Whistleblowing behaviours and anti-corruption approaches in public administration in Kenya

Abstract This article demonstrates that whistleblowing often receives little attention in public administration due to ambivalence regarding administrative roles held by public administrators, the fluid scalar chain and horizontal linkages, and competitive and intricate public, organisational and private interests. Drawing on comparative analysis to elucidate the broader scope of anti-corruption reforms and whistleblowing in public administration, the article explores the influence of the administrative culture on the relationship between whistleblowing behaviours and implementation of anti-corruption reforms in public administration in Kenya. It illustrates how bureaucratic oversight mechanisms such as internal auditing procedures and ethical guidelines tend to underperform where administrative environments largely feature autocratic bureaucratic authority, parochial management styles and centralised decision-making processes. Despite the functional specialty of public institutions, these cultural composites potentially elicit administrative behaviours that generally make whistleblowing anti-organisational, anti-social and an outright illegality in public administration. The absence of whistleblowing legislation or weak whistleblowing laws exacerbate these conditions. Whistleblowing becomes even more complex at the local-state level as social networks and working groups tend to be strengthened by the collectivist associational culture in public administration. Consequently, non-performance of anti-corruption reforms were found to stem from the collective chastisement of whistleblowing practices in public organisations in Kenya. Furthermore, institutional deficits typical in local-state administration seemingly made it riskier for potential whistleblowers to come forth, mainly attendant to loose and inconsistent legislation on corruption. Therefore, to enhance whistleblowing, there is a need to insulate potential whistleblowers from legal retaliation, including cultural retaliations that come in forms of emotional and professional ‘attacks’.