The true measure of government is not the size of its institutions but the quality of life of its people. A nation’s greatest asset is neither its minerals nor infrastructure but its human capital. The 2010 Constitution of Kenya recognized this fundamental truth by entrenching devolution as a vehicle to bring services, opportunities and decision-making closer to its people. The promise being, empower people, strengthen local economies and accelerate inclusive development.
Sixteen years since the promulgation of the constitution, that promise has yielded tangible results. Hospitals have been built. Farmers receive extension services. Markets have been expanded, urban centres have grown and critical public services are now available at the grassroots level. Yet, one enduring contradiction continues to threaten full realization of this constitutional vision: functions have been allocated to counties, but adequate financing has not followed.
As the nation reflects on the future of devolved governance and the implications of recent legislative reforms, including the transfer and expansion of county functions, Kenya must confront an unavoidable reality: the revenue-sharing formula must reflect where services are delivered, where jobs are created and where economic transformation occurs.
Devolution is essentially a human capital investment strategy. From doctors and nurses serving in remote dispensaries to agricultural officers helping farmers improve productivity and thousands of workers across planning, engineering, education support services, trade development, water management and community service delivery, county employees constitute one of the largest strategic workforces in the country.
When counties are adequately funded, they recruit workers, train professionals, retain skilled personnel and expand access to essential services. These investments directly improve productivity, incomes and quality of life. Conversely, when counties are underfunded, the immediate casualties are service delivery, job creation and human development outcomes. Ultimately, the citizen bears the cost.
The framers of the Constitution anticipated the relationship between people, productivity and development. Article 174 identifies the promotion of social and economic development, equitable sharing of national resources, and the provision of proximate and accessible services as core objectives of devolution.
Similarly, Article 202 provides for the equitable sharing of nationally raised revenue between the two levels of government, while Article 203 requires that revenue allocation consider the need to ensure County Governments are able to perform the functions assigned to them, address developmental needs, reduce disparities and optimize economic growth across counties. These constitutional provisions espouse a fundamental principle: functions must be accompanied by resources.
The growing demands placed upon counties in healthcare, urban development, agriculture, water services, climate resilience and local economic development make it imperative that the revenue-sharing framework must evolve accordingly to reflect the constitutional principle that resources must match and follow functions.
Importantly, county expenditure has a strong multiplier effect because resources are spent directly within local economies. Salaries paid to county workers support families, stimulate consumption, and sustain businesses. Infrastructure projects generate jobs and create opportunities for local enterprises. Every additional shilling invested in County Governments therefore has both a social and economic return. A nation seeking inclusive growth cannot afford to concentrate resources at the centre while expecting transformation to occur at the grassroots.
Equally important, calls for increased county allocations should not be misconstrued as a contest between National and County Governments. Article 6 affirms that the National and County Governments are distinct and inter-dependent and shall conduct their mutual relations based on consultation and cooperation. The issue at hand is therefore not which government wins, but whether Kenya fully honours the spirit and promise of devolution.
For years now, discussions have been framed around the constitutional provision that County Governments receive not less than fifteen percent of nationally collected revenue. Yet, Article 203 of the Constitution establishes this as a minimum threshold, not a maximum allocation. The constitutional question should never be how little counties can receive while remaining compliant with the law. The real question should be how much counties require to effectively discharge their constitutional responsibilities and support Kenya's human capital ambitions. National discourse must move beyond minimum compliance towards maximum impact.
Kenya's next phase of development requires a new fiscal compact anchored on people, productivity, and place-based growth. The review of the revenue-sharing formula undertaken by Commission on Revenue Allocation presents an opportunity to align funding with constitutional mandates and economic realities. Counties are now the platforms through which citizens access healthcare, agricultural support, local infrastructure, urban services, and economic opportunities. If we genuinely believe that people are Kenya's greatest resource, then we must adequately fund the institutions responsible for nurturing, developing, and serving them.
The Constitution provided the framework. Experience has demonstrated to us the value of devolution. The logical step is to ensure revenue allocation reflects both constitutional responsibilities and developmental priorities. We must strengthen the engine of human capital development. We must strengthen our counties. That begins with giving them a fairer and larger share of national revenue.
