CONTRIBUTORS
Alvin Joseph Kimani
Policy and Advocacy Officer
In Kenya, a complex interplay of socioeconomic and political factors has shaped policymaking processes over the years. While research is vital in driving national development, translating it into evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) has historically been slow, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. It is often entangled in intricate political cycles. Research by Zoë Slote Morris,1 Steven Wooding,2 and Jonathan Grant2 has shown that historically, research can take an average of 17 years to influence change and practice. At the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC), we believe this timeline can be dramatically reduced from 17 years to just 4. By collaborating with governments and key stakeholders, we are working to cut this period by harnessing the power of EIDM to improve the quality of decision-making and enhance policy design. EIDM ensures that the best available evidence is used to inform decisions that are not only data-driven but also context-specific and impactful. Despite the wealth of high-quality research, its integration into policymaking remains subpar.
Why are researchers and subject matter experts continuously overlooked and uninvolved in the process?
To answer this question, examining the context of policymaking in Kenya and understanding what informs the policy process and the factors at play is essential. In Kenya, policymaking is a cyclical process tied mainly to the five-year election cycle. Politicians often make grandiose promises to the electorate based on prevailing issues of public interest to woo support. Politicians seeking to garner support make ambitious promises to the voters based on prevailing public interest problems. Typically captured in election manifestos, these promises set the tone for the incoming government’s priorities. As these promises are based on populist opinion, they tend to change a lot once a new team is in power. They, however, shape resource allocation for the next five years as the government of the day strives to maintain popular support in preparation for the next election cycle. Decision-making is, therefore, political and always fluid. Decisions and or policies of past regimes and elected leaders at all levels are often set aside, creating gaps in their implementation and losing public resources already invested. It is, therefore, hard to determine the long-term impacts of ‘good’ policies; in our case, assessing the change in practice is hard.
Ultimately, this cyclical nature of policy-making hampers sustainable community development as every five-year cycle repeats itself, often resetting progress. Resource allocation plays a crucial role in the decision-making process. Like any other developing nation, Kenya has a scarcity of resources, which means competition for priorities and needs. The two levels of government prioritize what may be essential and visible to capture political expediency and regime interests that sometimes reflect political manifestos. Many times, this is always in a ‘survival mode.’ This leaves it susceptible to influence by external organizations willing to provide commercial loans or grants tied to foreign interests. Usually, ‘’s/he who pays the piper calls the tune’. The funder has priorities that do not necessarily align with community needs. At the individual level, policymakers tend to prioritize policies that have funding. They engage in policy-making activities that assure them of access to compensation and resources as individuals and their constituents. This financial motivation can be a significant determinant and even lead to rushed decisions and policies that lack thorough research and long-term viability.
The majority of decision-makers in Kenya occupy both elective and appointive positions. Every new regime at both levels of government brings in its people. Unfortunately, the election process often generates bitterness, leading to inadequate handovers between administrations. These appointees serve at the discretion of the appointing authority. At the same time, elected leaders are also subject to party positions. They can be whipped to vote in a particular manner on a policy out of fear of being de-whipped from parliamentary committees or losing the party’s support and thus the chance for re-election. This constant threat of de-whipping causes the elected decision-makers to operate in an environment of worry that stifles independent thinking. As a result, some leaders who could otherwise contribute significantly to policy-making are often reduced to “gallery players” merely endorsing decisions driven by populist opinions, vested business interests, or pre-approved agendas from influential figures. In such an environment, the public’s immediate wants often outweigh rational, scientific, or evidence-based decision-making.
So, how does a research institution seeking to transform lives navigate these complex challenges and move the needle from 17 years to 4 years? Can adoption and adaptation of an EIDM approach make a difference?
The simple answer is Yes. Long-term plans such as Kenya’s Vision 2030 and regional declarations have been used to identify and prioritize areas of research and funding. They inform organizational plans and, in some cases, as the yardsticks for understanding the government agenda. No funding can be committed if a research institution’s policy and goals are outside these development plans. In the spirit of co-creation, APHRC must carve out a sphere of influence and lead in providing evidence while creating development plans to align goals and coordinate interventions, making it easier to transform lives.
To address and mitigate against changes occasioned by leadership shifts, APHRC needs to support the development of capacities for middle to senior-level technocrats. Through its initiative to develop young researchers, young technocrats can be equipped with similar skills to better inform the decision-making process in government. This will have a lasting impact as senior-level policymakers heavily rely on technocrats in the decision-making process and development planning. It will also help build a network that APHRC can call upon in its work and help achieve the goal of sustained policy engagement.
By employing these two strategies—co-creation of development plans and capacity building—APHRC will leverage over 20 years of research and evidence to apply EIDM as a pathway to impact. This will bring the institution closer to transforming lives in Africa and shorten the timeline for Evidence-Informed decision-making.