Governance Indices (KE0022)
Action Plan: Kenya Action Plan 2018-2020
Action Plan Cycle: 2018
Lead Institution: Nepad/APRM Secretariat, Kenya
Support Institution(s): Other actors involved-government Office of the president, Office of the Deputy President, NAKs Other actors involvedINFONET Africa, Local Development Research Institute (LDRI)
Policy AreasCapacity Building, E-Government, Private Sector, Sustainable Development Goals
Commitment 5: Improve public sector
performance through governance indices
To provide a comparative analysis of five key governance indices for their
veracity and reliability to allow the society to evaluate and possibly redefine
its perception towards performance of public sector and its specific
To assist the public in making informed choices, understand the impact of their
collective actions on public finances; and perhaps most importantly enable the
public to judge the performance of government and governmental institutions from
a composite analysis of the indices.
Since the concept of governance is multidimensional, focus of the governance
indices vary substantially from narrow definition of bureaucratic corruption to
broader notion of governance, including a host of dimensions, such as, safety and
security, control of corruption, rule of law, voice and accountability. Existing
indicators do not take a comprehensive view of governance therefore,
unresponsive to its multidimensionality.
The commonly used indicators are; The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance
Indicator (WGI) and Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA), Overseas
Development Institute (ODI)’s World Governance Assessment (WGA), Mo Ibrahim
Foundation’s Ibrahim’s Index of African Governance (IIAG) and United Nations
Economic Commission for Africa’s (ECA) African Governance Report (AGR).
All these indices are faced with a host of problems in primary sources and survey
questions, perceived biases in the enumeration of respondents that may skew
results based on subjective contexts or ideology. These problems are passed on
to composite indicators too. These biases have an impact on the acceptability of
Develop a comprehensive framework for tracking and analysing governance
indices to bring out realistic and well-founded arguments to counter the negative
representation such indicators portray regarding the country.
Page 26 of 30
Leading implementing Organization
Nepad/APRM Secretariat, Kenya
Mr. Daniel Osiemo
Chief Executive Officer
NEPAD/Africa Peer Review Mechanism (Kenya) Secretariat
Phone: +254729 260 597
September 2018 to May 2020
Open Government Values
Access to information, public accountability, citizen engagement,
New of on-going commitment
Other actors involved-government
Office of the president, Office of the Deputy President, NAKs
Other actors involvedINFONET Africa, Local Development Research Institute (LDRI)
Verifiable and measurable milestones to fulfil
Start date End date
22. Develop a tracker for available governance
indices (APRM, Performance Contracts, SDGs,
Corruption Perception Index, Ease of Doing
23. Develop technology tools and platforms for
available for access and analytics of
governance indices in the country
24. Build capacity of public service entities to
improve services based on indices
25. Disseminate indices analysis reports, two times
annual to the all stakeholders and public
IRM Midterm Status Summary
5. Improve public sector performance through governance indices
Language of the commitment as it appears in the action plan:
“To provide a comparative analysis of five key governance indices for their veracity and reliability to allow the society to evaluate and possibly redefine its perception towards performance of public sector and its specific institutions.”
To assist the public in making informed choices, understand the impact of their collective actions on public finances; and perhaps most importantly enable the public to judge the performance of government and governmental institutions from a composite analysis of the indices.
- Develop a tracker for available governance indices (APRM, Performance Contracts, SDGs, Corruption Perception Index, Ease of Doing Business)
- Develop technology tools and platforms for available for access and analytics of governance indices in the country
- Build capacity of public service entities to improve services based on indices recommendations.
- Disseminate indices analysis reports, two times annual to the all stakeholders and public
Start Date: January 2019
End Date: July 2020
Editorial note: This is a partial version of the commitment text. For the full commitment text see: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/KENYA_Action-Plan_2018-2020_0.pdf
OGP Value Relevance (as written)
Did It Open Government?
Not specific enough to be verifiable
Specific enough to be verifiable
Access to Information
Technology & Innovation for Transparency & Accountability
Did Not Change
Assessed at the end of action plan cycle.
Assessed at the end of action plan cycle.
Context and Objectives
This commitment focuses on the development of a County Peer Review Mechanism that will be used to assess public service delivery at the sub-national or county level. The tool will explore citizen’s experiences of all fourteen service delivery areas, their views on the relevance of these services and whether they were discharged adequately and appropriately.  This commitment stems from a broader discussion around the relevance of OGP in the African context and its alignment with existing initiatives such as the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). The APRM is a basket of governance indicators widely utilized in the region to assess the effectiveness of governance systems and contribute to evidence based decision making.  In addition to being a platform for learning and experience sharing, the APRM aims to enhance accountability amongst African states. During Kenya’s second country review it was suggested that the role of county government be better highlighted to reflect the role they play in implementing and monitoring commitments in the National Programme of Action (NPoA).
