This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
International Journal of Development and Sustainability
ISSN: 2186-8662 – www.isdsnet.com/ijds
Volume 7 Number 1 (2018): Pages 34-59
ISDS Article ID: IJDS17081703
Perceptions of social cohesion: Evidence from Kenya
Gitile Naituli 1*, King’oro Sellah Nasimiyu 2
1 Multimedia University, Faculty of Business and Economics, Kenya 2 National Cohesion and Integration Commission, Research Division, Kenya
Abstract
This paper examines the views of Kenyans regarding the concept of social cohesion. A total of 27 focus group
discussions (FGDs) were conducted nationally with a small group of 8 - 10 knowledgeable community members
alongside key informant interviews (KII). Participants were drawn from Government, the private sector, Faith Based
Organizations and NGOs. The FGD and KII sessions were used to tease out detailed qualitative information on the
status of cohesion in the country. 86% percent of the respondents indicated that they trust people from another
ethnic group while 14% said that they ‘do not trust at all’ members of another ethnic group. 88% of the respondents
perceived that religious groups are getting along well while 10% felt that they were not. Kenyans were less
optimistic about relations between different socio-economic groups, with about only 16% feeling that they were
getting along well and a high of 78% stating that socio-economic groups were getting along poorly. Most of the
respondents indicated a relatively high level of trust in the Government of Kenya while 9% of them said that they
‘never’ trust the government. The paper concludes that Kenyans are increasingly aware of the differences in socio-
economic status in society and there is an underlying skepticism on the implementation of the progressive
Constitution and other policy initiatives.
Keywords: Social Cohesion; Ethnic Diversity; Inclusion
Further, 64% of the respondents either strongly agreed (30%) or agreed (35%) with the statement that
social government programmes have contributed to peaceful coexistence in their communities.
4.9.1. Food security
Another major challenge affecting Kenyans was food insecurity, with 76% of the response rate. About 38% of
the households were either never (9%) or only some of the time (30%) able to afford three meals per day.
This is a disturbing finding and could have implications on the overall social cohesion of the country.
4.10. Future expectation
Individual expectations about the future are important in analysing the level of individual satisfaction with
life, and hence indication of potential sustainability of measured social cohesion levels across various socio-
economic groups. During the survey, respondents were asked to indicate their level of expectation of life in
the next ten years with respect to relations with other ethnic groups, races and religions. The results are
presented in Table below.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.7 No.1 (2018): 34-59
ISDS www.isdsnet.com 55
Table 17. How often did your household afford buying food for three meals a day in the last 1 month?
Always Most of the time Only some of the time Never
National 33.1 28.1 30.1 8.6
Region
Rural 28.2 25.9 36.1 9.8 Urban 40.3 31.3 21.6 6.8
Gender
Male 33.2 27.5 30.7 8.6
Female 33.1 28.5 29.8 8.6
Education
None 11.8 24.3 48.9 15.1
Primary 26.2 29.2 34.3 10.3
Secondary 42.8 28.1 23.2 5.9
Tertiary college 55.7 29.2 14.2 1.0
University 65.5 25.8 6.1 2.6
Age group (Years)
18-35 37.2 29.4 25.7 7.7
36-55 32.9 26.0 31.5 9.6
56-65 24.6 31.3 34.7 9.3
66-above 17.7 24.7 49.1 8.5
Table 18. Future expectations about relationships across social groups (%)
Inter-ethnic relations
Intra-ethnic relations
Race relations Inter-religious relations
Intra-religious relations
Improve very much
40.6 43.5 34.9 42.2 44.8
Improve slightly 33.3 31.5 28.7 29.7 28.1
Remain unchanged
15.4 20.2 31.8 22.3 23.5
Get worse 10.7 4.8 4.5 5.8 3.6
Observations (N) 4,510 4,510 4,497 4,511 4,506
The findings indicate that a moderate proportion of the respondents were optimistic that inter- ethnic
(41%), intra-ethnic relations (45%), inter-religious (42%) and intrareligious relations (45%) will improve in
the next 10 years, respectively. About 32% were of the perception that relations among races in the country
will remain unchanged.
As depicted in the following table, 74% of Kenyans are not worried of becoming victims of crime due to
their ethnic background. With respect to possibilities of becoming victims of crime, one’s socio-economic
status and religion offers less worries for Kenyans (than ethnic background). About 78% and 85% of
Kenyans were “not worried” of becoming victims of crime because of their socio-economic background and
religion, respectively.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.7 No.1 (2018): 34-59
56 ISDS www.isdsnet.com
Table 19. How worried are you about ethnic becoming a victim of crime in Kenya because of your ethnicity, socio-economic status and religion?
