Abstract: This article examined the effectiveness of constructive strategies for engaging the public in county governance in Nandi County, Kenya, 2024. It highlighted that the legal and institutional framework has not ensured public participation as intended by the Kenya 2010 constitution. The study’s objectives included examining the effectiveness of constructive strategies for engaging the public in county governance in Nandi County. It utilised Adam Smith’s Rational Choice Model and employed a concurrent mixed research design, incorporating purposive sampling. Data was collected through questionnaires and interviews, with secondary data from document analysis. Analysis was done using a statistical package for the social sciences for descriptive statistics, and qualitative data was processed through thematic analysis. Devolution in Kenya, implemented in 2013, shifted responsibilities to county governments to enhance transparency and public participation. It allowed citizens to elect local leaders and engage in decision-making, promoting responsive governance. The County Government Act (2012) emphasises timely access to information and the role of non-state actors in fostering citizen involvement. The findings revealed that the most common mode of collaboration was electing project leaders. However, many individuals were unaware of the importance of participation, leading to low engagement, especially in project identification and implementation. The primary source of information on development projects was barazas (public meetings). The study concluded that public participation in development projects is below desired levels as per the County Government Act and recommended that Nandi County should improve public engagement across all sectors for a more significant impact on constructive strategies.              

Constructive strategies, County Government, Nandi, Kenya

1. Aklilu, A., Belete, A., & Moyo, T. (2014). Analysing Community Participation in the Municipal Integrated Development Planning Processes in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(25), 257-257. Retrieved on 17th January 2024 from https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/289871435 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bone, Z., Crockett, J., & Hodge, S. (2006). Deliberation forums: a pathway for public participation. Practice change for sustainable communities: Exploring footprints, pathways and possibilities, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face—to—face groups. Communication theory, 12(4), 398-422. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen participation: Models and methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(11), 1179–1196. Retrieved on 16th September 2024 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233360483_Citizen_ Participation_Models_and_Methods [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chitere, P., & Ireri, O. (2008). District Focus for Rural Development as a Decentralized Planning Strategy: An Assessment of its implementation in Kenya. Kibua, TN and Mwabu, G. eds. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education, Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fisher, A. (1991). Calculating a sample size. In Jung, S. H. (2014). Stratified Fisher’s exact test and its sample size calculation. Biometrical Journal, 56(1), 129–140. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Haque, M. S. (2003). Citizen participation in governance through representation: Issue of gender in East Asia. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(5), 569–590. Retrieved on 15th July 2020 from http://ap4.fas.nus.edu.sg/fass/polhaque/ijpa-gn.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Public participation in planning: new strategies for the 21st century. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Irimieș, L. M. (2017). Lobbying and Social Participation–Key Features for an Effective Public Administration in Romania. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 13(SI), 57-73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kauzya, J. M. (2007). Political Decentralisation in Africa: Experiences of Uganda, Rwanda and South Africa. Decentralising governance: emerging concepts and practices. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 75-91. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kenya Law Report, (2012). County Governments Act No. 17 of 2012. The National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General. (www.kenyalaw.org). Microsoft Word - Paged County Governments Act _No. 17 of 2012_.doc Accessed on 12th September 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kimani, F., Nekesa, P., & Ndungu, B. (2012). Best practices in constituency development fund (CDF). A Paper Prepared for the Collaborative Centre for Gender and Development and International Development Research. Retrieved from on 19th October 2024. https://unwomen.org%2Fresources%2Fdocs% 2Fgendereqaulity%2FCCGD_Best%2520Practices%2520in%2520CDF_2008.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Muriu, A. R. (2013). Decentralisation, citizen participation and local public service delivery: a study on the nature and influence of citizen participation on decentralised service delivery in Kenya (Master’s thesis, Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam). Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10419/104749. Accessed on 7th May 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Muse, S. A., & Narsiah, S. (2015). Public Participation in Selected Civilisations: Problems and Potentials. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 6(3), 415-421. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Okello, M., Oenga, I., & Chege, P. (2008). Participatory Urban Planning Toolkit based on the Kitale Experience. Available at https://knowledgebase.permaculture. Org.uk/resources/books/participatory-urban-planning-toolkit-based-kitale- experience-guide-community-based [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Oropeza, J., & Perron, M. (2013). Citizen Participation in Latin America: Innovations to Strengthen Governance. Retrieved on 23rd April 2024 from http://ella.practicalaction.org/knowledge-guide/citizen-participation-in-latin- america-innovations-to-strengthen-governance/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Wakwabubi, E., & Shiverenje, H. (Eds.). (2003). Guidelines on Participatory Development in Kenya: Critical Reflection on Training, Policy and Scaling Up. Participatory Methodologies Forum of Kenya (PAMFORK). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Examining Fatal Motorcycle Crashes in Malaysia: Rider Age, Road Attributes and Collision Partner Dynamics
• Resources-Blessed but Energy-Poor: A Critical Review of the Paradox of Energy Delivery in Nigeria
• Algorithmic Trading Bot Using Artificial Intelligence Supertrend Strategy
• Improving the Hybrid FSO/LI-FI/UWOC Network's
• The Impact of Short-Term Debt on the Performance of Manufacturing Companies Listed on the Ghana Stock Exchange