EconStor >
University of Massachusetts (UMass Amherst) >
Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts >
Working Papers, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/64240
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorwa Githinji, Mwangien_US
dc.contributor.authorHolmquist, Franken_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-11en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-25T07:19:40Z-
dc.date.available2012-09-25T07:19:40Z-
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/64240-
dc.description.abstractKenya has been going through a period of political reform from 1991 when section 2A of the constitution that had made Kenya a de jure one party state was repealed. The reform followed a prolonged struggle by citizens both within and without the country. Their call for democracy was one that, post the fall of the Berlin wall, was embraced by western countries. Via diplomatic pressure and conditionality on aid, western donors played an important role in the repeal of section 2a, the return of multi-party elections and in the creation and reform of a number of political institutions and offices. In the main these changes were pushed by the donors and though supported by the opposition in Kenya they did not rise organically from the struggle over political power in Kenya. In this paper, we argue that although these reforms led to a heightened awareness of the ills of the political class, they failed to actually hold members of this class accountable for their transgressions. We argue that these institutions presupposed the existence of an electorate with an effective set of identities that belonged to the larger Kenyan nation. This broader construct of society did not exist. A history of economic and political inequality from the inception of modern Kenya had resulted in a divided population that was unable to exercise this mandate, and could ultimately discipline politicians when they failed. In actuality, since the politics was not based on broader Kenyan national interests but rather narrower personal interests construed as ethno-nationalist, the political class was not accountable to the larger Kenyan constituency.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherUniv. of Massachusetts, Dep. of Economics Amherst, Mass.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWorking Paper, University of Massachusetts, Department of Economics 2011-19en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.titleTransparency without accountabilityen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn671995251en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungenen_US
Appears in Collections:Working Papers, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
671995251.pdf347.92 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.