation in the sector and the low capacity of small-scale farmers.
This makes it challenging to obtain a solid and consistent voice that can
adequately articulate issues of the sector. Others argue that most govern-
ments do not attach the deserved importance to participatory processes
such as PRSPs and National Plans. Hence, doubt if these are given a
chance to be valid expressions of policies that govern what the states and
politicians do (Booth, 2005; Dijkstra, 2005).
While PEDC is some form of “a guide” to the relationship between
donors and recipients, they are also part of an evolving body of public
policy ideas spreading worldwide. There is also a growing literature
on international policy diffusion. For example, Dobbin et al. (2007)
theorised that this happens in four ways: social construction, coercion,
competition and learning. However, most literature dwells on how knowl-
edge processes on policies or ideas developed and practised in one country
12 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

are picked up and used in developing policies for another (Dolowitz et al.,
2000). However, the PEDC is unique from other international policies as
they are not explicitly owned and driven by a particular country or insti-
tution. Instead, they represent a consensus of some kind, ideals that are
thought to make aid objectives more achievable if practised. Even studies
focused on how norms diffuse in international organisations are inade-
quate in explaining how policies developed in the same way as the PEDC
might find their way entrenched in specific contexts (Park, 2005). This
book attempts to fill this gap by describing policy diffusion in circum-
stances where there are no lead countries and no specific established
international organisation leading the process.
Aid effectiveness principles, the predecessor to PEDC, originate from
the 22-member Development Assistance Committee of the Organization
of Economic Cooperations and Development (OECD/DAC). They had
been deliberating for years about donor and recipient country policies
that could boost the impact of development aid (Brown, 2012). Unlike
previous donor policies that varied from donor to donor and were some-
times laden with conditions, these were meant to bring some semblance of
harmony in the way donors dealt with recipients. Indeed, some if not all
donors have had challenges reconciling these principles with their internal
policies. For example, according to Brown (2012), Canada, for a while,
implemented its own “distinct, more narrow version” of the endorsed
agenda and was reluctant to drop some conditions that were not in line
with the strict interpretation of the Paris Declaration. Again most policy
diffusion literature focuses on the unidirectional mode of policy transfer.
This study will thus examine challenges for both recipients and donors in
the processes of internalising these policies.
Apart from examining the implementation of PEDC, this book also
explores policy diffusion, specifically PEDC principles in the systems
of Kenya and its donors and the challenges that impede or enhance
compliance.
This study’s main objective is to examine how the diffusion and appli-
cation of PEDC occur among donors, the Kenya government as the
recipient, farmers, NGOs and other key players in the agricultural sector
and the challenges and opportunities that occur in the process. In this
quest, one of the critical issues of interest is identifying the critical players
in the agriculture sector and their roles in developing the sector. Next
is to look at how the various stakeholders are engaging with PEDC and
how these might be diffused into the agriculture sector system in Kenya.
 1 INTRODUCTION 13

Finally, more critical is to examine the policy and practice implications

presented by implementing PEDC in Kenya’s agriculture sector.
In attempting to understand the diffusion processes of PEDC, this
book relied on the information available about structures and activi-
ties that have been set in motion or instituted to enable this process.
For this matter, the study sought the views and opinions of experts,
government officials, small-scale farmers and donor representatives. We,
therefore, examine forums that have brought together the government
and donors, donors and other donors and different government depart-
ments/ministries to each other to improve the efficacy of aid. Kenya Joint
Assistance Strategy (KJAS) of 2007–2012 is an example of a joint initia-
tive between donors and the government of Kenya towards the realisation
of PEDC. Unfortunately, this seems to be the only comprehensive docu-
ment that donors and the Kenyan government ever came up with, as
there have never been other updated versions. We nevertheless find it
an essential item of analysis and is included in the deliberations of this
book alongside several other related initiatives that have been under-
taken in respect of PD implementation. For example, following KJAS,
an Aid Effectiveness Desk was established at the Ministry of Finance
to oversee its implementation on behalf of the government of Kenya.
Within the agriculture sector, there were corresponding initiatives. These
included establishing the Agriculture Sector Coordinating Unit (ASCU)
and the Agriculture Sector Donor Group. We analyse these initiatives to
understand how PD and later PEDC have evolved over the years.
Concerning progress in implementing the PECD and the challenges
and opportunities experienced, this book provides an extensive profile
of the various stakeholders in the sector. In addition, policy-making
processes within Kenya’s agriculture sector are discussed to identify points
of agreement or departure from the values espoused by PEDC. Moreover,
we have attempted to provide a balanced view of the activities and poli-
cies of individual donors. It is then compared with their commitments to
PEDC and the aid effectiveness principles in general.
The last research question is captured throughout the book as it
unfolds. Since the agricultural sector mainly depends on the dominant
small-scale production, issues that concern its performance are prioritised.
The role of small-scale producers in policy-making, for example, is high-
lighted and, similarly, a more significant issue of participation. Another
important theme is the state of organisation among farmers and the state
of their ‘voice’ and ability to represent their interests. This is an important
14 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

