INTRODUCING RACE AS A VARIABLE INTO THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF KENYA DEBATE: AN INCENDIARY IDEA

The debate on the nature and development potential of ‘indigenous’capitalism in Kenya seemed to have petered off indecisivelyin the 1980s. At that time some form of socialism was stillan option for some of the debaters. Following the seemingly-globalacceptance of free-enterprise as the developmental model ofchoice, however, the Kenya debate has been resurrected but ina different intellectual guise. In line with the revival (especiallyin the United States) of culture and ethnicity as determinantsof economic prosperity, some non-Kenyan authors have faultedthe 1980s literature for leaving out Kenyan-Asian capitalists,the principal protagonists of local entrepreneurship, who, itis argued accounted for Kenya's outstanding development performancein the high-growth years before independence in 1963, and theonset of economic regress under the Moi government in the early1980s, by dint of their industry and cultural heritage. Withoutgiving in to the undeserved Asian-bashing which this thesishas provoked in some Kenya-African political circles, this articleprovides evidence that credit for Kenya's economic achievementsis more widespread and more race neutral. So is credit for thecorruption and crass mismanagement that has characterized theMoi years. Considering the low intellectual pay-off and thehigh political dangers inherent in careless introduction ofrace and culture as operating variables to explain growth, thearticle advocates greater attention to analytical concepts thatshow more promise in accounting for inter-ethnic differencesin material prosperity. These include law-based governance,a stable macroeconomic environment, and the strengthening of‘social capital’ at community level.