Counties should learn from what other devolved units are doing right

Nearly 14 years after Kenya ushered in devolved government, the country still has no serious national conversation about what makes one county perform better than another.

We have become accustomed to judging counties through the politics surrounding them: Governors and county assemblies, impeachment attempts, allegations of corruption, political rivalries and succession battles.

Far less attention has been paid to the more important question of whether some counties have developed better systems for collecting revenue, managing public resources and delivering services to citizens.

A recent observation by Suba North MP Millie Odhiambo in a social media post provides a useful starting point for that conversation about devolution. Ms Odhiambo suggested that the development approach being pursued by Kiambu Governor Kimani Wamatangi is worth “investigating or researching” because of the exemplary work he has done in Kiambu in the last four years. She indicated that Kiambu could even provide useful material for her academic work as a comparative case in examining different approaches to development, and also help other counties that are struggling.

The significance of her observation goes beyond Kiambu or Mr Wamatangi. It raises a question Kenya should have asked much earlier: What can we learn from counties that appear to be getting some things right?

I have no personal stake in Kiambu politics. Like most Kenyans outside the county, I have largely followed its affairs through news reports and the national political conversation. But two recent developments prompted me to look more closely at what the county government is doing. The first was Wamatangi’s announcement that Kiambu had collected Sh6.5 billion in own-source revenue, the highest amount recorded by the county since devolution began in 2013.

The significance of that figure goes beyond the amount itself. According to the county administration, revenue has increased steadily since 2022 without raising levies, with improvements attributed to reforms in revenue administration, digitisation, tighter accountability and greater use of technology.

A county that improves its ability to collect revenue strengthens its capacity to deliver services and becomes less vulnerable to delays in national transfers. At a time when counties routinely cite delayed disbursements from the National Treasury as a major constraint, stronger own-source revenue provides greater fiscal resilience.

The second instance was Citizen TV’s inaugural Gatuzi Show, which examined the achievements and challenges of devolution and happened to feature Kiambu as its first county.

There were over 500 newly constructed ECDE classrooms that looked like private academies, while children enjoyed eggs, milk and uji. Farmers spoke about access to certified seeds and fertiliser. Women had benefited from indigenous chicken programmes, while livestock farmers had received piglets. Traders were using modern markets and over 10,000 solar streetlights had been installed. Water projects had expanded household access. Over 30 health facilities had been constructed, renovated and equipped, while the availability of essential medicines had improved. Bodaboda groups had also received support through savings and credit cooperatives.

None of this means Kiambu has become a perfect county. It has not. Its projects must continue to face scrutiny over cost, quality, procurement, sustainability and impact.

But scrutiny should not mean refusing to acknowledge development where there is evidence of it.

Kenya has sometimes developed an unhealthy habit of viewing public projects through political lenses. If a project is associated with an administration one supports, it is celebrated. If it is associated with an administration one opposes, it is dismissed. That approach does little to improve governance.

The more useful question is whether Kiambu has developed administrative and financial practices that other counties can learn from.

If its revenue collection has improved, what changed? If projects are being delivered more efficiently, what systems are responsible? If there are new hospitals and ECDE centres, what management decisions made the difference? If farmers and traders are benefiting from county programmes, how are those interventions designed, funded and monitored?

The country has spent years measuring devolution largely through the amount of money transferred to counties and the number of political disputes generated within them. We should now pay greater attention to outcomes.

The national political conversation often revolves around who will occupy State House. Yet for millions of Kenyans, the governor has a more immediate influence on their daily lives.

Kenya does not need 47 identical models of development. Counties have different economies, resources and challenges. What they should have in common is a commitment to converting public resources into measurable public value.

We should neither turn the county into a political shrine nor dismiss its achievements as propaganda. We should study what appears to be working in Kiambu County, interrogate what is not in other counties and determine what can be replicated elsewhere.

Ms Odhiambo’s observation may therefore be more important as it invites us to look beyond the politics of Kiambu and ask a much bigger national question: What can Kenya learn from counties that are getting some things right?

Patrick Wachira is a Consulting Editor and Communication Expert