African Experience in The Application of The Development Aid Effectiveness Principles: The Case of Kenya Daniel Kipleel Borter
African Experience in The Application of The Development Aid Effectiveness Principles: The Case of Kenya Daniel Kipleel Borter
African Experience in The Application of The Development Aid Effectiveness Principles: The Case of Kenya Daniel Kipleel Borter
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-african-experience-4th-edition-
ebook-pdf/
https://ebookmass.com/product/us-armys-effectiveness-in-
reconstruction-according-to-the-guiding-principles-of-
stabilization-diane-e-chido/
https://ebookmass.com/product/aid-trade-and-development-the-
future-of-globalization-second-edition-constantine-michalopoulos/
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/
https://ebookmass.com/product/development-delusions-and-
contradictions-an-anatomy-of-the-foreign-aid-industry-david-sims/
https://ebookmass.com/product/us-armys-effectiveness-in-
reconstruction-according-to-the-guiding-principles-of-
stabilization-1st-ed-edition-diane-e-chido/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-experience-of-beauty-in-the-
middle-ages-mary-carruthers/
https://ebookmass.com/product/aid-effectiveness-for-
environmental-sustainability-1st-edition-yongfu-huang/
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
© 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.
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
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
References 244
7 Overall Conclusion 247
References 255
Index 257
Abbreviations
xi
xii ABBREVIATIONS
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
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,
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
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
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
(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?
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
(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
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.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.
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.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.