INTERACTIVE
RECONTEXTUALIZATION
THE CASE OF THE RAIN PROJECT IN
KENYA
By:
Bas van den Hurk (10217169)
Track:
Master Thesis Urban & Regional Planning
At:
For:
Dhr. dr. ir. Y.P.B. (Yves) van Leynseele Dhr. dr. E.K. (Eric) Chu
Date: August 2016 ABSTRACT
The private sector is increasingly involved in Dutch international development cooperation through diverse subsidies. However, the effect of their involvement is yet to be fully understood. The purpose of this thesis is to create an understanding of the RAIN case in Kenya, transposing a spatial concept from the Dutch to the Kenyan context. Specifically the process of recontextualization, as a result of stakeholder interactions is investigated. Six months of embedded research provides the data on which the development trajectory is reconstructed. Emerging connections and strategies are analysed using theories of interactive governance, taking an actor-centred approach. It has become evident that the project planning is guiding but not dominant in the process. Far more meaningful are the actors and their behaviours. They drive they the processes, in interaction with other actors and change contexts. They are rooted in their institutional settings from which their actions also need to be understood. This has profound implications for the policy context in which such
projects are to be developed; policy designers should allow for a flexible approach in order to create unique and strongly embedded projects. This can be done through extending the timeframe and reducing concrete preconditions.
[Cover image source: DASUDA (2015) ‘Brochure’]
FIGURE 1CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 35
FIGURE 2.EMBEDDED MULTIPLE CASE STUDY DESIGN ... 41
FIGURE 3.OPERATIONALIZATION TABLE OF STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION ... 49
FIGURE 4.KENYAN AGRICULTURAL NEXUS.SOURCE:LEENSTRA &RIKKEN (2014:1) ... 67
FIGURE 5.INTERACTIVE PLANNING IN RAIN WITH UASIN GISHU GOVERNOR MANDAGO.SOURCE:DASUDA (2015)‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’... 69
FIGURE 6.ROUND TABLE SESSION IN RAIN WITH KIAMBU GOVERNMENT.SOURCE DASUDA(2015)‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ... 71
FIGURE 7.PARTICIPATORY PLANNING WITH KIAMBU GOVERNMENT.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘PROGRAM
EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ... 73
FIGURE 8.SCHEMATIC HUB-AND-SPOKE.SOURCE:WUR(2013:8) ... 76
FIGURE 9.SCHEMATIC RAIN.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘BROCHURE’ ... 78
FIGURE 10.SCHEMATIC RAIN.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘BROCHURE’ ... 78
FIGURE 11.MAP OF GREENPORT VENLO.SOURCE:WUR(2013:12) ... 80
FIGURE 12.MAP OF VISITED COUNTIES DURING INCEPTION MISSION.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ... 92
FIGURE 13.COLLECTIVE MAPPING OF UASIN GISHU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ... 107
FIGURE 14.COLLECTIVE MAPPING OF KIAMBU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ... 111
FIGURE 15.COLLECTIVE MAPPING ELDORET.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH UASIN GISHU’ . 118 FIGURE 16.COLLECTIVE MAPPING VALUE CHAIN UASIN GISHU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH UASIN GISHU’ ... 119
FIGURE 17.RAIN MAPPING ELDORET.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH UASIN GISHU’ ... 121
FIGURE 18.REAL URBANIZATION MAP OF UASIN GISHU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH UASIN GISHU’ ... 121
FIGURE 19.COLLECTIVE MAPPING LIMURU.SOURCE:DASUDA (2016)‘PARTNERING WITH KIAMBU’ ... 126
FIGURE 20.COLLECTIVE MAPPING JUJA.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH KIAMBU’ ... 127
FIGURE 21.REAL URBANIZATION MAP OF EAST-KIAMBU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH KIAMBU’ ... 128
FIGURE 22.CRITICAL ISSUE MAP ELDORET.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘GIS MAP’ ... 135
FIGURE 23.CRITICAL ISSUE MAP JUJA.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘GIS MAP’ ... 139
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1CONCEPTUAL MODEL _________________________________________________ 35 FIGURE 2.EMBEDDED MULTIPLE CASE STUDY DESIGN _________________________________ 41 FIGURE 3.OPERATIONALIZATION TABLE OF STAKEHOLDER INTERACTION ___________________ 49 FIGURE 4.KENYAN AGRICULTURAL NEXUS.SOURCE:LEENSTRA &RIKKEN (2014:1) __________ 67 FIGURE 5.INTERACTIVE PLANNING IN RAIN WITH UASIN GISHU GOVERNOR MANDAGO.SOURCE:
DASUDA(2015)‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ___________________________ 69
FIGURE 6.ROUND TABLE SESSION IN RAIN WITH KIAMBU GOVERNMENT.SOURCE DASUDA(2015) ‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ________________________________________ 71
FIGURE 7.PARTICIPATORY PLANNING WITH KIAMBU GOVERNMENT.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015) ‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ________________________________________ 73
FIGURE 8.SCHEMATIC HUB-AND-SPOKE.SOURCE:WUR(2013:8) _______________________ 76 FIGURE 9.SCHEMATIC RAIN.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘BROCHURE’____________________ 78
FIGURE 10.SCHEMATIC RAIN.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘BROCHURE’ __________________ 78
FIGURE 11.MAP OF GREENPORT VENLO.SOURCE:WUR(2013:12) _____________________ 80 FIGURE 12.MAP OF VISITED COUNTIES DURING INCEPTION MISSION.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)
‘PROGRAM EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ________________________________________ 92
FIGURE 13.COLLECTIVE MAPPING OF UASIN GISHU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘PROGRAM
EVALUATION DOCUMENT’ ________________________________________________ 107
FIGURE 14.COLLECTIVE MAPPING OF KIAMBU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2015)‘PROGRAM EVALUATION
DOCUMENT’ __________________________________________________________ 111
FIGURE 15.COLLECTIVE MAPPING ELDORET.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH UASIN
GISHU’ ______________________________________________________________ 118
FIGURE 16.COLLECTIVE MAPPING VALUE CHAIN UASIN GISHU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)
‘PARTNERING WITH UASIN GISHU’ __________________________________________ 119
FIGURE 17.RAIN MAPPING ELDORET.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH UASIN GISHU’
___________________________________________________________________ 121 FIGURE 18.REAL URBANIZATION MAP OF UASIN GISHU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING
WITH UASIN GISHU’ ____________________________________________________ 121
