![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper sheds some light on the behavior and effect of advocacy coalitions and policy brokers in a quest to manage collective action problems in Kenya’s biosafety policy process between 1990 and 2011. The analysis demonstrates that formation of coordination structures was one way of solving collective action problems while the resulting coordination patterns were instrumental in characterizing the competing coalitions. An important finding of this study is that strategic actions of these structures were linked to the “devil shift” situation and conflict escalation. This necessitated the intervention of an administrative government agency that negotiated a win–win policy compromise as a policy broker. The dynamic activities of the coalitions and the broker were linked to useful policy learning. The examination of insights drawn from this case study enriches our understanding of the under-researched behavior of coalitions and the policy broker elements of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF).
Notes
1. This involves application of genetic engineering (GE) technology which is manipulation of living organisms to produce goods and services useful to humans. It is distinguished from traditional tools in that it is a transgenic approach that develops products (such as seed varieties) through insertion of genetic material from different species into a host plant. The products derived using these techniques are commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
2. The role of policy brokers has also been examined from the perspective of knowledge brokering in science policy literature where they are conceptualized as boundary spanners (Guston Citation2001). It is argued that they have the potential to mediate between science and the public in controversial policy arenas (see for instance Jasanoff (Citation1990) on regulation of biotechnology in USA and Kingiri and Hall (Citation2012) on regulation of biotechnology in Kenya).
3. For instance, the author attended a breakfast meeting involving actors from pro-biotechnology nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), policy sector, academic institutions and biotechnology industry (most happened to be target participants). The rhetorical discussion focused on strategies that could be adopted in engaging the government and the legislators towards the enactment of the controversial biosafety bill. This meeting was held on April 3, 2008 at Panafric Hotel, Nairobi. It was organized by African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF), a key member of the Kenya Biosafety Coalition (KBC) discussed in the paper.
4. For example Daily Nation 2008 and the documentary on “What you ever wanted to know about GMOs” aired on Citizen TV on October 15, 2008.
5. Interview with BIp-PS11, February 2008, a senior government officer at the then National Council for Science and Technology (NCST).
6. At the early stages of biotechnology research activities, Kenya opted to use the existing infrastructure, the Science and Technology Act (RoK Citation1980) to institute regulatory mechanisms through the drafting and adoption of the Regulations and Guidelines for Biosafety in Biotechnology in Kenya (RoK Citation1998). The NCST under this legal policy was mandated to oversee science and technology matters including biotechnology research.
7. Previously, all the involved government actors and other nongovernmental players involved in biotechnology governance were brought together under the NBC coordinated by the NCST. This role has since been taken over by the National Biosafety Authority (NBA) formed under the provision of the Biosafety Act.
8. This concept is used to describe strategic action of policy entrepreneurs as opportunist policy actors who invest their resources to promote major change when a system is experiencing challenges (Mintrom and Norman Citation2009: 650–651, 658). Their efforts are however motivated by politics and short-term gains (Mintrom and Vergari Citation1996; Christopoulos and Ingold Citation2011: 40). In this paper the terms coalitions of convenience, lobby groups, coordination structures and advocacy groups are used interchangeably.
9. These documents were made available to the author by TAN-NSS4, a member of the KBioC lobby group.
10. Kingiri (Citation2011b: 84–86) analyzes media reports from the perspective of how policy actors used the media platforms to influence the policy process. Karembu et al. (Citation2010) also provide multiple incidences where the KBioC used the media platform to engage the public against the biosafety bill.
11. The opening remarks by an interviewee (ARBp-PS16, interviewed in March 2008) who was moderating a stakeholders’ workshop between pro-biosafety policy and anti-biosafety groups appealed for both groups to work together towards a common agenda, the deployment of biotechnology for economic usefulness (NCST Citation2007).
12. Kingiri and Hall (Citation2012) have analyzed the role the NBC played in Kenya’s regulatory process. They describe this role as that of spanning the opposing boundaries brought about by differing policy beliefs, interests and prevailing biotechnology politics towards bridging the gap between the members.
13. For instance BIp-PS1, biosafety policy advisor in a government agency, interviewed in January 2008, admitted being part of the KBC coalition.
14. See Kingiri (Citation2011b) for details of how this instrument was negotiated.
15. Kingiri and Hall (Citation2012) explore different organizations and their potential to undertake brokering functions in a controversial policy process. These scholars expose different value and interest spurred factors that may influence a productive brokering process.
16. Codes are used to guarantee anonymity of some of the interviewees as requested. Where PS, GP, NSS and NS are used, they refer to policy scientist, genetic engineering practitioner, non-state scientist and non-scientist, respectively. For instance, NGOco-NS4 refers to a non-scientist interviewee from a NGO or a civil society organization.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Ann Njoki Kingiri
Ann Kingiri is a policy researcher at the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), a knowledge think tank based in Nairobi, Kenya. She is also a visiting researcher at the Development Policy and Practice (DPP) unit, Department of Engineering and Innovation, Open University, UK. Her current research focus is oriented towards policy in agriculture and bioenergy, including climate change and gender as cross-cutting themes. She is particularly interested in understanding these research areas from a science, technology and innovation (STI) perspective in relation to inclusive and sustainable development. Ann has a training background in agricultural policy focusing on new biosciences and her research in this area has been published in key journals including Science and Public Policy, International Journal of Technology and Development Studies, Review of Policy Research, Journal of Science Policy and Governance and Journal of International Development.