Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):906.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3706-5.

"Sometimes it is difficult for us to stand up and change this": an analysis of power within priority-setting for health following devolution in Kenya

Rosalind McCollum  1 , Miriam Taegtmeyer  2 , Lilian Otiso  3 , Nelly Muturi  3 , Edwine Barasa  4   5 , Sassy Molyneux  6   7 , Tim Martineau  2 , Sally Theobald  2
Affiliations

"Sometimes it is difficult for us to stand up and change this": an analysis of power within priority-setting for health following devolution in Kenya

Rosalind McCollum et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Practices of power lie at the heart of policy processes. In both devolution and priority-setting, actors seek to exert power through influence and control over material, human, intellectual and financial resources. Priority-setting arises as a consequence of the needs and demand exceeding the resources available, requiring some means of choosing between competing demands. This paper examines the use of power within priority-setting processes for healthcare resources at sub-national level, following devolution in Kenya.

Methods: We interviewed 14 national level key informants and 255 purposively selected respondents from across the health system in ten counties. These qualitative data were supplemented by 14 focus group discussions (FGD) involving 146 community members in two counties. We conducted a power analysis using Gaventa's power cube and Veneklasen's expressions of power to interpret our findings.

Results: We found Kenya's transition towards devolution is transforming the former centralised balance of power, leading to greater ability for influence at the county level, reduced power at national and sub-county (district) levels, and limited change at community level. Within these changing power structures, politicians are felt to play a greater role in priority-setting for health. The interfaces and tensions between politicians, health service providers and the community has at times been felt to undermine health related technical priorities. Underlying social structures and discriminatory practices generally continue unchanged, leading to the continued exclusion of the most vulnerable from priority-setting processes.

Conclusions: Power analysis of priority-setting at county level after devolution in Kenya highlights the need for stronger institutional structures, processes and norms to reduce the power imbalances between decision-making actors and to enable community participation.

Keywords: Devolution; Kenya; Power; Priority-setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was received from Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, with research permit from National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). Written informed consent was sought from and signed by all interviewed respondents.

Consent for publication

The manuscript has anonymised information to ensure confidentiality.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Pre (left) and post (right) devolution health systems structures in Kenya. Green arrows indicate governance, black lines indicate supervision pathways, red arrows indicate flow of funding. The black dotted line between national and county indicates the new relationship between national and county governments. Red box surrounding some boxes indicates structures which receive funding directly from national level
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Power interfaces between decision-making actors (modified Brinkerhoff and Bossert, 2008)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Gaventa’s power cube (2006)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Erasmus E, Gilson L. How to start thinking about investigating power in the organizational settings of policy implementation. Health Policy Plan. 2008;23(5):361–368. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czn021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. L. VeneKlasen, V. Miller, D. Budlender, and C. Clark, “power and empowerment,” in A New Weave of Power, People and Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation, vol. 43, 2002, pp. 39–41.
    1. Barasa EW, Cleary S, English M, Molyneux S. The influence of power and actor relations on priority setting and resource allocation practices at the hospital level in Kenya: a case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):536. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1796-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hipgrave DB, Alderman KB, Anderson I, Soto EJ. Health sector priority setting at meso-level in lower and middle income countries: lessons learned, available options and suggested steps. Soc Sci Med. 2014;102:190–200. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.056. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Confederation TNHS. London, UK. 2007. Priority setting : an overview the voice of NHS leadership.