Kenya - Human Developmenthdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/kenya_2001_en.pdf · Kenya Human Development Report 2001 ... Growth Rales in Agriculture, ... Crisis of Social Development

Kenya

Human Development Report

2001

Addressing Social andEconomic Disparities forHuman Development

KENYA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001

Contents

List of Figures vList of Tables viList of Boxes viiList of Abbreviations viiiForeword ixAcknowledgements xiExecutive Summary xiii

Chapter 1: Perspectives for Social and Economic Development 1

1.1 Global and National Human Development Reports 11.2 Human Development as a Concept 21.3 Human Development and Other Approaches to Development 31.4 Trends in Economic Growth and Human Development in Kenya 61.5 Human Development Challenges in Kenya 81.6 Governance and Human Development 10

Chapter 2: The State of Human Development in Kenya 13

2.1 Measuring and Monitoring Human Development 132.2 Human Development and Poverty 182.3 Gender Dimensions of Human Development 232.4 Comparing Kenyan Human Development Indicators 262.5 Conclusions 27

Chapter 3: Inequalities in Incomes and Employment 28

3.1 Inequalities, Growth and Human Development 283.2 Inequalities in Income and Employment 293.3 Rural-Urban Disparities in Economic Opportunities 363.4 Conclusions 42

Chapter 4: Inequalities in Social Development 43

4.1 Situating Social Development Inequalities 434.2 Crisis in Social Development 434.3 Education and Human Development 464.4 Health and Human Development 504.5 HIV/AIDS in Kenya 574.6 Inequalities in Living Conditions 584.7 Transport and Communication 604.8 Environment and Human Development 624.9 Politics and Democratisation 624.10 Conclusions 64

iii

Chapter 5: Policies and Initiatives Against Social and 66Economic Inequalities

5.1 Economic Performance, Government Expenditure and Socio-Economic 66Inequalities in Kenya

5.2 Government Responses to Social and Economic Inequalities 725.3 The Role of the Civil Society 815.4 Conclusions 83

Chapter 6: Future Policy Challenges 84

6.1 Shortfalls in Human Development 846.2 Human Development Challenges 846.3 New Policy Directions 856.4 Role of Key Actors 926.5 Future Role of Human Development Report 94

Appendix 1 Tables 95Appendix 2 Technical Notes 101Appendix 3 Data Sources 104Appendix 4 GIS maps 107Bibliography 110

iv


List of Figures

Figure 1.1: HDI Values for Kenya for Selected Years 7Figure 2.1: Trends in HPI Index, 1997-2001 21Figure 2.2: Trends in GDI, 1997-2001 25Figure 2.3: Human Development Indices in Kenya 27Figure 3.1: Sectoral Growth Rate, 1964-2000 30Figure 3.2: Income Distribution by Deciles 32Figure 3.3: Rural Household Land Distribution by Region 34Figure 3.4: Distribution of the Poor by Land Holding in Rural Areas of Kenya 35Figure 3.5: Mean Monthly Household Income and Expenditure 37Figure 3.6: Unemployment Rates by Rural-Urban Residence 37Figure 3.7: Labour Force Participation by Gender 39Figure 3.8: Labour Force Participation by Province 41Figure 4.1: HDI vs Government Expenditure on BSS 45Figure 4.2: Illness Incidence by Rural and Urban Poverty 53Figure 4.3: HIV/AIDS Trends in Kenya 57Figure 4.4: Loss of Forest Plantation Area in Kenya (1995-1999) 63Figure 5.1: Growth Rales in Agriculture, GDP and Employment 68Figure 5.2; Agriculture's Share in GDP, GFCF and Total Expenditure (1991-2000) 71

v


List of Tables

Table 2.1: Human Development Index 15Table 2.2: Comparison of HDI and Income per capita 16Table 2.3: District Ranking by HDI 17Table 2.4: Human Poverty Index 20Table 2.5: The Extent of Human Poverty in Kenya 22Table 2.6: Comparison of HPI with Income Poverty 23Table 2.7: Gender Development Index 25Table 2.8: Gender Empowerment Measurement 26Table 3.1: Gini Coefficients of Selected African Countries 32Table 3.2: Regional Gini Coefficients, Household Income and Poverty 34Table 4.I: Rural-Urban Inequalities in Education 49Table 4.2: Regional Inequalities in Education 49Table 4.3: Gender Disparities in Education - 49Table 4.4: University Student Population by Gender 50Table 4.5: Poverty-related Disparities in Education 50Table 4.6: Rural-Urban Disparities in Health 52Table 4.7: Regional Inequalities in Health 55Table 4.8: Gender Disparities 55Table 4.9: Poverty-related Disparities 56Table 4.10: Rural-Urban Disparities in Living Conditions 58Table 4.11: Regional Inequalities in Living Condition 59Table 4.12: Poverty-related Disparities in Access to Water 60Table 4.13: Percentage Distribution of Positions of Power and Decision Making by Sex 64

vi


List of Boxes

Box 1.1: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Vulnerable Groups 9Box 1.2: Kenyan Perceptions of Human Development Challenges 11Box 2.1: The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Human Development 18Box 2.2: Some Basic Definitions of Poverty in Kenya 19Box 2.3: What the Poor Say About Poverty 23Box 3.1: Highlights of the Child Labour Survey 1998/99 40Box 4.1: Crisis of Social Development in Kenya (1990-1998/99) 44Box 4.2: Corruption and Mismanagement in the Health Sector 45Box 4.3: Evidence of Urban Poverty 59Box 5.1: Addressing Inequalities with Government Interventions 80Box 5.2: Reducing Vulnerability to Drought: The Case of the ALRMP 81Box 6.1: Jobs for Africa 87Box 6.2: Public-Private Partnership in South Africa 88Box 6.3: Civil Society-Government Partnership: The Food Rights Campaign 90Box 6.4: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Partnerships 93

vii


List of Abbreviations

AIDS acquired immunodeficiency syn- ISI import substitution industrialisationdrome KDHS Kenya Demographic Health Survey

ALRMP Arid Land Resources Management KISE Kenya Institute of Special EducationProgramme MOH Ministry of Health

ASAL arid and semi-arid land MTEF Medium-Term Expenditure Frame-BSS basic social service workCBO community-based organisations NACC National AIDS Control CouncilCBS Central Bureau of Statistics NGO non-governmental organisationCOMESA Common Market for Eastern and NHDR national human development report

Southern Africa NPEP National Poverty Eradication PlanCSO civil society organisation NTAT National Technical Advisory TeamDFRD Department for Rural Development OP Office of the PresidentEAC East African Community/Coopera- PC provincial commissioner

tion PEC Poverty Eradication CommissionECE early childhood education PPA participatory poverty assessmentsEFA education for all PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperGDI Gender-related Development Index RTPC Rural Trade and Production CentreGDP gross domestic product SAP structural adjustment programmeGEM Gender Empowerment Measure SDD social dimensions of developmentGER gross enrolment rate SMEs small and micro enterprisesGFCF Gross Fixed Capital Formation SRDP Special Rural Development Pro-GHDR global human development report grammeHDI Human Development Index U5M under-five mortalityHIV human immunodeficiency virus UNDP United Nations Development Pro-HPI human poverty index grammeIDS Institute for Development Studies UNICEF United Nations Children's FundIGA income-generating activity USA United States of AmericaIGAD Inter-Governmental Authority on VSO volunteer service organisation

Development WHO World Health OrganizationILO International Labour Organization WSSD World Summit for Social Develop-IMR infant mortality rate mentIPRE Investment for Poverty Reducing WTO World Trade Organization

EmploymentIPRSP Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy

Paper

viii

Foreword


It gives us great pleasure to in-troduce the second Kenya Na-tional Human Development Re-port 2001, the first having beenproduced and launched in ] 999with the theme of "Gender andHuman Development". Thisy e a r ' s report has the theme,"Addressing Social and Eco-nomic Disparities", and focuseson the main determinants anddimensions of social and eco-nomic disparities in Kenya, atheme closely linked to the gov-ernment's current policy com-mitment to addressing poverty.

More than a hundred coun-tries throughout the world havepublished national human de-velopment reports (NHDRs) asimportant tools for the promo-tion of the cause of human de-velopment and a people-centredapproach to national policymaking. Kenya Human Devel-opment Report 1999 was wellreceived by the government, andit provided useful informationfor policy, planning and pro-gramming purposes. Like itspredecessor, this report has beenprepared through a consultativeexercise, involving the collabo-rative leadership of the office ofthe Permanent Secretary, Min-istry of Finance and Planningand the office of the United Na-tions Development Programme(UNDP) Resident Representa-tive in Kenya.

The consultative exercise inthe preparation of the report in-

volved the technical team fromthe Institute for DevelopmentStudies (IDS) and the NationalTechnical A d v i s o r y Team(NTAT) composed of officialsfrom the Ministry of Financeand Planning. The technicalteam worked closely with theNTAT in accessing the neces-sary data and information, dis-cussing the progress of the re-port to ensure its reflection ofthe national development con-text and challenges. The consul-tation with the NTAT was im-portant in mainstreaming theNHDR process within the exist-ing government functions andproviding an opportunity for acontinuous critical appraisal ofthe report throughout the proc-e s s . More importantly, NTATand UNDP facilitated the na-tional ownership of the NHDRat each stage of the report pro-duction. A national dissemina-tion workshop enabledstakeholders and developmentpartners to provide inputs so asto ensure national ownership ofthe report and its enhanced use-fulness as a tool for nationalpolicy discussion and dialogue.A major variation, however, isthat starting with this secondNHDR (2001), the preparationof future reports has now beeninstitutionalised to make it asustainable exercise. The IDSUniversity of Nairobi was iden-tified as the national centre ofexcellence for the preparation of

ix

the report.The elimination of poverty

and inequality has been a majorgovernment objective. In linewith this, the report details thedifferent dimensions of humandevelopment in Kenya, focusingon the entrenchment of povertyand socio-economic inequalitiesin the country. It provides a criti-cal analysis of the key aspectsof inequalities and the essentialfeatures of vulnerability inpresent-day Kenyan society. Wewould like to add our continuedsupport to a people-centred ap-proach to development which isessential in order to build on theKenyan response to the declin-ing indicators of progress in thesocial sectors and human devel-opment.

Kenya Human DevelopmentReport 2001 is the outcome of anationally executed projectfunded by UNDP, executed by

the Ministry of Finance andPlanning and implemented bythe Institute for DevelopmentStudies. This report makes ex-tensive use of the quantitativesurveys undertaken by the Cen-tral Bureau of Statistics (CBS),the 1999 population census andother socio-economic surveys,including qualitative interviewsconducted by the IDS technicalteam with many actors in gov-ernment and civil society or-ganisations.

We are confident that KenyaHuman Development Report2001 will contribute to the na-tional debate and dialogue aboutdisparities in Kenya informingon strategic policy direction andprogramming decisions.

Paul Andre de la Porte

Resident Representative

UNDP

x


Acknowledgements


We first of all acknowledge theInstitute for Development Stud-ies, University of Nairobi forpreparing the report and provid-ing an appropriate academic andresearch-focused environmentnecessary for the undertaking ofsuch an important national ex-ercise. A technical team of threefocal points at IDS prepared thisreport under the administrationand guidance of the director ofthe IDS, Prof. DorothyMcCormick. The team con-sisted of Dr. Rosemary Atienoas the team leader, Dr. WalterOdhiambo and Mr. John Njoka.Their commitment to ensuringthe production of a high qualityreport is highly acknowledged.The international consultant, Dr.Mwangi wa Githinji of FloridaAtlantic University providedimportant technical inputs dur-ing the preparation of the report.His contributions are acknowl-edged.

Prof. Patrick O. Alila, Prof.Dorothy McCormick and Dr.Winnie Mitullah reviewed thedraft of the report and provideduseful technical insights whichhelped in shaping the final docu-ment. Their contributions arehighly appreciated.

We would like to most sin-cerely acknowledge the UnitedNations Deve lopment Pro-gramme (UNDP) for fundingthe preparation of this report,coordinating the whole exercise

and providing valuable com-ments which went a long wayin improving content. Specialthanks are due to the ResidentRepresentative, Paul Andre dela Porte, for the strong adminis-trative support throughout theexercise. The Deputy ResidentRepresentat ive-Programmes,Isaac Chivore; Senior AssistantResident Representative-Pro-g rammes , Elizabeth Oduor-Noah; and Seraph in Njagi, pro-vided cr i t ical backstoppingservices and support throughoutthe preparation of the report. Allof these contributions are grate-fully acknowledged.

The preparation of the reportwas supported by the NationalTechnical Advisory Team underthe chairmanship of Mr. StephenWainaina. The report also ben-efited from statistical informa-tion prepared by the CentralBureau of Statistics (CBS) un-der the guidance of the director,Mr. David Obonyo Nalo. TheGlobal NHDR Network a lsoprovided insights into the prepa-ration of the report. Their sup-port is acknowledged.

The first draft was discussedat a national d isseminat ionworkshop attended by repre-sentatives from the government,NGOs, private sector, academiaand the donor community. TheKenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute (KARI) and Action AidKenya kindly provided their

xi


case studies which were used as cessfully completed without theexamples in the report. A editorial skills of Ms Eva Ndavunumber of government officials who edited and typeset the re-and NGOs shared useful ideas port for final production. Mr.and insights through interviews Hesbon Nyagowa, the seniorwith the technical team. Their administrative assistant, IDS,valuable contributions were provided important logisticalvery useful in improving the re- support during the preparationport and are warmly acknowl- of the report, especially in theedged. final production stages. His

The final production of this dedication is recognised.report would not have been suc-

xii


Executive Summary

1. Perspectives forSocial and EconomicDevelopment

The HumanDevelopment Approach

The human development reportsprepared by the United NationsDevelopment P rogramme(UNDP) s ince 1990 rev iewprogress on the different facetsof human development. Theglobal human development re-ports (GHDRs) have introducedand extended the concept ofhuman development as an alter-native to growth-led approachesto development. The nationalhuman development reports(NHDRs) use the human devel-opment concepts and method-ologies pre-tested through theGHDRs to provide a systematicappraisal of country efforts inrelation to human developmenttheory and practice.

Human deve lopment in-volves the process of expandinghuman capabilities and access toopportunities in socia l , eco-nomic and political arenas andtherefore the overall improve-ment in quality of life. The mostbasic of these capabilities leadto long healthy lives, knowledgeand a c c e s s to the resourcesneeded for a decent standard ofliving.

The concept of human devel-opment differs from other ap-proaches to development sinceit takes people as being centralto the development process andthe main actors in the processof improving their wel fa re .While the traditional approachto development viewed eco-nomic growth as the most im-portant requirement for devel-opment, increasing poverty inthe midst of growth led to disil-lusionment with the emphasison growth and increase in percapita income. This led to theneed for a new approach to de-velopment. A country's humandevelopment status is thereforeits ability to take care of its citi-zens and provide an environ-ment which enables them to ac-cess opportunities and resourcesto enhance their opportunitiesfor living decent l ives.

Measuring andMonitoring HumanDevelopment

Human development is meas-ured by the human developmentindex (HDI), a composite indexencompassing life expectancy,education attainment and stand-ard of living as measured by percapita income. The HDI is esti-mated using concepts and meth-odolog ies developed by theUNDP over time. It measuresthe average achievement in ba-

xiii


sic human development in onesingle index. The HDI value fora country shows how far thatcountry has gone in attaining anaverage life expectancy of 85years, access to education for alland a decent standard of life.

