MSME Access to Public Procurement in Kenya: Evidence Ten Years After the AGPO Policy

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) play a critical role in economic development, employment creation, and innovation in developing economies. Public procurement has increasingly been recognized as an important policy instrument for promoting inclusive economic growth by expanding business opportunities for MSMEs. In Kenya, procurement reforms such as the Access to Government Procurement Opportunities (AGPO) initiative and provisions under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act were introduced to enhance MSME participation in government contracting. Despite these reforms, many MSMEs continue to face structural barriers that limit their effective participation in public procurement markets. This study examines the determinants of MSME participation in public procurement by focusing on access to procurement information, financial capacity, and digital procurement adoption. Guided by the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Institutional Theory, the study analyzes how institutional factors and firm-level capabilities influence MSME engagement in procurement markets. Data were collected from 305 MSMEs registered under the AGPO program in Kenya and analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The results indicate that access to procurement information has the strongest positive influence on MSME participation (β = 0.41, p < 0.001), followed by financial capacity (β = 0.33, p < 0.001) and digital procurement adoption (β = 0.29, p < 0.001). The structural model explains 58% of the variance in MSME participation (R² = 0.58), indicating strong explanatory power of the proposed determinants. The measurement model demonstrates satisfactory reliability and validity, while the overall model fit indices confirm an acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.046, SRMR = 0.041). The study contributes to procurement literature by applying SEM to evaluate MSME participation in public procurement, integrating institutional and firm-level determinants within a unified analytical framework, and providing updated empirical evidence from Kenya more than a decade after the introduction of procurement reforms. The findings offer important policy insights for strengthening procurement transparency, expanding MSME access to procurement financing, and enhancing the effectiveness of digital procurement systems to support inclusive participation in public procurement markets.

Public procurement, MSMEs, AGPO Policy, Digital Procurement, Financial Capacity, Structural Equation Modeling

1. Abuya, J. O., & Ondiek, B. A. (2014). Factors influencing access to public procurement opportunities by youth enterprises in Kenya. International Journal of Social Sciences and Entrepreneurship, 1(11), 132–146. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abuya, J. O., & Ondiek, B. O. (2014). Barriers to small and medium enterprise participation in public procurement: Evidence from Kenya. International Journal of Procurement Management, 7(3), 350–365. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Akenroye, T. O., Owens, J., & Elbaz, J. (2020). Public procurement and SMEs: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable economic development. Journal of Public Procurement, 20(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-12-2019-0089. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Albano, G. L., Dimitri, N., & Perrigne, I. (2022). Procurement reforms and SME participation: Evidence from European procurement markets. Public Money & Management, 42(5), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.1917407. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bovis, C. (2021). Public procurement in the European Union. Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Erridge, A., & Greer, J. (2021). Partnership procurement as a social policy instrument. Public Administration, 99(2), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12666. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Flynn, A., & Davis, P. (2021). Investigating the effect of public procurement policy on SME participation. International Journal of Procurement Management, 14(3), 318–338. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2021.113653. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Grandia, J., & Meehan, J. (2021). Public procurement as a policy tool: Using procurement to achieve social and economic goals. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 87(3), 540–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320943244. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Government of Kenya. (2020). Access to Government Procurement Opportunities (AGPO) program guidelines. National Treasury. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2022). Multivariate data analysis (9th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2021). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Loader, K. (2020). Small and medium-sized enterprises and public procurement: A review of the UK experience. Public Money & Management, 40(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1628792. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Loader, K. (2022). The impact of procurement policies on SME access to public procurement markets. Journal of Public Procurement, 22(4), 403–420. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. McKevitt, D., Davis, P., Woldesenbet, K., & Flynn, A. (2021). Sustainable procurement and SME participation in public procurement markets. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 26(5), 611–625. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Mose, J. (2023). Evaluating the effectiveness of AGPO policy in enhancing SME participation in public procurement in Kenya. African Journal of Public Administration, 15(2), 85–102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Neupane, A., Soar, J., & Vaidya, K. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of e-procurement in public sector procurement systems. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 18(2), 152–164. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. OECD. (2021). Public procurement for innovation: Good practices and strategies. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. OECD. (2023). Public procurement for innovation and SME participation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/procurement-innovation [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Ombati, T., & Ombati, V. (2021). Youth participation in public procurement under the AGPO program in Kenya. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 34(4), 455–472. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Public Procurement Regulatory Authority. (2022). AGPO performance report. Government of Kenya. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Public Procurement Regulatory Authority. (2022). AGPO implementation status report. Government of Kenya. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Thai, K. V. (2021). International handbook of public procurement (2nd ed.). CRC Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Uyarra, E., Edler, J., Garcia-Estevez, J., Georghiou, L., & Yeow, J. (2021). Barriers to innovation through public procurement: A supplier perspective. Technovation, 103, 102220. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Walker, H., & Brammer, S. (2021). Sustainable procurement in the public sector: A critical review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(6), 882–910. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Wanyonyi, P., & Muturi, W. (2022). Public procurement reforms and SME participation in Kenya. Journal of African Business, 23(2), 215–231. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. World Bank. (2020). Public procurement and SMEs: Unlocking inclusive growth. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. World Bank. (2022). Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) finance. World Bank Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. World Bank. (2022). Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) finance: Improving SME participation in public procurement. World Bank Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. World Bank. (2023). Digital procurement transformation in developing economies. World Bank Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Investigating the Performance of Colour Oxide on the PS/CNSO Oil Paint Production
• Real-Time Fabric Defect Detection Using a Lightweight Deformable YOLO Network
• Recent Trends in the Stock Market: An Analytical Study of Market Dynamics, Investor Behaviour, and Technological Influence
• Evaluation of Structural Dynamics and Equilibrium State, with Case Study of Large Cantilever Projection for a 10- Storey Reinforced Concrete Building in Lagos, Nigeria.
• Multi-Criteria Evaluation of AI-Based Adaptive Learning Platforms in Global Higher Education: A Fuzzy AHP Perspective