FIGURE 19.COLLECTIVE MAPPING LIMURU.SOURCE:DASUDA (2016)‘PARTNERING WITH KIAMBU’
___________________________________________________________________ 126 FIGURE 20.COLLECTIVE MAPPING JUJA.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH KIAMBU’127
FIGURE 21.REAL URBANIZATION MAP OF EAST-KIAMBU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘PARTNERING WITH KIAMBU’ _________________________________________________________ 128
FIGURE 22.CRITICAL ISSUE MAP ELDORET.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘GIS MAP’ __________ 135
FIGURE 23.CRITICAL ISSUE MAP JUJA.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘GIS MAP’ _____________ 139
FIGURE 24.CRITICAL ISSUE MAP LIMURU.SOURCE:DASUDA(2016)‘GIS MAP’ ___________ 140
1. INTRODUCTION ... 8
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 10
2.1DUTCH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION ... 11
2.1.1 A world to gain ... 13
2.1.2 The Kenyan case ... 14
2.2PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS ... 16
2.2.1 Local embedding of partnerships ... 18
2.3COLLABORATION THROUGH INTERACTION ... 19
2.3.1 Actor-centred institutionalism ... 22
2.3.2 Perspectives on policy and practice ... 24
2.4THE FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS ... 26 2.4.1 Face-2-face ... 28 2.4.2 Trust building ... 29 2.4.3 Commitment to process ... 30 2.4.4 Shared understanding... 31 2.4.5 Intermediate outcomes ... 31
2.5NORMATIVE PLANNING IN KENYA... 32
2.6CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 34
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS ... 36
3.1BEING EMBEDDED ... 36
3.2RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 37
3.3METHODOLOGY ... 38
3.3.1 Social constructionism ... 39
3.3.2 Embedded multiple case study ... 39
3.3.3 Units of analysis ... 40 3.3.4 Quality criteria ... 41 3.4METHODS ... 43 3.4.1 Purposive sampling... 44 3.4.2 Participant observations ... 45 3.4.3 Interviews ... 45 3.4.4 Documents ... 47 3.4.5 Transect walks ... 47 3.5DATA ANALYSIS ... 48 3.6ROLE OF RESEARCHER... 50 3.7LIMITATIONS ... 50 3.8ETHICS ... 52
4. EMBEDDING THE RAIN PROJECT ... 55
4.1KENYA VISION 2030 ... 55
4.1.2 Planning for agriculture ... 58
4.1.3 Analysing food security in Kenya ... 59
4.1.4 Reflection ... 61
4.2THE DUTCH APPROACH ... 62
4.2.1 Planning for food security ... 64
4.2.2 The role of agribusiness... 65
4.2.3 Challenges within the nexus ... 66
4.3DUTCH ASSOCIATION OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA ... 68
4.4REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL NETWORKS ... 73
4.4.1 Integrating concepts... 74
4.4.2 Greenport Venlo ... 78
4.4.3 RAIN project phases ... 80
4.5CONCLUSION ... 83
5. SETTING THE SCENE FOR RAIN ... 85
5.1PARTNERS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ... 85
5.1.1 Government-2-Government ... 87
5.1.2 Reflection ... 89
5.2INCEPTION MISSION ... 90
5.2.1 Programme ... 91
5.2.2 Trans Nzoia: ‘searching for donors’ ... 92
5.2.3 Nakuru: ‘flowering Dutch agribusiness’... 94
5.2.4 Uasin Gishu: ‘presenting opportunities’ ... 95
5.2.5 Kiambu: ‘strong public sector’ ... 96
5.2.6 Outcome: ‘building trust’ ... 98
6. WORKSHOP 1: ‘MOBILIZING FOR COMMITMENT’ ... 101
6.1PROGRAMME ... 101
6.2UASIN GISHU ... 102
6.2.1 Chamber of commerce: ‘a focus on agribusiness’ ... 104
6.2.2 Field visits: ‘strong private sector’ ... 104
6.2.3 Reflection: ‘crop diversification’ ... 105
6.3KIAMBU ... 107
6.3.1 Data availability: ‘mistrusts’ ... 108
6.3.2 Chamber of commerce; ‘new value chains’ ... 109
6.3.3 Field visits: ‘land availability’ ... 110
6.3.4 Reflection: ‘trust restored’ ... 110
6.4OUTCOME ... 112
7. WORKSHOP 2: PRIORITIZING CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ... 114
7.1PROGRAM ... 115
7.2.1 Data validation: ‘no access’ ... 116
7.2.2 Challenges: ‘a diversity’ ... 116
7.2.3 Collaborative mapping: ‘a spatial framework’ ... 117
7.2.4 GIS and spatial planning: ‘no focus’ ... 119
7.3KIAMBU ... 122
7.3.1 Data validation: ‘a statistical analysis’ ... 122
7.3.2 Challenges: ‘a diversity’ ... 123
7.3.2 Collaborative mapping and GIS: ‘strong focus’ ... 124
7.4CONCLUSION ... 128
8. WORKSHOP 3: DEVELOPING A STRATEGY ... 131
8.1UASIN GISHU:‘LOCAL PRIVATE INTEREST’... 132
8.1.1 County executive meeting: ‘Eldoret’ ... 134
8.2KIAMBU:‘STRATEGIC COUNTY PLANNING’ ... 135
8.2.1 County executive meeting: ‘phasing RAIN’ ... 137
8.3CONCLUSION:‘A PUBLIC AND A PRIVATE CASE’ ... 141
9. WORKSHOP 4: MISSION FAILED? ... 142
9.1PROGRAM ... 143
9.2UASIN GISHU:‘DIVERSIFYING WITH SOY’ ... 144
9.3KIAMBU:‘A TRANSIT-HUB’ ... 145
9.4OUTCOME:‘MISSION SUCCEEDED’ ... 147
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 149
10.1INTERACTIVE ARENAS ... 149 10.1.1 Face-2-face ... 150 10.1.2 Trust building ... 150 10.1.3 Process commitment ... 151 10.1.4 Shared understanding ... 152 10.1.5 Intermediate outcomes ... 152
10.2THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL CONSIDERATIONS... 153
10.3POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ... 154
11. REFERENCES ... 157
The recent decade has seen a significant shift from ‘aid’ to ‘trade’ in Dutch international development cooperation, gaining momentum in 2013 when the foreign policy ‘A World To Gain, A New Agenda in Aid, Trade and Investment’ was published. New collaborative opportunities between governments and businesses would both stimulate Dutch businesses and reach development goals. The aim of this research is to have a closer look at the internal workings of these new collaborative efforts. In particular the workings of the Dutch private international development cooperation initiative ‘Regional Agricultural Industrial Network’ (RAIN) and its two pilot-projects in Kenya will be investigated. RAIN, an initiative of the company ‘Dutch Alliance of Sustainable Urban Development in Africa’ (DASUDA), is executed as a public-private partnership and aims to construct the spatial and financial development plans for two agro-industrial hubs in Kenya. Such hubs, adopted form the Dutch ‘Greenport’ concept, localize the production and processing of foodstuffs to enhance local economic growth and strengthen food security. In order to transpose the successful Greenport concept from the Dutch environment into the Kenyan context, recontexturalizing the concept, a multiplicity of divers Dutch and Kenyan stakeholders will need to be involved in an interactive and collaborative manner.