prerequisite for effective participation in policy formulation and nego-

tiations for effective aid. Since it is often the business of bureaucrats
from donor and recipient governments who determine programmes to
be prioritised, it is incumbent to understand how different interests are
represented.
In pursuing these research questions, this book contributes to new
knowledge in two ways. The first is by providing a comprehensive narra-
tive that combines perspectives of development agencies, government
officials and small-scale farmers in Kenya on the effectiveness of agricul-
tural sector funding and aid effectiveness in particular. Existing literature
on aid effectiveness and the agriculture sector in Africa has often focused
on factors such as the quantity of aid to the sector (Eicher, 2003), the
impact of changes in donor priorities (Herdt, 2010) and the role of policy
reforms (Dalgaard & Hansen, 2001; Dollar & Easterly, 1999; Hansen &
Tarp, 2000). However, these studies mainly relied on the macroeco-
nomic outlook of countries involved with less perspective of specific sector
players. With small-scale farmers being the dominant players in the agri-
culture sector, most programmes are often designed to address their
challenges. However, they have limitations, such as the great diversity
among them, limited education and lack of organisation, affecting their
ability to influence public policies.
Overall, gaps exist in the literature on small-scale farmers concerning
implementing policies that aim to improve aid performance in agriculture.
However, it is worth noting that, although often overlooked, small-
scale farmers’ actions and day-to-day decisions drive the very essence
and productivity of the agriculture sector. Therefore, theirs is a critical
perspective independent of the government and donor representatives and
should be included in building a better understanding of the agriculture
sector. We also argue that connecting both farmers’ and the agricultural
ministry officials’ views with those of agents of donors is an important
way of developing a comprehensive understanding of the aid architecture
in Kenya’s agriculture sector.
Secondly, while the flow of policies has been extensively studied, most
studies have concentrated on policy diffusion involving flows from one
country to another in ways similar to learning from their example (see
Dobbin et al., 2007; Simmons et al., 2006; Stone, 2012). Or they have
focused on the diffusion of policies where particular international organi-
sations use their expertise and experience to support countries adopt and
 1 INTRODUCTION 15

implement new policies thought to be beneficial (see Abbott & Snidal,

1998; Kim, 2013; Park, 2005). However, aid effectiveness principles and
PEDC, in particular, differ from these other policies because they emerge
from agreements based on a loose framework of an international forum
and lack the benefit of lessons from initial implementation elsewhere.
Therefore, while the flow of other policies has the possibility of oversight
from the source country or the established international organisation that
drives them, the diffusion of PEDC largely depends on the interpreta-
tion of the countries implementing them. It must also be noted that the
diffusion of these policies is dual as they simultaneously confer unique
obligations to the recipients and the donors. Thus, each of them ought
to fulfil their part to achieve the best possible results.

1.2 Research Questions

The main objective of this book is to examine how the diffusion and
application of these principles occur among donors, the Kenya govern-
ment as the recipient, farmers, NGOs and other key players in the
agricultural sector and the challenges and opportunities that occur in the
process. Specifically, the following research questions are of interest and
are pursued in this research.

(a) Who are the critical players in the agriculture sector and what are
their roles in the development of the sector?
(b) How do aid effectiveness principles as outlined by Paris declaration
(PD) of 2005 and subsequent high-level forums diffuse into the
agriculture sector system in Kenya?
(c) What are the policy and practice implications presented by the
nature of PD diffusion into the agriculture sector in Kenya?

In attempting to provide an understanding of the diffusion processes of

aid effectiveness principles, this study relies on the information available
about structures and activities that have been set in motion or instituted
to enable this process. To do this, we sought the views and opinions of
experts, government officials, small-scale farmers and donor representa-
tives. The research therefore examines forums that have brought together
the government and donors, donors and other donors and different
government departments/ministries to each other with the objective of
16 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

improving the effectiveness of aid. Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (KJAS)

of 2007–2012 is an example of a joint initiative between donors and the
government of Kenya towards realisation of the aid effectiveness princi-
ples. In this book, we deliberate on this initiative and a number of other
related activities that have been undertaken in respect of PD implementa-
tion. So far, an Aid Effectiveness Desk has been established at the Ministry
of Finance so as to oversee implementation on behalf of the government
of Kenya. Within the agriculture sector, there have been corresponding
initiatives. These include the establishment of Agriculture Sector Coor-
dinating Unit (ASCU) and the Agriculture Sector Donor Group. We
provide an analysis of all these initiatives for a wholesome understanding
of how the aid effectiveness principles are being internalised.
With regard to progress in implementation of the principles and the
challenges and opportunities that are available, this book provides an
extensive profile of the various stakeholders in the sector. Policy-making
processes within Kenya’s agriculture sector are discussed so as to iden-
tify points of agreement or departure from the values espoused by aid
effectiveness principles. We also attempt to provide a balanced view of
activities and policies of individual donors and compare these with their
commitments to PD and the aid effectiveness principles in general.
The last research question is captured throughout the book as it
unfolds. Since the agricultural sector is identified as mainly dependent
on the dominant small-scale production, issues that concern its perfor-
mance are therefore given priority. The role of small-scale producers in
policy-making, for example, is highlighted and the similarly bigger issue
of their participation. Another important theme is that of the state of
organisation among farmers and the state of their ‘voice’ and ability to
represent their interests. This is suggested as an important prerequisite
for effective participation in policy formulation as well as in negotiations
for effective aid. Since it is often the business of bureaucrats from donor
and recipient governments who determine programmes to be prioritised,
it is incumbent to understand how different interests are represented. In
pursuing these research questions, this thesis contributes to new knowl-
edge in two ways. First is by providing a comprehensive narrative that
combines perspectives of development agencies, government officials and
small-scale farmers in Kenya on effectiveness of agricultural sector funding
and aid effectiveness in particular. Existing literature on aid effectiveness
and agriculture sector in Africa has often been focused on factors such as
the quantity of aid to the sector (Eicher, 2003), the impact of changes in
 1 INTRODUCTION 17

