Lund University STVK01

Department of Political Science Autumn 2009

Tutor: Anders Sannerstedt

Corruption in Kenya
Individual Attitudes and Actions Towards Corruption in
Nakuru, Kenya

Caroline Nilsson
Abstract

Kenya is one of the most corrupt countries in the world due to a long legacy of
corrupt leaders. It is so visible that it is impossible for a citizen or even a visitor to
deny its presence. By travelling to Nakuru, Kenya, my aim was to explore
individual attitudes and actions towards corruption and to see if these attitudes and
actions affected the survival of the patron-client theory. Another aim was to try
out and develop the theory to the relation police-citizen. By using a qualitative
method where I conducted in-depth interviews with 16 respondents from two
different social standings, the lower class and upper middle class, I could chart
differences. The main findings showed that no matter what social standing they
belonged to they all saw corruption as something negative and destroying for the
country’s development. When it came to their personal experience their views
differed, while the respondents in the lower class participated in corrupt acts out
of survival the respondents from the upper middle class participated in it as an
easy way out. Concerning the survival of the patron-client theory, did the acts of
the respondents’ make that the theory survived and it could be develop to the
police.

Key words: Corruption, Kenya, Attitudes, Patron-Client, Police

Words: 13 746
Acknowledgment

I would like to take the opportunity to thank all my respondents for their great
courage in participating in this study. I would also like to thank my interpreter,
Lilian Webisa, who became a good friend and was a great support while
conducting the interviews in the lower class. A special thank is also devoted to my
dear friend Hezekiah Maragia, social worker at Phyllis Memorial Children’s
Home, for your great support and being a friend when I really needed one.
Without your participation and support this thesis would never have been
possible. Thank you.
Table of contents
1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 3
1.1 The problem with corruption.............................................................................. 3
1.2 Purpose of the study and research questions ...................................................... 4
1.3 Delimitations ...................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Material and critique of sources ......................................................................... 5

2 Method and theoretical framework ...................................................................... 7

2.1 Methodological considerations .......................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Selecting respondents ................................................................................. 8
2.1.2 Operational discussion ............................................................................... 8
2.2 Theoretical framework ....................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Patron – client theory ................................................................................. 9

3 Definitions .............................................................................................................. 12
3.1 What is corruption? .......................................................................................... 12
3.2 What is a bribe? ................................................................................................ 12

4 A review of corruption in Kenya ......................................................................... 14

4.1 Corruption from independence until today ...................................................... 14

5 The common view about corruption ................................................................... 16

5.1 The respondents’ knowledge and attitudes towards corruption ....................... 16

6 Meetings with the police ....................................................................................... 20

6.1 The lower class ................................................................................................. 20
6.1.1 Men........................................................................................................... 20
6.1.2 Women ..................................................................................................... 21
6.2 The upper middle class ..................................................................................... 22
6.2.1 Men........................................................................................................... 22
6.2.2 Women ..................................................................................................... 24
6.3 Summary .......................................................................................................... 25

7 What should be done about the problem with corruption in Kenya? ............. 26
7.1 Where should the fight against corruption start? ............................................. 26
7.1.1 Lower class ............................................................................................... 26
7.1.2 Upper middle class ................................................................................... 27
7.1.3 Summary .................................................................................................. 29
7.2 Raising wages, a solution to a big problem? .................................................... 29

8 Patron-Client relationship ................................................................................... 31

8.1 Developing the theory ...................................................................................... 31

1
9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 33

10 References .............................................................................................................. 35

Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................................... 38

2
 1 Introduction

I am sitting in a matatu,1 and it is warm and overcrowded, as always. But no one

seems to bother. This is how it is; they are all used to it. As we get closer to a police
check point the matatu stops and some of the passengers have to step out, since the car
is overcrowded. Even though we now are the allowed number of 14 passengers I see
how the conductor is folding 100 Kenyan shillings 2 into his palm. When the matatu
stops he gets out from the vehicle and goes and greets the police. I see how they are
having a small talk, laughing and then he gets back into the matatu. Now, his palm is
empty. I always wondered what they were talking about and what they were thinking
when money was exchanging palms. I especially wondered what the conductor was
thinking since this is something he has to go through every single day3.

1.1 The problem with corruption

Corruption is a problem that exists everywhere around the world, in some

countries more than others and it was not until a few years ago that the
international donor community recognized corruption as one of the main
responsibilities for the failure of development in Africa (Médard 2002:379).
Corruption hinders economic development and it slows down the democratic
process and stability in a political system. The money gained out of corruption
does not trickle down to the people nor is it used to make smart investments,
instead is it used for private gain to import luxurious goods (Thelander 2005:29).
Corruption in Africa can be seen as both systemic and generalized, systemic
since it is more a rule than an exception and generalized since it is not limited to
just one sector. Jean-François Médard speaks of it as a “culture of corruption” in
Africa (Médard 2002:379).
According to Alan Doig and Robin Theobald countries that have a high level
of petty corruption show a very low level of trust for the public sector which
makes it hard to unite the society. It also affects the poorest in the society when
they have to pay for a service which is supposed to be free (Doig & Theobald
2000:5-6, Compare Thelander 2005:14). Corruption is seen by the broad mass, as
something negative and not wanted and it should be fought against (Thelander

1
Public service vehicle
2
100 Kenyan shillings = 10 Swedish krona
3
My own personal experience of travelling in a public service vehicle several times a week in Kenya

3
2005:29). A World Bank study conducted in 2002 stated that the world spends 1
trillion dollar per year on bribes (Nwabuzor 2005:121).

1.2 Purpose of the study and research questions

When doing research about corruption to find out what to write about I found that
most studies about corruption is done at macro level and there is only a handful
studies done at micro-level. Inspired by a report presented by the World Bank I
chose the purpose of this thesis to examine the individual attitudes and actions
towards corruption in Nakuru, Kenya. The report named “Individual Attitudes
Towards Corruption: Do Social Effects Matter?” was based on cross country data
where they investigated 35 countries. The results showed that women, employed,
less wealthy and older individuals were more averse towards corruption. It was
also shown that social environment plays a major role. In societies where
individuals tend to be more forgiving for a corrupt act they are also less averse
towards corruption (Gatti et al. 2003:14).
I was motivated by this report since Kenya was excluded among the 35
countries, but is one of the most corrupt countries in the world (transparency.org).
The research questions are:

 What are the individual attitudes and actions towards corruption in

Nakuru, Kenya?
- Is there a difference between people in the lower class and the upper
middle class respectively?
- Is there a difference between men and women respectively?
 How do their actions affect the survival of the patron-client networks
among the Kenyan institutions?

The first question has a descriptive character since I want to describe the
individual attitudes towards corruption and not explain or value them. The second
question has an explaining character where I intend to explain why and if their
actions affect the survival of the patron-client networks (Teorell & Svensson
2007:22, 278).
The choice of subject is both internally and externally relevant. Internally
relevant since corruption is a subject concerning many researchers in the area of
political science, and by making a study at micro-level I will be able to contribute
with my knowledge in the area and hence create cumulatively. It is externally
relevant since it constitutes a hinder in the development progress around the world
(Teorell & Svensson 2007:18).

4
1.3 Delimitations

Since the questions are very broad and the time to conduct the study in Kenya was
limited to about ten weeks the study had to be delimited. I therefore chose to only
focus on one city, Nakuru, which is the third largest city in Kenya with
approximately 337 200 inhabitants (mongabay.com). I chose Nakuru since it was
there I had all my contacts, due to volunteer work in 2007.
I also chose to delimit the study to two groups in the society, the upper middle
class and the lower class. The definition was made according to their standard of
living and their occupation. The reason why I chose to focus on these two social
standings is that there are big differences between the rich and the poor in Kenya.
In addition, the fact that the World Bank report stated that less wealthy were more
averse towards corruption than people with higher income affected my choice.
Another limitation is my focus on gender.
When conducting the interviews I had two large themes, one was about
meetings with the police and the other theme was about meetings with the health
care. But throughout the interviews it turned out that it was only the lower class
that gave experience of meeting with the health care.
In Kenya a person can choose between visiting the public hospitals or the
private hospitals. The public hospitals are supposed to be free of charge while the
private can be quite expensive. For a poor person this means that they have to go
to the public hospital. A lot of corruption occur in these hospitals due to the low
payment among the employees but also because the hospitals are bad equipped.
The people in the lower class have to part with some money to be attended in the
hospitals while the people from the upper middle class have enough recourse so
they do not need to go to these hospitals.
The people from the upper middle class had therefore no stories to tell about
visiting hospitals and therefore I chose to only focus on meetings with the police,
since both groups had experience from meetings with them and it made it possible
for me to compare their attitudes and actions with each other.