Ethnic background Socio-economic status Religion Very worried 11.6 9.2 6.5 Worried 13.7 12.6 8.3 Not worried 74.7 78.2 85.2 Total 4,536 4,532 4,532
5. Discussion and policy implications
The objective of the study was to explore the perception of Kenyans regarding the concept of social cohesion.
This objective has been met in the preceding pages to the extent permitted by existing information. In
various parts of Kenya, the FGDs showed that unemployment is a major cause of socio-economic disquiet.
The discussions pointed to idle youth with varying levels of education who are unable to find work and
consequently elide into delinquency and crime. In some parts of the country, the importation of social values
was upsetting communities, as such values overshadowed traditions and religious beliefs. While class has
never been a core area of contestation, it was clear from the FGDs that people were increasingly aware of the
differences in socio-economic status in society. There was also an awareness of inequity in the government’s
sharing out of employment opportunities and general service delivery. There is an underlying cynicism that
neither the spirit of the Constitution nor initiatives such as the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission’s
report will receive adequate attention. The literature emphasises the role of social cohesion in national
development (Ferroni et al. 2008; Markus, 2010). For Latin America, it was quite clear that rising social
cohesion is associated with various desirable circumstances for national development: political stability
enabled the development of good policies and their effective delivery, which in turn enabled technological
change for economic growth.
The current study’s correlation matrix also pointed to the potential benefits of improved social cohesion,
including improved access to water and sanitation, electricity, literacy, school enrolment and incomes. Many
of these are interventions whose supply is an obligation of the government, especially to the extent that the
regions that already have them also got them from the government.
But the government must also be interested in their supply as a means of enhancing social cohesion,
including safe water, human capital, and physical infrastructure (for improved access). Additionally, fidelity
to evidence of underlying tensions – such as are in the TJRC and Ndung’u reports– would also enhance
prospects for local and indeed national cohesion.
Chapter 11 of the Constitution provides for the equitable devolution of development, but the political will
with which to achieve this has been lacking, hence the persisting vertical and horizontal inequalities.
Secondly, the starting inequalities mean that the leading areas are better placed in multiple respects to reap
the benefits of devolution than the lagging hitherto marginalised areas.
Vision 2030 on the need for equitable development that reduces marginalization, and makes the provision
of key basic needs a right whose denial the government is mandated to explain to the courts (Articles 20 and
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.7 No.1 (2018): 34-59
ISDS www.isdsnet.com 57
21).Meanwhile, Article 201 creates the Equalization Fund to “to provide basic (social and infrastructure)
services to marginalized areas to the extent necessary to bring the(m)… to the level generally enjoyed by the
rest of the nation, so far as possible,” the Fund’s one-half percent of national revenue pales in comparison to
Kenya’s extents of poverty, inequality and marginalization. Therefore, more decisive national and sub-
national political wills are necessary to ring-fence the resources required for substantive remedies to the
factors that undermine national and sub-national social cohesion.
Policy suggestions emerging from the study include the need to address the following areas:
Horizontal and vertical inequalities, including access to public services and Opportunities;
Poverty through a growth, redistribution and productivity oriented strategy.
This is critical for improved livelihoods and prosperity;
Social cohesion is imperative for sustainable development of the country;
There is need to promote social values, trust, peace and positive management of ethnic diversities
in the county. Investing in systems for early warning, conflict management and peace building is
critical;
Sustained human capital development by investing in health and education, and targeting
counties with low human capital outcomes;
Establish a social cohesion data and information system and ensure regular data and information
collection. This would ensure effective monitoring of social cohesion in the country;
Human and infrastructure capital development should also be strengthened, notwithstanding
devolution of service delivery;
At the national level, Equity and Peace are the worst dimensions of social cohesion; and
Mitigating the harsh environments among pastoralists;
In concluding, we point out some possible areas of action going forward:
The interest in social cohesion in Kenya has been the product of the post-2007 election violence,
inevitably so given the findings especially of the Waki Report (GoK, 2008). However, the current
report has illustrated that social cohesion is important even in contexts where there is no
violence.