donor priorities (Herdt, 2010) and the role of policy reforms (Dalgaard &
Hansen, 2001; Dollar & Easterly, 1999; Hansen & Tarp, 2000). These
studies mostly relied on the macroeconomic outlook of countries involved
with much less perspective of specific sector players.
With small-scale farmers being the dominant players in agricul-
ture sector, most programmes are often designed with an objective of
addressing their challenges. Limitations they have such as the great diver-
sity that exists among them, limited education and lack of organisation
are bound to affect their ability to influence public policies. Despite these
realities, there are gaps in literature on the position of small-scale farmers
in relation to implementation of aid effectiveness principles. It is worthy
to note that although often overlooked, small-scale farmers’ actions and
day-to-day decisions are what actually drives the very essence and produc-
tivity of the agriculture sector. Theirs is therefore an important perspective
independent from the viewpoint of the government and donor represen-
tatives and should be included in building a better understanding of the
agriculture sector.
Through this study, we argue that government ministry officials do
not necessarily subscribe to a single dominant standpoint and that it is in
the analysis of the actions, attitudes and views of the different cadres of
ministry officials that we can gain a comprehensive and aggregate view
of what constitutes government influence in the agriculture sector. We
also argue that connecting both farmer and ministry officials’ views with
those of agents of donors is an important way of developing a comprehen-
sive understanding of the spread of aid effectiveness principles in Kenya’s
agriculture sector.
Secondly, while flow of policies has been extensively studied, most of
the studies have concentrated on policy diffusion involving flows from
one country to another in ways similar to learning from their example
(see Dobbin et al., 2007; Simmons et al., 2006; Stone, 2012) or diffusion
of policies where particular international organisations use their expertise
and experience to support countries adopt and implement new policies
thought to be beneficial (see Abbott & Snidal, 1998; Kim, 2013; Park,
2005). Aid effectiveness principles differ from these other policies because
they emerge from agreements that are based on a loose framework of an
international forum and lack the benefit of lessons from prior implemen-
tation elsewhere. Therefore, while flow of other policies has opportunities
of oversight from the source country or the established international
organisation that drives them, diffusion of aid effectiveness principles
18 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

largely depends on the interpretation of the countries implementing them.

It must also be noted that diffusion of aid effectiveness principles is dual
in nature as they simultaneously confer unique obligations to the recipi-
ents and the donors. Thus, each of them ought to fulfil their part in order
to achieve the best possible results.

1.3 Research Design

The main objective of this study as outlined in Sect. 1.2 required a
research design that captures the perspectives of the major players in the
agriculture sector in Kenya. Aid effectiveness as a topic can be sensitive
because it is often mistaken for audit of performance and many project
administrators would be weary of explaining the impact of their projects.
It was noticed that some of the officials interviewed spoke with a lot
of caution, ostensibly in a bid to prevent creating a bad name for their
organisations. Others refused to be recorded for understandable reasons.
Since a significant portion of the data required was to come from officials
from various organisations, it was important to encourage them not to
limit their views to the official position of their organisations. Sometimes
it was helpful to follow up a question with a statement like ‘please share
your candid opinion as well’, but it was also realised that there was need
to pay attention to issues that were indirectly communicated or implied
during conversations including body language.
In line with this background, this research took on an interpretive
approach as the philosophy to guide the data collection and analysis.
The study thus relies more on participants’ views of the situation being
studied. Our ontological assumption was that a multiple of realities exists
and was a product by which social actors negotiated the meanings for
actions and situations (Blaikie, 1991, 120). In other words, each indi-
vidual constructs a reality out of his or her experience of a phenomenon
of interest and that meanings are derived from people’s cognition and not
in some objective reality that exists out there (Krauss, 2005).
On epistemological front, the assumption was that knowledge is
dependent on time and context (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). Knowl-
edge was therefore to be generated through determination of meanings,
motives and reasons among other subjective experiences that appre-
ciate the contextual nature of local situations (Blaikie, 1991). That
as researchers, we ought to interact with the subjects of the study
and that research transforms both the respondents and the researchers
 1 INTRODUCTION 19

(Krauss, 2005). This approach was very relevant to this study because
it provided for deriving meaning from tacitly communicated information
and symbolic knowledge captured through interactions with respondents.
Respondents to this study were generally classified into four categories:
donor representatives, government of Kenya representatives, small-scale
farmers and agriculture sector experts. An ‘insider’ perspective or actor-
oriented approach as argued by Harsh (2008) was therefore pursued in
order to develop a wholesome understanding of aid and agriculture sector.