The goal of this thesis is to gain understanding of the interactive processes of recontextualization. I will use the theory of collaborative and
interactive governance to define a framework that will enable me to closely consider interaction between actors in negotiated arenas that produce the development trajectory of RAIN. To do so I reconstruct the trajectory through interviews and the analysis of key strategic documents. The research is structured as follows; firstly, in chapter two the theoretical framework elaborates on the collaborative character of Dutch international development cooperation, it then moves to present a framework of collaborative and interactive governance and uses it to define the arenas of contestation, stressing the importance of actor interactionism. Subsequently, the relevance of normative planning in Kenya will be discussed. The chapter concludes with presenting the conceptual scheme. After the theoretical framework research methodology and methods will be presented. Then, moving to the empirical part, the research starts with validating the relevance of RAIN and continues by presenting the narrative of its development trajectory. The thesis is then concluded with several policy recommendations
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Recontextualization, whether in international development cooperation or in other settings is a product of interaction between actors. The outcomes of such processes are unique to the setting in which they are developed. In order to understand how certain projects develop and are constructed in reality it is important to focus on actors within these interactive moments.
This chapter elaborates on the these theoretical concepts and presents a framework that, on the one hand, is strongly functional in its approach to isolate these interactive arenas but, on the other hand, remains focussed on the messy reality of interactionism that unfolds within them. The chapter is structured as follows: first the Dutch international development cooperation and the importance of divers interactions between public and private actors are presented. Then, using actor-centered institutionalism the importance of individual actors and their institutions is stressed. Finally, using the theories of collaborative and interactive governance a framework is presented that enables the understanding of complex interaction through identifying shared properties and characteristics. The chapter is concluded indicating the relevance of normative planning in Kenya and presenting the conceptual model.
2.1 Dutch international development cooperation
The shift from ‘aid’ to ‘trade’ marked the expansion of private sector involvement in international development cooperation. Funds allocated for official development assistance where reduced and new comprehensive private sector subsidy packages where developed (Kharas & Rogerson, 2012). Clearly, a wider shift in mainstream thinking about the economy had evolved and “… the development agenda of many developing countries has been dominated by neoliberal orientation driven by market reforms.”
(Kumi et al. 2014). Such neoliberal orientations are, according to Peck et al. (2009: 51) manifested in a “prevailing pattern of oriented, market-disciplinary regulatory restructuring”. Public sector responsibilities are decentralized and privatized and economic services are deregulated. This perceived restructuring has created a fundamental shift in its governance structures moving responsibilities from the public towards the private sector. As neoliberalism affects the economic, political and societal realms of modern life it has recently also penetrated the realm of official development cooperation, strong-arming it into the market-oriented private sector domain (Miraftab, 2003). Advocates of neoliberal reformations in international development cooperation emphasize the perverse effects of traditional aid that prevent the receiving countries of meaningful development (Tandon, 2008; Moyo, 2009).
The recent restructuring of official development cooperation in the Netherlands has created new connections between multitudes of governmental, private and community sectors in new governance arenas. In this process the importance of inter-organizational arrangements and de birth of new governance arenas must be emphasised. The goals and means of international development cooperation are transformed from a static equilibrium into a multi-actor, multi-level and multidiscipline game. Within such arenas, outcomes are heavily dependant on the interactions between involved actors in order to reach certain goals (Driessen et al.
2012). As Ansell & Gash (2008: 554) argue, based on a review of 137 cases of collaborative governance: “… stakeholders have come to see that they cannot achieve their goals without engaging in a collaborative process with other stakeholders whose interests are often diametrically opposed.” The next chapter elaborates on the new governance arena of international development cooperation as presented in the ‘A World To Gain’ policy document, focusing on the Kenyan case.
2.1.1 A world to gain
In 2013 the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Lilianne Ploumen, developed the foreign policy framework: ‘A World To Gain, A New Agenda in Aid, Trade and Investment’ (AWTG). It presents a neoliberal vision towards international development cooperation. AWTG aims to bridge the traditional divide between ‘aid’ and ‘trade’ by increasing private sector participation based on sustainable and inclusive development principles. The ambitions of AWTG are to eradicate extreme poverty in a single generation, promote sustainable and inclusive economic development and to increase and facilitate Dutch private sector development abroad (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013). AWTG defines three different bilateral relationships and related delivery mechanisms.
‘Aid relationships’ is the first category, aiming at fragile or (post) conflict-ridden states unable to reduce poverty autonomously. Second is the ‘transitional relationships’ category, aimed at low and middle-income countries with growing economies like Kenya. It is within this category that aid and trade are combined to benefit both the Dutch and the hosting country’s economy through improving market access and business climates. Vehicles like public-private partnerships play important roles in delivery mechanisms. Combining Dutch private sector influence and participation on the one hand and official development cooperation on the other is not a clear-cut activity. As AWTG (2013: 40) acknowledges: “Where such diverse motives play a role, conflicts of interest may arise”. (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2013: 7). These moments of conflicting interests present the contested character of the new governance arenas presented by AWTG. It is upon these transitional relationships, with a focus on Kenya, that the next chapter elaborates. Finally, the third ‘trade relationships’ category aims to promote trade and investment contributing to Dutch economic growth and employment.
2.1.2 The Kenyan case
As AWTG (2013: 40) shows: “… economic growth and an equitable distribution do no automatically go hand in hand.” The introduction of the private sector in international development cooperation in Kenya
represents this conflict; it remains debatable whether privatization has proved to produce successful international development cooperation. As a comprehensive evaluation study conducted by IOB (2014) shows: “Dutch support has generated visible outputs in many areas. Nonetheless, we are not any closer to achieving our ultimate development objectives, nor is there as prominent a focus on poverty as there should be.” According to the IOB there were hardly any empirically proven cases of private sector led international development cooperation with positive development effects. On the other side, examples of private sector misuse are well documented.
Recently the Dutch public research institute Zembla aired the series ‘Hollandse Handel’ on Dutch national television, presenting the cases of Sher (2016) and Heineken (2016) in Kenyan and Ethiopia. Some may question the objectivity and validity of such programs, however it powerfully presents the negative impacts of businesses on people, planet and profits. In this matter, the reaction of the current Netherlands Ambassador in Kenya Frank Makken in an interview with Vice Versa (2016) is concerning. Makken showed irritation with the ‘biased and one-sided’ reporting of the relationship between business and their broader impacts on development. Makken stated: “If you search long enough, you will always find something to worry about.”