1.4 Material and critique of sources

Since the aim was to make different attitudes and actions towards corruption
visible I only needed to use the interviews as primary material and not making
surveys and participatory observation. To be able to get an understanding of what
corruption and patronage-clientelism is, I need to have background information
about the polemic. This secondary material will be constituted by different
specialist literature and scientific articles, but also reports from Transparency
International Kenya (TI Kenya) and from different internet sources (Teorell &
Svensson 2007:87).

5
 I conducted 26 interviews between April and June 2009 in Kenya, and the time
for each interview was approximately 30 to 60 minutes. Some interviews even
lasted for 1,5 and 2 hours. 16 out of the 26 interviews were used to write this
thesis. The reason why only 16 interviews were used is because some became
incomplete when the respondents did not talk as much as I hoped for about each
subject.
In addition to make interviews with ordinary citizens I also aimed to make a
few interviews with representatives with knowledge in the area, this to give
weight to the interviews from the grass root level. However I only got one
interview with a represent from Transparency International Kenya (TI-K), but the
interview could not be used since this was just an introduction to their work. The
second interview that was supposed to be conducted after the interviews with the
respondents was cancelled. I tried to also get interviews with people doing
research about corruption at Nairobi University and representatives from Kenya
Anti-Corruption commission (KACC). Even though trying to contact them
through email and phone, both still while being in Sweden and when I had arrived
to Kenya I had no success in getting interviews with them. However, during the
same time I did my study, TI-K conducted a survey about bribery in East Africa.
The report, The East African Bribery Index 2009, has been a great value for me
throughout this thesis due to the lack of comments from people with knowledge in
the area.
A conclusion drawn from the interviews was that the men were more talkative
than the women, no matter what social standing they belonged to. However, the
women in the upper middle class did talk more than the women in the lower class.
The women in the lower class were house wives and Rasma Karklins argues that
housewives rarely have reasons to go outside since the men take care of them
(Karklins 2005: 45). Therefore it is more likely that the men have more
experience of corruption than the women and hence had more stories to tell. But,
as stated in the Corruption Barometer 2009, it is not said that women would be
less corrupt than men, they are just less likely to come in contact with institutions
such as the police where demands for bribes are quite high (Corruption Barometer
2009:7)

6
2 Method and theoretical framework

2.1 Methodological considerations

In this thesis have a qualitative method with the technique of semi structured
interviews been used. This method was found most suitable since I conducted a
field study where the purpose was to explore individuals’ experiences, values and
attitudes towards corruption in depth (Divine 2002:197-199). The choice of
method also gave the opportunity to seek deeply information about one
respondent (Teorell & Svensson 2007:267).
The method of semi structured interviews was found to be the most adequate
for the purpose since the questions in a semi structured interview are not tied up to
a certain order like it would be in a structured interview. With semi structured
interviews I was able to reverse order depending on what answer the respondents
gave and he/she was not tied up to certain answers as they would be if a survey
was conducted. This type of interview also gave the respondents the opportunity
to talk freely about each subject (Teorell & Svensson 2007:89-90). The questions
gave the respondents’ opportunities to tell what they think are the most important
dimensions of corruption. An interview guide was used to be sure that all the
subjects I wanted to chart were covered (Devine 2002:198). The interview guide
consisted of twelve broad questions where the follow up questions varied
depending on what answer the respondents gave. Inspiration for the questions was
taken from Karklins book The System Made Me Do It - Corruption in Post-
Communist Societies and from own experience of being in Kenya before. The
interview guide can be found in appendix 1.
Before I travelled to Kenya I had in mind that the individual interviews could
be complemented with focus groups. This since working with focus groups can
make it easier for respondents to talk about their thoughts when they are with
people they know, and not just sitting with an interviewer and interpreter. It could
also be easier to find deep drawing patterns that may be hard to catch with only
individual meetings (Teorell & Svensson 2007:90). However, at place in Kenya I
realized that this was not a possible option and I was settled with just doing
individual interviews.
Asking questions among both the upper middle class and lower class in Nakuru
made it possible for me to chart a pattern and make their attitudes towards
corruption visible (Esaiasson et al. 2007: 259). It also made it possible to see if
there are any differences between the social standing and gender and to try out if
the patron-client theory works outside voting (which is something that will be
developed in section 2.2).

7
2.1.1 Selecting respondents

When selecting respondents I used a strategic selection when dividing them into
four groups; upper middle class, lower class and man respectively women. But
when it came to select respondents within each group a random selection was
used (Teorell & Svensson 2007:83-84, 265).
Since I only speak English and not the second official language Swahili nor
any of all the local tribe language, I had to use an interpreter while conducting the
interviews in the lower class. The interpreter was Kenyan and this made it
possible for us to go to the estates and find respondents. To obtain as varied
answers as possible I chose to visit four different estates in Nakuru. The diversity
of stories told by people living in different estates showed the importance of
conducting interviews in different places and also made it more interesting. When
we came to the estates and met the inhabitants we talked about why I was in
Kenya and why I was in their estate. I most of the times got a friendly treatment,
but sometimes I was not welcomed and I met suspiciousness.
When conducting interviews in the upper middle class there was no
opportunity to walk to their estates to find respondents, since the security in those
area are quite high and every house is surrounded by high fences, sometimes even
with electric fences. I therefore used some of my contacts in Nakuru to help me
find respondents and when I had conducted a few interviews I started to use snow
ball sampling by asking the respondents to suggest new respondents for the study
(Esaiasson et al. 2007:216).
When meeting the respondents the first time and asking if they wanted to
participate in my study I found it important to promise them confidentiality, since
corruption is a very sensitive subject in Kenya. I also found it important to inform
them about the purpose of my project (Teorell & Svensson 2007:21). I have due
to the importance of confidentiality changed their names in this thesis. The
respondents in the lower class are named; Beth, Tabitha, Leah, Simanza, Diba,
Shaban, Simon and Joel. In the upper middle class they are named; Catherine,
Mary, Faith, Peris, Sammy, Amos, John and Lewis.

2.1.2 Operational discussion

Using a qualitative method with semi structured interviews affects the validity in a
positive way. Validity is often defined as you measure what you intend to
measure. Making long interviews instead of short structured interviews made it
easier to really measure peoples’ attitudes and actions towards corruption since I
did not try to control their answers. They were able to speak freely and that
affected the validity in a positive way (Teorell & Svensson 2007:56-59).
Concerning the ontology this thesis has the perspective of realism, since the
reality is not affected by the people and the reality is independent from me as a
researcher. I cannot affect the fact that corruption exists (Lundquist 1993:67).
When it comes to the choice of epistemology I take a subjective stand, since the
purpose is, as mentioned above, to chart people’s attitudes and actions towards

8
corruption. Fiona Devine says; “the in-depth interview is about listening to people
talking in order to gain some insight into their world-views and how they see
things as they do” (Devine 2002:201). The purpose is not to search for objective
answers. According to Teorell & Svensson there are two types of interviews but
this thesis focus on the one that catches the respondents’ subjective values
(Teorell & Svensson 2007:89).
Even if the purpose is to chart patterns and not generalize the result to the
whole Kenyan population, a researcher should always strive towards
generalization according to Teorell & Svensson. The researcher should try to find
respondents that reflect the population on the issue he or she intends to make the
research about (Teorell & Svensson 2007:68-69). Devine argues that it is hard to
generalize results from qualitative studies, but it is also said that findings that
come out from interviews are rarely that misleading to what most people think
about the phenomenon (Devine 2002:207). I believe that having four groups to
compare between will at least give a glimpse of what some parts of the Kenyan
population think about the problem with corruption in their country.

2.2 Theoretical framework

According to Arvind K. Jain theories of corruption are a way to make it easier to

explain and measure the level of corruption in a society. In his article “Corruption
a review” he states that there are two dominant approaches to capture corruption;
an agency model and resource allocation model (Jain 2001:85). However, in this
thesis a patron-client theory will be used since the Kenyan institutions are built-up
through these ties and I find it interesting to find out if it is possible to try out and
develop this theory to other fields than voting (Diamond 2008:145).
The importance of finding the right theory is stated by the fact that theories
make it possible to generalize and simplify the reality, which leads to cases
investigated in the future can be compared to each other (Teorell & Svensson
2007:48).

2.2.1 Patron – client theory

Two of the most notable researchers in the area of patrimonialism, Michael

Bratton and Nicolas van de Walle, argue that African institutions have come to be
characterized with neopatrimonialism. This is a system where one person is ruling
(the “big man”) and ordinary people have no rights or privileges except those that
the ruler gives them (Bratton & van de Walle 1997:61). Further, they argue that
neopatrimonialism weakens the formal rules and institutions, but it does not
necessarily destroy them. When neopatrimonialism has internalized an institution
it continues to live on even after the death or retirement of the first generations of
individual leaders. Thus, neopatrimonialism reproduces over time (Bratton & van
de Walle 1997:63).

9
 Larry Diamond also discusses this issue and argues that one of the reasons why
most sub-Saharans countries are said to be neopatrimonial is that on the surface
they have laws and constitutions and look like a modern bureaucratic state. But on
the inside they are ruled by a “big man” who has personalized his power through
patron-client ties (Diamond 2008:145). He describes these ties that they:

[…] radiates out and down from the biggest “big man” – the autocratic president – to
his lieutenants and allies, who in turn serve as patrons to low-level power brokers, and
down to the fragmented mass of ordinary citizens, who are trapped by their
dependence on local political patrons (Diamond 2008:145).

To define the relationship between patron and client I have chosen to use Luigi
Manzetti’s and Carole J. Wilson’s explanation from their article “Why do Corrupt
Government Maintain Public Support”. They define it as;

[…] an informal relationship between two actors enjoying asymmetrical

socioeconomic power where the patron has the upper hand because he or she controls
the kind of resources that his or her clients pursue but often cannot receive otherwise
(Manzetti & Wilson 2007:953).

This kind of pattern exists in societies with weak institutions where a small
number of politicians control the biggest resources in the country. This implies
that if the people want some help from the politicians they have to promise to vote
for that politician. In return the politician will help the client (Manzetti & Wilson
2007:953). To this has to be added that the patron and client come from two
different social groups. They both benefit from their relation, but it is always on
the condition of the patron (Roniger 2004:353).
The patron-client relationship exists above all in societies where poverty
constitutes a big problem. Researchers have noticed that poor and uneducated are
not as interested in political promises that have an outcome in public goods for the
long term, as educated people are. For poor people it is most important that their
basic needs are “dealt with immediately”. They have a long experience of being
neglected and they know they cannot trust the state’s institutions, which are often
controlled by patron politics (Manzetti & Wilson 2007:954). When state
institutions are weak, patrons take advantage of this by stepping in and being the
only source that provides basic goods for people from lower social standings.
Patrons take advantage of the fact that the institutions are weak, ineffective and
corrupt. This system will give them higher status among the clients who have to
vote for them if they want their problems to be solved (Manzetti & Wilson
2007:955).
As mentioned, I would like to develop this theory to other fields than voting
and especially to see if it can be implemented on the police in Kenya. As Manzetti
& Wilson argue, poor people are not able to see very far ahead since they need to
take care of their basic needs immediately. Therefore they continue to be in the
clientelistic network where the patron helps them with their basic needs. At the
same time did the World Bank report state that less wealthy are more averse

10
towards corruption. These two assumptions seem to contradict and by making
interviews with people from both upper middle class and lower class in Nakuru I
could chart a pattern what their attitudes and actions towards corruption are and
which of these two statements can be applied to the respondents. At the same time
I could see if it was possible to develop this theory to the relation police meeting
citizen.

11
 3 Definitions

3.1 What is corruption?

Corruption is a word with many dimensions and meanings which makes it

difficult for researchers to find a common definition about it. Jain says: “how
corruption is defined actually ends up determining what gets modeled and
measured” (Jain 2001:73). However there are many opinions about it but many
researchers have defined it as “the misuse of public office for private gain”
(Ampratwum 2008:77). When writing this thesis I found Christian Aid’s
definition of corruption suitable; “The misuse of positional power – public or
private – to benefit narrow interests rather than the public good” (McDonald
2008:5).
Even though it is often seen as something that exists only in the public sphere,
it can also be seen as something existing in the private sphere. This since the word
in the last few years has been involved in several scandals in the private sector
(Thelander 2005:7).
Jain defines three types of corruption that can be found in a society, but I will
only mention two of them since I do not find the third definition relevant for this
thesis. The first he describes is grand corruption which is acts done by the
political elite. They use their power to gain private profit, and he also sees this
corruption as the most destroying for a society (Jain 2001:73-74). The second type
of corruption is bureaucratic corruption, also known as petty corruption. In this
type it is the dealing between the bureaucrats and the public or the political elite
(Jain 2001:75).

3.2 What is a bribe?

Throughout the interviews the respondents talked about corruption as bribes,

giving kitu kidogo4. When scholars are talking about petty corruption, it is always
seen as the small transaction between the individual and public junior officers and
not to what impact it has on the country’s economy (Lambert-Mogiliansky et al.
2007:352). Petty corruption involves small sums of money, but it can also be
favors. It can be seen as a social activity that is controlled by many rules and

4
Swahili and means to give a little something

12
norms (Blundo & de Sardan 2006:5). A bribe can for example be paid to get a
service which is supposed to be done for free, or a bribe can be paid to speed
things up (Jain 2001:75). The transactions can involve licensing requirement,
applying for a passport, driving license, the filing of appropriate tax returns
(Lambert-Mogiliansky et al. 2007:352). Those who lose on it are the poor citizens
living in a poor society (Riley 1999:190). The junior positions can be civil
servants and police officers (McDonald 2008:5).
In Joakim Thelanders book Korruption – En begränsad litteraturgenomgång,
can Michael Reisman’s definition of bribes be found and he describes three
different types of bribes; transaction bribes, variance bribes and the outright
purchases. The first is a bribe that is given to speed things up or make the
proceedings easier, not to get anything illegal done. He gives the example of a
custom official that receives a bribe so he can speed up the process of getting a
certain thing over the border (Thelander 2005:14).
The second definition, variance bribes, is about to get the recipient to disobey
the rules that exist. For example a custom official receive a bribe to let drugs cross
the border (Thelander 2005:15).
When it comes to the last definition, the outright purchases, it is no longer
about to buy a certain service. Instead it is about to buy the recipient so he gain
the giver instead of his own organization (Thelander 2005:15).
There is a problem with defining exactly what a bribe is, this since it in many
cultures can be interpreted as a gift instead of a bribe (Thelander 2006:18).
However, in this thesis a bribe is seen as something illegal and can be interpreted
as either a transaction bribe or a variance bribe.

13
4 A review of corruption in Kenya

4.1 Corruption from independence until today

Kenya became independent from Great Britain in 1963 and Jomo Kenyatta
became the president. During the years Kenyatta’s rule became marked by rising
intolerance, corruption and high-level political assassinations (Chege 2008:127).
The constitution from 1963 made the president’s office very strong and made it
possible for the president and his political friends to use this power for their own
benefits (Johnston 2005:170-171).
Kenyatta ruled until his death in 1978 and he was succeeded by Daniel arap
Moi (freedomhouse.org). Due to these former presidents has Kenya a long legacy
of corruption. Michael Johnston describes in his book Syndromes of Corruption –
Wealth, Power and Democracy that corruption became “a smash-and-grab
operation” during Moi’s time, which led to that the development progress halted.
Moi weakened state institutions and created good opportunities for corruption
which gained himself and his personal favorites. For a citizen it was a very hard
task to claim in court that his land was stolen by one of the top politicians, and he
was very unlikely to win. (Johnston 2005:169-170).
Moi could through a strong system of patronage distribute jobs, administrative
decisions and money often along ethnic lines. If there were someone that opposed
Moi, he used repression and violence. An example of that was his Foreign
Minister, Robert Ouko, who in 1990 opposed the corruption in the government
and he ended up being murdered (Johnston 2005:171).
During Kenyatta’s time had corruption been, as Johnston writes; “consisted of
padding budgets, or of percentage paid as kickbacks and bribes, in connections
with legitimate development projects”. But during Moi’s time these projects
where instead created mostly to benefit Moi and his allies (Johnston 2005:172).
When Mwai Kibaki and his party entered into power in 2002 people had great
beliefs in them, since their electoral platform was to fight corruption, jump-
starting the economy and creating 500 000 jobs a year, improving public services,
and making constitutional reforms that would redistribute power from the all-
powerful presidency (Chege 2008:128).
Kibaki started out well and he created for example the Anti-Corruption and
Economic Crimes Act. He also made changes in the judiciary and created Kenya
Anti-Corruption Commission (KACC) (freddomhouse.org). Even though KACC
has investigated more than 3000 cases are their results of successful prosecutions
are very few. According to Freedom House has it only investigatory power and no
prosecutorial power (freedoomhouse.org). A very clear sign how Kibaki has failed
in his anti-corruption attempt is when John Githongo, the head of KACC, had to

14
escape to Great Britain since he found out that ministers inside Kibakis
government were involved in corruption scandals (Wrong 2009). The official
version however is that he resigned, when he could not do any meaningful
reforms (freedoomhouse.org).
Today Kenya is ranked as 146 out of 180 at Transparency International
Corruption Perception Index 2009 (transparency.org). It is also estimated that an
average urban Kenyan pays 16 bribes to both public and private institutions in a
month (tikenya.org) and in TI Corruption Barometer report its estimated that 37%
of the Kenyan population did pay a bribe in 2008 (Corruption Barometer
2009:32).

15
5 The common view about corruption

This chapter summarizes what the respondents’ thoughts and attitudes towards
corruption are. Karklins argues in her book that personal experience of corruption
depends on what the daily life of a person is. It is from media that the common
citizen finds out about institutional or high-level corruption, but also through own
experience, family members and friends (Karklins 2005: 45, 51). For the
respondents their thoughts are mostly gained through personal experience but also
from what they heard from family members, friends, colleagues and of course
from media (Beth, Simon, Diba, Joel, Simanza, Tabitha, Shaban, Leah, Amos,
Sammy, John, Lewis, Peris, Catherine, Faith, Mary).

5.1 The respondents’ knowledge and attitudes

towards corruption

During the interviews the respondents were asked what they knew about
corruption in Kenya and what they thought was the general opinion about it.
Almost all the respondents, no matter what social standing they belonged to, saw
corruption as something common but bad. They all gave pessimistic answers and
none of the respondents were happy about it. They said it is something they
sometimes are forced to do (Simanza, Leah, Tabitha, Simon, Diba, Joel, Shaban,
Peris, Faith, Mary, Sammy, John, Lewis). Joel from the lower class described it
as;

It is out of trouble or problems that force us to do it. It is not something we do by out

of will. There are circumstances that push us; you go to the hospital and you want
medicine. You see you are the one in need here; you are the one with problems so you
have to give it out to get the medicine. So it is all about problems that are forcing us to
do it. But it is our general view; it is not something we are proud of. What our
problems are forcing us to do. Corruption destroys us, but it is the situation that forces
us into doing it. When you are in need and need help you just have to do it (Joel).

Simon from the same social standing agrees that it is the circumstances that push
him to pay bribes. He does not do it out of will, because he wants to do good
things. However he cannot avoid paying bribes since he has a family to support. If
he tries to not pay a bribe he will be put in jail and then he cannot support his
family. To be able to get out from jail, he has to pay a bail which is more
expensive than paying a bribe. He said he is not proud of what he is doing but this
is what life has pushed him into. Further he argued that the petty corruption is just

16
making him poorer and poorer and every day it is draining out of him (Simon).
Steven P. Riley argues that “petty corruption is obviously not petty to those who
experience it” (Riley 1999:191), a statement that easily can be implemented on
Simon’s words.
The respondents saw no ending in corruption since they believed the
government is doing nothing to prevent it and it does not help the people. They
also argued that the government benefits from the people, while it should be the
opposite. There is no trust for the government and corruption can be blamed on
poverty. Corruption has deep roots and is difficult to treat (Beth, Simanza, Leah,
Simon, Diba and Joel).
Peris, from the upper middle class, tried to describe that it is hard for the
people to control corruption since Kenya is a very corrupt country and it is the
leaders that are motivating to corruption, she said “they are leaders in corruption”
(Peris). Beth from the lower class said that it all starts from above and there is
nothing they can do about it. It is too big for the small person to avoid and it is the
common citizen who is getting the whole burden of it (Beth). From the upper
middle class Catherine added that while the government is trying to fight
corruption it is the individuals in the government who are doing corrupt acts
(Catherine). John from the same social standing argued that corruption should not
be there, but it is there and it is a way of life and according to him corruption is
the only way to get through with things (John).
Shaban, from the lower class, on the other hand described that the low trust for
the government may depend on the fact that the president, Kibaki, is not only a
president; he is also a business man and this creates conflicts. He argued that a
president should be satisfied with his position as a president and not being
involved in different suspicious business deals (Shaban). Karklins results from her
study in the post-communist countries showed that the attitudes among the people
were that they did not believe in being honest, and they justified and excused their
participation with corrupt acts that the leaders also practiced it and were corrupt
(Karklins 2005:59-61). Also some of the respondents tried to justify their own
corrupt actions or just explain why corruption exist by saying if the president and
the high officials do it, why cannot we do it (Leah, Shaban, John, Catherine, Faith,
Mary).
Even though the respondents see corruption as something negative and blame
the government for doing too little in the fight against it, they also blame the
population since they part in corruption when they pay bribes. Diba from the
lower class said that it is the people themselves at the grass root who encourage
corruption and he described it as;

Us when we give them we encourage them, but us if we could deny them we could
have ended it. But now because we have made them used to it and we deny it they
become our enemy. To maintain the friendship you keep on giving them. You
maintain a calm environment. You maintain a friendship. But if we would have
stopped that would have ended the whole thing. We have made them used to us giving
(Diba).

17
Amos and Lewis, both from the upper middle class, did also argue that it is the
people who encourage too it. Amos sees corruption as a two way thing since it is
not only the person who receives the bribe that is corrupt; also the person who
gives it out is corrupt (Amos). Lewis said;

[F]rom the person who is giving out the bribe he is probably one of the culprit. He is
trying to bail himself out, something wrong is done. If I would bribe an officer
obviously I would know that I have done something wrong, that is when I would do it.
If I knew I have not done anything wrong, I would not bribe him (Lewis).

Sammy, also from the upper middle class, called it as people sometimes volunteer
to corruption even though they are not supposed to, but it has become so rooted in
the society. He said; “[…] once you get corrupt, morally corrupt, even your
children will see you doing that and will think it is the right way to do things”
(Sammy).
Several respondents in the upper middle class described corruption as a disease
and a virus (Sammy, Peris, Faith, Mary). Faith described it in these words:

Corruption in Kenya has just become like a disease and it is contagious […] For you
to get a job, for you to travel on our roads, for you to even be set free in the prison, for
you to get documents, for you to just get any fair treatment you have to be corrupt,
you have to bribe (Faith).

For many of the respondents in the lower class, every day was a struggle for them
when they need to pay bribes. However, for the respondents in the upper middle
class it was more a short cut. Sammy said; “I think people think it is ok because it
is an easy way out. For example if 100 shillings can get you out of prison or make
you not go to prison you rather give out. It is easy. It makes things easier for
people” (Sammy). To this can John’s statement be added; “if you can get away
with it, do it” (John). I got the impression that these two men seemed to have a
very laid back attitude towards corruption in Kenya, even though they also said
that corruption in Kenya was bad.
Mary from the upper middle class described corruption as it is killing the
nation. She said everywhere you go; they will most likely ask you for money even
before they give you the service. She told how she had to pay a bribe of 1000
shillings to her driving school teacher when she was taken her driving license. On
the question how it felt to be forced to pay she answered:

It does not feel good because it is unfair. You have the right to have a driving license
without being asked for money. As long as you have paid for your lessons and you
have passed the test you are supposed to be given the driving license. If you do not
make any mistakes it is our right to get a driving license (Mary).

In Kenya there is a big problem with bribing the police, which will be developed
in the next chapter, and according to Karklins does it undermine the public safety
when the police are being bribed. But, when asking for a bribe to give out a

18
driving license it is not only the public safety that is at stake, but also the rule of
law becomes undermined (Karklins 2005:21).
Both Jain and Karklins argue that the common citizen is more angry towards
grand corruption and at the same time they are more accepting towards petty
corruption since they often involve acts done by themselves or their friends (Jain
2001:81, Karklins 2005:5-6). To this statement can Beth’s thoughts be added
since she said even if she knew that someone in a junior position was receiving
bribes she would not report that person. Maybe this person does it because she
needs to sustain herself; maybe she is a mother and needs to feed her children. If
she loses her job, she will lose her income and then she cannot sustain herself and
her family. Since Beth also is a mother she could not live with making another
mother suffer, even if that mother was doing something illegal (Beth).

19
6 Meetings with the police

The police are the most corrupt institution in Kenya and The East African Bribery
Index 2009 estimates that 63.4% of those who had been in contact with the police
during the past year did pay a bribe. Out of those who refused to pay a bribe were
10.4% denied help while 59.2% got the service they asked for when they had paid
(TI Kenya 2009:21-24). This chapter will describe the respondents’ meetings with
the police, and the experience they gave differed from each other. For some of the
respondents they talked about meetings they had experienced on their own, while
it for others was just stories they had heard about from others. In this section the
answers have been divided according to their social standing and their gender.

6.1 The lower class

For a poor person who lives in the slums of Nakuru, a daily visit from the police is
not very uncommon. The stories from the respondents in the lower class were
therefore about the police doing patrols in their estates, almost every day.

6.1.1 Men

All the four men in this social standing told how the police come to their estates
and do patrols. They explained how they get hold of the citizens and then accuse
them of things which they have not done (Simon, Diba, Shaban, Joel).
Simon told how the police do patrols during daytime in his estate and how he
has had some rough time with them. They can come to the estate, walk into his
house, take him to the station and then accuse him of things that he has not done.
To be able to be set free he has to pay them a bribe. He argues that the behavior
of the police can be seen as police harassment, since they accuse people of things
which they has not done and they have to pay the police for them to let the person
go. Simon said that if he for example gets into a fight with someone and he goes
to the police to get help, they will first tell him he has to pay something little. He
said even though he could prove who the criminal was; they want money first
before they catch the culprit. Further he argued that sometimes they even want the
informer to fuel their car so they can go and catch the criminal (Simon).
Diba described how the police get hold of citizens in his estate that are outside
during evening hours. He gave the example if someone is coming from a shop and
the police get hold of that person, they will tell him to pay something little and if
he refuses to do that they can arrest that person and accuse him of being a thief or

20
a drug dealer and if a woman is caught she can be accused of prostitution (Diba).
Shaban argued that these evening visits are a big problem since the criminals are
not out at that time. When they are out during night hours the police have since
long gone left the estate and either sleep or just relax somewhere else (Shaban).
For Diba who needs to be outside during evening hours, since he is working for
an organization that take care of people with different illnesses, he is often
stopped by the police. When he gets stopped he shows his working ID to prove
that he needs to be outside since he needs to see a patient. He never part with any
money since he is against corruption and he rather spend the night in prison than
paying a bribe (Diba).
Shaban gave a story how he tried to help a friend getting her phone back that
she had lent to a boy, who he also knew. The boy, who was broke, was supposed
to return it but instead he used it as payment when he was gambling. The lady
reported the boy to the police and he ended up in jail. When Shaban came and
helped she did not have any problem with releasing the boy as long as she got her
phone back. Shaban and the lady went to the gambling place and he paid the boy’s
debt and got the phone back. He then went to the police station to release the boy.
When Shaban told the police that the lady had no problem letting the boy go since
she had got her phone back, the police told him that they were three of them who
had done the job and he had to pay 500 shillings to each of them if they were
going to release the boy. Since Shaban was not able to give that much he
negotiated with the police and he was able to pay 1000 shillings and then he was
suppose to come back with the remaining money. He never paid the remaining
500 shillings. On the question what he felt about paying that money he answered
he did not feel good about it since he had solved the problem with getting the
phone back to the owner (Shaban).

6.1.2 Women

It is not just the men who are experiencing harassments from the police in the
estates. Tabitha told how she had escorted a friend to the matatu when she was
stopped by the police. The police accused her of breaking a window and they took
her to jail. Tabitha had to wait until the owner of the window came and when she
came she told the police that Tabitha was not the one destroying the window. For
a police this is bad since the charges now were on them. What they did was to
convince the owner to say it was Tabitha who had broken the window. They
managed to do this since they had got hold of her before and for her to stay out of
trouble she had to do what they told her to do. This led to that the police wanted
10 000 shillings in a cash bound, but Tabitha was just able to pay 2000 shillings.
They let her out so she could go and find the remaining 8000 shillings, however
she never went back and when she sees the police today she always takes another
route (Tabitha).
For Simanza her story was when she was coming home late from work and
was stopped by the police in her estate. She tried to show them her ID and her
working ID to prove that she had to be outside walking since her job involves

21
 working late evenings. But the police was very stubborn and did not want to let
her go unless she paid. It ended up that she had to pay the police a bribe of 1200
shillings. She said if she would not have paid, they would have taken her to jail
and she had to spend a night there. She thinks it is better to pay the police, since if
they take her to jail they can change the charges so it looks that she has done
something bad. Simanza also said that if they take her to jail, she will have to pay
a lot of money in cash bound to be released, so she prefers to pay a bribe instead
of being taken to jail. Further she argued that there is no option in running away
from the police since they have dogs that will chase after her if she runs. The
police can even search through her pockets and get hold of her salary. A salary
that she depends on, that is supposed to pay for the rent; to feed her child and pay
the school fees. She said that the petty corruption is the one that is really affecting
her (Simanza).
Another example when the police are asking for bribes is when it comes to the
local breweries5. Beth told how drinking local beer is something illegal but very
common among the residents in the lower class, and the people who brews the
beer goes to the police station every month and pays something small. This so
when the police do their patrols in the estate they get hold of them, but as soon as
they reach the station they release them. This is because even the police are
enjoying the local beer (Beth). Beth and Simon were living in the same estate and
she told me how he was working in the local brew to get money for his children
so they can go to school. During Simon’s interview he did not talk much about his
work, however he said that before he came to the interview he had paid 700
shillings to get away with the police from the brewery (Simon).

6.2 The upper middle class

Compared to the lower class the respondents in this social standing have a lot of
experience with the traffic police. All the respondents thought it was bad to give
out a bribe, but for many of them it was a short cut and a way of getting things
done easier. They have double moral standards. But also the fact that the legal
system concerning traffic offenses is bad and retrogressive affects their behavior
of paying bribes to the traffic police (John, Peris).

6.2.1 Men

For many of the respondents in the upper middle class they were travelling a lot
on the roads and Amos told how he is against paying bribes and he rather go to

5
A place where they brew a cheap type of beer, it is brewed under unhygienic conditions in the estates and
villages all around Kenya

22
court than paying a bribe. He explained how he was travelling on the highway
between Mombasa and Nairobi and was stopped by the traffic police who wanted
to get some money from him. They got really irritated on him since he refused to
pay, but Amos said he had done nothing wrong so why should he pay? The police
told him if he did not give them something he will have to go to court tomorrow.
But instead of writing a court paper the police took Amos to the side and once
again started to ask for money. Amos then told the police that he will not part with
any money and eventually they released him and he did not pay anything (Amos).
When asking Amos whether he get the same help even if he does not bribe he
answered yes. He explained how he tell the people who are asking for bribes;
“[…] that whatever they are asking for its illegal and a lot of people suffer
because they are ignorant[…] I tell them you can’t ask that from me, I pay my
taxes”(Amos).
In addition to Amos was John who explained that he paid bribes because he
had been raised in the system (John). John told how he often travels between
Nakuru and Nairobi, a distance of approximately 150 kilometers. On the way back
to Nakuru he has to travel down a hill with no speed limit signs and the police
stood at the foot of the hill. They stopped John and accused him for over
speeding, and he was told to pay 5000 in cash bill due to over speeding. But
instead he paid 1000 shillings in a bribe and he said;

[…] once you have bribed you forget about the cash bill. It is like you have never
been stopped. I did not even see the cash bill. This happened on a Saturday, so I had
to go to Nakuru and then go back to Naivasha on Monday appear in court. I will use
fuel to go to Naivasha and back, I will wait 2-4 hours to enter the court and all I had
to do was to go in and say I am guilty. Because I am guilty. But than an expense I
wish not to undertake because fuel itself is over a 1000 shilling. I might instead just
pay a 1000 shilling and get away with it then take the hassle (John).

John explained how the police always threaten to take you to the station, and if
you get there you will be put in the criminal record, which is something many
want to avoid. John was very honest during the interview about how much and
how often he paid bribes and I did not get any feelings that he had any intentions
to stop it. He said that corruption is the only way to get through with something.
“It should not be there, I agree. I might not practice it, but it should not bet there”.
On the question if there ever where situations when he refused to pay the police he
answered yes, when he for example is broke. He explained that there is a
mentality with the police and if he tells the policeman let’s do it the legal way he
does not get anything because he is going through the legal route. When John tells
the police lets go to court, the police let him go (John). The answer raised a
question why this person pay so many bribes when he knows he can get away
with it without paying anything and he actually knows what he is doing is wrong
and he has the opportunity to not part in it.
From Sammy the story was told how he was traveling in a matatu when going
home from university. The car was stopped by a police and Sammy explained
how the police always find something wrong on the car even if it is a brand new

23
car. The police told the driver he did not have any first aid bag and because of that
he had to step out of the car. It ended up that the driver told the police that he was
very busy and gave him 200 shillings. John concluded this statement with; “[…]
here in Kenya people volunteer to corruption” (Sammy).

6.2.2 Women

For the women it was also about meetings with the traffic police and Peris told
about two meetings she had had. One was when she was travelling in a matatu on
her way to work and the other when she was driving from Nairobi to Nakuru. She
explained how the matatu was stopped by the traffic police because they did not
wear any seatbelts. The problem was that the matatu did not have any seatbelts,
but the police did not care about that. The police asked for something small from
the passengers, but they refused to pay him and instead the police took all the
passengers to jail. It did not help that they complained and they had to pay a bail
to get out from jail. Peris had to stay there for seven hours and later she found out
that the reason why they were taken to jail was that the police had not got their
salary on that day so they had “operation collecting money” (Peris).
Then she told how she was driving form Nairobi to Nakuru, just like John, and
when she was going down the hill she was stopped for over speeding. The police
told her; you either pay us 3000 in cash bound or you give us 1000 shilling and
we forget about this. Peris explained because of the inconvenience that she has to
go to court in Nairobi and since she lives 150 kilometers away it is sometimes
easier to pay a bribe. She used the same argument as John did; she pays because
of inconvenience (Peris).
However, for some respondents they seemed to be able to get away from the
police without having to pay a bribe or get a cash bill. Catherine, who said she is
against corruption, do never pay and claimed that she get the same help without
paying. She told about a meeting she had had with the traffic police due to over
speeding. She told the police that she had already given them 1000 shillings the
previous day, so she was not going to give them another 1000. But she had
actually never given them any money. They believed her and told her to go
because they knew she was going to make a scene (Catherine).
Faith described how the police harass the people for petty things so that they
will end up giving the police a bribe. It can be everything from 50 shillings to 500
shillings. And about the traffic police she gave this quote:

On the roads I have had meetings with the traffic police. They want you to follow the
rules that are there on the roads and that is true and very correct but they always want
to get something in return. Maybe you are on the wrong but they do not want to go by
the law. If you are on the wrong they should treat you according to the law. Now they
require you to pay to be set free (Faith).

24
6.3 Summary

There are some very clear patterns when it comes to meetings with the police, and
the respondents have been in situations where they have been asked to pay a bribe
or been expected to pay a bribe. Out of the 12 stories presented in this chapter
differences in the attitudes and actions are found between the social standings, but
no differences was charted between the genders.
The main difference was that the respondents in the upper middle class never
risked to be deprived of their liberties when refusing to pay a bribe to a
policeman. Though Peris is an exception, but I believe this would not have
happened if she had travelled in her own car. Even though a person in the upper
middle class is over speeding and actually is breaking the law he never risks
ending up in jail. The only thing that person will have to do is to go to court and
pled guilty. While the person in the upper middle class bribed the police to avoid
going to court in another district the poor person in the lower class paid a bribe to
avoid getting in jail and being accused of things that he/she had not done. Riley
argues that the poor do not get the services they need, while the rich person gets
advantage (Riley 1999:191).
He also argues that petty corruption can be seen as a reverse Robin Hood,
“instead of robbing the rich to give to the poor, the relatively rich public officials
and others gain while the losers are often the very poor and marginalised living on
the periphery of society” (Riley 1999:191). It could be stated that for the poor
person more is at stake when they meet the police, they pay out of survival
because they do not want to end up in jail. As mentioned in previous chapter;
“petty corruption is obviously not petty to those who experience it” (Riley
1999:191), for the poor person paying bribes is really destroying them, while it for
the rich person is an easy way out.
As shown in this chapter, corruption is a matter of how much money people
have. Jain argues in his article that corruption does affect the inequality in a
society and is a cause to both poverty and inequality (Jain 2001:97).
Only Amos and Catherine argued that they get the same help even though they
refuse to pay bribes. But, according to The East African Bribery Index 2009 did
only 20% of those who refused to pay a bribe get the service they were seeking. In
addition 92% of those who paid bribes got the service they had bribed for, (these
are the numbers for all the Kenyan institutions together) (TI Kenya 2009:15).

25
7 What should be done about the
problem with corruption in Kenya?

It has sometimes been argued that petty corruption “grease-the-wheels” in the

bureaucratic process since it can speed up processes and therefore promote
economic growth. However most researchers in the area see it as more likely to be
a “sand-in-the-machine”, where it slows down the process and it is very often that
small payments in petty corruption lead to demands for higher payment.
According to Jain petty corruption has a strong negative effect on the economic
development of a country (Jain 2001:92-93). In this chapter an account will be
given of where the respondents think the fight against corruption should start and
if raising wages could be a solution in the fight.

7.1 Where should the fight against corruption start?

All the respondents agreed that corruption destroys the development progress in
Kenya and according to The East African Bribery Index 2009 did only 14% of the
respondents believe that the government’s efforts to fight corruption are effective
(TI Kenya 2009:57). The opinions differed among the respondents in this thesis
concerning which corruption they saw as the worst and where the fight against
corruption should start, both within and between the social standings and gender.
The lower class did not talk as much as the upper middle class did when it came
to the question where the fight against corruption should start and that is why the
lower class section will be shorter than the upper middle class section.

7.1.1 Lower class

Among the respondents in the lower class there were no positive thoughts about
the future of corruption. They all said that it was destroying them and the Kenyan
economy (Beth, Simanza, Tabitha, Leah, Simon, Diba, Joel, Shaban). Beth told
how she believed there will be no development; it will only be the rich who
develops (Beth). Instead of the rich being the one who develops did Shaban argue
that he believed it was just the police that will develop from corruption and the
common man would end up losing (Shaban).
Joel was the only respondent who thought the fight should start from the grass
root; however he did not specify why it should start from there (Joel). Simanza,
Tabitha, Leah and Shaban thought that the fight should come from the top and

26
Tabitha exemplified it with a mother and said; “if you clear the mother [the grand
corruption] it will eventually lead to that you even will kill the kids [the petty
corruption]” (Tabitha). Shaban made the same comparison, however he made the
statement with a father instead. He argued that to be able to fight corruption you
have to start with the father, since he is the head of the family. So he thought they
should start with the president (Shaban). Leah argued that it is the grand
corruption that leads to the petty corruption and therefore should the fight start
with the grand corruption. She argued that there is this mentality among the
citizens that if the officials do it why cannot they do it? (Leah).

7.1.2 Upper middle class

When asking Peris which corruption she thinks is the worst she answered “What
difference does it really make?” What she meant was that if her boss for example
is corrupt, it will trickle down to her in some way anyway (Peris).
Among the respondents in the upper middle class half of them, Amos, John,
Catherine and Mary thought corruption should be fought from the top, since it is
them who are dealing with most of the money. They said corruption destroys the
country and it cannot progress. Amos expressed it as;

[I]f I am in charge and already corrupt. If I tell my juniors it does not stop. It should
start from the most top and going downwards to finish it. It is possible but it will take
time. It is not a one day thing. It requires training, counseling and education (Amos).

Further he argued that money gained from corruption is not used for good
purposes. Since the policemen that receive a bribe will end up using that money to
go and drink or even prostitution, because they do not put any weight on that
money since it is not their own (Amos).
John said that corruption destroys since the funds the government should get
from law breakers and taxes are going into other pockets. He also argued that
petty corruption just involves small sums, while grand corruption involves
millions of shillings. He thought the fight against corruption should come from
the top since it is mentally; “if my president does it why shouldn’t I?” (John).
To this statement can also Catherine’s thoughts be added since she also said
that there is this mentality that if she sees a person bribing, why should she not?
She thought grand corruption was the worst and therefore should the fight come
from the top. Catherine believed that to be able to get a change it needs to be a
change in the government. She argued that the people in the government have
been there for such a long time and been corrupt themselves, so they cannot fight
it. Therefore it should be a change of people in the government so they can be
able to fight it (Catherine).
Mary also agreed to this statement, that it is the people at the top that is
supposed to be the role models and if they cannot stop it, the others will not do it
either. She also argued that they are the ones dealing with most of the money and

27
that is why they should stop first. Everybody wants to survive, that is why
corruption exists (Mary).
Faith, one of the four respondents who claimed corruption should be fought
from the grass root, believed that if the people cannot change corruption
themselves, if they cannot say no to corruption the people in the top will never say
no to it. “So if they tell you to pay for a certain fee and you refuse they will
definitely realize that corruption is dying and it is up to us to create a way to stop
corruption”. The people should refuse to pay and say no to corruption completely
(Faith). Peris agreed and said;

Corruption destroys the development progress, because when there is corruption it

means that services are not given effectively, efficiently. Someone is not working. I
think right now when we talk about Kenya; we ourselves at the bottom, we have to
say we are not condoning this anymore. We have to change the way the system works
and we have to fight against it. We are more than the people in the government so we
should try and fight corruption from the bottom and going up, because if we are
saying no then they will not have a choice. But if we wait for them there is too much
money there and too much power. People just want to stay in power and use the funds.
So if we wait for them it will never work. I believe that people on the ground should
be the one who sets the pace. We stop bribing, let’s start with stop bribing and it will
trickle down to the police force (Peris).

Lewis argued that petty corruption is the worst since what is happening at the top
they do not get to see it, but what is going on at the grass root they know because
it is going on in front of their eyes. He said; “everybody is going through petty
corruption, because everybody is given out here and there. We don’t know how
many things are going on”. He gave the suggestion that the fight should start with
the officers, that there should be anti-corruption teams, first of all on the highways
they should give out special notes to the drivers and try making the drivers to
commit their mistake on the road when they are caught and pay immediately
instead of going to court the next day far away from their home (Lewis).
Sammy believed that corruption can go away but it will take time and a lot of
training, this since, as he said; “you found your parents doing that you think it is
the right way to go. That is how corruption has in craved itself”. He argued that
the fight against corruption should start from the grass root since:

[…] the corruption will not go to the upper people because the people in power will
always use the people who are under to do the corrupt things for them, when they are
the ones who benefits from that. You see, you will never find the commission of
police to go and ask for a bribe but I’m sure he eats some of the money from his
juniors (Sammy)

He also said that if all was done the right way, if all the cash bills that were
supposed to be paid in court were actually paid, the government would get a lot of
money and maybe they could have done something meaningful with it (Sammy).

28
7.1.3 Summary

All the respondents, no matter what social standing or gender they belonged too,
believed that corruption destroys the development progress and this is something
Karklins points out in her book. Corruption destroys the development progress for
a country and makes it hard for the country to become a democracy. She states
that the citizens lose their trust for the representatives and government when they
interact in corrupt acts. It is also hard to maintain good governance when the
officials undermine the trust from the people by being involved in corrupt
dealings (Karklins 2005:6). Further she argues that there needs to be something
more positive than corrupt politicians to be able to fight corruption. They have to
believe that the system of government works, if so they will be motivated to fight
corruption (Karklins 2005:165). The respondents in Karklins’ study believed that
there was nothing they could do to eradicate the grand corruption, because the
fight should come from the leaders at the top (Karklins 2005:59). This is also
something half of the respondents in the upper middle class and half of the
respondents in the lower class did say, they believed that corruption should be
fought from the top. However, five of the respondents did say that if they started
out with the petty corruption it would eventually lead to the disappearance of
grand corruption.
According to Karklins it is important that the citizens feel motivated in the
fight against corruption (Karklins 2005 see chapter 9), but what can be shown
from The East African Bribery Index 2009 is that there is little motivation among
the population in Kenya. Only 6% of the respondents in the survey said that they
would report if they had been asked to pay a bribe and only 2% out of those who
bribed the police reported to the authority. The reasons people used for not
reporting was; they did not believe anything would be done, fear of being
intimidated by the authorities and lack of knowledge where to report the case (TI
Kenya 2009:17). The report shows the importance of reporting corruption cases,
since when no one report nothing will be done about the problem with corruption
in Kenya.

7.2 Raising wages, a solution to a big problem?

During the interviews once and a while the subject about wages came up. Five of
the respondent, two from the lower class and three from the upper middle class
said that corruption in Kenya can be blamed on the low wages (Beth, Shaban,
Peris, Sammy, Lewis). Beth argued that people are not satisfied with what they
get and they are greedy for more (Beth). Shaban also said that it is all about
satisfaction, that if the police would get higher wages they would not ask for
bribes (Shaban). From the upper middle class they also talked about satisfaction
and Peris argued that if a person has food on the table and is able to pay the bills,
there is no need for asking for bribes. She argued that the wages are too low today
and she believed one solution could be to raise them, since it is out of survival the

29
police are corrupt (Peris). Lewis also said that they have expenses to take care of
and they will not stop until they are paid well. He believes it is an easy way for
the police to get money (Lewis). Sammy said that the police see it as an income
since their wages are too low and he believed that the reason why people are so
corrupt is because of the bad economy in the country (Sammy).
The five respondents are discussing a very big issue about the Kenyan
economy. At the same time they do not like paying bribes, they have an
understanding of why for example the police are asking for bribes; they are paid
to low. But, according to Jakob Svensson raising wages is not the solution to the
problem. In his article “Eight Questions about Corruption” he argues that the
correlation between raised payment and reduced corruption is ambiguous. Some
cross-country studies do say it reduces corruption while some other says it does
not. Svensson argues that it is only under certain conditions that bribe-taking can
be reduced through higher wages, and he is pessimistic if such strategy will work
in developing countries. He argues that if it will work the bribe that is being
offered cannot be seen as the person’s wages and if the wages are being raised it
should not be a too high raise. For this to be able to be fulfilled it needs to be a
well-functioning state, which is rarely in developing countries (Svensson 2005:32-
33). Jain has also been looking at some empirical test where the result showed a
negative correlation between higher wages and corruption. The researchers, who
made the test, rejected the hypothesis “that higher pay leads to reduced corruption
in the short run” Jain 2001:82). So, even though the respondents saw raising
wages as a solution, the scholars in the area do not see this as a sustainable
solution.

30
8 Patron-Client relationship

8.1 Developing the theory

One of the aims with this thesis was to try out and develop the patron-client
theory to other fields than voting. To be able to do so I find it important to once
again remind the reader about the definition of the theory:

[…] an informal relationship between two actors enjoying asymmetrical

socioeconomic power where the patron has the upper hand because he or she controls
the kind of resources that his or her clients pursue but often cannot receive otherwise
(Manzetti et al. 2007:953).

After conducting all the interviews and writing this thesis a pattern can be seen
that makes it possible to develop this theory to other fields than voting. This since
the theory is about asymmetrical relationship where the client is dependent on the
patron and that the Kenyan institutions are built up through patrimonialism that
weakens the formal rules and institutions.
The patron, the police in this thesis, uses the fact that the Kenyan institutions
are weak. They use the poor to pay since most of them cannot afford to go to jail
and they use the rich because they want an easy way out and wish to avoid go to
court. Christian Aid’s definition of corruption can be implemented on the police
since they have positional power and are asking for bribes which gains narrow
interest. I would therefore argue that these actions make sure that the theory works
outside voting, since there is an asymmetrical relationship between the patron
(police) and client (citizen) when the police are asking for money to let an
innocent person go.
The core in the theory is about unequal relationships and I therefore argue that
it works outside voting. In the lower class the unequal relationship is about how
the police use the people to pay bribes so they will not end up in jail. They pay out
of survival and Simon and Simanza are good examples, since they argued that it
was cheaper for them to pay a bribe than end up in jail and being accused of
things they did not do. For the poor person they end up in interdependence with
the police, while the poor gets its freedom the police get money. However this is a
freedom the person was never suppose to be bereft of from the beginning.
When it came to the local breweries, which is an illegal act, a patron-client
relationship can also be seen. The client goes to the police and bribes him so he
can continue on with the illegal act. The owner of the brewery can continue with
its business and the police once again get some extra money. Even though the act

31
is illegal, the relationship is still on the personal benefit for the police when
overlooking illegal acts for personal gain.
The patron-client relationship was not only something that could be
implemented in the lower class; equal patterns could also be seen in the upper
middle class. Even though it still is an asymmetrical relationship the rich person
do not lose as much as the poor. This since they do not need to pay to be able to
sustain their family. They pay to get an easy way out and to save time and avoid
going to go to court.
But, when it for example comes to when John and Peris over speeded it can
actually be seen as a win-win situation, this since they did something illegal and
instead of wasting time and go to court they paid less in a bribe than they would
have done in a cash-bill. It will be a win-win situation as long as the law
concerning traffic offences is the way it is. However, for most of the situations it
is almost always the police who gain on it.
It would be possible that this theory could be developed to other institutions
than the police, but that would be a subject for another thesis.