Fig. 1.1 Map of Kenya with Nairobi, Nakuru, Makueni and Kwale shaded sites
of field interviews
20 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

1.4 Data: Selection, Collection and Analysis

1.4.1 Selection
Kenya was suitable for this kind of study for various reasons. One reason
is that aid to the agriculture sector has remained significant over the
years, as stated earlier. The second reason has equally been belaboured in
the previous discussion—that of the sector’s importance to the country’s
economy and the number of people it supports. Finally, most key infor-
mant interviews were undertaken in Nairobi, Kenya’s capital city, where
the most national staff of different aid agencies have their offices. In addi-
tion, with a few exceptions, national coordinators of the donor-sponsored
projects are also primarily stationed in Nairobi.
In selecting data sources, all the major stakeholders in the agriculture
sector were considered potential respondents with helpful information to
support the objectives of this study. These include the providers of aid—
among them bilateral and multilateral agencies and international NGOs.
Among the multilateral agencies, information was sought from the World
Bank, FAO, ADB and IFAD (three). Whenever it was difficult to fix an
appointment with representatives of these organisations, we had to rely on
interviews with coordinators of the programmes they sponsored. This did
not compromise the quality of information because these officials had a
good grasp of the inner workings of the sponsoring institutions and were
also well versed in local issues. This information was backed up by various
documents available on the websites of the concerned organisations.
The next category of donors was bilateral agencies. The following bilat-
eral agencies with significant investment in the Agriculture sector were
picked as data sources: JICA, SIDA, FIDA, GIZ, USAID and DANIDA
(six). All were interviewed except DANIDA, which declined the request
to be interviewed. However, it advised there was relevant information on
their website. Heifer Project International (HPI), HIVOS and INVADES
are the three international NGOs whose representatives were interviewed.
The Ministry of Agriculture is key as the host government-
implementing agency through which most donor funds find their way
to various programmes in the country. Thirty-one respondents from the
ministry were interviewed—some from the ministry headquarters and the
rest from Nakuru, Kwale and Makueni counties. In addition, one respon-
dent from the Ministry of Finance (One) and two policy experts (two)
from policy research institutions were also included. The policy research
institutions included were the Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy
 1 INTRODUCTION 21

and Development of Egerton University and the Kenya Institute of Public

Policy Research Analysis.
Finally, to develop a deeper understanding of agricultural aid experi-
ence, it was essential to analyse at the farmers’ level. For this reason, 15
focus groups (with 171 participants on the whole) and 23 individual inter-
views of farmers and service providers were done in three counties. These
were as follows: Nakuru, found in the former Rift Valley Province and
situated in the central part of Kenya, Makueni County in the East and
Kwale County on the coast. These counties were purposively chosen for
maximising the learning of the issues of interest to this research (Boeije,
2010). All of them had a history of high activity in donor-funded agri-
cultural programmes. In addition, the three counties are unique in their
ethnic composition, climatic conditions and the history of their agricul-
ture. Therefore, including the three was a strategy to ensure a complete
picture of the research topic. Furthermore, collecting data at the farmer
level invariably included seeking the views of essential service providers
involved in the farming value chain, including input suppliers, agricultural
produce marketing agents and financial service providers.

1.4.2 Data Collection Methods

The interpretive approach favours the use of qualitative methodological
tools. These qualitative methods can overcome the limits imposed by the
predetermined hypothesis that often dictates the form, quantity and scope
of required data (Richards, 2005). Moreover, they were well suited to
this research because of the critical importance of the diverse respondents
involved, from representatives of donors and NGOs, government agents,
agricultural service providers and individual farmers. The different vantage
points presented by these respondents yielded different types of under-
standing and a diversity of perspectives critical for capturing a wholesome
picture of the actual situation of aid and development in the agriculture
sector in Kenya.
The choice of qualitative methods implied collecting a large amount
of descriptive data. It also required establishing a coherent approach
to collecting and collating this data and the need for dynamism in
handling issues peculiar to particular settings (Dudwick et al., 2006,
29). Qualitative interviewing was the primary method of collecting data
and was carried out through individual interviews (key informants) or
focus group discussions. These interviews proceeded through capturing
22 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

the essential ‘everyday’ kind of descriptive information from respon-

dents that would often be taken for granted. We assumed a deliberately
open phenomenological approach to learning with my respondents, as
suggested by Kvale (1996) while striving to avoid the influence of a
predetermined hypothesis.
Therefore, it was important for the respondents to feel at ease and
establish a rapport with them for the interview to commence. In addi-
tion, we reinforced the fact that we were there to learn, and as genuine
learners, we needed “…to know what they knew in the way they knew and
to understand the meaning of their experience…(to be able) to explain
things as they explained” (Spradley, 1979). Therefore, we used a semi-
structured questionnaire based on a sequence of the themes of interest
to the study. We were also considerably flexible depending on how the
interview followed up on specific issues the respondents had brought up
(Kvale, 1996). Other methods used were documented in content analysis
and participant observation.