Pfisterer et al. (2009 present another example of the perverse effects of private sector involvement in Kenya. In their paper ‘The Effectiveness of Public Private Partnerships in East African Export-Oriented Horticulture’ they show that high transaction costs in certain projects occur due to complex negotiations between divers stakeholders. They note that costs and benefits are not always equally shared amongst all partners, negatively affecting the strength of the collaboration; “…major inequalities in the distribution of gains and losses between partners can threaten the strength of the partnership.” (Pfisterer et al. 2009: 40). Even though the negative aspects of private sector involvement in international development cooperation are evident, the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) is increasingly seen as an important vehicle in reaching its goals. As this chapter has shown, PPPs provide enough manoeuvring space for the dominant, and often private sector, actors to pursue self-interest negatively affecting overall outcomes. The new governance arenas and partnership arrangements, as presented by AWTG, are thus ‘contested’ and their outcomes ‘negotiated’. The next chapter takes a step in expanding these concepts.
2.2 Partnership arrangements
Within PPPs different processes in creating partnership arrangements are active. However, within the sector of international development
cooperation there is a considerable amount of debate surrounding such PPPs. Within these debates the conceptual imprecision and weak integration of such arrangements is often stressed (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011). Clear definitions of ‘business’ and ‘government’ and their services and goods are lacking (Miraftab, 2003; PPPLab, 2014; Tulder & Pfisterer, 2013), the motives and rationale of ‘cooperation’ are ambiguous (Miraftab, 2003; IOB, 2013), and even so are the roles and responsibilities of individual stakeholders within the partnership (Miraftab, 2003; IOB, 2013). Miraftab even goes as far to say that such PPPs are ‘Trojan horses’ as “Private sector firms approach local government and their impoverished communities with the message of power sharing, but once the process is in motion the interests of the community are often overwhelmed by those of the most powerful member of the partnership - the private sector firms.” (2003: 89).
Aside from the composition of PPPs their outcomes are also contested. In little over 3% of all PPP project evaluations their effectiveness can be related back to the specific role of the private sector in the partnership arrangement (IOB, 2013). Tomlinson (2012) states that in a recent overview of PPPs several issues where related to their mechanisms: “… the fragmentation of projects as private donors avoid large-scale projects; increased volatility of aid as these donors seek short-term results; and increased visibility of private donors at the expense of ownership by
national developing country actors”. Overall there is a serious shortage of empirical evidence showing PPPs and the role of the private sector within such arrangements to be successful in delivering their goals.
2.2.1 Local embedding of partnerships
As shown, neoliberalism thinking has created new connections between multitudes of governmental, private and community actors. Healey et al. (2003) argue that this new inter-organizational governance structure is accompanied by a more ‘place-focused’ approach to development, stressing the importance of its recontextualization. Bénit-Gbaffou (2012) builds upon this and claims that the spread of neoliberalism operates unevenly across the world and is heavily subjective to local contestations. Governance has become an activity in which divers actors struggle for power over localities in order to enhance the quality of places without damaging existing social justice, understood as the culturally-divers values of local environments and ‘ways of life’ (Ibid.). It has become a negotiated process between actors with often contradicting ‘meanings’ as constructed through the complex institutional environments in which such actors take place - shaped by broader economic, social and environmental power (Healey et al. 2003).
This new planning environment, with the many and contradictory interests of its involved stakeholders, becomes an arena in which
interaction between actors is perceived as the mechanism to balance and align their concerns. Due to the increased amount, and diversity of stakeholders active in such interactive partnering arenas a re-visioning of its management is required. It is within these arenas that new challenges become apparent in which the coexistence of divers interests must be controlled (Healey et al. 2003). In order to create a balance, to come to a negotiated agreement, the patterns and processes of stakeholder interaction must be studied from the institutional frameworks that structure, and are structured themselves, by the types of interaction in place (March & Olsen, 1995; Scharpf, 1997).
Between the interfaces of such different and contradictory social worlds, life and knowledge it has been argued that certain actors act as brokers or intermediates (Mosse & Lewis 2001). Such actors actively seek the ‘best’ stakeholders, since the ‘perfect’ stakeholder does not exist, in order to reach their goals and come to an agreement. The importance of negotiation and interaction in order to align such stakeholders is stressed. This explains why certain projects do not replicate comparable outcomes but instead are often unique, why “… development projects - always unforeseeable - become real through the work of generating and translating interests…” (Mosse & Lewis 2001: 13)
The previous chapter has shows the complexity of interactions between divers actors in arranged partnership constructions in reaching collaborative outcomes. Here processes of collaborative and interactive governance are presented in order to help understand how actors within situated contexts of interaction enable processes of recontextualization through collaboration. It is therefore essential to understand that the involved actors contest the decision-making arenas through which meaning is negotiated. Collaborative governance, as defined by Emerson et al. (2012: 2) are: “... the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of governance, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished.”
Collaborative governance is a demanding process; highly time consuming with uncertain outcomes, were a lack in commitment can threaten the whole process (Johnston et al. 2010). Johnston et al. (2010) argue that in order to achieve collaborative governance an open and credible interactive process with a climate of trust, shared commitment, mutual accountability and willingness to share risks and benefits needs be created. The research conducted by Ansell & Gash (2008) present several conditions upon which reaching collaboration in interactive arenas with divers actors is dependant. They argue that collaborative governance is a
very complex social process and that it is therefore essential to carefully examine the predefined conditions in which such collaborative efforts takes place. In order to understand how the collaborative processes re shaped and how consensual outcomes are produced the concept of interaction must be explored.
As was already mentioned earlier, collaborative governance cannot exist without the process of interaction between relevant actors. As Mosse & Lewis (2006) show, within interaction meanings are produced and negotiated in complex processes. Outcomes differ significantly according to the diversity of actors involved. Interactive governance is often viewed as a process of collaboration between multiple actors aiming to reach increased public value. Torfing et al. (2012: 14) stress the importance of such processes in their definition of interactive governance as: “the complex process through which a plurality of actors with diverging interests interact in order to formulate, promote and achieve common objectives by means of mobilizing, exchanging and deploying a range of ideas, rules and resources.” Often the positive outcomes of interaction like
‘partnership’, ‘mutual benefits’, ‘trust’ and ‘consensus’ are often displayed.
However, as has been shown earlier, that is not always evident. Interactive processes are highly negotiated and contested and collaborative outcomes are developed through the aligning and translating of opposing views. The next chapter elaborates on the importance of understanding the individual
manoeuvrability of actors in such situated interaction through the theory of actor-cantered institutionalism.