Addressing Social andEconomic Inequalities

The Human Development Re-port 2001 for Kenya focuses onthe theme, "Addressing Socialand Economic Disparities". Thisis appropriate, given the recentdecline in economic perform-ance and the associated increasein poverty, unemployment andthe widening social and eco-nomic inequalities in the coun-try. The human developmentsituation has declined as re-flected in the fall in life expect-ancy, per capita income, schoolenrolment and the rise in infantmortality and disease incidence.This conforms to the value ofthe HDI which shows a positivetrend reaching a peak of 0.531in 1990 but consistently declin-ing to a value of 0.514 in 1999.

Human DevelopmentChallenges in Kenya

The declining economic per-formance, socio-economic dis-parities and decreasing HDIhave resulted in human devel-opment challenges for the coun-try which go beyond simply in-creasing economic growth toaddressing social and economicinequalities. This requires pro-viding people with an environ-ment that enables them to accessresources and opportunities toenable them to live quality lives.It involves combating povertyand unemployment by increas-ing access to productive re-

sources and employment oppor-tunities as well as increasingproductivity to ensure increasedincomes. Human developmentchallenges also include facilitat-ing the participation of the popu-lation in the social, economicand political development proc-esses. Other challenges include:• Expanding human capabili-

ties by improving access tobasic education, health,housing, water and sanita-tion.

• Increasing people's capacityto assert their rights.

• Redefining the value of lifein Kenya so as to increaserespect for life and self-es-teem in society.

• Addressing the differentforms of inequalities existingbetween regions as well asthe different segments of thepopulation. This includesaddressing inequalitieswhich are gender-related oraffecting specific vulnerablegroups.

• Addressing the problem ofinsecurity to enable in-creased investment and par-ticipation by a wider sectionof the society.

• Facilitating good govern-ance which will ensure effec-tive economic managementand the distribution of eco-nomic opportunities to allsections of the population.

2. The State of Human

Development in Kenya

Recent Trends inHuman Development inKenya

Using the most recent data fromthe Central Bureau of Statistics

xiv


(CBS), this report estimatesKenya's HDI at 0.539. This fig-ure is slightly higher than theGHDR2001 value of 0.514. Thediscrepancy is explained by thedifference in the values of thecomponent indices and the pe-riod covered. This report usesthe most recently available dataon income and life expectancy.Of particular note is the differ-ence in life expectancy. Whilethe GHDR uses an estimate of51.4 based on WHO estimates,this report uses 54.7, calculatedfrom the population census of1999.

With an HDI value of 0.514in the GHDR 2001, Kenya is inthe category of medium humandevelopment countries such asGhana (0.542), Egypt (0.635),Cameroon (0.506) and SouthAfrica (0.702). While the mag-nitude of the HDI in Kenya iscertainly important, its declineover the last five years is dis-turbing. This decline is under-pinned by the decline in life ex-pectancy which fell from 59.5in the 1989 population census to54.7 in the 1999 census. Theinsurgency of HIV/AIDS andthe increase in poverty are someof the leading factors affectinglife expectancy in the country.

The HDI value varies con-siderably across provinces anddistricts in Kenya. The provincewith the highest HDI is Nairobifollowed by Central and RiftValley. These provinces areabove the national HDI figureof 0.539. The lowest HDI is inNorth Eastern followed byWestern Province. It is notablethat Nairobi, Central and RiftValley provinces have fairlyhigh HDIs that place them in themiddle human development cat-egory (0.500-0.800) along withMexico (0.790), Mauritius(0.765) and Tunisia (0.714).

North Eastern, Coast, Nyanzaand Western provinces fall in thelow human development cat-egory and compare with coun-tries such as Togo (0.489), Su-dan (0.439), Ethiopia (0.321)and Sierra Leone (0.258). It isnotable also that the differencebetween the highest HDI (0.783for Nairobi) and the lowest(0.413 for North Eastern) islarge, further highlighting themagnitude of the regional dis-parities in the country.

A number of factors explainthe existence of regional dispari-ties in the country. These includedifferences in economic oppor-tunities leading to concentrationof activities in specific areas.The policies pursued by the gov-ernment over time have tendedto be biased towards high poten-tial agricultural areas and, morerecently, industry. Other factorsinclude security, socio-culturaltraits and disease incidence.

Human Poverty inKenya

Poverty means the denial of op-portunities and choices mostbasic to human development.These include the choice to leada long, healthy and creative lifeand also to enjoy a decent stand-ard of living, freedom, dignity,self-respect and the respect ofothers. There is a difference be-tween the poverty of choicesand opportunities and the pov-erty of income. The former,which focuses on empowermentand actions to enhance oppor-tunities, is referred to as humanpoverty. Human poverty ismeasured by the human povertyindex (HPI) which capturespoverty beyond income and ex-penditure. In this report, the HPIfor Kenya is estimated at 34.5%,meaning that about 35% of Ken-

xv


ya 's population can be consid-ered as poor. The GDHR for2001 puts this figure at 31.1%.The disparity in the values isagain attributable to the differ-ence in the data set used in com-putations. The HPI estimate inthis report is based on the mostrecent data from the CentralBureau of Statistics (CBS) andthe 1999 population census.

A major concern is the recentincrease in poverty in the coun-try. K e n y a ' s HPI value hassteadily risen from 26 .1% in1997 to 34.5% in 2001. Thistrend is confirmed by results ofthe welfare monitoring surveysthat indicate that the level of in-come poverty rose from 40.3%in 1994 to 52.3% in 1997.

The HPI shows that the levelof deprivation in the country ishigh. Only 34.0% of the totalpopulation is expected to livebeyond age 40. This reflectspoor living conditions. Only46% of the total population hasaccess to safe drinking water(which includes piped water incompounds, water from publicoutdoor taps and boreholes andprotected wells). The remaining54% use rainwater and unsafewater from unprotected wells,lakes, rivers, ponds, vendors andtracks. Scarcity of safe wateraccentuates poverty directly bylimiting people 's access to abasic necessity of life and indi-rectly by limiting access to foodand employment through theincidence of disease. Anotherimportant dimension of depriva-tion in the country is the limitedaccess to health care, with 5 1 %of the national population tak-ing more than one hour to reachhealth services.

There are wide regional dis-parities in human poverty acrossthe country as indicated by theHPI values estimated at provin-

cial levels. This, however, is notas dramatic as the case of in-come poverty where the differ-ence between the lowest HPI(Central Province) and the high-est (Nyanza Province) is about30%. Differences in the level ofhuman poverty between regionsare indicative of disparities inthe dimensions of deprivation:a short life, lack of basic educa-tion and lack of access to publicand private resources. CentralProvince has the least humanpoverty with an HPI value of30.7% followed by Nairobi with32.4%. Nyanza, Western andNorth Eastern provinces havethe highest HPI values of wellover 40%.

Gender Dimensions ofHuman Development

Gender relations are importantfor human deve lopment . InKenya, there are gross inequali-ties between men and women.The gender-related develop-ment index (GDI) and the gen-der empowermen t m e a s u r e(GEM) are composite indicesdeveloped by UNDP to capturegender inequalities in humandevelopment. While GDI re-veals achievements in basic hu-man development adjusted forgender inequality, GEM showsgender inequality in economicand political opportunities.

The computed GDI value forKenya in this report is 0.52,which compares quite well withthe value in the Human Devel-opment Report 2001 of 0.512.Kenya's GDI has shown mar-ginal increments over the years,implying that the human devel-opment of women in the coun-try has gradually improved. Of-ficial and unofficial literature aswell as practical daily experi-ence, however, still indicate that

xvi


women in Kenya constitute adisadvantaged social group andare discriminated against inmany spheres of society. TheGDI values vary widely acrossprovinces in Kenya. The high-est GDI value of 0.652 is inNairobi Province, followed byCentral which has a GDI valueof 0.593. The least GDT valueof 0.41 is in North Eastern Prov-ince. This indicates some asso-ciation between human devel-opment as measured by HDIand gender development.

Based on the available data,the GEM for Kenya is estimatedat 0.414. This value places thecountry among others with lowgender empowerment. Lookingat the components of the GEM,it is very clear that women's par-ticipation in politics remainsvery low: women hold only4.1% of the parliamentary seatsin Kenya.

3. Inequalities inIncomes andEmployment

Income Inequalities

The distribution of wealth andincome has a strong bearing onpoverty and human develop-ment. Existing data reveal thatincomes in Kenya are heavilyskewed in favour of the upperquintile. The bottom 20% of thepopulation get only 2.5% of thetotal income while the top 20%receive more than 50%. Thesestatistics show that the differ-ences in the basics of life andgeneral well-being between therich and the poor are very large.Globally, Kenya is among the 30most unequal societies in theworld; and it is among the topten low-income economies with

high concentration of income.Regionally, there are dispari-

t ies in income distr ibutionacross regions, with WesternProvince having the highestmaldis tr ibut ion of income.These regional disparities haveimportant implications for pov-erty reduction. Where inequal-ity is high, as is the case in West-ern and Eas tern p r o v i n c e s ,achieving greater equity canhave a bigger impact on growthand poverty reduction. In theareas with relatively egalitariandistribution, a strategy empha-sising growth is likely to have abetter chance.

Rural-UrbanDisparities

Rural-urban disparities in eco-nomic development are pro-nounced. This has been the out-come of underlying economicideological and socio-culturalorientation. The disparities aremanifested in the level of wages,unemployment and poverty in-cidence. While agriculture em-ploys about 70% of the labourforce, it accounts for only 9%of the total private and publicsector earnings. Mean monthlyincomes from wages and sala-ries as well as profits and expen-ditures are higher in urban thanrural areas. Considering that themajority of the population re-sides in the rural areas, this dis-parity reflects negatively onoverall access to basic servicessuch as health and education andgeneral living standards. Whilea large percentage of the urbanpopulation are doing poorly, therural poor are doing worse.

Gender Disparities

Gender inequalities often mani-fest themselves in the form of

xvii


differential access to resourcesand opportunities. Current esti-mates indicate that women, e s -pecially those in the rural areas,are particularly disadvanlagedwith their labour often under-valued and under-utilised. Gen-erally in Kenya, women aremore likely to be unemployedthan men, while average in-comes arc lower for women thanmales. The result is that morewomen than men are poor.

There arc serious gender in-equalities in employment. In therural areas, labour force partici-pation for women is muchhigher than that of men. Whilewomen account for only 30% ofthe total wage employment, theyconstitute 70%' of the labourforce in agriculture. The dispari-ties in access to employmenthave meant that most womenfall within the low-income cat-egories.

Regional Disparities

Uneven progress in economicdevelopment has resulted inlarge regional and sectoral dis-parities in the country. Overtime, priority has been given tothe high and medium potentialareas to the neglect of the lowpotential regions which com-prise over 70% of the country.As a result of policy bias, areasclassified as high potential withabundant natural resources ,rainfall and better developedinfrastructure continue to domi-nate national output.

In terms of employment op-portunities, it is notable that thedistribution of employment inthe modern and informal sectorsis unevenly distributed amongKenya's eight provinces. Nai-robi Province has the greatestshare of wage employment, ac-counting for almost a quarter of

the total wage employment inthe country between 1990 and1999. Rift Valley Province ab-sorbs the second largest share,accounting for 18% of the totalwage employment; Rift Valleyalso has the largest population.The province with the lowestformal employment opportuni-ties is North Eastern, account-ing for less than 1% of totalwage employment; this prov-ince has the lowest populationin Kenya.

4. Inequalities inSocial DevelopmentThe social development situa-tion in Kenya is currently char-acterised by regional, rural-ur-ban, gender and social class in-equalities. There arc notable re-gional inequalities in indicatorsof human development. Someareas of the country such asNorth Eastern and parts ofNyanza, Western, Coast andEastern provinces are poorerand have much lower indicatorsof mortality, health facilities,safe water, sanitation, commu-nication and transportation. Ofparticular note is the large gapbetween North Eastern Provinceand the rest of the country. Notonly is the p rov incemarginalised in developmentinvestments, it is often excludedfrom data collection. The ne-glect of these areas has not onlyresulted in a lower level of hu-man development, it has alsocreated an environment condu-cive to negative socio-culturalbeliefs and practices such asearly marriages, child labour,teenage pregnancies and out-moded initiation rites which fur-ther compound the problem oflow human development.

Rural-urban inequalities alsoexist in mortality rates, fertility

xviii


rates, disease incidence, accessto water and sanitation, trans-port and communication tech-nology, school enrolment andliteracy rates. Although someurban and peri-urban popu-lations in slums and squattersettlements are as disadvantagedas, or even worse than the ruralpopulation, the latter generallyface the brunt of inequality. Thereason has been policy bias to-wards the urban areas. Humandevelopment makes it impera-tive to invest more resources inthe rural areas.

Access to social services dif-fers by gender due mainly tosocio-cultural factors and lackof a comprehensive policy forredressing gender inequalitiesand ensuring equal opportuni-ties for both men and women.Both enrolment rates and adultl i teracy ra tes are lower forwomen than men. The only ex-ception is Central and Nyanzaprovinces where enrolment ratesat secondary school are lowerfor boys than girls. At universi-ties, less than 35% of the stu-dent population is women. Gen-der inequalities are also experi-enced in access to positions ofpower and decision making.Women hold very few positionsin provincial administration, thecabinet and professional cadres.Issues regarding women's op-portunities in mainstream par-ticipation are therefore likely tobe ignored or taken for granted.

5. Policies andInitiatives to AssuageSocial and EconomicInequalities

Since independence, povertyalleviation and the reduction ofinequalities have been majorgovernment development objec-

tives. The government sought toachieve these objectives througha number of policies and pro-grammes which emphasisedrapid economic growth as theprincipal means of reducing in-equalities. This is reflected invarious government policiescontained in major policy docu-ments, mainly developmentplans and sessional papers.

After almost three decades ofinterventions, social and eco-nomic inequalities have not onlypersisted in different dimen-sions but have increased. It istherefore relevant to analyse theextent to which the differentpolicies and initiatives under-taken by the government haveaddressed the problem. An im-portant consideration is the na-ture of the country's economicperformance resulting fromthese policies and whether theyhave benefited the poor and con-tributed towards reducing socialand economic inequalities. Thisunderscores the need to analysethe performance of the economyin terms of its growth, thesources of such growth and theextent to which the differentpolicies and initiatives under-taken by the government, theprivate sector and the civil so-ciety have addressed the prob-lems of social and economic in-equalities.

Economic Performanceand Socio-EconomicInequalities in theCountry

Apart from the first decade ofindependence when the countryrecorded impress ive growthrates (reaching a peak of 6.6%),there has been a continuous de-cline in economic performance.S ince the mid-1980s , the

xix


economy has experienced dis-mal performance which contin-ued into the 1990s until the year2000 when the country recordeda negative growth rate. The de-clining economic performancehas largely accounted for thepersistent and increasing levelsof poverty over the past decades.This is because it could not en-sure an increase in employmentgeneration, nor could it providethe necessary structural and eco-nomic transformations to diver-sify the economy and thusspread the benefits of growth toa wider section of the popula-tion.

