In 2005, forward-thinking planners from government and the private sector began to develop an ambitious strategy to transform Kenya into a middle-income country with a high quality of life by 2030. Although the East African country’s economy had begun to recover from decades of stagnation under authoritarian rule, deep inequalities festered and governance challenges abounded. The coalition government elected in 2002 had promised growth, improved social services, and public sector reforms, but those changes would take longer than a single five-year term. Through public consultations, guidance from experts, and input from the private sector, the Ministry of Planning, initially led by Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o, and the National Economic and Social Council identified priorities, selected high-impact projects, and built support across political, ethnic, and regional divides. Near the end of the strategy development process, the disputed 2007 presidential election triggered a national crisis. However, political rivals agreed to share power and adopted the strategy, called Vision 2030, as a joint agenda. In 2015, after seven years of implementation, more than 100 projects were underway and the document stood firm as the roadmap for Kenya’s future development.
 

Maya Gainer drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Nairobi, Kenya in April 2015. Case published in July 2015.

After achieving independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 and liberalizing markets, Estonians saw their economy grow and their standards of living rise. But in 2008, a global financial crisis exposed weaknesses in Estonia’s competitiveness and prompted a reevaluation of policies. In 2010, the government saw an opportunity to frame a new national development strategy as part of its participation in the European Union’s 2020 bid to promote growth and jobs. It turned to its own Strategy Unit, which had been created four years earlier, to harmonize priorities and goals and to pay special attention to the policy challenges posed by an aging and shrinking workforce. To frame a coherent set of priorities, the unit had to increase cooperation and consultation among ministries that usually worked independently of each other. The unit consulted with civil servants, experts, and key stakeholders. Less successfully, it also sought to engage the general citizenry. Because of the country’s small population, which fell from 1.57 million to 1.3 million from 1990 to 2012, and its relatively close-knit society, leaders felt social pressure to reach agreement on priorities and policy initiatives. Although the resulting list of 18 national priorities was lengthy, the Estonia 2020 competitiveness strategy provided the country with an effective vehicle for articulating long-term national policy goals.

Elena Lesley drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Tallinn, Estonia in May 2014. This case study was funded by the Bertelsmann Stiftung ReformCompass. Case published September 2014.

Associated Interview(s):  Katrin Höövelson

During the 1990s, Serbia suffered a long and turbulent period of civil conflict, international isolation, and political fragmentation. Following the assassination of the country’s reform-driven prime minister in 2003, the government faced the daunting tasks of determining how to improve economic options for citizens and rejoin the global community. A core group of reformers in Serbia’s fragmented government decided that the best path to stability and development lay in the pursuit of membership in the European Union (EU). The accession process potentially offered a way to help develop both a new, shared identity and a set of national priorities. But to meet the EU’s demanding requirement that Serbia harmonize its legislation and administration with EU standards, the group’s leaders would have to overcome political opposition and win the cooperation of the ministries. The tasks were all the more difficult because the EU and its member states were initially unwilling to let Serbia move ahead with the accession process. Reformers in the Serbian government worked closely with the country’s European Integration Office, staffed by an ambitious group of committed civil servants. As a result of their work, from 2007 to 2010 Serbia enacted a series of unilateral measures that kick-started harmonization with EU law and signaled to the European Commission in Brussels that Serbia was serious about its future in the EU. Because the reformers were so focused on pursuing accession, they did Not have much opportunity to think independently about national priorities and formulate a separate national development strategy. But they did achieve a desired goal: Serbia’s 2012 acceptance as a candidate for EU membership, after which long-awaited membership negotiations commenced at the start of 2014.

George Gavrilis drafted this case study based on interviews conducted in Belgrade, Serbia, in May 2014. Michael Scharff conducted additional interviews in London, England and Paris, France in June and July 2014. Valentina Đureta of the Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence provided vital logistical support for the case study. This case study was funded by the Bertelsmann Stiftung ReformCompass. Case published September 2014.

Associated Interview(s):  Sonja Licht