In May 2013, the Kenyan government hosted an OGP Africa regional meeting that aimed to discuss the relationship between the OGP and African normative frameworks such as the 'African Shared Values Instruments’ and the APRM. This culminated in the establishment of a “Framework For Collaboration between the APRM and OGP” in May 2019, which would entail collaborating on: supporting implementation of APRM recommendations; substantive interaction between APRM national structures and the OGP multi-stakeholder forums; embedding both institutions or approaches; synergising efforts towards the attainment of various goals; and undertaking joint activities in three select countries.  This commitment is a manifestation of this collaboration, seeking to address key concerns around poor government performance and lack of an adequate monitoring and evaluation framework on the same.
The CPRM is a multi-agency product whose development and implementation is led by the APRM secretariat in Kenya. Implementation has thus far involved the Panel of eminent persons, all the independent commissions, the Intergovernmental Budgets and Economic Council, the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee; the Speakers of the National Assembly and the Senate; Council of Governors (COG), Ethics and Anti-corruption Commission (EACC), Vision 2030, Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research & Analysis and one or two representatives from civil society.  The construction of the CPRM made reference to: the Africa Peer Review Mechanism, performance contracts, County Integrated Development Plans, Sustainable Development Goals, Corruption Perception index and Ease of Doing Business Index.  The CPRM report and outputs will be widely publicised on the APRM site and launched at national summits, where governors of the reviewed counties would also be peer reviewed based on the findings of the report. It is envisaged that the CPRM will be undertaken three times during the electoral cycle, detailing an initial baseline, mid-term review and end term evaluation of county performance. 
The commitment is verifiable with deliverables such as the governance indices tracker, analytical tools and platforms and dissemination of analysis reports, as addressed in milestones 22-23 and 25, easily being tracked and assessed. Additionally, capacity building exercises as outlined in milestone 25 can be evaluated for their effectiveness. This commitment is relevant to the OGP value of technology and innovation for openness and accountability. The tracker could be extremely useful for synthesising large amounts of information and the analytical reports generated would go a long way to contributing to public service improvement. According to one state official the CPRM would foster “the kinds of conversations that we think are going to foster the growth of our democracy but also improve the performance of the counties, of county governments, in terms of serving their people”.  This commitment is also relevant to the OGP value of access to information in that analyses reports will be publicly disseminated.
Overall, this commitment could contribute to better decision making by synthesising large amounts of complex layers of data and information that can be readily consumed by policy makers, civil society and the public. The impact of this commitment would however be considered “minor” in addressing these concerns for various reasons. Firstly, while the CPRM holds a lot of promise, its potential is not evident in the design of the commitment which instead focuses on proposing a shift away from the use of existing indices given growing concerns around cited biases and weaknesses. This framing within the NAP appears to not be well understood as confirmed by sentiments shared at a civil society gathering in Nairobi in November 2019.  In addition, the design of the commitment is incongruent with what stakeholders feel is the main ambition, which is to customize the APRM in order to cascade the principles of good governance to the counties and improve county performance.  Rather, the current NAP focuses the ambition on countering the negative portrayal of the country as framed by existing indices.
Secondly, the dissemination of measures and indices focusing on service delivery and local government performance are often premised on the notion that information asymmetries contribute to erratic voter behaviour. Therefore, providing citizens with the right information should result in informed and better decision making during the electoral period. However, extraneous factors also play a significant role in shaping whether performance information is utilized and whether elected officials actually respond to citizen feedback.    According to Grandvoinnet, Aslam and Raha (2015), “within the state, elected and nonelected officials respond to different sets of incentives and might have divergent attitudes toward fostering or responding to social accountability.”  This has significant implications for the achievement of this goal. While access to information on government performance is useful, the commitment is likely to only improve civic participation if other factors are taken into account such as: the quality of the tracking or survey tools; the quality of information in the analysis reports; the communication strategy accompanying dissemination; and the accountability infrastructure that is built into the deployment of the CPRM.