An important characteristicof the country's performance isthat where growth has occurred,it has been concentrated in onlya few sectors and a few com-modities within these sectors.The general performance of theeconomy has become vulner-able to fluctuations in these fewsectors; thus the extent to whicheconomic performance can con-tribute to reduction in povertyand inequalities depends on thepro-poor growth in these sec-tors. Furthermore, althoughthere has been a general declinein economic performance, cer-tain sectors, and especially spe-cific commodities, have experi-enced positive growth over thesame period,

Kenya has not been able togenerate the growth necessaryto reduce social and economicinequal i t ies in the country.Where growth has occurred, ithas been in those sectors withminimum impact on employ-ment generation. The level ofabsolute poverty has increasedto 52%, human poverty standsat 34.5, while inequality in in-come has worsened. The poorcontinue to receive less and lessof the national income, with the

bottom 20% of the populationgetting 2.5% of the incomewhile the top 20% receive 59%.Regional disparities in terms ofincomes and access to resourceshave increased, with rural areasbeing marginalised despite amajority of the population de-riving their livelihoods there.

Although agriculture is theleading sector in employmentand other contributions to theeconomy, the sector has sufferedfrom poor infrastructure, creditfacilities and access to markets.The slow growth of the manu-facturing sector led to lack ofexpansion in wage employment,resulting in the expansion of theinformal sector. While the infor-mal sector provides an impor-tant source of low skilled jobsthat can absorb the poor, the sec-tor has for a long time sufferedfrom lack of coherent policyguidelines and favourable regu-latory framework which haveinhibited its growth and contri-bution to the reduction in in-equalities.

Addressing social and eco-nomic inequalities in the coun-try therefore needs deliberatepolicies in order to restart eco-nomic growth. At the same time,such growth should benefit allsections of the population andbe especially geared towards thereduction of poverty and in-equalities.

Government Responsesto Social and EconomicDisparities

Since independence, the gov-ernment has initiated a numberof policies and initiatives aimedat reducing the problems of pov-erty and inequalities in the coun-try. Whereas the policy meas-ures to achieve these objectives

xx


may have changed over time,the objectives remain true todayas they were three decades ago.

The five-year developmentplans and sessional papers havebeen major documents in articu-lating government policies inthe country. While earl ier devel-opment plans reflect strategiesformed in the framework ofgovernment interventions, thelater development plans, formedin an environment of liberalisa-tion and greater private sectorparticipation, have been moremacro in their approach. A l -though there has been consist-ency in preparing the develop-ment plans, one of the majorfactors limiting their effective-ness has been the lack of imple-mentation. There have" also beenpolicy gaps. Development planshave also so tended to reflect do-nor preferences and have there-fore been used as tools to attractdevelopment assistance ratherthan a reflection of real commit-ment to solving developmentproblems. Over time, some ofthe policies slated in these planshave missed the intended tar-ge t s , thus impeding furthergrowth in the country.

The government has, overtime, undertaken specific initia-tives in the form of special pro-grammes aimed at addressingpoverty and inequality. A care-ful review of these initiatives,however, shows that they suf-fered from a number of weak-nesses which limited their effec-tiveness. These included inabil-ity to target the beneficiaries,insufficient involvement ofstakeholders, failure to reachvulnerable groups and lack ofresources for implementation.

Many of the initiatives alsodid not focus exclus ively onpoverty and inequality whichlimited their effectiveness. They

were largely disjointed andspread over many programmesand projects competing for lim-ited funds. Lack of coordinationamong the various actors, inaddition to lack of or inadequateparticipation by the poor andvulnerable groups, also limitedtheir ability to address the prob-lems effectively. The impact ofthese initiatives was further lim-ited by the government's failureto put in place pol ic ies thatwould ensure equitable distribu-tion of income and wealth, withthe result that the majority of thepeople did not have access to thegoods and services generatedfrom them.

Another important factor isthat most of these interventionswere donor driven and weretherefore not integrated in thelong-term development goals ofthe country. The result is lhatthey were short-term in natureand suffered from discontinuityand inconsistency. All of theselimited the e f fec t iveness ofthese interventions in address-ing social and economic in-equalities.

In the recent past, govern-ment strategies and priorities onsocio-economic developmentreflected a shift to a strategicfocus on poverty. This shift isreflected in policy documentssuch as the National PovertyEradication Plan (NPEP) whichoutlined the scope of povertyand set targets for reduction, theInterim Pover ty ReductionStrategy Paper (IPRSP) whichincorporated the adoption of theMedium-Term Expendi tureFramework (MTEF) as the or-ganising budgetary frameworktor the use of resources. The re-cently concluded Poverty Re-duction Strategy Paper (PRSP)is an important initiative by thegovernment to tackle the prob-

xxi


lem of deepening poverty in thecountry. The PRSP, however,faces obstacles such as lack ofadequate funds and lack of po-litical will to implement poli-c ies . There is further need toimplement the PRSP proposalsin such a way as to ensure thatthe poor have access to basicsocial s e rv i ce s . This can beachieved through programmeswhich effectively impact on thepoor.

Although initiatives exis twithin the government to ad-dress different forms of in-equalities, they suffer from alack of common objectives andcoordination among the imple-menting ministries. There isneed for stronger coordinationbetween the different depart-ments to ensure increased effi-ciency in service provision andminimum duplication of activi-ties and interventions. There isalso the need to build commonobjectives among the govern-ment departments and ministriesto ensure that there is cohesionand complementarity in inter-ventions. Most of these initia-tives are short-term interven-tions and responses to cr isesrather than long-term sustain-able development policy. Thereis need to integrate these initia-tives into sustainable develop-ment programmes. The effec-tiveness of these initiatives hasfurther been limited by lack ofimplementation. Most proposalsare also hampered by the pro-cedures used in enacting poli-cies which can facilitate theirimplementation.

6. Future PolicyChallenges

New pol icy d i rec t ions areneeded to address inequalities in

the country which have exacer-bated the problems of poverty,unemployment and social dep-rivation, The high levels of pov-erty have been reinforced byequally low levels of economicgrowth and incomes, lack ofpublic accountability and lack ofparticipation by the poor andother vulnerable groups in thedevelopment process. The endresult has been low and declin-ing human development.

Future policy challenges forhuman deve lopmen t in thecountry therefore entail expand-ing human capabilities and ac-c e s s to opportunities in eco-nomic, social and political as-pects of life. This will involve:

• A process of economic, so-cial and political empower-ment as a means of chang-ing the balance in favour ofthose who have been keptout of the mainstream of eco-nomic and social activity inthe country. Economic em-powermen t wi l l i n v o l v emacro-economic growth andstability, improved rural in-come earning opportunitiesand focus on job creation.Social empowerment willrequire improved availabil-ity and access to health, edu-cation and other s o c i a lamenities. Political empow-erment will call for develop-ing and strengthening of in-stitutions through which thepoor can participate in devel-opment, i nvo lv ing theCBOs, NGOs, as well asother local level organisa-tions.

• Restarting the p rocess ofeconomic growth andfocussing on distributionthrough macroeconomicpolicies that lead to growthwhile reducing poverty as

xxii


envisaged in the PRSP. Pro-poor budgeting will be im-portant in a l loca t ing re-s o u r c e s to the poor andmarginalised groups.

The participation of differentstakeholders in the social,economic and political de-velopment process. This willneed to be institutionalisedfor effect iveness. Startingand strengthening of partner-sh ips be tween differentstakeholders will also be im-portant. This will ensure thatcrit ical concerns are dis-cussed and reflected in poli-cies. The challenge for thecivil society is to be willingto develop capacity to nego-tiate their positions and ac-commodate governmentviews.There is need for a "bottom-

up" and "home-grown" devel-opment strategy. This wouldensure that growth is accompa-nied by a proportionate flow ofincreases in national income tothe poor who form the majority.In Kenya, since the majority ofthe poor are based in the ruralareas, broad-based rural devel-opment is, therefore, essentialfor the reduction of inequalities,Above all, there is need for newpolicy focus to address the in-creasing disparities in the coun-try.

All the key actors in devel-opment key roles to play in forg-ing policies for addressing so-cial and economic inequalities,and enhancing human develop-ment in the country. The vari-ous p e r s p e c t i v e s should beforged into a common objectiveand framework.

xxiii

1: PERSPECTIVES FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1Perspectives for Social and Economic Development

1.1 Global andNational HumanDevelopment Reports

Since 1990, the United NationsDevelopment Programme(UNDP) has supported thepreparation of annual globalhuman development reports(GHDRs). These reports havereviewed progress on the differ-ent facets of human develop-ment. The role of the GHDR hasbeen to introduce and extend iheconcept of human developmentas an alternative to the tradi-tional growth led approaches todevelopment. The first report of1990 introduced the concept andindicators of human develop-ment in addition to the relation-ship between economic growthand human development . Itshowed that economic growthdoes not automatically lead tohuman development as meas-ured by indicators such as lifeexpectancy, school enrolment,literacy and standard of living.Success ive GHDRs have ad-dressed different themes associ-ated with human development,ranging from issues of aid, hu-man rights, governance and gen-der to new technologies, thetheme of the 2001 report.

Nationally, more than a hun-dred countries have compilednational human developmentreports (NHDRs) as a means of

documenting the human devel-opment concept and approach intheir local s i tua t ions . TheNHDRs use the human devel-opment concepts and method-ologies which have been pre-tested through the GHDRs andpre-existing national and re-gional reports. They are ex-pected to provide a systematicappraisal of country efforts inrelation to human developmenttheory and practice. In sub-Sa-haran Africa, about thirty coun-tries have prepared NHDRs; re-gional and sub-regional humandevelopment reports have alsobeen produced, including onefor Africa in 1995. Kenya pre-pared its first NHDR in 1999.

Since the late 1980s, therehas been declining economicperformance as soc ia ted in-creases in poverty and unem-ployment, as well as malaise ingovernance in Kenya. Thesehave resulted in increases inwhat were already fairly widesocial and economic inequalitiesand a fall in human develop-ment. This is evident from thefall in key components of hu-man development such as lifeexpec tancy and income percapita and the rise in indicatorssuch as infant mortality, diseaseincidence and school dropoutrates. Particularly telling hasbeen the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic on mortalityrates and economic activities. It


UNDP 1998a, p.6.

is in this context that this sec-ond NHDR with the theme "Ad-dressing Social and EconomicDisparities" has been prepared.It comes two years after the pub-lication of the inaugural reportin 1 999 which emphasised gen-der and poverty. This reportcritically analyses the key as-pects of economic and socialinequalities; it also questionswhether the policies and pro-grammes are effective enough toaddress such inequalities andprovide direction for policy im-provement and reform.

1.2 HumanDevelopment as aConcept

Human development has beendefined as the process of wid-ening people's choices and rais-ing their level of well being. Itinvolves the expansion of hu-man capabilities and access toopportunities in the social, eco-nomic and political arenas. Themost basic of these capabilitiesare to lead long healthy lives, tobe knowledgeable, and haveaccess to resources needed fora decent standard of living. It is,therefore, about the overall im-provement in the quality of life.

The concept of human devel-opment evolved from the reali-sation that people should be atthe centre of development, withall people being involved in theprocess. It differs from otherapproaches to developmentsuch as the traditional neoclas-s ica l and redistribution ap-proaches which focused on eco-nomic growth and the distribu-tion of wealth. It also differsfrom the basic needs approachwhich viewed people as benefi-ciaries rather than agents of de-velopment. The human develop-

ment approach takes people asbeing an integral part of the de-velopment process. People arcseen as the main actors in theprocess of improving their ownwelfare. The Human Develop-ment Report 1997 defined de-velopment as "A process ofchange that enables people totake charge of their own desti-nies to realise their full poten-tial. It needs building up in peo-ple the confidence, skills, assets,and the freedom necessary toachieve this."

Human deve lopment re-quires expanding the opportuni-ties by which the poor can domore for themselves througheconomic, social and politicalempowerment. Economically,this involves helping the poor togain access to productive re-sources by addressing inequali-ties in the distribution of produc-tive assets. It also requires ex-panding their human capabili-ties through education, nutri-tion, health care, water and sani-tation as important indicators ofhuman development. Politically,this means using communityorganisations and giving com-munities voices to reduce pov-erty. Related to this is the issueof governance, which has beenseen as the key missing link be-tween growth and poverty re-duction. Poor economic man-agement and lack of account-ability are some of the reasonswhy targets for reducing socialand economic inequalities arenever met. Socially, human de-velopment requires building ontraditional and informal com-munity networks that have sup-ported vulnerable groups.1 Hu-man deve lopment thereforegoes beyond economic develop-ment per se. It involves creat-ing an environment in whichpeople can develop to their full


potential and lead productiveand creative lives in accordancewith their needs and interests. Acountry's human developmentstatus is therefore its ability totake care of its citizens and pro-vide an environment which ena-bles them to access opportuni-ties and resources to enhancetheir opportunities for livingdecent lives.

Human deve lopment ismeasured by the human devel-opment index (HDI), a compos-ite index encompassing life ex-pectancy, education attainmentand standard of living as meas-ured by per capita income. Overtime, the UNDP has developedconcepts and methodologiesused in estimating the HDL Thisreport draws heav.ily from themethodologies presented in theUNDP Human DevelopmentReport 2000.

1.3 HumanDevelopment andOther Approaches toDevelopment

Traditionally, economic growthhas been viewed as an impor-tant prerequisite for if not syn-onymous with economic devel-opment. Until the early 1990s,attempts to monitor develop-ment focussed more on eco-nomic growth (with develop-ment being taken to mean ris-ing incomes as measured byGDP) than on the well-being ofindividuals. For a long time,growth was a major economicgoal for policy makers, with in-creased income being viewed asthe best way to improve peo-ple's standards of living. Thiswas based on the assumptionthat the benefi ts of growthwould eventually trickle downto the poor. However, with in-

creasing world poverty and un-employment in the midst ofgrowth, development theoristsbecame disillusioned with theemphasis on economic growth.This led to the need for a newapproach to development.

The traditional indicatorsalso have major weaknesses inmeasuring development. Theymeasure deve lopment andprogress by monitoring eco-nomic output and related data.These, however, do not reflectenhanced quality of life. Theyignore the political, social andcultural factors which are im-portant in human development.In addition, they are biased to-wards goods and services pro-duced for the market, ignoringa large section of the populationoperating outside the marketeconomy.

Past trends in economicgrowth and human developmentshow that whi le economicgrowth may be a necessary con-dition, it is not sufficient forhuman development. Experi-ences from a number of coun-tries, Kenya included, show thatdevelopment in its narrow eco-nomic sense can bypass signifi-cant sections of the society oreven work to the disadvantageof others. Although economicgrowth provides the materialrequirements for human devel-opment, the extent to which thisis met depends on how the re-sources are distributed amongthe people and the various usesin society. In countries wherethere is high inequality, the useof per capita income as a meas-ure of development will showhigh levels of development de-spite the majority of the peoplenot benefiting from that growth.

One such example is Na-mibia (one of the world's mostunequal societies) where about


The Gini coefficient is ameasure of inequality in thedistribution of income. Itsvalue ranges from zero to onewith zero representing perfectequity and one representingtotal inequality.S e e UNDP 1998a, p. 43.Republic of Kenya 1999a.An example is given in HumanDevelopment Report 2000where Canada is ranked withthe highest HDI. However, thereport notes that this concealssome elements of religiousmarginalisation in one of theprovinces in Canada. UNDP2000a, p. 93.