2.3.1 Actor-centred institutionalism
Building forth from the point made that in order to understand the concept of recontextualization the processes of interaction between actors in situated contexts must be investigated, this chapter builds on the approach of actor-centred institutionalism. Acto-centerd institutionalism stresses the importance of fluidity as opposed to fixed structures. “Actor-centered institutionalism is an analytical approach that casts attention on the behavior of and interaction patterns between actors as proper causal factors in order to explain policy-making and institutional development processes.” (Pancaldi, 2012: 4). Actors act within their frames of reference, which are understood as institutions. Actors are thus understood as the proximate causal factors in creating development policy outputs and institutions are understood as their remote causes (Scharpf, 1997). Development is the outcome of the interactions between actors whose capabilities are shaped by the institutionalized norms from which they act.
It is important to make a distinction between different types of actors when analysing their interactions in order to understand their reasoning. When actors share a common purpose and normative orientation towards certain issues they can be grouped as ‘collective’ or
‘composite’ actors (Ibid. 23). In their disaggregated form, the individual actor has agency by itself. In collaborations like PPPs such composite actors are often grouped together in ‘public’, ‘private’ or ‘civil society’. This has major implications in the ability to appreciate the importance of individual members in such situated interactions. Within governments different departments and different representatives are active who hold different powers, resources and incentives to partake in the collaboration. It is essential to understand these individual actors interests and goals in order to appreciate the collective voice of the group and their institutional embedding in roles and power bases (Tulder & Pfisteren, 2013).
Ostrom (1986) conceptualizes institutional arrangements as ‘action arenas’. Within such arenas individual actors act, according to their institutional norms, to achieve their individual goals. Institutional norms, or just ‘institutions’ differ from the individual perspectives of actors. Institutions are understood in their sociological sense, as the basic protocols and ground rules underlying normative patterns of social life (Salet & Faludi, 2000). Action arenas are the conceptual units of importance to explain individual actors behaviour within divers types of institutional arrangements. With such arenas it becomes possible to explain results and outcomes of social phenomena by focussing on the action situation between actors who are bounded by their institutions. The world is composed out of multiple and divers institutional arrangements, of
which none in isolation from another. Such action arenas provide a useful analytical tool in order to understand how outcomes are produced. Different perspectives can be taken to the approach.
2.3.2 Perspectives on policy and practice
Now that the importance of individual actors is shown it is necessary to understand how to study their roles and functions in processes of recontextualization. In doing so, this chapter presents a debate between interactionism (Mosse, 2004) and institutionalism (Healey, 1998; Healey 1999). Mosse argues that the interaction between individual actors is essential in the construction and stabilizing of their collective meaning. Healey, with a more geographical focus as opposed to Mosse’ ethnographical focus, argues that individual meaning is constructed not by interaction per se but primarily by the institutional contexts from such actors operate. Both are elaborated upon but the institutionalist approach by Healey is adopted to develop a framework for analysis in Chapter 3. Mosse (2004) however plays an essential role in the debate by stressing the importance of actors and their interaction in recontextualization processes.
According to Mosse (2004) there are two dominant and opposing views on development policy. One is the ‘instrumental’ and the other the ‘critical’ view. Instrumentalists see policy as rational problem solving. Policy,
in their perspective is something that directly shapes the trajectory of development. The critical view to development policy perceives policy as a rationalizing discourse, something that conceals the hidden purpose of bureaucratic power and dominance. The instrumental view on policy focuses on the ‘what’ in development, taking a practical perceptive. It states that international development cooperation is becoming increasingly marginalized in new ways, either by narrowing the ends in merely quantifiable variables or by widening its means using rhetoric like ‘good governance’. The critical perspective to development focuses on the ‘why’ of development, stating that failure is inherent through the institutional effects maintaining power, or through the ideological effects of de-politicization. Developments grounded in rhetoric like ‘bottom-up’, ‘inclusive’, or ‘collaborative’ are no more then “promised keys to counter top-down technocratic approaches and to unlock the power of development for the poor [but] turn out to be dangerous counterfeits, products of modernity, trailing colonial histories of bureaucratically invented custom and tradition” (Mosse, 2004: 643). In my opinion both the instrumental and the critical perspectives on development miss out on the importance of understanding the complexity of institutional practices within international development cooperation. It is much more interesting to focus upon the ‘how’ of development, spending careful attention to the social life or projects and the interests of individual actors.
Healey (1998; 1999) also shows that there are critical notions towards analysing processes of collaborative governance. As she states, collaborations are used in situations where it is perceived to be most effective; collaboration has a strong project-driven character. Thus, collaborative efforts only create a sustainable context of institutions in order to deliver certain specific project goals and do not contribute to strengthen the overall context in which divers and other projects unfold. Also, due to the new heavily subsidised partnership sector, like the Dutch international development cooperation, social partners participate in collaborative efforts merely to receive funding and collaboration becomes no more then a ‘ticking the box’ activity, resulting in narrow and lean partnerships. Related to this there are the notions of ‘partnership fatigue’ and a ‘crisis of volunteering’. It is often unclear to stakeholders themselves, who are involved in participatory processes, why they are involved in the first place. Also, due to the inherent power and resource imbalances, collaborative efforts are seen to reproduce instead of respond to specific local problems. Finally challenges of accountability and legitimacy to the process of collaborative governance are often a heard critique. This is related to the often ‘black-box’ character of collaborative efforts in which transparency is lacking.
Here a model is presented that identify shared properties and characteristics within situated arenas of interaction. This model defines a way to understand negotiations between actors based on their institutions within certain interactive settings; it is a ‘rigid’ representation of reality in order to approach its complexity. As Agranoff (2006: 61) states: “despite the cooperative spirit and aura of accommodation in collaborative efforts, networks [of several actors] are not without conflicts and power issues”. He shines light on the less desirable aspects of such multi-actor, crosscutting conversations and negotiations arguing that interaction and collaboration are also often used to mask these undesirable and inherently evident conflicts and struggles. In order to understand and appreciate the real outcomes it is therefore essential to delve deep in the construction of such interactive and collective efforts and unravel the partnerships involved.
Torfing et al. (2012: 48) describe interactive governance as “collective decision-making in institutionalized settings in which a plurality of actors with different resources and strategies are continuously engaged in political conflicts and power struggles”. There are different conceptual blocks in which such interactionism unfolds. Ansell & Gash (2008) have shown that such processes are cyclical rather than linear and that collaboration depends on the virtuous cycle between the shared properties an characteristic of: ‘face-2-face dialogues’, ‘trust building processes’, ‘committing to the process’, ‘creating a shared understanding’ and the
‘production of intermediate outcomes’. It is within these dimensions of interaction that collaborations can unfold ultimately leading to processes of recontextualization (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Johnston et al. 2010).