Despite the public’s powers of evaluation being foregrounded in the objective, we see very little interface between the production of these analyses and initiatives towards enabling the public to make the necessary judgments. There is also no reference made to the specific decision-making processes, feedback or redress mechanisms that the public can engage with as a direct result of the milestones being fulfilled. The commitment is framed in a manner that emphasises production and dissemination and not necessarily the public holding court over findings once reports are shared. It is also noted that the consequences for falling short of performance targets, save for a marred reputation , are not clear, assuming that even this would be a sufficient deterrent in the Kenyan context. Little has also been said as to how the indices developed will gain prominence or legitimacy amongst the various constituencies being targeted for dissemination in order to affect electoral and political accountability. Lastly, the data collection exercise that is to be undertaken and which should inform the implementation of milestones 21, 22, 24 has been significantly delayed due to resource and funding limitations.  Part of the fundraising strategy is to see county governments integrate the CPRM into their public participation budgets. However, given the strained intergovernmental relations heightened by the introduction of the Division of Revenue Bill (2019),  negotiating such a settlement will undoubtedly be challenging. 
Governance indices can be useful. However, their utility is contingent on myriad other factors that should also be reflected on. The IRM Researcher recommends that the following be taken into consideration:
- The resourcing for and sustainability of the CPRM should be clearly established. 
- Public awareness and capacity building efforts for the utilization of results should be made a priority and incorporated into the wider work plan.
- The development of any tools should be considered a good opportunity to engage in co-creation with wider civil society and the public at large.
- In order to better reflect the access to information OGP value, the analysis report should also be accompanied by supporting documentation. For instance, performance contracts and other reports with sufficiently disaggregated data should be published alongside the report.
- A discussion on how the tracker will interface other government systems such as the Electronic Document & Records Management System, that was suggested in NAP II or the End-to-End initiative, which was to be an integrated service delivery portal.
- The commitment could be reinforced by outlining and discussing how such analyses could lead to a wider public reflection on collective action and their impact on public finance.
- Future iterations could track how the indices map on the quality of leadership over time.
Create public beneficial ownership register
KE0024, 2020, Access to Information
Implement e-government system adopting Open Contracting Data Standard
KE0025, 2020, Access to Information
Publish open data to spur innovation in public service delivery and development
KE0026, 2020, Access to Information
Increase efforts to promote public participation in the legislative process
KE0027, 2020, Civic Space
Apply County Peer Review Mechanism to improve public service delivery
KE0028, 2020, E-Government
Implement Access to Information Act
KE0029, 2020, Access to Information
Implement legislation to increase access to justice
KE0030, 2020, Access to Justice
Build institutional support of OGP
KE0031, 2020, Capacity Building
KE0018, 2018, Access to Information
KE0019, 2018, Access to Information
Open Geo-Spatial Data for Development
KE0020, 2018, Access to Information
KE0021, 2018, Capacity Building
KE0022, 2018, Capacity Building
Open Government Resiliency
KE0023, 2018, Capacity Building
More Transparent and Participatory Development of Climate Polices at the National and Subnational Level
KE0010, 2016, Access to Information
Enhancing Preventive and Punitive Mechanisms in the Fight Against Corruption and Unethical Practices
KE0011, 2016, Anti-Corruption
Enhance Transparency in the Legislative Process
KE0012, 2016, E-Government
Publish Oil and Gas Contracts
KE0013, 2016, Anti-Corruption
Ensure Greater Transparency Around Bids and Contracts
KE0014, 2016, Anti-Corruption
Create Transparent Public Procurement Process, Public Oversight of Expenditure and Ensure Value-For-Money Towards Citizen Priorities
KE0015, 2016, Access to Information
Improving Access to Government Budget Information and Creating Wider and More Inclusive Structures for Public Participation
KE0016, 2016, E-Government
Enhance Right to Information
KE0017, 2016, Access to Information
Improving Transparency in Electoral Processes: 1.A. Definition of Electoral Boundaries and Name.
KE0001, 2012, Media & Telecommunications
Improving Transparency in Electoral Processes: 2.B. Voting Information Online
KE0002, 2012, Access to Information
Promoting Public Participation: 1.B. End-To-End Service Delivery Portal
KE0003, 2012, E-Government
Promoting Public Participation: 1.D. Public Complaints Portal
KE0004, 2012, E-Government
Promoting Public Participation: 2.C. Kenya Action Plan Online
KE0005, 2012, Public Participation
Promoting Public Participation: 1.C. Open Data Portal
KE0006, 2012, Access to Information
Improving Transparency in the Judiciary: 2.A. Public Vetting of Judges and Case Allocation System
KE0007, 2012, E-Government
Open Budgets: 3.a. Improve Kenya's OBI Index
KE0008, 2012, Fiscal Openness
Open Budgets: 3.B. Increase Public Participation in Budgetary Processes
KE0009, 2012, Access to Information