5% of the population, mainlyurban, enjoy high standards ofliving while the rest live in ab-ject poverty. Namibia has one ofthe highest Gini-coefficients inthe world (0.67%). The richest5% of the population receive70% of the GDP, while the poor-est 55% receive only 3% of theGDP. Because of the wealth ofthe small elite, Namibia ranksas a middle-income country.However, because al~ the highinequality, Namibia's humandevelopment leve l is muchlower, making it rank 35 placeslower on Ihe HDI than it rankson average income per person.3

In Kenya, high growth ralewas experienced only in the firstdecade of independence. Sincethen there has been unstable anddeclining economic growth.However, even during the pe-riod when the country experi-enced rapid growth, the prob-lems of poverty and inequalitystill pers is ted and even in-creased. Presently, poverty isrecognised as a major threat todevelopment, with the nationalabsolute poverty level standingat 52%, while inequality hascontinued to increase. Data fromthe 1999 integrated labour forcesurvey show that the lowest20% of the population gels 2.5%of the total income, while thehighest 20% of the populationgets 59% of the total income.4

The human development ap-proach gained prominence withthe publication of the first hu-man development report in 1990which argued for a more directapproach to improving the hu-man condition, going beyondincome and growth. Hence, as o c i e t y ' s standard of livingshould not be judged by the av-erage level of income but bypeople's capabilities to lead thelives they choose. Since human

development is the overridingpurpose of economic develop-ment, underdeve lopment istherefore viewed as lack of ca-pabi lilies rather than lack of in-come per se.

Despite the all-encompass-ing nature of the human devel-opment approach, some concernhas been raised that the HDI asthe measure of human develop-ment can also conceal other as-pects of social, cultural and po-litical inequalities and discrimi-nation. Countries with highHDIs may still experience otheraspects of social or political in-equality, such as racial or politi-cal discrimination which are notcaptured by the HDI/ The ag-gregate national HDI also con-ceals disparities in human devel-opment at the regional level orby socio-economic categories.The aggregate index also con-ceals disparities in the key indi-cators of human development:access to health, education anddecent standard of living. Thisemphasises the need to gener-ate the HDI at u regional (dis-trict) level in order to highlightthese inequalities. This is onemajor contribution of the na-tional human development re-ports in complementing the glo-bal human development reports.

Internationally, a number ofinitiatives have been undertakento address the social and eco-nomic inequalities affecting hu-man development. Among thesehave been the international con-ferences on different develop-ment problems which throughtheir resolutions reflect theseinit iat ives. The conferenceswere a response to the realisa-tion of the fact that although sig-nificant progress in many fieldsimportant for human develop-ment had been made thoughnational and international ef-


forts, the developing countriesstill faced serious economic dif-ficulties, with people living inabsolute poverty having in-creased over time. Such prob-lems tended to affect more peo-ple belonging to specific socio-economic categories. Amongthese conferences are:

• The World Conference onHuman Rights , Vienna,1993, which recognised thathuman rights for women andgirls are inalienable parts ofuniversal human rights. Theconference reaffirmed thecommitment by all states tofulfil their obligations to pro-mole the universal respectfor and protection of all hu-man rights and fundamentalfreedoms for all.

• The International Confer-ence on Population and De-velopment, Cairo, 1994, ad-dressed the crit ical cha l -lenges and interrelationshipsbetween population and eco-nomic growth and sustain-able development. Its basisfor action was the recogni-tion that despite gains madein indicators like life expect-ancy and national product,the gaps between the richand the poor countries andthe inequalities within coun-tries have widened. The con-ference's programme of ac-tion recommended sustainedeconomic growth; education,especially for girls; genderequity and equality; infant,child and maternal mortalityreduction as well as I he pro-vision of universal access toreproductive health services.

• The World Summit for So-cial Development, Copenha-gen, 1995, reiterated thatpeople should be at the cen-tre with development involv-ing all people. It identified

poverty eradication as ethi-cal, social, political and eco-nomic imperatives of hu-mankind. The world leadersat the conference committedthemselves to an ambitiousset of social goals and targetswhich included the eradica-tion of world poverty, en-hancement of productiveemployment, reduction ofunemployment and the fos-tering of social integration.The summit reiterated theimportance of the basic prin-ciples on which the conceptof human development isbased, that the goal of devel-opment should be to improvethe well-being of all people.

• The Fourth World Confer-ence on Women, Beijing,1995, had a platform for ac-tion with the objective ofimproving the situation of allwomen with special atten-tion to the most disadvan-taged. It established funda-mental changes based on therecognition that women facebarriers to full equality andadvancement. The Beijingplatform for action stressedthe empowerment of allwomen which entails the re-alisation of all human rightsand fundamental freedomsof all women.6

These international confer-ences represent important col-lective efforts to address com-mon development problems.They have highlighted socio-economic problems faced byspecific segments of the humanpopulation and addressed prob-lems affecting the improvementin some of the indicators of hu-man development, Their pro-grammes of action set out guide-lines and targets for the partici-pating countries to address thesesocial problems. However, the

S e e United Nations 1996, p.31.


7 S e e Republic of Kenya 1999b,p. 23, and various i ssues ofthe Economic Survey.

8 Due to revisions in data andmethodology for computingHDI over time, the HDI valuesare not comparable acrosseditions of the HDR. However,the 2001 report presentscomparable HDI trends basedon the same methodology.Figure 1.1 is based on thesecomparable values.

realisation of these targets hasbeen hampered in many coun-tries by lack of resources andsupporting social and economicinstitutions.

1.4 Trends inEconomic Growth andHuman Developmentin Kenya

Since independence, one of themajor objectives of the govern-ment has been to achieve rapideconomic growth which wouldlead to improvement in thestandard of living. Developmentefforts therefore initially fo-cused on accelerating economicgrowth as a means of realisingdevelopment . These effortsyielded fruit as the countryachieved high economic growthrates of 6.6% per annum duringthe period 1964-1973. This im-pressive performance was, how-ever, not sustained in the seconddecade as the growth rate de-clined to 5.2% during the 1974-1979 period. There was a fur-ther decline to 2.5% during the1990-1995 period. This deel inehas continued with the economyrecording a negative growth of-0.3% in the year 2000.7 In ad-dition to the declining trend ineconomic growth, the economyhas been characterised by per-sistent and increasing poverty,unemployment and wideningincome inequalities. This situa-tion has negatively impacted onhuman deve lopment in thecountry.

The HDI for Kenya for se-lected years is presented in Fig-ure 1.1,8 The values show asteady increase from 0.441 in1975, reaching a peak at 0.531in 1990. Since 1990, there hasbeen a gradual drop in the HDI,reaching 0.514 in 1999. A l -

though this decline appears mar-ginal, it displays a steady trendwhich conforms to trends ineconomic per formance andachievements in the basic socialindicators in the country overthe same period. Within the pe-riod between independence andthe early 1980s, major gainswere made in the areas of health,educa t ion and other s o c i a lamenities. Positive economicgrowth was also experiencedduring this period.

Since the late 1980s, therehas been a reversal in theseachievements. The gains madein social indicators have alsoslowed down in the last decade.By the mid-1980s, Kenya hadmade considerable progress inbasic health care services, stand-ards of education and literacylevels. This has been interruptedsince 1989 due to a variety offactors.

The structural adjustmentprogrammes introduced in themid-1980s have meant that alarge majority of the populationhas become unable to affordhealth and education servicesdue to the introduction of costsharing. Rapid population in-crease and economic stagnationhave also been responsible. Poorrelations with the donor com-munity and an increasing inabil-ity to attract investment also ledto the poor economic perform-ance w i t n e s s e d during the1990s. Another important factorhas been lack of good govern-ance manifested in poor eco-nomic management where inef-ficient use of public resourcesand corruption have under-mined the implementation ofdeve lopment p o l i c i e s andprojects. There has also beenlack of deliberate policies aimedat equitable distribution of re-sources and employment oppor-

6


(unities. This has resulted in eco-nomic stagnation as well as dis-tortions in the distribution ofwealth and opportunities withthe living conditions of the ma-jority of Kenyans worsening.

Kenya is increasingly be-coming unable to sustain or im-prove the gains made in socialindica tors such as schoolenrolments, infant mortality andlife expectancy.9 In health, ma-jor indicators show a worseningtrend. Infant and under-fivemortality as well as maternalmortality have increased in the1990s. In addition, nutrition in-dicators like stunting, wastingand under weight among chil-dren under five years have alsoincreased during the same pe-riod. While life expectancy in-creased from 50 in 1969 to 60in 1989, this has since declinedto 54 in 1999. The literacy rate,which increased from 47% in1980 to 75% in 1994, declinedto 70% by 1999.

The majority of Kenyansface inadequate access to basicnecess i t i es like food, healthca re , education and shelter.Schoo l dropout ra tes havegrown, as have disparities inaccess to other services due to

geographical locations, genderand income inequalities. Ac-cording to government statistics,the level of absolute poverty hasincreased from 44% in 1992 to52% in 1997. The poverty situ-ation has particularly worsenedin the urban areas in compari- •son to the rural areas. Therefore,although poverty is more preva-lent in the rural areas, it is in-creasingly becoming an urbanphenomenon. The increasingtrend in the level of poverty overlime is confirmed by povertymeasures based on differentdatabases in the country,1"

The problem of inequalityhas continued to manifest itselfin different dimensions. Povertyand other signs of inequality areconcentrated among certainsoc io-economic groups. In-equality in income distributionis high, with the bottom 20% ofthe population getting only2.5% of the total income, whilethe highest 20% of the popula-tion gets 59% of the total in-come.11 Other signs of wideninginequality include wideninggender and regional disparitiesin terms of poverty levels andaccess to social services andeconomic opportunities.

Republic of Kenya 2000a, p.2.

S e e Republic of Kenya 2000b,vol. II, p. 4, for differentmeasures of poverty fromvarious da tabases andstudies.

Republic of Kenya 1999a.


l2 Republic of Kenya 1996,1999b and 2000b.

l3 UNDP 1998a.

An examination of the socio-economic characteristics of pov-erty in the country shows thatthe poor can be identified bytheir region of residence andwell-defined socio-economiccategories. Poverty and othersigns of socio-economic in-equalities tend to be highestamong the landless, pastoralistsin the ASAL districts, subsist-ence farmers, unskilled casualworkers female-headed house-holds and people with disabili-ties. l2

The poor spun a broad spec-trum of socio-economic groups.However, the concentration pat-tern of poverty shows that thereare specific vulnerable groupsmost affected by socio-eco-nomic disparities in the country.But who arc the vulnerablegroups? Vulnerable groups havebeen defined as those with lackof access to sufficient produc-tive resources and who arepoorly educated.1 1 Althoughthey have different productionpatterns and poverty character-istics, they have common socio-economic characteristics, A par-ticipatory approach to the defi-nition of vulnerable groupsshows that it should also includethose with limited ormarginalised opportunities forpolitical participation and thosein especial ly difficult condi-tions. These groups not onlylack sufficient access to produc-tive resources but are viewed asmostly excluded from the main-stream planning process. Theyare therefore economically, po-l i t ica l ly and s o c i a l l y mar-ginalised, making them mostvulnerable to socio-economicdownturns.

Socio-economic disparitiesmanifest themselves mainly interms of access to productiveresources, employment oppor-

tunities and acces s to socialservices like health, education,water and sanitation, informa-tion and political participation.The socio-economic profiles ofthe vulnerable groups show aclear marginalisation of thesegroups in terms of acces s tothese opportunities (Box 1.1).

Poverty is created throughvaried processes. As a result, thegroups affected by poverty arenot always the same. Short-termand cyclical factors tend to cre-ate transient poverty which of-ten creates new faces of poverty.Striking examples include thepoverty of refugees and AIDSorphans arising from civil strifeand conflict and the HIV/AIDspandemic , r e s p e c l i v e l y . InKenya, recent times have seenthe emergence of new groups ofthe poor and vulnerable. Theseinclude street families and beg-ga r s , AIDS orphans and re-trenched people. This trend cal Isfor new strategies to address theproblem of poverty facing suchgroups.

1.5 HumanDevelopmentChallenges in Kenya

Kenya faces a number of humandevelopment challenges. Thesego beyond simply increasingeconomic growth and includeaddressing social and economicinequalities by providing an en-vironment that enables all peo-ple to access resources and op-portunities to enable them to livedecent lives. It requires expand-ing human capabilities and ac-c e s s to oppor tuni t ies . Thismeans combating the risingproblems of poverty as well asunemployment that have per-sisted and increased since inde-pendence. The challenge pre-sented here is that of increasing

8



UNDP 2000b.

access to productive resourcesand employment opportunitiesas well as improving productiv-ity to ensure economic growthand increased incomes. It alsoneeds facilitating the participa-tion of all sectors of the popula-tion in the social, economic andpolitical development proc-esses. The challenge also in-cludes addressing the disparitieswhich exist not only betweengeographical regions but alsoamong various segments of thepopulation. Human develop-ment in Kenya also requiresimproving access to educationand health facilities, housing,water and sanitation.

Gender is an important fac-tor in human development. Inmost cases, and especially inAfrica, gender is important indefining the poverty status.Women constitute the majorityof the poor while many female-headed households arc poor.Measures that provide themwith increased access to basicsocial services and productiveassets arc a critical factor in theeradication of poverty. How-ever, while gender inequalitiesresult from unequal access bywomen to resources and oppor-tunities, this lack of access is anindication of a system of normsand institutions which placethem at a disadvantage. One ofthe human development chal-lenges facing the country istherefore addressing disparitieswhich arc gender-related. Theseinclude eradicating povertyamong women and other vulner-able groups. This can beachieved not only by providingthem with access to resourcesand opportunities but also bychanging the underlying institu-tions which perpetuate these in-equalities.

In addition to these chal-

lenges, views from a cross sec-tion of Kenyans were sought onwhat is perceived as the mainhuman development challengesfacing the country. These per-ceptions are presented in Box1.2.

1.6 Governance andHuman Development

Governance refers to the exist-ence of political, economic andadministrative authority in themanagement of a country at alllevels.14 It incorporates the com-plex processes, mechanisms andinstitutions through which citi-zens and groups articulate theirinterests, mediate their differ-ences and exercise their legalrights and obligations. Govern-ance is a key link betweengrowth and the reduction ofpoverty and inequality. It is im-portant for socio-economic de-velopment and addressing socialand economic inequalities. Al-though growth generates in-come, the poor are less likely tobenefit from it if they are notempowered economically, so-cially and politically. Good gov-ernance can therefore be seen asa key link between growth andpoverty reduction. Poor eco-nomic management and lack ofaccountability arc some of thereasons why targets for reduc-ing social and economic in-equalities are never met.

Human development alsorequires the state to create ademocratic space in which peo-ple can articulate their demandsand fight for a more equitabledistribution of power. This isnecessary for adequate invest-ment of resources in human de-velopment priorities and the eq-uitable access to productive re-sources. Good governance fa-cilitates poverty eradication by

10


Source: Key informant interviews with a cross-section of Kenyans15

providing an enabling environ-ment and a participatory soci-ety.1'' Humane governance pro-vides an enabling environmentfor human development anderadication of human depriva-tion. The qualities of such gov-ernance include ownership,which makes it participatory andin people's interest; equity,which makes it conducive tobuilding a society offering eve-ryone equal access to opportu-nities; and accountability, whichembodies structures that aretransparent and accountable.17

In Kenya, lack of good gov-ernance can be seen as one of

the major causes of stagnationin economic performance aswell as the persistent and in-creasing poverty and inequality.Inefficient use of public re-sources, corruption and failureby the government to involvethose affected by poverty in thesearch for solutions are some ofthe manifestations of this prob-lem. This has resulted in lack ofpriority for developmentprojects meant for the poor, lackof deliberate policies aimed atequitable distribution of re-sources and employment oppor-tunities as well as apathy andlack of participation by the poor

15 The key informant interviewswere conducted among seniorgovernment officials, NGOsand other developmentorganisations. The govern-ment ministries includedhealth, education, culture andsocial services, labour andOffice of the President,Department of DevelopmentCoordination. The NGOsincluded Action Aid, CareKenya, NGO Council, PlanInternational, Oxfam and GTZ.

16 UNDP 1997, p. 105.17 UNDP 2000c, p. 54.

11


and other vulnerable groups.This has been mainly responsi-hte for distortions in the distri-bution of wealth and opportuni-ties as reflected in wide socialand economic inequalities. Thecountry's record in governanceis therefore an important factorin the state of social, economicand political development.

In the last decade, a numberof changes have been initiatedaimed at improving governancein the country, These include theintroduction of multiparty de-mocracy in 1991, establishmentof an independent electoralcommission and the formation

of the constitution review com-mission as well as a number ofadministrative reforms. How-ever, these changes need to bebacked by implementation ifefforts to enhance human devel-opment in the country are tobear fruit.

Human development in thecountry therefore entails devel-opment as an all-encompassingprocess involving all people. Itrequires the existence of goodgovernance which will ensuregood economic managementand the distribution of suchgrowth to the majority of thepopulation.

12

2: THE STATE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN KENYA

Chapter 2The State of Human Development in Kenya

There is growing consensusamong economists, sociologists,political scientists and other de-velopment practitioners that de-velopment is about improvingthe quality of people's lives andexpanding their abilities toshape their own future. It in-volves a process of expandinghuman capabilities and access tosocial, economic and politicalopportunities.

The new people-centred ap-proach to development recog-nises that an integral part of suc-cessful development is the in-crease in per capita income viaeconomic growth, but it in-volves much more. It involvesmore equitable education andjob opportunities, greater gen-der equality, better health andnutrition, a clean and more sus-tainable natural environment, afunctional and fair judicial sys-tem and broader civil and politi-cal freedoms. If successful, thisnew approach to developmentwill not only raise GDP percapita but also living standardsas evidenced by standards ofhealth and literacy. It should alsoreduce poverty while strength-ening the environment.

This new understanding ofdevelopment poses challengesfor measuring and monitoringthe development process.Clearly, there is need to go be-yond GDP per capita as a toolfor measuring and monitoring

human development. This chap-ter discusses and utilises recenthuman development indicatorsused in the assessment of thelevel of human development inKenya.

2.1 Measuring andMonitoring HumanDevelopment

The complex and multidimen-sional nature of human develop-ment requires a measure thatgoes beyond the conventionalmeasure of income per capita,The HDI developed by UNDPin 1990 measures the averageachievement in basic humandevelopment in one single com-posite index. It is derived froma simple average of three com-ponents: longevity, educationalattainment or the level of knowl-edge and decent standard of liv-ing, Longevity is measured bylife expectancy at birth, whileknowledge is measured by adultliteracy rates and combined en-rolment rates. Decent standardsof living are measured by percapita income. In numericalterms, the index ranges from 0to 1 where 0 indicates total ab-sence of human developmentand 1 indicates the highest levelof human development (seeAppendix 1 ,Technical Note I).

The HDI value for a countryshows how far that country hasgone in attaining an average life

13


expectancy of 85 years, accessto education for all and a decentstandard of life. The HDI fo-cuses on areas beyond incomeand treats income as a proxy fordecent standard of living, thusproviding a more comprehen-sive measure of human well-being than just income.

Recent Trends inHuman Development inKenya

Based on the most recent dataform the Central Bureau of Sta-tistics (CBS), Kenya's HDI isestimated at 0.539. This figureis slightly higher than the Hu-man Development Report 2001value of 0.514. The discrepancyin the HDI value is explained bythe difference in the values ofthe component indices and theperiod covered. This report usesthe most recent data on incomeund life expectancy that is avail-able. Of particular note is thedifference in life expectancy.While the GHDR uses an esti-mate of 51.4 based on the WHOestimates, this report uses 54.7,which was calculated from thepopulation census of 1999.

With an HIM value of 0.514,Kenya fulls under the categoryof the medium human develop-ment countries where it is clas-sified alongside Ghana (0.542),Egypt (0.635), Cameroon(0.506) and South Africa(0.702). While the magnitude ofthe HDI in Kenya is certainlyimportant, its decline over thelast five years is what is of con-cern. This decline is under-pinned by the decline in life ex-pectancy in the country, whichhas fallen from 59.5 in the 1989population census to 54.7 in the1999 census. The insurgency ofHIV/AIDS and the increase inpoverty are some of the leading

factors that have undermined thegains in life expectancy in thecountry.

In terms of the componentsof HDI, it is apparent from Ta-ble 2.1 that Kenya's low rank-ing globally is largely due to itslow per capita income, which isonly Ksh 16,406 or US$1,022in purchasing power parity. Thisis far below the global set maxi-mum of US$40,000. Kenya'slife expectancy that is about54.7 years also falls short of themaximum of 85 years while theliteracy rate was only 70.9%compared to a maximum of100%. These figures indicatethat Kenya has a long way to goto attain the high human devel-opment levels enjoyed by lead-ing countries such as Norway,Australia and Canada. In theHuman Development Report2000, Norway was the leadingcountry in human developmentwith a life expectancy of 78.4and per capita income ofUS$28,433.

Regional Disparities inHuman Development

HDI varies considerably acrossprovinces and districts inKenya. As is evident from Ta-ble 2.1, certain provinces per-form better in terms of humandevelopment than others. Theprovince with the highest HDIis Nairobi followed by Centraland Rift Valley. These provincesare above the national HDI fig-ure of 0.539. The lowest HDI isin North Eastern followed byNyanza Province. It is notablethat while Nairobi, Central,Eastern and Rift Valley prov-inces have fairly high HDls thatplace them in the middle humandevelopment category (0.500-0.800) where countries such asMexico (0.790), Mauritius

14


(0.765) and Tunisia (0.714) areclassified, North Eastern, Coast,Nyanza and Western provincesfall in the low human develop-ment category and comparewith countries such as Togo(0.489), Sudan (0.439), Ethiopia(0,321) and Sierra Leone(0.258). It is notable also that thedifference between the highestHDI (0.783 for Nairobi) and thelowest (0.413 for North Eastern)is large, further highlighting re-gional disparities in the country.Such disparities arc reflected indifferences in regional resourcebases, infrastructural develop-ment and life opportunities.

Examining the componentsof HDI, it is apparent that itsvarious components varywidely across the regions. Nai-robi, which has the highest HDI,has a very high per capita in-come index, well above the edu-cation and life expectancy indi-ces. This is in contrast to all theother regions in which both theeducation and life expectancyindices are higher than that ofincome, although they arc lowerthan those in Nairobi. This im-plies that measures to enhancegrowth in income may be an in-tegral part of efforts to promotehuman development in manyparts of Kenya. It should benoted, however, that provision

of education and life-prolongingservices such as good healthcare are also crucial in humandevelopment in the country.

Regional Rankings inHuman Development

Ranking of provinces on thebasis of HDI values leads to dif-ferent results compared to rank-ing based on conventional indi-cators such as per capita income.As is shown in Table 2,2, six outof Kenya's eight provinces takedifferent positions when HDI isused for ranking. This is largelybecause of their varied scores inthe other parameters of humandevelopment, namely literacyand life expectancy. Notable inthis respect is North Easternwhich moves from position 4 inthe per capita ranking to posi-tion 8 when HDI is used. Al-though the province has a rela-tively higher per capita income,lower literacy levels and pooraccess to health reduces its hu-man development achievement.This negative gap implies theneed for redirecting resourcestowards human development inthe region rather than improv-ing income. Owing to its rela-tively lower literacy levels,more emphasis should be placedon access to education.

15


The other notable case isCoast Province, which movesfrom position 2 to 4 in the HDIranking. While this fall under-scores the fundamental differ-ence between the maximisationof wealth and the enrichment ofhuman lives, it also brings outan important link between HDIvalues and rural areas. WhileCoast Province has a higher percapita ranking due to the largerurban sector, it falls in the HDIranking due to a poor hinterlandcharacterised by lower enrol-ment rate, lower life expectancyand limited life opportunities.Although HDI for rural and ur-ban areas were nol computed, itis evident from Table 2.2 thatprovinces which are predomi-nantly rural have generallylower HDI values.

A listing of the top ten andbottom ten districts in Kenya forwhich the HDI could be com-puted is shown in Table 2.3. Un-derstandably, the two major ur-ban centres in Kenya (Nairobiand Mombasa) have higher hu-man development. The highscores in the two districts arelargely on account of relativelyhigher incomes and life expect-ancies. Tharaka Nilhi also has ahigh HDI largely because ofhigh incomes presumably fromthe sale of attract. Other districtsalso showing high levels of hu-

man development are Nyeri,Kiambu and Embu which lie inthe high potential regions. Simi-larly, most of the low human de-velopment regions are marginal,of low agricultural potential orASALs.The implication here isthat for human development toimprove in the country there isneed to focus attention on themarginal and less productiveareas in the country.

Explaining the RegionalDisparities in HumanDevelopment

Having demonstrated the exist-ence of large regional dispari-ties in human development inKenya, it is necessary to explainthe causes. Disparities in humandevelopment in the country canbe explained, first, by differ-ences in opportunities, whichare themselves a product of vari-ous economic forces. Theseforces have, over the years, ledto concentration of economicactivity in some areas and notin others. Urban areas in generalhave attracted a fair amount ofeconomic activities compared tothe rural areas owing to betterfinancial and other services,more adequate infrastructureand ready market for investingfirms. Regions with a high con-

16


centration of urban centres likethe Rift Valley and Central prov-inces have attracled more in-vestments than most other areas.The concentration of economicactivity in these areas has directimplications on employmentand incomes and therefore hu-man development.

A second reason for the dis-parities in human developmentin the country has to do with thenature of policies that have beenimplemented by the governmentover the years. These policieshave tended to be biased to-wards high agricultural potentialareas and in certain cases spe-cific geographical areas. Theresult is that there are wide re-gional differences in access topublic resources such as health,education and infrastructure.These arc analysed in detail inthe next chapter.

There are at the same timenumerous other location-spe-cific factors that can explain dis-parities in human development.These include ecological condi-tions which are closely linked toagricultural potential, security,access to land, cultural traits anddisease incidence. HIV/ATDShas emerged as a crucial deter-minant of human development.

Coast Province has the highestnumber of cases followed byNyanza Province. The lowestinfection rates are in North East-ern, Western and Central prov-inces.

Disparities AmongSocio-Economic Groups

Although disaggregated HDIs atthe national, provincial and dis-trict levels highlights disparitiesin a country, they also concealmuch information. Even withinthe same province or districtthere arc differences betweenurban and rural areas, betweensexes and among ethnic groups.The use of disaggregated HDIsfor social groups can help inhighlighting such disparities. InKenya, there are groups that arcclearly disadvantaged: streetchildren and beggars, peoplewith disabilities, the elderly,women who head householdsand unemployed youth. Thereis, however, lack of data forcomputing disaggregated HDIs.Estimation of HDIs for the dif-ferent groups can no doubt pro-vide valuable insights intosocio-economic disparities inKenya.

17


UNDP 1998b,

2.2 HumanDevelopment andPoverty

The Concept of HumanPoverty

If human development is aboutenlarging choices, povertymeans the denial of opportuni-ties and choices most basic tohuman development. These in-clude the choice to lead a long,healthy and creative life and alsoto enjoy a decent standard of liv-ing, freedom, dignity, self-re-spect and ihe respect of others.There is however a differencebetween the poverty of choicesand opportunities and the pov-erty of income (Box 2.2). Thelatter, which focuses more onempowerment and actions toenhance opportunities, is re-ferred to as human poverty. Rec-ognising the difference betweenthe poverty of choices and op-portunities implies that povertymust be addressed on all its di-mensions, not income alone.The Human Development Re-

port 1997 introduced the con-cept of human poverty as sepa-rate from the conventional defi-nitions of poverty. This newconcept of poverty views thepoor as actors against a processof impoverishment and calls forthe strengthening of their capa-bilities. Instead of focussing onpoor people's weaknesses, thenew concept focuses on theirpotential strengths and the assetsthat they need in order to get outof poverty. The concept also rec-ognises the critical effects ofgender and other forms of in-equality that tend to perpetuatepoverty. This understanding alsosees poverty not merely as agrave social and economic prob-lem but also as a violation ofhuman rights. Understandably,this wider definition of povertyis more realistic as it "mirrorsan integrated understanding ofhuman rights in which civil andpolitical rights are indivisiblefrom social, economic and cul-tural rights."8

18


The Human PovertyIndex

In the Human Development Re-port 1997, UNDP developed thehuman poverty index (HPI)which corresponds dimension-by-dimension with the HDI.HPI is an attempt to capture abroader measure of poverty go-ing beyond money and income.It is used to measure depriva-tions in basic dimensions of hu-man development and the pro-portion of the people left out ofprogress. The HPI includes theadult literacy rate, the percent-age of population not expectedto reach age 40 and a third di-mension labelled overall eco-nomic provisioning that is acomposite of three indicators:the percentage of people with-out access to safe water, the per-

centage of people without ac-cess to health services and thepercentage of children underfive years of age who are under-weight. The HPI it; computed onthe basis of deprivation in lon-gevity, living standards andknowledge (see Appendix 1,Technical Note 2).

Human Poverty in Kenya

Most countries, includingKenya, continue to monitor pov-erty using surveys of incomeand expenditure. Since the mid-1970s household surveys havebeen the most important sourceof data for analysing povertyand policy making. There are anumber of poverty studies thatprovide estimates of the extentof poverty in the country basedon household data sets. Sincethe 1990s, Welfare Monitoring

19


Surveys (WMSs) have beenused intensively to monitor pov-erty in the country. So far, threesurveys have been carried out in1992, 1994 and 1997. AlthoughWMS cover all districts and col-lect pertinent information onnon-income factors such as edu-cation, health, child nutritionand social amenities, they fail tointegrate them in the definitionof poverty. They do not coverthe entire range of fundamentalpoverty correlates. The complexand multi-dimensional nature ofpoverty in the country requiresa measure that goes beyond thetraditional reliance on surveysbased on income and expendi-ture.

Kenya's HPI and its compo-nents by province are shown inTable 2.4. The HPI for Kenya isestimated at 34.5%. This means(hat about 35% of Kenya'spopulation can be considered aspoor. The Human DevelopmentReport 2001 puts this at 31.1 %.The disparity in the values isagain attributable to the differ-ence in the data set used in thecompulation. The HPI estimatein this report is based on themost recent data from the Cen-tral Bureau of Statistics (CBS)and the 1999 population census.

In the Human DevelopmentReport 2001, Kenya is placed inposition 51 above countries suchas India (55), Nigeria (59), Zim-babwe (61) and Uganda (69).This indicates that poverty is aserious problem not only inKenya but in other developingcountries as well. What is, how-ever, of concern is the increasein poverty in the country in therecent past. Kenya's HPI valuehas steadily risen from 26.1 % in1997 to 34.5% in 2001 (Figure2.1). This trend is confirmed byresults of the welfare monitor-ing surveys that indicate that thelevel of poverty rose from40.3% in 1994 to 52.3% in1997.

Examining the componentsof the HPI index, it is evidentthat the level of deprivation inthe country is high. Up to 34%of the population is not expectedto live beyond age 40. This re-flects in purl a fall in life expect-ancy in the country. Up to 46%of (he population do not haveaccess to safe drinking water(which includes piped water incompounds, water from publicoutdoor taps, boreholes and pro-tected wells). Scarcity of safewater accentuates poverty di-rectly by limiting people's ac-

20


cess to a basic necessity of lifeand indirectly by limiting accessto food and employment andthrough the incidence of dis-eases.

Another important dimen-sion of deprivation in the coun-try is the poor access to healthservices. Nationally, 51 % of thetotal population has poor access(take over one hour to reach thenearest qualified doctor) tohealth services. Inability to ac-cess health facilities is a basiccomponent of poverty. It shouldbe noted, however, that althoughphysical access to health facili-ties is important, the poor mayhave limited access to them be-cause of cost or even the qual-ity of services being offered atthe nearest health facility. An-other dimension of human dep-rivation is reflected by the pro-portion of underweight childrenunder the age of 5 years. Nation-ally, 26% of children under 5years are underweight, signify-ing poor nutritional status.Among children, nutritional sta-tus is an indicator of health andwell-being. It is a result of com-plex interaction between manyfactors, including lack of accessto adequate and balanced diets,poor sanitary conditions, inad-equate health care and safe wa-ter supply.

Regional Disparities inHuman Poverty

Like HPI, HPI can also be com-puted at regional and districtlevels. Estimates of HPI at pro-vincial level indicate that Cen-tral Province has the leastamount of human poverty withan HPI value of 30.7% (Table2.4). This means that about 31 %of the population in Centra!Province is affected by humanpoverty. Nairobi Province hasthe second least HPI or 32.4%,followed by Rift Valley andCoast provinces. Nyanza, West-ern and North Eastern provinceshave the highest HPI values:well over 40%,

In terms of absolute num-bers, Rift Valley leads in humanpoverty as close to 2.6 millionpeople arc affected. The next inline is Nyanza where an esti-mated 1.9 million people arepoor (Table 2.5). These are highproportions and indicate thathuman poverty is indeed a seri-ous development challenge inthe country,

The HPI values estimated atprovincial levels indicate the ex-istence of wide regional dispari-ties in the level of poverty in thecountry. This, however, is not asdramatic as is the case of incomepoverty where the difference be-tween the lowest (Central Prov-

21


ince) and the highest (NyanzaProvince) is about 30%. Differ-ences in the level of human pov-erty between regions are indica-tive of disparities in the dimen-sions of deprivation: a short life,lack of basic education and lackof access to public and privateresources.

The causes of poverty inKenya are documented in anumber of policy and researchreports. The recently concludedPoverty Reduction Strategy Pa-per (PRSP) identified a numberof causes and correlates of pov-erty. They include low eco-nomic performance, low agri-cultural productivity, landless-ness, insecurity, unemploymentand low wages, poor or lack ofroads, gender imbalance andbad governance.

Regional ranking in humanpoverty

Ranking provinces and districtsby human poverty incidenceleads to different rankings fromthose based on the level of ex-penditure/incomes. The tworankings for Kenya's eight prov-inces are shown in Table 2.6. Itis evident from the table that sixout of the country's eight prov-inces change positions in theranking. For example, whileCoast Province ranks sixth us-

ing income poverty levels, itmoves to the fourth positionwhen the HPI index is used.Eastern, Rift Valley and West-em also fall in the ranking. Achange in ranking implies poornon-income attributes of humandevelopment such as education,access to health and clean drink-ing water.

ParticipatoryApproaches to PovertyAssessment

The statistics presented aboveno doubt provide a picture of theextent of poverty in the coun-try. They do not convey, how-ever, the realities of intense pov-erty and inequality. In otherwords, the statistics cannot pro-vide the texture of poverty—thepain of deprivation, the acutetensions, violence and emotionsassociated with poverty. To de-scribe the realities behind thestatistics, the use of Participa-tory Poverty Assessments(PPAs) have been found neces-sary. PPAs provide depth andunderstanding to the notion ofpoverty by extending the defi-nition to include issues such asvulnerability, physical and so-cial isolation, self-respect, secu-rity and powerlessness. Further-more, PPAs provide a forum for

22


the poor to air their views andfeelings based on their experi-ences.

There have been several PPAstudies in Kenya. These assess-ments involve people's own per-ceptions of poverty and itscauses; they have increasinglyreported deterioration in peo-ple's well-being over time. Theyshow that continuous ill-healthand limited access to educationand other social amenitiesplague millions of Kenyans.They also report poverty-relatedanxiety and stress and the ac-companying violence especiallyon women and children. A ma-jor finding in these assessmentsis that the poor are aware thatthey are poor, they know thecause of their poverty and wouldwish to overcome such a state.

The poor also know what needsto be done to reduce their pov-erty (Box 2.3).

2,3 GenderDimensions of HumanDevelopment

It is indisputable that gender re-lations are important for humandevelopment. In Kenya, like inmany other countries, there arcgross inequalities between menand women. Such gender in-equalities are not just damagingto the interests of women butalso to people's livelihood strat-egies as a whole. The humanDevelopment Report 1997 indi-cated thai at the aggregate level,there was a link between gen-der inequality and overall hu-

23


19 S e e , for example, Mwabu etal. 2000 and ILO/EAMAT1999.

man poverty. Studies in Kenyahave reported the following im-portant findings on the gender-poverty relation:19

• The incidence of povertyamong women in Kenya ishigher than that among men.In both rural and urban ar-eas, women suffer more pov-erty than men.

• The intensity of poverty ismore severe for women thanmen. Results of the WelfareMonitoring Survey III indi-cate that although female-headed households consti-tuted only 25% of ruralhouseholds, the intensity ofpoverty was higher thanthose headed by men.

• Lingering legal and culturaldiscrimination which im-pedes women's access toproperty ownership (espe-cially land) and employmentopportunities have im-mensely contributed towomen's low status and lackof empowerment.

These important findings in-dicate the need for integratinggender issues in strategies forpoverty alleviation in the coun-try.

Measurement of GenderInequalities inDevelopment

Can gender inequalities in de-velopment be targeted andmonitored? Is there a generalmeasure of gender inequalitythat can be used to inform aswell as define policy? The gen-der-rclatcd development index(GDI) and the gender empow-erment measure (GEM) are twocomposite indices developed byUNDP to capture gender in-equalities in human develop-ment (see Appendix 1, Techni-

cal Notes 3 and 4). While GDImeasures achievements in basichuman development adjustedfor gender inequality, GEMmeasures gender inequality ineconomic and political opportu-nities.

The computed GDI valuesfor Kenya and its provinces arcshown in Table 2.7. The nationalGDI value of 0.52 comparesquite well with the value in theHuman Development Report2001 of 0.512. Globally, Kenyais ranked in position 112' aboveAfrican countries such asCameroon (114), Congo (1 15),Nigeria (123), Uganda (125)and Zambia (127). Kenya's GDIhas shown marginal incrementsover the years, implying that thehuman development of womenin the country has graduallyimproved. Official and unoffi-cial literature as well as practi-cal daily experience, however,stilt indicate that women inKenya constitute a disadvan-taged social group and are dis-criminated against in many.spheres ol society.

As is evident from Table 2.7,GDI values vary widely acrossprovinces in Kenya. The high-est GDI value of 0.652 is inNairobi Province, followed byCentral, which has a GDI valueof 0.593. The least GDI value isin North Eastern Province. Thisindicates some association be-tween human development asmeasured by HDI and genderdevelopment (compare Figure2.1 and 2.2).

An area in which womenhave particularly been disadvan-taged is in decision-making.Generally women have beenmarginalised in the realms ofpolitics and economics. Thismarginalisation has a lot to dowith the traditional African set-up in which women were more

24


involved in decisions within thehousehold than al communitylevel. Although the gender biasis still very strong in Kenya,there are indications that thegender campaign in the countryis bearing some fruits. To evalu-ate current political and eco-nomic participation by women,the GEM index was estimatedfor the country (Table 2.8).GEM is a composite indicatorof representation of women inpolitical, administrative, mana-gerial, professional and techni-cal positions as well as women'sshare in total income.

Based on the available data,the GEM for Kenya is estimatedat 0.414. Although Kenya wasnot ranked globally in the Hu-man Development Report 2001,

this value would place it amongcountries with low gender em-powerment. Looking at thecomponents of the GEM index,it is very clear that women's par-ticipation in politics remainsvery low. Women hold only4,1 % of the parliamentary scatsin Kenya. This is in sharp con-trast to other countries in theregion like Tanzania, Ugandaand Rwanda, where women ac-count for 22%, 17% and 25%,respectively.

Women's participation inpolitics, though still very low,has increased somewhat in thelast few years. In 1992, therewere seven women in the na-tional assembly in a parliamentof 193, representing only 3.5%.This ratio increased marginally

25


to 4.1 % in the year 2000 whenthere were nine women legisla-tors out of a total of 222. ]tshould be noted that these ratiosare very low considering thatwomen in Kenya constitute 50%of the population. Women alsoparticipate only marginally inpublic administration and in theprivate sector.

To be successful, anti-pov-crty measures in Kenya mustdeal with inequalities in genderthat works to the disadvantageof women. Given the centralposition of women in society, itis important that activities toaddress women's poverty areprioritised. Such activitiesshould be an integral pan of (henational development strategiesof the country.

2.4 ComparingHuman DevelopmentIndicators in Kenya

Figure 2.3 depicts Kenya's mainhuman development indicators.From the figure, it is evident thatregions with high human devel-opment have relatively low hu-man poverty and vice versa.Central Province with the high-est HDI has aL ihe same time afairly low HPI. On the otherhand, North Eastern Provincewith the lowest HDI has a highHPI. This is understandablegiven that a state of human de-velopment implies the absenceof social and economic depriva-tions that characterise human

poverty. The implication of thisis that the reduction or elimina-tion of human poverty should beat the forefront in efforts to im-prove human well-being. There-fore, the government, UN agen-cies, a wide array of national andinternational organisations, in-cluding NGOs, have put thestruggle against poverty at thecentre of their strategics andpartnerships.

An interesting result of Ken-ya's main HDIs is the closenessof both the GDI and HDI. In allthe regions in Kenya, there is aclose correspondence of theHDI and GDJ values, with theformer marginally exceedingthe latter, except in WesternProvince. A higher HDI thanGDI means that the level of de-velopment of women in thecountry is less than that of men.That largely conforms to popu-lar perception in the country.What goes contrary to this is thatthe HDI and the GDI values arevery close while the popularperception in Kenya is lhal thereis a much larger gender gap inthe country.

It is surprising that the GDIvalue in Western Province ex-ceeds the HDI, There is no evi-dence that indicates that West-ern Province has been very dif-ferent from other areas in Kenyain terms of women and devel-opment, The larger GDI valuefor the province could have todo with the data used in the com-putation of the indices.

26


2.5 Conclusions

This chapter reviewed Kenya'shuman development status. KeyHDIs show a considerable de-cline in human development inthe country. The HDl, whichmeasures the socio-economicdevelopment progress of a na-tion, declined from 0.53 I in1990 to 0.514 in 1999. This fallhas been associated with the de-cline of the economy whichturned negative after a pro-longed decline, the insurgencyof HIV/AIDS and poverty. Thefall in life expectancy is also amajor factor that explains Ken-ya's poor human developmentperformance.

The deprivation side of thehuman development balancesheet shows that poverty has in-creased in the country. The HPIincreased implying increasedpoverty incidence in the coun-try. Access to safe water, sani-tation and health services hasdeteriorated over time which hasresulted in a fall in life ex-pectancy. Furthermore, infant

mortality has increased, furthereroding the gains in human de-velopment in the country.

The chapter has also re-vealed wide regional and gen-der disparities in the level ofhuman development. The use ofdisaggregated data at both theprovincial and district levelshave highlighted the disparitiesbetween regions, sexes and ru-ral-urban areas. This calls forpolicy and action to addressgaps and inequalities. Importantin this regard will be restructur-ing of expenditure to regionswith low HDl and high HPI.

The chapter has also high-lighted the importance of com-paring conventional indicatorsof development against humandevelopment indicators. Thisprovides a more accurate reflec-tion of social development in thecountry and brings out the dif-ference between material wealthand income on the one hand andhuman development on theother. The next chapter exam-ines some of these disparities indetail.

27


Chapter 3Inequalities in Incomes and Employment

20 S e e , for example, Deinegerand Squire 1996, pp. 565-591.

21 S e e , tor example, Alisena andRodrik 1994, pp. 465-489.

3.1 Inequalities,Growth and HumanDevelopment

Kenya, like many other devel-oping countries, is characterisedby inequalities in human devel-opment. Inequality has differentmeanings in different contexts.In this context, inequality is con-ceptualised as the disparity indistribution of indicators or at-tributes of human development.In the economic domain, dis-parities could be in terms ofownership of resources, in thedistribution of wealth and in-come and in access to economicand social goods and services.These disparities often do notexist in isolation but arc in mostcases overlapping and self-rein-forcing. Transmitted across gen-erations, they shape the distri-bution of opportunity and definelivelihoods.

Human development and in-equality are closely related. Thisis because inequality can influ-ence economic and social out-comes with implications on hu-man development. Policy mak-ers, researchers and develop-ment practitioners are increas-ingly recognising the close linkbetween inequality and othersocial and economic phenom-ena such as growth and poverty.Until recently, the most well es-tablished view on the relation-ship between growth and in-

come distribution was theKuznets hypotheses, This hy-pothesis postulated that growthwould first lead to an increaseand then to a decrease in eco-nomic inequality hence the wellknown inverted U-shape curve.The logic behind this hypothesiswas (hat inequality could mobi-lise savings, which in turn couldfinance investment leading togrowth in the long term.

Recent research results oninequality have shown a nega-tive relationship between in-equality and growth.- 20 The moreunequal the distribution of as-sets such as land and other in-come-earning assets, the lowerthe rates of growth. Recent re-search has also identified anegative relationship betweeninitial inequity and subsequentgrowth. Inequality can influenceeconomic outcomes through anumber of channels. The firstchannel is based on politicaleconomy considerations. Theargument here is that policy de-cisions, which are in most casesthe result of political interac-tions, seldom result in outcomesthat maximise social welfare.By "casting votes" to the deci-sion making process, inequalitycan lead to the choice of an in-efficient tax structure that canact as a disincentive to exert ef-fort to save and invest andthereby hinder growth.21 Theargument is that poor people are

28

3: INEQUALITIES IN INCOMES AND EMPLOYMENT

likely to vote in favour ofredistributive taxes Unit reduceinvestment incentive. If thiswere the case, then one wouldexpect a reduction in investmentincentives.

Proponents of the politicaleconomy approach have alsoemphasised the role of politicalinstability and its effect on in-vestment behaviour. Some lit-erature argues that inequalitycan lead to socio-political insta-bility, which in turn leads to sub-optimal investment levels.22 Arecent study has also demon-strated a positive associationacross countries between socialconflict and violence on the onehand and income inequality onthe other.23

Secondly, economic growthprospects can be negatively in-fluenced by inequality throughimperfect capital markets. In asituation where markets are im-perfect as is the case in mostdeveloping countries, peoplewith low incomes and the poorin general find it difficult to ac-ccss capital due to lack of col-lateral. Access to credit is con-ditional on ownership of assetsand particularly land. This thenhinders the poor from comingout of poverty. Put differently,poor people may not have thesame chances to realise their fullpotential because they cannotget loans to start up a businesseasily or because they cannotafford insurance they would re-quire in undertaking risky butproductive ventures. In moreunequal economies, only therich who are in most cases theminority are able to undertakeinvestments in physical or hu-man capital. This results in low-er stocks of human and physi-cal capital and consequentlylower growth.

Kenya is one of the countries

in Africa that displays a highlevel of inequality in incomeand income-earning opportuni-ties. The inequalities take theform of disparities between ru-rul and urban areas, differentgeographical regions, men andwomen and different socio-eco-nomic groups in society. Thischapter is devoted to the analy-sis of the nature and extent ofeconomic inequality in Kenyaand their implications on humandevelopment.

3.2 Inequalities inIncome andEmployment

As already indicated, economicgrowth has a bearing on humandevelopment. This is becausegrowth provides economic op-portunities, incomes and jobs.Income provides the capabilityto access the basic necessities oflife such as food, shelter, healthand education. It also providesthe purchasing power for par-ticipation in the economy. It isfor these reasons that income isone of the most important vari-ables in the computation of theHDI. Examining trends in in-come and employment is thuscrucial in understanding humandevelopment in Kenya.

A review of the general performance of the economy showsthat Kenya performed dismallyin the 1980s and even more soin the 1990s. Compared to thefirst post-independence decadewhen the economy recorded anaverage of 5.3% per annum, theeconomy's growth slackenedconsiderably to only 2.1% in the1990s before turning negative in2000. A decline in growth hasserious implications for povertyreduction and human develop-ment. It results in lower percapita income. In 1999, the per

S e e Alisena and Parroti 1996,

pp. 1203-1228.

Fajnzylber et al. 1998.

29


capita income in Kenya was es-timated at US$306 compared toUS$360 in 1989. Lower percapita income erodes the capac-ity of individuals to access ba-sic social and economic goodsand services that are essentialfor a decent life. The fall in theGDP growth rate also meansreduced social spending by thegovernment on health, educa-tion and related services. All thishas been happening at a timewhen the government was im-plementing the structural adjust-ment programmes which led notonly to a decrease in socialspending but also to actual in-creased cost in services to pri-vate individuals.

Agriculture, which remainsthe backbone of the economy,slackened dramatically over theyears from an average of 4.7%in the first decade to below 2%in the 1990s (Figure 3.1). In theyear 2000, the sector actuallycontracted by 2.4%. As a sectorthat engages about 75% of thecountry's labour force, such adecline implies lower levels ofemployment, incomes and moreimportantly, food for a vast ma-jority of rural Kenyans, It is in-structive to note that a sizeable

proportion of the rural labourforce (over 51 %) are engaged insmall-scale agriculture and thatwomen are the majority in thesector. A decline in agriculturehas thus far-reaching implica-tions in terms of employmentand income inequality in Kenya.

Although the manufacturingsector recorded an impressivegrowth during the first decade,it declined considerably there-after following the oil crisis of1973. The sector declined fur-ther in the 1980s and 1990s, re-cording a growth rate of onlyl%in 1999 and-1.5% in 2000.The poor performance in the1990s has been attributed to thegeneral slow down of theeconomy leading to reduceddemand, high input prices, adecline in investment portfoliosand bottlenecks in infrastruc-ture, including power and wa-ter rationing. The sector cur-rently accounts for about 13%of the total GDP. The sector,however, remains highly capi-tal-intensive and generates onlylimited jobs. According to theEconomic Survey 2001, themanufacturing sector employedsome 217,900 people in 2000down from 219,600 in the pre-

Figure 3.1: Sectoral Growth Rate, 1964-2000

1964-71 1972-76 1977-81 1982-86 1987-91 1992-96 1997-2000

30


vious year. Out of this total,women constituted only 17%.

The service sector (includingthe public sector) accounts forover two-thirds of the modernsector employment and contrib-utes slightly over half of thecountry's GDP. The key servicesub-sectors are finance, govern-ment, tourism and private serv-ices. Growth in services hasmainly been in finance, insur-ance, trade, restaurants and ho-tels. Government services ,which include education andhealth, have a direct bearing onthe lives of the poor but havedeclined dramatically. This hasbeen particularly so in the 1990sas a result of the economic re-structuring which saw majorcut-backs in government spend-ing and public employment.

Economic growth can pro-mote human developmentwhich can in turn promote eco-nomic growth. Conversely, loweconomic growth is likely toresult in weak human develop-ment, further undermining theprospects of economic growth.Evidence provided in this sec-tion and the previous chaptershows the coincidence of eco-nomic slack and deterioratinghuman development as shownby the HDI. The link betweenhuman development and growthdepends on a number of factors,the most important being theeffectiveness of public expendi-ture and the overall distributionof income in society. If incomedistribution is skewed, manyhouseholds will not haveenough money for food, educa-tion and health care. This willin turn slow down human devel-opment.

The overall process ofgrowth in Kenya has by nomeans proceeded in a uniformmanner in all parts of the coun-

try or among all groups of peo-ple. Growth has mainly beenconcentrated in certain sectorsand regions. The result is thatcertain sections of the popula-tion have benefited very little,and inequality has increased.

Income Inequality andHuman Development

A factor that is acknowledged tohave a strong bearing on pov-erty and human development isthe distribution of wealth andincome. Kenya was long recog-nised as a country with a skewedincome distribution pattern. The1972 ILO study, Employment,Incomes and Equality—A Strat-egy for Increasing ProductiveEmployment, reported an ex-tremely high degree of incomeinequality in both urban and ru-ral areas of Kenya. The reportindicated that the richest 20% ofthe population received nearly70% of the total income. Recentdata based on the IntegratedLabour Survey 1998/99 by theCBS show the persistence andperhaps the entrenchment of thismenace. The data reveal thatincomes in Kenya arc heavilyskewed in favour of the upperquintile. The bottom 20% getonly 2.5% of the total incomewhile the top 20% receive morethan 50% (Figure 3.2). Thesestatistics show the differencebetween the rich and the poorand reveal unequal access to thebasics of life and general well-being.

Globally, Kenya is amongthe 30 most unequal societies inthe world and among the top tenlow-income economies with ahigh concentration of income.With the top 10% of the popu-lation controlling 35% of thenation's income, Kenya com-pares unfavourably to other

31


The Gini coefficient is a mea-sure of inequality in the distri-bution of income. Its valueranges from zero to one withzero representing perfectequality and one representingtotal inequality.

countries in Africa at similarlevels of development (Table3.1). Kenya's Gini coefficient24

is higher than all the countriesin the table except Zimbabwe.These figures indicate that thepoor in some countries are bet-ter off in sharing the nationalcake than in others.

Globally, the income gap hasbeen widening between the poorand the rich populations of theworld. While (he average livingconditions of world populationsas measured by the HD1 haveshown improvements, inequal-ity in incomes has at the sametime increased. Currently, thepoorest 20% of the world's peo-ple account for only 1.4% of

global income. The gap in percapita income between the ad-vanced nations of the world andthe developing ones has in-creased from US$5,700 in 1960to US$15,000 in 1993. The wid-ening inequality in recent timeshas been associated with theprocess of globalisation with itsfar reaching economic, institu-tional and socio-cullural impli-cations for the future.

While it is widely acknowl-edged that there are wide dis-parities in Kenya's income dis-tribution, there is a considerableinformation gap as to the spe-cific interplay between thismaldistribution and poverty.However, available data, though

32


fragile, tend to suggest a nega-tive association between equityand reduction in poverty. In-equality and poverty data Fromthe Rural Survey of 1981 andtlic welfare surveys of 1992,1994 and 1997 show that whileinequality reduced somewhatover the period in consideration,there was no evidence of a re-duction in poverty. On the con-trary, income poverty increasedfrom 4K% in 1981 to 52% in1997. It is instructive to note thatover the same period, Kenya'seconomy performed poorly,with the growth rate decliningfrom 6% in 1981 to 2.4% in1997. This .shows that the in-crease in poverty in the countryis associated with declining eco-nomic performance.

There are at the same timesignificant differences in thelevel of income distributionacross regions in Kenya. Table3.2 shows household incomes,Gini coefficients and the inci-dence of human poverty forKenya's eight provinces. It isevident from the table that Nai-robi and Western provinces havethe highest income maldis-tribution followed by Rift Val-ley, Eastern and Nyanza prov-inces. The region with the mostegalitarian distribution of in-come is North Kastern where theGini coefficient is relativelylower at 0.439. 25 Const and Cen-tral provinces also have rela-tively lower Ginis. Except forNorth Eastern Province, thegeneral pattern displayed acrossthe regions is one where high in-equality is associated with highpoverty levels.

The disparities in incomedistribution between regions hasimportant implications for pov-erty reduction. Where inequal-ity is high, as is the case in West-ern and Eastern provinces,

achieving greater equity canhave a bigger impact on growthand poverty reduction. In theareas with relatively egalitariandistribution, a strategy empha-sising growth is likely to have abetter chance.

Another important conclu-sion that emerges from Table 3,2is that inequality in Kenya mani-fests itself more in the incidenceof poverty than in the level ofincomes. Looking at the house-hold incomes by region, it isevident that North Hastern Prov-ince has fairly high incomes thatcompare favourably with manyof the regions and yet its levelof poverty is much higher. Thishas implications in policy in thatfocusing on incomes alone isunlikely to alleviate poverty inthe country, A strategy that em-phasises income growth andwide provision of basic essen-tial services should be a prior-ity.

From a human developmentperspective, unequal incomedistribution is undesirable sincethe poorer groups arc likely toreceive a smaller share of anyincrease in incomes even if (herate of growth is the same acrossall groups in society. Growthmay have a better chance of af-fecting the poor positively in amore equal society. Workingtowards such a society will re-quire a more just distribution inthe income-generating re-sources, particularly land.

The Role of AssetDistribution

An often-cited cause of povertyin Kenya is the lack of access toor ownership of productive as-sets, particularly land. In Kenya,where land remains by fur themost important asset for the ru-ral poor, a close relationship

The low Gini coefficient inNorth Eastern is possiblybecause the data used for theestimation is predominantlyurban, thus omitting rurala r e a s .

33

between the distribution of in-come, land ownership and pov-erty is expected. This is becausemany communities in the ruralareas depend on land for pro-duction and livelihood. Accessto land by the poor is thus im-portant in poverty alleviation.Data from the Welfare Monitor-ing Survey 1997, indicate thatin the country as a whole thenon-poor access (own or oper-ate) more land than the poor.While the poor households con-trol about 43% of the total land,the non-poor ones hold 57%(Figure 3.3).

The skewed distribution ofhousehold land against the poorexists in all provinces except

Eastern and Nyanza where poorhouseholds control more landthan the non-poor. When percapita land holding is consid-ered, then only in Nyanza do thepoor hold more land than thenon-poor. It should be noted,however, that this is not neces-sarily true for the whole ofNyanza as there are some areaslike Kisii where there is veryhigh population density and thepoor arc considerably disadvan-taged. Nyanza Province has thehighest proportion of the poorin Kenya. The finding that thepoor have more land than non-poor in Nyanza is surprising andseems to contradict the common

34



notion that the poor generallyhave less land. In terms of na-tional policy, this means that anyland reform strategy to increasethe social standing of the poorin the country should be region-specific. In some provinces,such as Central, Rift Valley andWestern, land redistributionmay be an appropriate approach.In other provinces, particularlyNyanza and Eastern, land redis-tribution may not achieve much.Instead, a strategy to improveservices, including infrastruc-ture and access to agriculturalinputs by the poor, may be abetter policy option.

The above findings notwith-standing, it is important to notethat the problem of landlessnessamong the poor is an importantone. The WMS of 1997 showsthat about 10% of ihe ruralpopulation is landless (Figure3.4). Landlessness adverselyaffects the ability to provide ba-sic needs: food, clothing andshelter. Although there is evi-dence of increasing importanceof non-farm activities as sourcesof income and livelihood, accessto farmland in rural areas stillhas important social and eco-nomic significance. In fact, inmost cases, the poorest of thepoor in the rural areas are land-less.

Uneven land distribution thatworks against the poor is a re-

sult of a number of factors.These include the inadequatetenure systems which permitland accumulation by salariedemployees and powerful peopleat the expense of the poor. Thisis made worse by the endemiccorruption, malgovernance andland grabbing in the country. Theoutcome of these is that peoplewho really need land for theirsurvival do not own or have ac-cess to it. Instead, the rich andthe powerful have through theirwealth and political influenceacquired land that remainslargely under-utilised. As oneanalyst notes with respect to landownership in Kenya, it is lesstrue to say that "some people arerich because (hey own largefarms", than to say that "somepeople own large farms becausethey are rich."26

The uneven distribution ofland is made worse by outdatedcultural practices that have de-nied women control and owner-ship of land. This has led to lowagricultural production, foodshortages, underemploymentand low or no incomes for amajority of the rural population.The search for redistributivemeasures based on land andother assets, which ensure in-comes for the poor (like makingsemi-skilled jobs readily avail-able), are crucial in reducingpoverty.

26 Hazlewood 1974.

35


S e e , for example, Mwangi waGithinji 2000; Vali 1982.

Besides land, the other im-portant assets that would deter-mine income are human andphysical capital. Like land, ac-cess to these forms of capitalalso varies widely along wealthdistribution. The poor usually donot have the same chances in lifebecause they may not get asgood an education as that af-forded by richer families. Thisinhibits them from exploitingtheir full productive potential.The poor also do not get loansas easily as their richer counter-purls as they cannot raise col-lateral. The result of all this isgross inequality in income be-tween the rich and the poor.

3.3 Rural-UrbanDisparities inEconomicOpportunities

There is pronounced rural -urbandisparity in economic develop-ment in Kenya. This has mainlybeen the outcome of an under-lying economic, ideological andsocio-cultural orientation thatperceived rural areas as periph-eral to urban areas. This percep-tion gave rise to a developmentmodel that placed urban areas atthe centre of economic growth.It was then assumed that thebenefits generated in the urban

areas would trickle down to therural areas. Consequently, therewas a policy bias in favour ofurban areas with the result thatrural areas have been left behindin many spheres of develop-ment, Although this has changeda great deal over the years, therelics of the policy bias are stillevident to date. Virtually everysocial and economic indicatorshows the extreme inequalitiesthat exist between rural and ur-ban areas in Kenya.

Available data on wages andearnings in the rural sector pro-vide evidence of extreme dis-parities in economic opportuni-ties. Although agriculture pro-vides employment for an esti-mated 75% of Kenya's labourforce and about 90% of ruralincomes, it accounts for only 9%of the total private and publicsector earnings in the country.The mean monthly incomesfrom wages, salaries and prof-its are much higher in urban ar-eas than in rural areas. Studieson the rural-urban differences inwages and incomes estimate theratio of urban to rural wages tobe anywhere between 1.5 and2.3.27 Consequently, incomesand expenditure arc much lowerin rural than in urban areas (Fig-ure 3.5). Considering that themajority of the population re-sides in the rural areas, this dis

36


parity reflects badly on the over-all access to basic services suchas health and education and thegeneral living standards of thepopulation.

Although rural areas havebeen hardest hit with the down-turn in economic growth in thecountry, especially in the 1990s,urban centres have not beenspared either. Available data aswell as daily practical experi-ence indicate that poverty hasincreased much faster in the ur-ban than in the rural areas. Therapid growth of the urban popu-lation has resulted in congestionand urban poverty. The major-ity of the urban populations arctenants in mainly informal set-tlements where basic servicessuch as water and sanitation arcinadequate. Access to educationand health services is limitedpartly because of the limited ca-pability of the local authoritiesto provide services. The lim-ited growth of wage employ-ment in most urban centres hasalso rendered a majority of theurban population jobless. Un-employment rates are thus muchhigher in urban than in rural ar-eas (Figure 3.6). Unemploy-ment in the urban areas is asource of rising tension and es-calating crime and insecurity.Although the informal sectorhas played an important role in

absorbing a significant portionof the labour force, its capacityto absorb extra labour is obvi-ously finite. The sector is thusincreasingly operating as asponge for easing open unem-ployment by transforming it intounderemployment.