1.4.3 Key Informant Interviews

Key informant interviews were carried out in line with Corbetta (2003,
275) as in-depth qualitative interviews with specific persons based on their
privileged observational position. Thus, the respondents were selected
considering their formal roles, enabling them to provide the informa-
tion required in this study. In addition, the respondents’ willingness
to share their knowledge impartially was considered (Tremblay, 1957).
Accordingly, the following respondents were interviewed:

● Officials from the Ministry of Finance (who are in charge of

agricultural aid issues).
● Officials of the Agricultural Sector Coordinating Unit (ASCU).
● Representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture (including national
Programme Coordinators of donor-sponsored agricultural
programmes).
● Authorised representatives of key donor agencies in the agricultural
sector; notably USAID, the Finland Embassy, the Royal Embassy of
the Netherlands, the German International Agency for Development
(GIZ), Swedish International Agency of Development (SIDA) and
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) were interviewed at
the national level.
 1 INTRODUCTION 23

Others in this category included the World Bank, African Development

Bank (ADB) and International Finance Agency for Development (IFAD).
At the county level, local representatives of the various donor-supported
programmes, key service providers, agricultural extension officers and
local development workers were approached for interviews. In all cases,
the principle of optimal selection was used to ensure that those chosen
exceeded the knowledge of those not included as key informants
(Pauwels & Hardyns, 2009). Key informants were first informed formally
through email or phone and verbally requested to participate in the inter-
view. Because of the lead researcher’s networks within the Ministry of
Agriculture, securing appointments and interviews from the ministry offi-
cials was much more manageable. Some NGOs were also readily available
to share their views. For bilateral agencies, some were equally recep-
tive, but others did not acknowledge emails and even phone calls. We
resorted to snowballing, which became very effective, as those we had
already met could help obtain appointments with others, including some
who had ignored prior requests. The interviews were carried out using a
semi-structured interview schedule.

1.4.4 Focus Group Discussions

Focus group discussions (FGDs) was utilised in capturing data from
small-scale farmers in the field locations of Makueni, Kwale and Nakuru
counties. Being an exploratory qualitative research tool entailed system-
atic and simultaneous interviews of several respondents to gain detailed
knowledge about issues (Boateng, 2012; Sherrod et al., 2002).
This method encouraged various responses that helped understand
more significant differences in people’s perspectives and factors influ-
encing their opinions or behaviour (Hennick, 2007). In this study,
focus group discussions were particularly advantageous because they gave
respondents more power to generate knowledge and information. The
collective nature of focus group discussions empowered respondents and
suited small-scale farmers. Some could not articulate their views easily but
would often gain insight into issues while discussing with others in a safe
environment (Corbetta, 2003, 276). It is worth noting here that many
small-scale farmers included in this research were people who did not have
much education. While they had a wealth of experience in the issues of
our interest to this research, they would sometimes be limited in their
24 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

ability to express this through language. The collective nature of FGDs

was, therefore, beneficial.
In line with dominant literature, we planned to have 8–12 individuals
in each focus group (Wilkinson, 2004). Thus, participants in focus group
meetings ranged from eight to 15. The average for each focus group
was 10; the largest group was 15, with a minimum of eight. Generally,
people selected for the same focus group were residents of an administra-
tive division within one of the case areas. They had similar characteristics
regarding the subject of the focus discussion (Lederman, 1990). The
discussions were facilitated using a flexible guide. It was ensured that
discussions moved forward to answer research questions while providing
room for important incidental information during discussions, such as
ongoing active social interaction (immediate reactions, extreme positions
and agreement areas or disagreement) (Gaižauskaitė, 2012).
Researchers were aware of challenges that could arise, such as the
‘groupthink’ phenomenon and the tendency of some participants to
dominate the sessions taking away the individuality and independent
thinking expected of respondents (Boateng, 2012). Consequently, the
facilitation of discussions was tempered in a manner that helped limit this
while avoiding antagonising the participants.

1.4.5 Document Content Analysis

This was an important method for the study because of the wealth of
knowledge accumulated over time in project documents, programme
impact reports, various consultant reports and joint agreement docu-
ments between donor agencies and recipients. Therefore, assembling such
documents for further analysis formed an essential part of the research
process.

