Les groupes de réflexion bénéficient-ils du travail du MAEP ? L’expérience du Kenya

The document details the operational difficulties faced by the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) during Kenya's implementation of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). While the process provided opportunities for interaction with policymakers, it was marred by bureaucratic delays, confusion over roles between the National Governance Council (NGC) and the Secretariat, and financial disputes. The authors highlight the tension between maintaining academic integrity and government desires to highlight positive achievements, concluding that clearer role definitions and adherence to contractual obligations are essential for future collaborations between think tanks and government bodies.

• The implementation of the APRM in Kenya was hindered by significant role confusion, specifically where the local Secretariat assumed technical responsibilities that were officially assigned to the Principal Technical Agencies (PTAs).
• Bureaucratic inefficiency and internal disputes within the National Governance Council (NGC) led to severe delays in the research timeline, forcing the final National Self-Assessment Report to be written under extreme pressure in a two-week intensive session.
• The Institute for Development Studies (IDS) faced financial instability and breach of trust when the APRM Secretariat failed to pay the full budgeted amounts, leaving the Institute to fund the shortfall.
• There was a conflict between the academic integrity of the PTAs and the government's preference for a report that emphasized positive achievements, particularly regarding economic growth and free primary education.
• Despite the technical importance of their work, the PTAs suffered a significant loss of academic recognition as their contributions were not acknowledged in the final National Self-Assessment Report or review reports.
• The process demonstrated that while inclusivity is a core goal of the APRM, the high number of stakeholders and layers of approval created costly delays and added little value to the technical output.

APA

Atieno, R., Jama, M., & Onjala, J. (2008). Les groupes de réflexion bénéficient-ils du travail du MAEP ? L’expérience du Kenya. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Occasional-Paper-16-FR.pdf

Chicago

Atieno, Rosemary, Mohamud Jama, and Joseph Onjala. Les groupes de réflexion bénéficient-ils du travail du MAEP ? L’expérience du Kenya. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2008. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Occasional-Paper-16-FR.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Atieno |first1=Rosemary |last2=Jama |first2=Mohamud |last3=Onjala |first3=Joseph |title=Les groupes de réflexion bénéficient-ils du travail du MAEP ? L’expérience du Kenya |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=December 2008 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Occasional-Paper-16-FR.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{atieno2008les, author = {Atieno, Rosemary and Jama, Mohamud and Onjala, Joseph}, title = {{Les groupes de réflexion bénéficient-ils du travail du MAEP ? L’expérience du Kenya}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2008}, month = dec, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/Occasional-Paper-16-FR.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }