Hybridisation of institutional logics and civil society organisations' advocacy in Kenya

Abstract

Managerialist logic has become dominant in development policy and practice. However, in recent years, the Dutch government is seeking to adopt social transformation approaches to development interventions. The implementation of social transformation ideas takes place in an environment dominated by managerialism. However, our understanding of how the logic of social transformation and managerialism collide or come into conflict and the pathways through which the managerialist principles dominate the social transformation principles is limited. Drawing on qualitative data from the Strategic Partnerships (SP) and Accountability Fund (AF) policy instruments for civil society organisations in Kenya, we find that in practice, the social transformation principles underpinning the SP and AF ‘vaporise’ or get lost during implementation due to the wider aid system within which they are embedded. We highlight the implications of the broader aid system on attempts by donor agencies to shift from managerialism towards a social transformation perspective on development.

Institutional hybridisation in Swedish public sector development cooperation

“…However, even amidst the dominance of a new logic from a high‐level order, the historical imprints of the old logic can persist, subtly influencing organisational behaviour. This coexistence of multiple institutional logics, as highlighted by Kumi and Saharan (2022), drawing insights from Reay and Hinings (2009), suggests that competing logics can coexist, rather than completely overshadowing the other. Such coexistence can sometimes lead to resistance against a dominant logic, with institutional remnants associated with the old logic persisting even amidst a shift in the dominant paradigm (Zilber, 2011).…”

“…Within the realm of development cooperation, the institutional logics perspective can illuminate the underlying motivations, priorities, and interactions of various actors, including donors, recipient governments, implementing organisations, and other non‐conventional development actors (Kumi & Saharan, 2022; Ocasio, 2023). Central to these logics are dominant cultural symbols and practices, which in the context of development cooperation, might encompass norms such as accountability, transparency, efficiency, or local ownership (Kumi & Saharan, 2022).…”

“…In this article, three main institutional logics are derived from the framework of Kumi and Saharan (2022) and Develtere et al. (2021) in the context of Swedish authorities' development cooperation practice: Managerialist logic: A top‐down, apolitical, and technocratic approach to development, emphasising efficiency in achieving development goals. Development logic: Aiming for equitable and sustainable development outcomes, this logic focuses on processes that address the root causes of underdevelopment and poverty, promoting social change and transforming power structures. Collaborative logic: This logic prioritises shared goals, mutual respect, and joint decision‐making, fostering an environment where each actor's strengths are leveraged for the collective good (Develtere et al., 2021).…”

“…According to Kumi and Saharan (2022), hybridisation is a pivotal aspect of transitioning from one dominant logic to another in development cooperation. However, even amidst the dominance of a new logic from a high‐level order, the historical imprints of the old logic can persist, subtly influencing organisational behaviour.…”

“…The institutional logic and hybridisation lens are prevalent in the business sector and are gaining traction in development studies (e.g., Heeks et al., 2020; Kumi & Saharan, 2022). Institutional logic refers to the values, beliefs, and norms guiding the actions and decision‐making of individuals and organisations (Thornton et al., 2012).…”