1.4.6 Participant Observation

The use of participant observation in this study was done in combination
with individual interviews and focus group discussions. It was utilised to
enable learning about people in their natural setting through observing
and participating in their activities to understand the social world from the
participant’s point of view (Kawulich, 2005). As a data collection method,
participant observation is uniquely adapted to the distinctive character
of human existence. Jorgensen (1989), for example, outlines conditions
 1 INTRODUCTION 25

for which participant observation is viewed as an effective research tool,

including that the research condition should be concerned with human
meanings and interactions, hence the need to obtain information from the
insider’s perspective. We found this an effective tool when interviewing
individual farmers. We also visited their homes, where it was possible to
observe some of their activities.
Therefore, participant observation was used to develop an insider’s
perspective regarding meanings and interactions. This method enabled
the researchers to check for definitions of terms that participants used in
interviews and observe events that informants were unable to or unwilling
to share and countercheck for distortions and inaccuracies in the process
of the interviews (Kawulich, 2005). The power relationship in this study’s
development aid scenario is a good pointer that there could be a wealth of
information not expressly available. It is this information that we hoped
to generate through participant observation.

1.5 Data Analysis

Data analysis took the form of a reflexive activity that started immediately
after data collection commenced. A tentative explanation of observa-
tions made in each interview or focus group discussion became helpful
in shaping the next steps in data collection (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).
During each interview, we took notes to help us pursue specific themes
in interviews. This was important because, with each unfolding set of
information obtained from respondents, it was important not to miss
possibilities of connecting with what had already been learnt. In this way,
subsequent lines of inquiry clarified the loose ends of information already
obtained.
In addition to taking notes, we endeavoured to audio record all inter-
views as long as the respondents did not object. These recordings were
later transcribed and became helpful in later stages of analysis. Where
recordings were not possible, researchers tried as much as possible to
make the best notes and immediately afterwards transcribe them by typing
them directly into a computer. Going back to the notes immediately
after the interviews was vital as it made transcribing easier because the
context and some of the issues that may have been missed in the notes
were still fresh in memory. At the end of each day of interviews, all the
notes captured were reviewed. Next was the data indexing to ensure that
26 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

extracts of data pertinent to a particular theme were grouped (Bloor et al.,

2001). Finally, on completing fieldwork and having transcribed all the
data, the same process was repeated to ensure that all relevant themes
were captured; wherever applicable, data unpicking was also done to avoid
issues that might have been picked out of context (Caterall & Maclaran,
1997).
Analysis continued through the indexed data in which various premises
were identified and connections and relationships explored to obtain
explanations as writing commenced. In writing itself, we speeches of some
of the respondents have been quoted to reinforce the analysis. Most of
these quoted speeches have been edited from their original transcripts to
improve their readability and provide context for better understanding.

1.6 Structure of the Book

This chapter serves as an introduction to further discussion and analysis
throughout the whole book. In this chapter, we have outlined the main
objective of this study and have listed the main research questions. In
addition, the research methodology has been expounded, including data
collection and analysis.
Chapter 2 analyses the debates concerning aid effectiveness and
international policy transfer and contextualises these debates within
development and post-development theory. Moreover, it outlines some
theoretical arguments around aid and aid effectiveness principles and
international and regional diffusion of policies. The chapter also provides
background information on African agriculture and the challenges of rural
poverty.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of the leading players in Kenya’s agri-
culture sector, pivotal in implementing the aid-funded activities of the
sector. Having dedicated the previous chapters to the details of PD, how
it has become a central part of donor rhetoric, and the challenges affecting
the state and policy-making, this chapter narrows into the practicalities
of policy implementation. It details the views of diverse individuals rele-
vant to the sector interviewed and analyses their understanding of the
important issues surrounding the sector and operations of donor-funded
programmes. The chapter also attempts to situate the power dynamics
in the decision-making hierarchy among the different stakeholders and
the broader lessons that this brings to understanding the diffusion of aid
effectiveness principles. Finally, it is shown how the agency is expropriated
 1 INTRODUCTION 27

and the influence of the context and structure on the abilities of different
players in making feasible decisions for the sector.
Chapter 4 goes into the policy-making processes within the agriculture
sector in Kenya. It is identified that aid effectiveness principles empha-
sise the recipient country’s systems, policies and strategies. Countries are
expected to chart their course so that development aid becomes part of
what drives the aspirations of this course. Policy processes are essential
in determining what systems ought to be in place and reflect the aspect
of ‘ownership’ regarding how programmes are implemented. The coun-
try’s policies also greatly influence other central issues to aid effectiveness
principles, such as harmonisation and coordination.
Chapter 5 reflects on donor policies and perspectives and how these
impinge on harmonisation and alignment principles of the Paris Decla-
ration (PD). This chapter relies on interviews with donor representatives
and brings the current trends in donor policies to the fore.
Chapter 6 is an overview of the main stakeholders of Kenya’s donor-
supported agriculture sector. Through interviews and existing data, we
explore the roles of the various players and highlight their influence in
the sector. The small-scale farming system’s challenges and opportunities
are highlighted because most agricultural aid targets small-scale farmers.
This chapter discusses the government’s role in coordinating the sector’s
activities, especially the Ministry of Agriculture. Other essential players
discussed include the private sector and NGOs.
Chapter 7 is the conclusion, where a cohesive synthesis of the issues
captured through the various chapters of this book is presented. The
first part tackles the overall conclusion and perspectives, while the second
summarises how the three research questions are addressed throughout
the book. Finally, the last part is to situate the study vis-à-vis existing
theory and literature and further mature reflections on the findings.

