Privatization methods and poverty alleviation: An appraisal of the legal regime and experience in Kenya
MetadataShow full item record
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter one discusses the theoretical framework of the study. It adopts a theory of justice as framework for the study. It elaborates what such a framework should entail in the context of social justice. Chapter two addresses the argument that privatization regime in Kenya is based on efficiency gains at the expense of social equity. It interrogates the approved privatization programme as empirical evidence of efficiency gains approach as opposed to social equity. Chapter three further advances the argument of efficiency gains model by making reference to the selection criteria of privatization methods. It argues that the selection criteria favours economic returns at the expense of social equity. Privatization method is selected based on fair price considerations. It incorporates findings of a sample survey conducted to assess the public perception of privatization methods and their impact on desired benefits of privatization. It presents the argument that there is a public preference of a particular method of privatization and that it may be useful to have a structured decision making model while selecting privatization methods so that we can incorporate social equity in the selection process. Chapter four develops the argument that social equity has been undermined by decision making powers and processes under the Act because they tend to favour accumulation of privatization benefits in the hands of the elite. It argues that the selection criteria may be affected through exercise of ministerial powers. It argues that decision making powers and processes are lacking in accountability, transparency and public participation. It incorporates findings of a survey conducted to determine whether the Minister should be subjected to checks and balances and if so the nature and scope of such checks. It evaluates the experience of previous privatizations and how they have tended to accumulate benefits in the hands of the elite. This is thereafter contrasted with the government policy of alleviating policy by mak ing reference to poverty policy papers. It contends that social equity has been side lined in decision making powers and processes under the Privatization Act. Chapter five concludes and makes recommendations on law reform and further research questions .