32
9 Conclusion

Corruption has been in Kenya for such a long time and is deeply rooted in the
Kenyan society. As written in the beginning of this thesis it is hard to make any
conclusions or generalization from a qualitative study, since it does not represent
the population in the same way as a quantitative study. Even though
generalizations cannot be made, some patterns can be charted and I would argue
that these attitudes and actions at least sheds a little light of what the majority of
the urban population in Kenya thinks about the problem with corruption.
The aim of this thesis has been to make the respondents’ attitudes and actions
towards corruption visible and to see if there are any differences between gender
and social standings. Another aim was to see if these attitudes and actions affected
the survival of the patron-client theory. The stories presented by the respondents’
shows that there is a negative view of corruption; but they see it as a way of life
that they sometimes has to go through. They see it as a common act and there is a
mentality that if they (the politicians) do it, why cannot we (the people) do it?
This is a risky mentality because if everybody is thinking like this corruption will
never end in Kenya.
By examining the respondents’ attitudes and actions towards corruption
divergences could be found between the upper middle and lower class, however
no differences could be found between genders. I believe in order to chart
differences between genders a broader survey than the 16 interviews performed is
needed.
The main findings throughout this study between the social standings was that
the respondents in the lower class part in corruption out of survival, while it for
the respondents in the upper middle class was more of an easy way out, to speed
things up. The respondent in the upper middle class never risked to be deprived of
his liberties while it for the respondent in the lower class was either to pay a bribe
or end up in jail and be accused of things that he/she had not done. However, there
is one exception and that is when Peris ended up in jail for not having the seat belt
on in the matatu. Though, I would argue that this would not have happened if she
had been travelling in a car by herself.
Even though they all see corruption as something bad it is the people in the
lower class that gets most affected by its presence. Since paying bribes they are
not supposed to pay affect their daily life, they have to struggle to support their
family. This is not something the person from the upper middle class needs to go
through even if they are forced to pay a bribe they were not supposed to. They
never get affected the same way as the person in the lower class.
The second question was to find out if their attitudes and actions affect the
survival of the patron-client relationship. As shown in previous chapter the theory
can be developed to other fields than voting and I argue that these attitudes and

33
actions contribute to the survival of the patron-client relationship since it is the
police that have the upper hand over the population when they ask the people to
pay bribes. For the poor person it is out of survival he pays and he is therefore
stuck in this asymmetrical relationship out of will. For the rich person he is stuck
in this relationship because he saves time by paying bribes. Both social standings
attribute to the survival of this theory, however they do it out of two different
reasons.
Manzetti and Wilson claimed that poor people are not able to see very far
ahead since they need to take care of their basic needs immediately. I would argue
that this is the reason why some of my respondents in the lower class did pay
bribes. For example some of them said that they did it out of survival and it was
the circumstances that pushed them to pay. The World Bank report did state that
poor people were more averse towards corruption than rich and as argued in the
beginning this statement contradicted with Manzetti’s and Wilson’s argument. But
after conducting the interviews a pattern could be seen that the lower class were
against corruption, but they saw no other option than paying a bribe to fulfill their
needs and when paying a bribe they favor the survival of patron-client networks
and hence foster corruption.
As Doig and Theobald argued that in societies with high level of petty
corruption it is hard to unite the people. By just looking at the 16 interviews
presented in this thesis so many different views can be found and there was no
common census where the fight against corruption should start. They all had
different opinions and to be able to unite everybody in the fight against corruption
there has to be a strong mechanism that unites them. Having a corrupt government
does not make it easier in the fight against corruption and I believe the
government cannot solve this on its own. There has to be a strong and active civil
society that informs and educates the people at the grass root so they know what
their rights are and how they can contribute in the fight against corruption in
Kenya. There has to be a change in everybody’s minds.

34
10 References

Ampratwum, Edward F, 2008. “The Fight Against Corruption and its Implications
for Development in Development and Transition Economies”, Journal of
Money Laundering Control, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 76-87.
Blundo, Giorgio – de Sardan, Jean-Pierre, 2006. “Why Should We Study
Everyday Corruption and How Should We Go About It?” In Blundo, Giorgio
– de Sardan, Jean-Pierre (eds.), Everyday Corruption and the State – Citizens
and Public Officials in Africa. London: Zed Books.
Bratton, Michael – van de Walle, Nicolas, 1997. Democratic Experiments in
Africa: Regime Transition in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Chege, Michael, 2008. “Kenya: Back From the Brink?”, Journal of Democracy,
vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 126-139.
Diamond, Larry, 2008. “The Rule of Law versus the Big Man”. Journal of
Democracy, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 138-149.
Doig, Alan – Theobald, Robin, 2000. “Introduction: Why Corruption?”. In Doig,
Alan – Theobald, Robin (eds.), Corruption and Democratisation. London:
Frank Cass.
Divine, Fiona, 2002. “Qualitative Methods”. In Marsh, David - Stoker, Gerry
(eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science. London: Macmillan, pp.
197-215. 2nd edition.
Esaiasson, Peter – Gilljam, Michael – Oscarsson, Henrik – Wängnerud, Lena,
2007. Metodpraktikan: Konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad.
Stockholm: Norstedts juridik.
Freedom House, Countries at the Crossroads, Kenya ,2006 [online],
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=140&edition=7&ccrcountr
y=133&section=73&ccrpage=31, 091104.
Freedom House, Country Report, Kenya 2009 [online].
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2009&country=
7636, 091104.
Gatti, Roberta – Paternostro, Stefano – Rigolini, Jamele, 2003. Individual
Attitudes Toward Corruption: Do Social Effects Matter? World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 3122.
Jain, Arvind, K, 2001. “Corruption: A Review”, Journal of Economic Surveys,
vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 71-121.
Johnston, Michael, 2005. Syndromes of Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Karklins, Rasma, 2005. The System Made Me Do It – Corruption in Post-
Communist Societies. New York: Armonk.

35
Lambert-Mogiliansky, Ariane – Majumdar, Mukul – Radner, Roy, 2007. “Strategic
Analysis of Petty Corruption: Entrepreneurs and Bureaucrats”, Journal of
Development Economics, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 351-367.
Lundquist, Lennart, 1993. Det vetenskalpliga studiet av politik. Lund: Studentlittteratur.
Manzetti, Luigi – Wilson, Carole J, 2007. “Why do Corrupt Government Maintain
Public Support?”, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 949-970.
Médard, Jean-François, 2002. “Corruption in the Neo-Patrimonial States of Sub-
Saharan Africa”. In Heidenheimer, Arnold J – Johnston Michael (eds.)
Political Corruption – Concepts and Contexts. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publisher. 3rd edition.
McDonald, Olivia, 2008. From Local to Global – Stopping Corruption from
Stunting Development. Christian Aid, 2008.
Mongabay, “Cities and Urban Areas in Kenya With Population Over 100,000”
[online]. http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/Kenya.htm, 091104.
Nwabuzor, Augustine, 2005. “Corruption and Development: New Initiatives in
Economic Openness and Strengthened Rule of Law”, Journal of Business
Ethics, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 121-138.
Riley, Stephen P, 1999. “Petty Corruption and Development”, Development in
Practice, vol. 9, no. 1-2, pp. 189-193.
Roniger, Luis, 2004. “Political Clientelism, Democracy and Market Economy”,
Comparative Politics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 353-375.
Svensson, Jakob, 2005. “Eight Questions about Corruption”, Journal of Economic
Perspectives, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 19-42.
Teorell, Jan – Svensson, Torsten, 2007. Att fråga och att Svara:
Samhällsvetenskaplig metod. Malmö: Liber.
Thelander, Joakim, 2005. Korruption – En Begränsad Litteraturgenomgång.
Lund: Network for Research in Criminology and Deviant Behaviour at Lund
University.
Thelander, Joakim, 2006. Mutor i det godas tjänst – Biståndsarbetare i samtal om
vardaglig korruption. Sociologiska institutionen: Lund.
Transparency International, 2009. Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
Transparency International.
Transparency International. The East African Bribery Index 2009. Nairobi:
Transparency International Kenya.
Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2009 [online],
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_20
09_table, 091125.
Transparency International FAQS [online], http://www.tikenya.org/faqs.asp.
091013.
Transparency International Kenya [online], How large are the bribes paid in
Kenya, http://www.tikenya.org/faqs.asp#faq9, 091118.
Wrong, Michela, 2009. It´s Our Turn to Eat – The Story of a Kenyan Whistle
Blower. London: Harpercollins Publishers.

36
Interviews
Lower Class

2009-05-09, Beth
2009-05-09, Simon
2909-05-12, Diba
2009-05-12, Joel
2009-05-13, Simanza
2009-05-13, Tabitha
2009-05-14, Shaban
2009-05-15, Leah

Upper middle class

2009-05-26, Amos,
2009-05-28, Joseph
2009-06-11, John
2009-06-12, Lewis
2009-06-17, Peris
2009-06-18, Catherine
2009-06-22, Faith
2009-06-22, Mary

37
Appendix 1

Interview guide
Name:………………………………………
Age: ……………………………………….
Married:……………………………………
Children:…………………………………..
Occupation: ……………………………….

1. In the last year have you had any contact or meetings with the police?
2. In the last year have you had any contact or meetings with the health care?
3. What do you know about corruption in Kenya
4. What do you think is the general opinion about corruption in Kenya?
5. How would you define corruption/bribery?
6. How do you get knowledge about the existence of corruption in Kenya? Are
there any special sources that make you more aware of it?
7. Is corruption or bribery something you discuss with your family and friends?
8. Do you know anyone who has experienced corruption?
9. Have you been asked to pay a bribe?
10. How common do you think it is that someone like you has to pay a bribe?
11. Do you think corruption helps or destroys the development progress is Kenya?
12. Where do you think the fight against corruption should start?

38