References
Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international
organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42, 3–32.
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins
of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic
Review, 91(5), 1369–2140.
Armon, J. (2007). Aid, politics and development: A donor perspective. Develop-
ment Policy Review, 25, 653–656.
28 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

Asongu, S. A., & Nwachukwu, J. C. (2018). Increasing foreign aid for inclusive
human development in Africa. Social Indicators Research, 138(2), 443–466.
Blaikie, N. W. H. (1991). A critique of the use of triangulation in social research.
Quality & Quantity, 25, 115–136.
Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in
social research, London. Sage.
Boateng, W. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of focus group discussion (FGD) in
qualitative social research. International Journal of Business and Social Science,
3, 54–57.
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualititative research. Sage.
Booth, D. (2005). Missing links in the politics of development: Learning from the
PRSP experiment. Nord-Su¨D Aktuell, 19, 239–245.
Booth, D. (2008). Aid effectiveness after ACCRA: How to reform the “Paris
Agenda” (Odi Briefing Paper). ODI.
Booth, D. (2012). Aid effectiveness: Bringing country ownership (and politics)
back in. Conflict, Security & Development, 12, 537–558.
Brown, S. (2012). Aid effectiveness and the framing of new Canadian aid initia-
tives. In Brown, S. (Ed.), Struggling for effectiveness: CIDA and Canadian
Foreign Aid. McGill-Queen’s Press.
Brown, S. (2020). The rise and fall of the aid effectiveness norm. The European
Journal of Development Research, 32(4), 1230–1248.
Brown, D., Richards, M., Schreckenberg, K., Shepherd, G., & Tiller, S. (1999).
Getting aid delivery right: Host country, donor and international complemen-
tarity for greater aid effectiveness in the forest sector (European Union Tropical
Forest Paper 4). Overseas Development Institute.
Brzeska, J., Diao, X., Fan, S., & Thurlow, J. (2012). African agriculture and
development. In Diao, X., Thurlow, J., Benin, S., & Fan, S. (Eds.), Strategies
and priorities for African agriculture: Economywide perspectives from country
studies. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Cabral, L. (2008). Accra 2008: The bumpy road to aid effectiveness in agriculture.
Natural Resource Perspectives, Overseas Development Institute, 114.
Caterall, M., & Maclaran, P. (1997). Focus group data and qualitative analysis.
Socilogical Research Online, 2.
Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complemen-
tary research strategies. Sage.
Collier, P., & Dollar, D. (2002). Aid allocation and poverty reduction. European
Economic Review, 46, 1475–1500.
Corbetta, P. (2003). Social research theory, methods and techniques. Sage.
Dalgaard, C.-J., & Hansen, H. (2001). On aid, growth and good policies.
Journal of Development Studies, 37 , 17–41.
Development-Initiative. (2012). Kenya resources for poverty eradication: A back-
ground paper. Development Initiatives Africa Hub.
 1 INTRODUCTION 29

Dijkstra, G. (2005). The PRSP approach and the illusion of improved aid effec-
tiveness: lessons from Bolivia, Honduras And Nicaragua. Development Policy
Review, 23, 443–464.
Dobbin, F., Simmons, B., & Garrett, G. (2007). The global diffusion of public
policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual
Review of Sociology, 33, 449–472.
Dollar, D., & Easterly, W. (1999). The search for the key: Aid, investment and
policies in Africa. Journal of African Economies, 8, 546–577.
Dolowitz, D., Hulme, R., Nellis, M., & O’neal. (2000). Policy transfer and
British social policy. Open University Press.
Dudwick, N., Kuehnast, K., Jones, V. N., & Woolcock, M. (2006). Analyzing
social capital in context: A guide to using qualitative methods and data. World
Bank.
Easterly, W., & Pfutze, T. (2008). Where does the money go? Best and worst
practices in foreign aid. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 29–52.
Eicher, C. (2003). Flashback: Fifty years of donor aid to African agriculture.
Michigan State University.
Ellis, F., & Freeman, H. A. (2005). Comparative evidence from four African
countries. In F. Ellis & H. A. Freeman (Eds.), Rural livelihoods and poverty
reduction policies. Routledge.
Fan, S., Omilola, B., & Lambert, M. (2009). Public spending for agriculture in
Africa: Trends and composition (ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 28). Regional
Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS).
Gaižauskaitė, I. (2012). The use of focus group method in social work research.
Social Work, 11.
GoK. (2007). Kenya vision 2030. Government of Kenya, Ministry of Planning
and National Development.
GoK. (2010). Agricultural sector development strategy. Medium term investment
plan 2010–2015. Nairobi: Republic of Kenya.
Hansen, H., & Tarp, F. (2000). Policy Arena aid effectiveness disputed. Journal
of International Development, 12, 375–398.
Harsh, M. (2008). Living technology and development: Agricultural biotechnology
and civil society in Kenya. University of Edinburgh.
Hayman, R. (2009). From Rome to Accra via Kigali: ‘Aid Effectiveness’ in
Rwanda. Development Policy Review, 27 , 581–599.
Hennick. (2007). “Magic” tricks for new teachers. Instructor 36, 38, 40, 117.
Herdt, R. W. (2010). Development aid and agriculture. Elsevier.
Hopkins, R. (2002). Political economy of foreign aid. In F. Tarp (Ed.), Foreign
aid and development: Lessons learnt and directions for the future. Routledge.
Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human
studies. Sage.
30 D. K. BORTER AND N. MALIK