2.4.1 Face-2-face
Face-2-face means nothing more than an interaction between actors in real life in a physical setting. However, it is important to make the distinction between a face-2-face ‘dialogue’ and ‘discussion’. In a discussion actors aim to influence outcomes in negotiated settings upon acceptance with the other actors. On the other hand, a dialogue aims to develop a pool of shared understanding (Innes & Booher, 1999). Senge & Kurpius (1993: 241) explain: “In dialogue, a group explores complex difficult issues from many points of view. Individuals suspend their assumptions but communicate them freely.” In order to achieve successful face-to-face dialogues a facilitator must be present to assure participants set their assumptions aside and regard other actors as their colleagues. Face-2-face dialogues are the starting point of every successful collaborative process. It presents the vehicle enabling valuable interaction to help lay the fundament of every next step in the interactive process. The outcomes of successful face-2-face dialogues have a positive influence on mutual trust building efforts, they help enhance commitment between stakeholders,
help create a foundation of a shared understanding and eventually lead the way towards intermediate outcomes.
2.4.2 Trust building
Cooperation between several actors can only withstand opposing interests if it is based upon on some degree of mutual trust. Trust is defined as “a positive expectation in a situation in which the potential loss one suffers is larger than the potential gain.” (Teisman et al. 2009). Trust is not something that is evident, as Torfing et al. (2012) show; the strategic behaviour of actors is dependent on that of the other actors. Trust is only given when it is evident that others have done so as well. Trust must be actively sought after. Within the process of trust building hides a paradox; the more information actors collect the less willing they become to share their knowledge: “the more information on the inner workings of an expert system observers seek to have, the less they will be inclined to trust its practitioners; the less practitioners are trusted, the less likely it is for the benefits of specialized expertise to be realized” (Tsoukas, 1997: 835). Trust is categorized in different ‘sources’ (Teisman et al. 2009). The source of trust shows why trust is built and gives an indication of its strength. The dimensions of trust are: ‘competence’, here trust is based in the knowledge and experience of individuals or organizations; ‘goodwill’ trust where trust is put in the intentions of individuals or organizations to reduce the
possibility of opportunism; ‘cognition’ based trust where trust is put in the others attitudes and behaviors, building long lasting relationships; and ‘affect’ based trust where trust is based on affection, often taking a long time to develop.
2.4.3 Commitment to process
Ansell & Gash (2008: 559) state that: “commitment to the process means developing a belief that good faith bargaining for mutual gains is the best way to achieve desirable policy outcomes.” Margerum (2002) argues that the commitment of actors in collaborative processes is the most important factor to success. Because procedural commitment requires an “up-front willingness to abide the results of deliberation” (Ansell & Gash, 2008: 559) it presents a dilemma for those actors who do not fully support the direction in which the deliberation is going. Procedural commitment is closely related to the original incentive to collaborate and therefore relies on the mutual recognition of interdependence that stakeholders have that during the process the interests of all involved stakeholders, also those not directly represented, are respected. A part of commitment comes forth out of the shared ownership of the process. This implies that all responsibilities related to the process are shared amongst the stakeholders and that they can be held accountable for its success or failure. This again presents tricky situations. Stakeholders often share the ownership of the collaborative
process and its outcomes with other stakeholders who sometimes hold opposing views. It is thus essential that the relationships between such stakeholders be seen from a different perspective, one that seeks to identify mutual gains instead of indifferences.
2.4.4 Shared understanding
It is important that stakeholders create a shared understanding on the common aims and goals in the collaboration process. Stakeholders define a perceived collective problem and agree upon the necessary knowledge and resources that are needed to address and overcome them. Moreover it is important that stakeholders understand the positions of other stakeholders. This enables a dialogue on the different interpretations of the problems at stake and clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of actors in order to strengthen collaboration and better the outcomes (Concklin, 2006). The aim of shared understanding is to reach ‘group thinking’, an activity in which diverse actors work together for extended periods of time to create dominant routines and common values (Torfing et al. 2012; Hart, 1994).
2.4.5 Intermediate outcomes
Collaboration is stronger when the advantages of such efforts are concrete and if during the process ‘small wins’ are made legitimizing actors
participation. According to Ansell & Gash (2008): “critical process outcomes that are essential for building the momentum that can lead to successful collaboration.” Small wins flow back into the virtuous cycle of collaboration and build momentum in which a feeling of success is shared. That momentum is essential in the continuation of a virtuous interactive process leading to collaboration. Examples of such small wins are reaching the deadlines set in the institutional design in order to concretize progress. Other small wins are the development of (new) strategic plans in which collectively the way forward is (re-) defined based on certain intermediate outcomes.
2.5 Normative planning in Kenya
Watson (2002) analyses the usefulness of normative planning theories, like the collaborative and the interactive, in the context of sub-Saharan Africa. She considers to what extent such approaches provide a potential useful direction given that their origin lies in western contexts. In her conclusion she argues that in order for normative planning theories to be successful their ‘leaders’ must be ‘street-wise’, specifically in the processes of interaction, and accept the fact that power will always prevail over rationality, that power is always more evident than consensus seeking (Flyvberg, 1998). Moreover she provides several important values of its success. As has been argued before, interactions take place within
institutions. Watson (2002) spends special attention to the political nature of planning and the role of an active civil-society. Within it, the different voices of its heterogeneous character must be heard and understood. Only such developments can be placed outside of the technocratic realm and distance itself from instrumental “white male” rationalism (Watson, 2002: 42).
However, in Kenya many civil society organizations are not active in political spheres because they are neglected or because they wish not to be involved. In fact, they are few, fragile and have strong ethnic ties. Ethnicity plays an ever-important role in the Kenyan reality. Decentralization as recently unfolded in the form of ‘Devolution’ and the privatization of public services has increased the already existing ethnic conflicts. Civil society is often very spatially dispersed, hampering their role in interaction with other actors. When included, they often appear dysfunctional in conjunction with County Governments and they are unable to influence governmental decisions in favour of their communities. Broader forces, limiting the ability of local action on its own, shape the planning conditions. Also, planning must acknowledge the evident identity struggles as well as the often fluid, complex and crosscutting nature of such issues. Finally, Watson (2002) argues that successful planning approaches must comprehend the social and spatial impacts of such interventions and that it must address the specific demands of the context
in which it operates without simply copying best practises from different parts of the globe.
In line with the arguments made by Watson (2002) planning for development is a strongly contested arena. Divers interests of divers actors all with their unique institutional contexts need to come together and agree upon certain issues. This process is complex, even from a Western perspective, but is according to Watson (2002) even more complex in an African sub-Saharan context like Kenya. It is therefore important, in order to understand the usefulness of normative planning, to jet stress again that the attention and focus and must lie in planning processes as structuring.
2.6 Conceptual model
The central theme leading this research is interactionism and the way it recontextualizes policies of development. The previous chapters have identified several shared properties and characteristics of such interactive processes. The conceptual scheme, as presented in figure 1, shows the typology of these properties, increasing the ability to identify them in the development narrative presented by the following empirical chapters. These divers ‘blocks’ translate the visual representation of such situated context. They are visualized in a circular manner to stress their inductive and more fluid character in reality (Ansell & Gash, 2008).