Consequently, there is need for a national debate on what focus Kenya’s cohesion debate should
take, providing appropriate guidance to which social cohesion should be estimated with which
indicators, based on what sequencing of interventions. A national database should be created for
such data. It is likely most suitable to estimate sub-national cohesion based on sub-national
priorities, while a national cohesion index is estimated using nationwide indicators.
Meanwhile, there is still baggage from the 2007/08 violence, the Ndung’u Report and indeed from
various other historical injustices such as are reported in the TJRC report. Consequently,
initiatives should continue in the direction of resolving the same.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.7 No.1 (2018): 34-59
58 ISDS www.isdsnet.com
Cohesion initiatives should be harnessed across the country. The grassroots cohesion initiatives
should be strengthened to diminish the risk of local in cohesion. However, the national initiatives
that drive development – e.g. human and infrastructure capital development – should also be
strengthened, notwithstanding devolution of service delivery. This is because of the wide
development statuses across counties at the March 2013 onset of devolution.
At the national level, Equity and Peace are the worst dimensions of social cohesion. At the sub-
national level, the ASAL counties invariably have the weakest cohesion indices. While these
findings are based on the indicators entered into the PCA analysis, the Gini coefficients showed
the country to have wide (spending) inequalities. Additionally, pastoralist livelihoods are
insecure and conflict prone, and more must be invested into mitigating the harsh environments in
which such people live.
References
Acket, S., Borsenberger, M., Dickes P. and Sarracino, F. (2011) “Measuring and Validating Social Cohesion: A
Bottom-up Approach”, Paper presented at an International Conference on Social Cohesion and Development
organized by the OECD, 20-21st January 2011, Development Centre, Paris, available at:
https://www.oecd.org/dev/pgd/46839973.pdf (accessed 20 May 2017).
Barcena, A., Prado, A., Beccaria, L. and Malchik, S. (2010), Social Cohesion in Latin America: Concepts Frames of
Reference and Indicators, New York, NY.
Botterman, S., Hooghe, M. and Reeskens T. (2012), “One Size Fits All”? An Empirical Study into the
Multidimensionality of Social Cohesion Indicators in Belgian Local Communities, Urban Studies, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 185-202.
Easterly, W. (2006), “Social Cohesion, Institutions, and Growth”, Working Paper Number 94, Center for Global
Development, August 2006
Englebert, P., Tarango S. and Carter M. (2002), “Dismemberment and Suffocation: A Contribution to the
Debate on African Boundaries”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 1093-1118.
Farole, T., Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Storper, M. (2011) “Cohesion Policy in the European Union: Growth,
Geography, Institutions”, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 1089-1111.
Government of Kenya, (2004), Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Illegal/Irregular Allocation of
Public Land (The Ndung’u Report), Nairobi.
Government of Kenya, (2008), Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Post Election Violence (CIPEV), Nairobi.
Government of Kenya, (2010), The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Nairobi.
Government of Kenya, (2013), Report of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, Nairobi.
Green, A., Preston, J. and Sabates, R. (2003), “Education, Equity and Social Cohesion: A Distribution Model”,
Research Report No. 7, London: Centre for Research on the Wider Benefits of Learning.
International Journal of Development and Sustainability Vol.7 No.1 (2018): 34-59
ISDS www.isdsnet.com 59
Huillery, E. (2009), “History Matters: The Long Term Impact of Colonial Public Investments in French West
Africa”, American Economic Journal - Applied Economics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 176—215.
Langer, A. and Stewart, F. (2012), Measuring Social Cohesion: The Case of Kenya. London.
Langer, A., Stewart, F., Smedts, K. and Demarest, L. (2015), “Conceptualizing and Measuring Social Cohesion
in Africa: Towards a Perceptions-Based Index”, CRPD Working Paper Issue No. 21 Center for Research on
Peace and Development, July 2015.
Markus, A. (2010), Mapping Social Cohesion: The Scanlon Foundation Surveys Summary Report 2010, Caulfield East. Michalopoulos, S. (2011), “The long-run Effects of the Scramble for Africa”, Working Paper Series No. 17620,
NBER, November 2011
Mwabu, G., Munga, B., Onsomu, E., Nyanjom, O. and Nafula, N. (2013), Linking Social Cohesion to National
Development, Nairobi.
Rajulton, F., Ravanera, Z.R. and Beaujot, R. (2007), “Measuring Social Cohesion: An Experiment using the
Canadian National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participation”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 80, pp.