Kalu, K., (2018). The structure of foreign aid to Africa since the 1960s.
In Foreign aid and the future of Africa (pp. 59–82). Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham.
Kane, S., & Eicher, C. K. (2004). Foreign aid and the African farmer. Michigan,
Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method.
Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6, 43.
Killick, T. (1983). Development planning in Africa: Experiences, weaknesses and
prescriptions. Development Policy Review, 1(1), 47–76.
Kim, D. (2013). International nongovernmental organizations and the global
diffusion of national human rights institutions. International Organization,
67 , 505–539.
Knack, S. (2014). Building or bypassing recipient country systems: Are donors
defying the Paris declaration. The Journal of Development Studies, 50, 839–
854.
Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The
Qualitative Report, 10, 758–770.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Sage.
Lederman, L. C. (1990). Assessing educational effectiveness: The focus group
interview as a technique for data collection. Communication Education, 38,
117–127.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods,
and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 193–205.
Malik, N. (2016). Analyzing good governance and decentralization in developing
countries. Journal of Political Sciences and Public Affairs, 4(3), 209–220.
Malik, N., & Rana, A. (2020). Civil society in Pakistan: An exclusive discourse
of projectization. Dialectical Anthropology, 44(1), 41–56.
Mavrotas, G. (2009). Introduction: Development aid—Theory, policies and
performance. Review of Development Economics, 13, 373–381.
Mesquita, B. B. D., & Smith, A. (2009). A political economy of aid. Interna-
tional Organization, 63, 309–340.
Molenaers, N., & Nijs, L. (2011). Why the European commission fails to adhere
to the principles of good donorship: The case of the governance incentive
tranche. The European Journal of Development Research, 23, 409–425.
Moser, G., Rorgers, S., & Van Til, R., Robin, K., & Lukonga, I. (1997).
Experience with structural adjustment. International Monetary Fund.
Mosley, P., & Suleiman, A. (2007). Aid, agriculture and poverty in developing
countries. Review of Development Economics, 11, 139–158.
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another
way for Africa. Penguin Books.
 1 INTRODUCTION 31

OECD-DAC. (2009). The Paris declaration on aid effectiveness and the accra
agenda for action. Organization For Economic Cooperation And Develop-
ment.
Park, S. (2005). norm diffusion within international organizations: A case study
of the World Bank. Journal of International Relations and Development, 8,
111–141.
Pauwels, L., & Hardyns, W. (2009). Measuring community (dis)organizational
processes through key informant analysis. European Journal of Criminology,
6, 401.
Poulton, C. (2010). Agricultural services and decentralisation in Kenya. Policy
Brief 035. University of Sussex, Brighton: Future Agricultures.
Renzio, P. D., Booth, D., Rogerson, A., & Curran, Z. (2005). Incentives for
harmonisation and alignment in aid agencies (ODI Working Paper, No. 48).
Overseas Development Institute.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. Sage.
Santiso, C. (2001). Good governance and aid effectiveness: The World Bank and
conditionality. The Georgetown Public Policy Review, 7 , 1–22.
Sherrod, L. R., Flanagan, C., & Youniss, J. (2002). Dimensions of citizenship
and opportunities for youth development: The what, why, when, where, and
who of citizenship development. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 264–272.
Simmons, B. A., Dobbin, F., & Garrett, G. (2006). Introduction: The interna-
tional diffusion of liberalism. International Organization, 60, 781–810.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart And Winston.
Stone, D. (2012). Transfer and translation of policy. Policy Studies, 33, 483–499.
Thirtle, C., Lin, L., & Piesse, J. (2003). The impact of research led agricutural
productivity growth on poverty reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economists.
International Association of Agricultural Economists.
Tremblay, M. A. (1957). The key informant technique: A non-ethnographic
application. American Anthropologist, 59, 688–701.
Wenar, L. (2006). Accountability in international development aid. Ethics &
International Affairs, 20, 1–23.
Whitfield, L., & Fraser, A. (2008). Negotiating aid. In L. Whitfield (Ed.), The
politics of aid: African strategies for dealing with donors. Oxford University
Press.
Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative
research: Theory, method and practice. Sage.
World-Bank. (2020a). The World Bank: Working for a world free of poverty
[Online]. Washington. Available at: www.worldbank.org. Accessed 25 May
2020.
World-Bank. (2020b). Understanding poverty. Washington, DC. Available at:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview#2
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.