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
In this chapter the research methodologies and applied methods are discussed. It presents my approach, based on the previous theoretical discussion to understand the complex reality of the RAIN development trajectory and its process of recontextualization based on certain shared properties and characteristics of interaction. The chapter is structured as follows: first I elaborate on my personal position with the project as ‘embedded’ after which I present my leading research questions. I then move to the methodological considerations related to the epistemological positioning of the work and I elaborate of the research design. The more practical aspects to data collection are presented in the ‘Methods’ section followed by the analytical approach. Then I set out my role as a researcher in relation to the objects that are researched. Finally, this chapter is concluded presenting the limitations related to the research and some ethical considerations.
3.1 Being embedded
This research builds upon my personal experiences as an assistant of DASUDA operating from Nairobi, Kenya. For a six-month period I worked intensely in the development of the RAIN project during its multiple planning phases. I was embedded in the project development, as
Reiter-I had a strong relationship with my ‘co-workers’ providing me with the unique ability to shine light on the intricate workings of the project’s interactive efforts. As a team member I also partook in several key-workshops, I worked closely with a diversity of stakeholders and I actively sought ways to strengthen the different processes project development. As Lewis & Russel (2011: 401) state, embedded research “… provides insight into how the researcher can offer recommendations that are explicitly based on research data interpreted within a theoretical frame, but in a way that is meaningful to collaborators and their objectives.” This research reflects my efforts and presents a detailed analysis of stakeholder interactions, their outcomes and their influence on the broader development trajectory of the RAIN project. By doing so this research presents valuable information to the RAIN team, and project in whole, through the form of in-depth knowledge collected during the course of the research. My conclusions and recommendations are aligned to strengthen the current and possible future RAIN activities.
3.2 Research questions
The aim of this research is to investigate the Dutch private international development cooperation initiative Regional Agricultural Industrial Network (RAIN) and its two pilot-projects in Kenya. In particular, it looks at the moments of interaction between diverse public and private stakeholders, how decisions are (collectively) made and what can be recommended to
strengthen the process. The overall goal of the research is to find answers to the question “How has the recontextualization process of the RAIN project unfolded through processes of stakeholder interaction?” Some sub-questions must be addressed first: How is the RAIN project relevant to and Kenyan context? Who are the key-stakeholders related to the project and how are they involved in the planning process? How does interaction between stakeholders unfold and how does it affect the overall development trajectory of the RAIN project? Finally, what lessons can be drawn from this?
3.3 Methodology
This research uses a qualitative approach to research. Cassell & Symon (1994) define qualitative research as follows: "a focus on interpretation rather than quantification; an emphasis on subjectivity rather than objectivity; flexibility in the process of conducting research; an orientation towards process rather than outcome; a concern with context regarding behaviour and situation as inextricably linked in forming experience; and finally, an explicit recognition of the impact of the research process on the research situation". Thus qualitative research pays careful attention to the context, the people and the interactions between them in certain social settings (Bryman, 2006). In this research theorizing also has an essential
role. Based on a predefined conceptual scheme (figure 1) the interactions between individuals within the social reality of the project are examined.
3.3.1 Social constructionism
The epistemology of this research is social constructionist. This position takes a critical stance towards taken-for-granted knowledge and therefore challenges the traditional positivistic and empiricist assumptions that knowledge as such is objective (Gergen, 1985; Burr, 2015). Social constructionism assumes that knowledge is relative, that it is sustained within social processes of interaction. To social constructionists knowledge is dependent on the actor at stake and his context. People construct knowledge within their means of communication, therefore social constructionism stresses the importance of language. Reality is constructed within actor’ perceptions (Creswell, 2003). Knowledge and social circumstances are thus inherently related. The perception of ‘truth’ is dependent on the social construct in which it has been developed. The objects of social constructionist research are therefore never ‘the truth’ but always ‘a truth’ (Sharp & Richardson, 2001). ‘A truth’, whether rationally or irrationally constructed can become ‘the truth’ through the oppression of power (Burr, 2006).
This research adopts an embedded multiple case study design. The goal of a multiple case study design is to replicate findings across cases in order to explore the differences between them (Yin, 2012). Key components and main objectives of the RAIN project present the context. Within this context the two pilot-projects in respectively Uasin Gishu and Kiambu represent the cases to be compared. The different planning phases of the RAIN project, as ‘Workshops’ are the embedded units of analysis. The first two Workshops were held prior to my involvement in the project. Workshop 3 ‘Strategy’ and 4 ‘Proposition’ were conducted in my presence. All RAIN Workshops were analysed for each pilot-project and compared in order to answer the research questions above. The case design is presented in figure 2. The research design also has a longitudinal character; because data are collected over a period of 6 months it is possible to establish patterns of transition related to the collaborative character of both RAIN pilot-cases.
3.3.3 Units of analysis
The observed units of analysis in this research are the antecedent subsidy trajectories of ‘Partners in International Business’ (PIB) and ‘Government-2-Government’ (G2G). Also central in the analysis are the ‘Inception Mission’ and the ‘Mobilization’, ‘Prioritization’, ‘Strategy Development’ and ‘Proposition’ Workshops. Within these ‘blocks’ specific attention is paid to
the conceptual model ‘shared properties and characteristics of interaction’ as presented in figure 1. The aim is to identify these shared properties within the embedded units of analysis presented in figure 2.
Figure 2. Embedded multiple case study design
3.3.4 Quality criteria
Guba & Lincoln (1994) present the following criteria of constructionist research: ‘credibility’ as the relationship between observations and theory, ‘transferability’ as related to the ability to generalize findings and theories, ‘external dependability’ as the ability to replicate the research and ‘internal dependability’ as the unity within the research team. In this research the
credibility is high due to the long period of participation within the project, increasing the probability of finding results in line with the predefined framework. Transferability is low due to the unique character of the case research design. Even though this research analyses multiple cases, they remain part of one project and do not provide the transferability to generalize its outcomes. The external dependability of this research is also low, as are most qualitative studies. Due to the uniqueness of the social settings and circumstances explored it is difficult to copy the approach and find similar results. Moreover, the participatory aspect of action research has strong effects on participants’ reactions and project process. Internal dependability is not relevant since a single researcher conducted the research.
