THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF AGRICULTURE IN KISII, KENYA: SOCIAL REPRODUCTION AND HOUSEHOLD RESPONSE TO DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Kenya has been the focus of one of the most intense academic and policy debates an African political economy. The intensity derives from Kenya's role as a model of successful capitalist development, to be emulated by its fellow African nations. Kenyan rural development, in particular, has received extensive attention; it is depicted as a model of successful capitalist development involving and maintaining, rather than shunting aside and displacing, the African peasantry. Furthermore, the entire process has occurred with active state And international encouragement, alloying the prospect of repetition elsewhere. In addition to its status as a model of development policy, Kenya is considered a key case study in the theoretical debate over the development of capitalism within the African peasantry. Despite the growing and rich literature on the country, the theoretical and policy debates praising and criticizing the 'Kenyan model' continue unabated.This thesis examines the Kenyan model, focusing on the social transformation it has wrought within the Kenyan peasantry. Central to this transformation is the question of the degree and Likely outcome of any socio-economic differentiation occurring. Regardless of whether or not there was significant differentiation in pre-colonial and pre-capitalist rural Kenya, market integration has undoubtedly differentia/17 affected the peasantry. A key question is the extent to which this has produced politically and economically significant differentiation in modern Kenya, and what the process of differentiation appears to be. A focus an process is essential to understand the likely trajectory of the transformation that has occurred. in turn allowing some projection of the future possibilities of the model as a whole.By emphasizing the importance of differentiation, I do not intend to imply that equality is the sole, or even the most important, development goal. Growth, meeting 'basic human needs,' and economic diversification, among others, are also important. Socio-economic differentiation is crucial, however, because it affects future development potential. Peasant response to policy depends at least in part an their control of mobilizabIe resources; differentiation alters the pattern of such control. Response to a given policy may well be enhanced or circumscribed by past differentiation, regardless of how well the policy is designed and implemented. In this sense, peasant differentiation must be a central focus. Unlike differentiation among a landless working class, peasant differentiation affects productive capacity directly, so should be important even to analysts who place little value on socio-economic equality itself