Guba & Lincoln (1994) present criteria for the ‘authenticity’ of social research, as a more valuable way of judging its construct. The first is ‘fairness’, as related to the representation of the different actors points of views. In this research fairness is high due to the long time spent investigating individual stakeholder decisions and actions in interactive sessions. The second and third are the ‘ontological authenticity’, relating to the ability of the research to increase the understanding of the context, and the ‘educative authenticity’ that leads to an improved understanding of the process. The ontological authenticity, or consistency in this research is debatable. On one hand it proposes a ‘fluid’ and institutional approach
to stakeholder interactions and recontextualization and on the other had it presents a rigorous framework to help isolate the contested arenas. The educational authenticity is high because it elaborates on how specific interactive moments affect the development the way they do. Finally the ‘catalytic’ and the ‘tactical’ authenticity, representing the ability to stimulate and empower action are also high for this research due to its concluding recommendations. In fact, it increases the availability of knowledge necessary to strengthen current processes or to improve future processes. It is, however, important to note that this case remains unique and that the authenticity must be understood within its specific context.
3.4 Methods
The data in this research are collected using diverse social research methods, of which the participant observer method provided most. In order to collect significant data the method of purposive sampling was applied. Participant observations were made during, but not limited to, the crucial and decisive moments in which decisions influencing the future trajectory of the project were made. Aside of participatory observations other social research methods were used to collect data and enhance research reliability through triangulation (Bryman, 2006): in-depth face-2-face and focus group interviews; analysis of diverse public and private documents and other audio or visual materials and several transect walks
were also conducted. The complete set of data from both the participant observations and the other research methods are combined in order to present the collaboration narrative of both RAIN pilot-project trajectories.
3.4.1 Purposive sampling
Purposive sampling enables the researcher to select only those respondents with a direct relation to the research question and theory (Bryman, 2006). Miles & Huberman (1994) propose four different aspects to take into consideration before selecting the relevant respondents or sights. These are: the ‘setting’ as the location where the research takes place; the ‘actors’, who will be interviewed or observed; the ‘events’ as what will the actor be doing whilst observing; and the ‘process’ as “the evolving nature of events undertaken by the actors within the setting” (Creswell, 2013: 239). The selected settings are the Kenyan counties of Uasin Gishu and Kiambu. These are the locations selected by both counties and DASUDA as most viable for the RAIN project. These locations are, the area of Moi’s Bridge in Uasin Gishu and the Juja sub-county and the Northlands development sight in Kiambu. The actors are both the Uasin Gishu and Kiambu County Governments, in specific their Departments of Physical Planning, both the local Kenyan Association of Manufacturers, the local businesses and finally the RAIN team consisting of the DASUDA and the RVO counterpart. The events in which these actors are observed are
mostly related to Workshop 3 and Workshop 4. Both workshops consist of multiple round-table sessions, presentations, field-visits, lunches, coffee breaks and long drives in which important information is exchanged and key decisions are made.
3.4.2 Participant observations
In this research the act of participant observer is understood in its institutional meaning; the researcher spends time immersing in organizations in order to construct an in-depth understanding of how the group operates (Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan, 1998). The participant observations in this research were conducted continuously for a period of six months. During these six months special attention was given to the social settings of Workshops 3 and 4 in order to observe the participants behaviours during these interactive sessions. Extensive field notes were made noting down who said what, and why, trying to understand the reasoning behind the decisions that were made and observing the effects it had on the future trajectory. Participant observations were also made during less official settings as over lunch or in long car drives. Then fewer notes were made but careful attention was spent on the dialogues.
Interviews were held in 2-face and group-sessions. The in-depth face-2-face interviews were held primarily with the DASUDA core-team. These relatively open-ended dialogues focused on creating an understanding of how DASUDA stakeholders aimed to shape the collaborative process of stakeholder involvement in the interactive sessions. Special attention was given to the decisive moments that influence the collaborative trajectory of the project. What shaped these processes? Why were certain decisions made? And how did the DASUDA stakeholders perceive the future of the project? In total six in-depth interviews were held with the DASUDA core team. Group session interviews were held with the DASUDA core team collectively in order to investigate the continuity and diversity of their reasoning in a different setting. Group-session interviews were also held with both County Governments to explore their opinions to the collaborative approach of DASUDA and to create an understanding of their perspectives on the critical decisions made and how these influenced the projects trajectory. Other (group) dialogues within the core team or in combination with other key-stakeholders like County Officials or businesses were also documented. Finally, in the moments of recapitalization sessions and during the multiple field visits to different counties and sub-counties careful attention was paid to the dialogues held.
3.4.4 Documents
Different public and private - grey literature - documents were analysed. In order to understand the context in which the RAIN project unfolds it was necessary to delve deep into the Dutch international development cooperation policies. Documents like: ‘A World To Gain’ (MFA, 2013); ‘Budget for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation’ (MFA, 2016) and; ‘Budget for International Development Cooperation’ (MFA, 2016). In order to understand the Kenyan socio-economic, spatial and political context, ‘Vision 2030’ (Government of the Republic of Kenya, 2007) and the ‘National Spatial Plan’ (Kenyan Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, 2016) were analysed. A large body of grey literature - either published or non-published documents that are not available commercially - like field reports, PowerPoint presentations, emails, Skype (conference) calls, GIS maps and conducted surveys were analysed.
3.4.5 Transect walks
The method of transect walks was applied during the field visits in Juja sub-county, Northlands and Moi’s Bridge. A transect walk is a systematic walk through spaces with a gatekeeper to discuss and raise spatial and non-spatial issues to the land (Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan, 1998). The transect walks in Moi’s Bridge were conducted in a group session where the DASUDA core team, myself and the owner of the property
explored the land, asked several questions about its history, its current use, the spatial qualities, the ownership of neighbouring lands and the wishes of the owner. The transect walks in Juja sub-county were done by me and a driver, aiming to define the spatial qualities like water availability, soil quality and infrastructural quality and the current use of lands as subsistence farm land.
3.5 Data analysis
All the collected data are presented in a narrative of the RAIN development trajectory. This narrative is a reconstruction of the RAIN project based upon a broad body of data, collected through diverse qualitative social research methods listed in the previous chapter. The narrative shows the storyline focussing on the shared properties and characteristics of interaction as defined by the theory, their outcomes and the effects it had on the broader outcome of the RAIN project. A table visualizing the operationalization of interactionism as predefined in the conceptual model (figure 1) is presented in table 1. This table is used to “… extract desired information from a body of material by systematically and objectively identifying specified characteristics of the material.” (Smith, 2000: 314). However, “All coding is a judgment call” since “our subjectivities, our personalities, our predispositions, [and] our quirks" play a strong role in the process (Sipe & Gisho, 2009: 482/483).
Theme Arenas Outcomes Stakeholder interaction Face-2-face Dialogue Discussion Trust-building Competence Goodwill Cognitive Affective Process commitment Mutual recognition of interdependence Shared ownership Mutual gains Shared understanding
Problems and goals Knowledge and resources Roles and responsibilities Intermediate outcomes Small wins Strategic plans Deadlines