Although small and microenterprises (SMEs), both formaland informal, play an importantrole in providing employmentopportunities in Kenya, there aresignificant differences be-tween rural and urban enter-prises. A recent study28 foundsubstantial differences in a num-ber of key variables related tothese enterprises: the levels ofcapitalisation and incomes; theseasonal fluctuations in earn-ings; and the nature and se-curity of tenure of the businesspremises. In general, urban busi-nesses begin with more thanfour times the capital of thosein the rural areas and havehigher returns, realising highernet incomes than rural ones.While the seasonal variations inincome arc similar in rural andurban areas, rural enterprises aresubject to steeper income dropsin their bad months than theirurban counterparts. This impliesthat carving out a living in theinformal sector in the urban cen-tres is easier and more reward-ing than in the rural areas.

McCormick and Aboudha2000.

37


Overall, available welfaredata show lhat while a large per-centage of the urban populationis doing poorly, the rural popu-lation docs worse. Since the ru-ral population significantly out-numbers the urban poor, broad-based rural development is es-sential for poverty reduction inthe country.

Gender Disparities

Inequality in access to opportu-nities between men and womenhas emerged as an important is-sue of concern in human devel-opment in Kenya. Cultural, so-cial and economic factors inKenya have combined to placewomen at a serious disadvan-tage. Current estimates indicatethat women, especially those inthe rural areas, are particularlydisadvantaged with their labouroften under-valued and under-utilised. In Kenya, generallywomen arc more likely to beunemployed than men (Figure3.6), and average incomes arelower for women than males.The result is that more womenthan men arc poor.

Female participation in em-ployment is crucial in povertyalleviation because of the over-representation of women amongthe poor. Although the partici-pation rate for women in the la-bour force has increased consid-erably over the years, there isstill serious gender inequality inemployment. In the modernwage sector, female employ-ment accounts for only 30% ofthe total wage employment. Inthe rural areas, labour force par-ticipation for women is muchhigher than that of men. It is es-timated lhat women form astrong 70% of the total labourforce in agriculture.

Since women have limited

opportunities and access to for-mal employment, the avenueopen to them, apart from agri-culture and domestic work, isself-employment through infor-mal sector activities. These in-clude basket weaving, retailtrading, food processing, handi-craft services and minor indus-tries. The result is that fewerwomen than men work for paywhile more women work on thefarm than men (Figure 3.7).

The relationship between in-come disparity and the gendergap in Kenya provides furtherevidence of the extreme dispari-ties in human development.Household data from the WMSII of 1997 indicate that for bothrural and urban areas, the pro-portion of female-headed house-holds at higher income levelswas lower. In the rural areas, thefigure was 22% for men andonly 12% for women while itwas 21% and 7% in the urbanareas, respectively. This impliesthe prevalence of povertyamong female-headed familiesin the tower quintiles. These fig-ures also point to the fact lhat inthe rural areas where incomesare generally low, there are morefemalc-hcaded households thanin the urban areas, mainly dueto male rural-urban migration.

The gender disparity in em-ployment and income-earningopportunities in Kenya has beenattributed to a number of factorsincluding occupational segrega-tion in the labour market, socialattitudes towards women, inad-equate capacities in terms ofknowledge and skills, and lackof gender-sensitive policies andprogrammes. Given the centralrole of women in human devel-opment in Kenya, it is impera-tive that special attention be paidto the gender disparities. Anumber of World Bank studies

38


have shown that gender equal-ity leads to faster economicgrowth and that inequality, es-pecially in education, leads to alowering of the growth rate.29

Youth and Other SocialGroups

Youth unemployment in Kenyahas also become an issue ofgreat concern especially due tothe rapid growth in populationand the increasing number ofentrants into the labour market.There is evidence from the Wel-fare Monitoring Survey 1997and the Census Report 1999 thata growing number of the youthleaving school cannot accessgainful employment in agricul-ture, industry and other key sec-tors of the economy. The groupthat is seriously affected is the15-24 age group which com-prises mainly of school dropoutsand those who have completedsecondary education. Graduatesfrom universities and other ter-tiary vocational colleges arc alsofinding it increasingly difficultto secure jobs. Unable to findjobs in the formal sector, most

of the youth enter the informalsector where participation dataindicate that 90% of those en-gaged are below 25 years of age;this compares to only 10% in theformal sector.

Another important issue ofconcern in the country is that ofchild labour. A recent Child La-bour Report 1998/99 shows thatlabour participation by personsbelow the age of 15 is not onlywidespread but is also escalat-ing at an unacceptable rate (Box3.1). This is despite governmentconcern about child labour asstated in Development Plan1997-2001 and at the 1995World Summit for Social Devel-opment. Widespread child la-bour is a threat to the social andeconomic fabric of the countryas it forces children of school-going age to remain out ofschool. This has negative impli-cations on both short-term andlong-term human development.

Regional Disparities

Integration of all regions in acountry in the process of eco-nomic development is a prereq-

S e e K l a s s e n n 1999.

39


uisite for achieving equitablehuman development. Unevenprogress in economic develop-ment has resulted in deep re-gional and sectoral disparities inKenya. Although the disparitiescan largely be said to be as aresult of the normal working ofeconomic forces (where firmsconcentrate to enjoy economiesof scale), government action haspromoted it through a historicalpolicy bias established by thecolonial administration and re-tained by the independent gov-ernment. Overtime, priority hasbeen given to the high and me-dium potential areas, to the ne-glect of low potential regionswhich comprise over 70% of thecountry. Sessional Paper No. 10of 1965, which greatly shapedKenya's post-independence po-litical and economic ideology,

stated:

One of the problems is to de-cide how much priority weshould give in investing inless developed provinces. Tomake the economy as a wholegrow as fast as possible, de-velopment money should beinvested where il will yieldthe largest increase in output,This approach will dearlyfavour the development of ar-eas having abundant naturalresources, good land andrainfall, transport and powerfacilities, and people recep-tive and active in develop-ment.

As a result of policy bias,areas classified as high poten-tial with abundant natural re-sources, good rainfall and bet-ter developed infrastructurecontinue to dominate nationaloutput. These are mainly the

40


high potential districts of thecentral Rift Valley, the highlandsand Nairobi. Medium or low po-tential regions include the lakebasin, western and easternKenya, and the ASALs; theseaccount for a disproportionatelysmall amount of the lolal eco-nomic activity. Although focushas mainly been in the high po-tential areas, there is greatunexploited potential in theother regions and particularly inthe livestock sector that domi-nates in the ASALs. As noted bythe Institute of Economic Af-fairs,30 it is regrettable thatwhereas the livestock popula-tion in Kenya is much higherthan that of Botswana, a coun-try which heavily relies on live-stock exports, Kenya derivesmuch less from the sector.

In terms of employment op-portunities, it is notable that thedistribution of employment inthe modern and informal sectorsis unevenly distributed amongKenya's eight provinces. Nai-robi Province commands thegreatest share of wage employ-ment accounting for almost aquarter of the total wage em-ployment in the country be-tween 1990 and 1999. Rift Val-ley Province absorbs the secondlargest share accounting for

of the total wage employ-ment. The province has also thehighest population compared toall the others, The province withthe lowest formal employmentopportunities is North Easternprovince accounting for lessthan 1% of the total wage em-ployment. It is notable again thatthis province has the lowestpopulation in Kenya.

Although the informal sec-tor has emerged as a majorsource of employment in Kenya,the distribution of the jobs ishighly skewed in favour of cer-tain regions (Figure 3.8).31 Nai-robi Province accounts for about24% of the persons engaged ininformal activities in the coun-try followed by Rift ValleyProvince which has the secondlargest share of informal sectoremployment. Again, North East-ern Province had the least sharein total informal employ-ment controlling only about0.5% of the sectors' employ-ment in 1999. Generally, urbanareas have a higher proportionof MSEs per capita than rural ar-eas. The high proportion of in-formal sector employment inNairobi and Rift Valley is there-fore likely to be due to the ur-ban influence.

It is worth noting at this point

IEA2001.

S e e Republic of Kenya 1999f,2001c.

41


that although agriculture re-mains the main economic activ-ity in rural Kenya, it is no longerthe main source of income.Studies by the Tegemeo Institutehave increasingly shown thatoff-farm sources including in-formal activities and formalemployment mainly in the pub-lic sector are more importantthan farm income. Opportuni-ties for off-farm income varyfrom one region to the other de-pending on geographical loca-tion. In the hike region, for ex-ample, fishing provides an im-portant source of off-farm in-come. In parts of Machakos,sand harvesting is important.Activities such as operating asmall hotel, hawking, roadsideretailing, bicycle repair areavailable everywhere. Labourmarkets also offer non-farm op-portunities for income genera-tion but these are highly differ-entiated by considerations suchas education, skills, location andgender. Disparities in the avail-ability of employment opportu-nities both in the formal and in-formal sector thus play a majorrole in explaining regional dis-parities in income.

Disparities in the foregoingeconomic indicators translate tosimilar inequalities when itcomes to social well-being. It iscertain that both economic andsocial indicators tend to mergein the daily lives of people.

3.4 Conclusions

This chapter has examined dis-parities in economic opportuni-ties in human development. Theoverall finding is that there ex-ist wide disparities between re-gions, gender and rural-urbanareas. The distribution of in-come and employment in thecountry favours the non-poorsection of the society which ac-counts for a disproportionatelyhigher share of the total income.Inequality in incomes has a lotto do with unequal access to pro-ductive resources such as landand capital. In general, the non-poor populations have more ac-cess to such resources than thepoorer ones.

The chapter has also eluci-dated the pervasive nature ofgender inequality in economicopportunities in Kenya, Womenhave generally unequal oppor-tunities to productive resources.Their participation in the labourmarket is lower than that ofmen. Women also face unequalearning prospects in the labourmarket. Because of their limitededucation largely due to dis-crimination, women engage inactivities that are low payingand with little job security.

There are also significant re-gional differences in the coun-try in terms of employment andincomes. The so-called highpotential regions in the countryhave performed much betterthan the other regions. Thepolicy bias by the governmenthas worked to exacerbate thesedifferences.

42

4: INEQUALITIES IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 4Inequalities in Social Development

4.1 Situating SocialDevelopmentInequalities

The main objective of humandevelopment is the improve-ment of people's capabilities,opportunities and choices,whieh goes beyond the eco-nomic development aspects ofincome per capita and employ-ment. The human developmentperspective thus encompassesaspects of social developmentfocusing on growth of people interms of skills, knowledge andconditions of well-being whichenable them to be productive soas to effectively influence theirsocio-economic and politicalenvironment. There is growingconsensus that equipped withsuch basic capabilities as skillsand knowledge, sound healthand conducive living condi-tions, people can expand theiropportunities and choices,thereby positively shaping theirdestiny.

There are rural-urban, re-gional, social class and genderdisparities in social develop-ment in Kenya as in all otherunequal societies. The problemarises, however, when those in-equalities are perpetually in-creasing instead of reducing,thereby creating worrying andwide gaps between localitiesand social categories. The resultis emergence of disadvantaged

vulnerable groups and areas,with the people negatively af-fected becoming least able to beproductive for their own welfareand contribute to nation build-ing. The vulnerable groups havelow incomes and poorly remu-nerated employment, making itdifficult for them to accessknowledge, health and decentliving conditions. Low levels orcomplete lack of participation inthe productive life and decisionmaking processes of the coun-try exacerbate the situation, cre-ating a vicious circle of depri-vation and worsening condi-tions.

This chapter examines theslate of social development inKenya focusing on the prevail-ing inequalities highlighted bythe key indicators of social de-velopment, including health,education and living conditions.

4.2 Crisis in SocialDevelopment

Up to the 1980s, there was animprovement in social aspectsof development as reflected byindicators such as poverty inci-dence, infant mortality, under-five mortality, educationenrollment, access to safe drink-ing water and literacy. The situ-ation has deteriorated in recentyears (Box 4.1).

43


32 Republic of Kenya 2000c.

The decline in social devel-opment is partly because realexpenditure on basic social serv-ices (BSSs) as a proportion oftotal government spending de-clined from 20% in 1980 to12.4% in 1997. This low invest-ment was in the core areas ofsocial development and coin-cided wilh a skimp in the HDIvalue after 1990 (Figure 4.1).Per capita expenditure on allBSSs was quite low at Ksh 205(about US$2.6) during the sameperiod, If we factor in what Ksh205 can buy today followingincreasing costs of social serv-ices, we find significant groundsfor the state of social develop-ment becoming much worsethan it was one or two decadesago.

Over the same period, mostof the expenditure (87%) wentto basic education, 8% to healthand 5% to water and sanita-tion. 32 The average per capitaexpenditure for these serviceswas therefore highest for basiceducation and in contrast negli-gible for such vital areas as nu-tritional services, leading to highincidence of malnutrition disorders, especially among childrenand expectant mothers.

The 1990-2000 decade co-incided with low economicgrowth, the impact of SAPs andthe donor aid freeze. The resultof SAPs was government cut-back on social expenditure andintroduction of cost sharing ineducation and health. Apartfrom SAPs, progress in social

44

development has been hinderedby limited integrity in the pub-lic sector, widespread corrup-tion,33 misallocation. and misap-propriation of public resources(Box 4.2); and the erosion ofpublic ethics, justice and rule oflaw." The latter has made it im-possible to sanction public sec-tor inefficiencies, corruptionand other performance malprac-tices.

An analysis of the budgetsuggests that the government

does not view the creation ofhuman capabilities for socialdevelopment as a priority. In thelast two decades, administra-tion, economic affairs and de-fense have received 54% of re-current expenditure, whilehealth and social security (coresectors in pro-poor budgetingand social development) havereceived only 12%.

In addition to governmentreal social spending not meet-ing the targets of the 20/20 Ini

Republic of Kenya 2000a.

Social Watch 1999 Thesei s sues touch on governancewhich is the key to humandevelopment and povertyalleviation (UNDP 2000a).Following the opening up ofthe political space , governancehas recently improved albeitwith misunderstandings amongthe stakeholders.

45



The 20/20 Initiative is anagreement reached during theWorld Summit for SocialDevelopment at Copenhagen(1995) that governments andother development partnersshould allocate at least 20% oftheir expenditure to B S Swhich promote humancapabilities.

36 Most of Kenya's vocationaltraining institutes havestopped operations due mainlyto limited support from thegovernment Commitment tovocational training is animperative for Kenya to boostits human resourcedevelopment.

native,35 it is estimated thatNGO and donor disbursementsto BSS also generally allocatedless than 20% of their real ex-penditure for promoting socialdevelopment. The result hasbeen limited social develop-ment, especially among the vul-nerable and poorer groups.

The transfer of the costs ofeducation, health and other so-cial services to the consumersfollowing SAPs has made thingsworse, yet globalisation hascontributed to increased vulner-ability and poverty. Althoughglobalisation has enabled peo-ple to access goods, services andopportunities from across theworld, it has also entrenched in-equalities in such poor countriesas Kenya. Global capital, politi-cal and socio-cultural processescombine with poor governanceto increase poverty and vulner-ability. The future makes it im-perative for the government andits development partners tocome up with a concerted ap-proach to cushioning the poorand vulnerable groups from theharmful effects of global proc-esses.

The foregoing crises in so-cial development are best under-stood if we examine and analyseprevailing inequalities in educa-tion/knowledge, health care andliving conditions across rural-urban areas, regions, gender andsocial class categories.

4.3 Education andHuman Development

Education plays a key role inhuman development through itscontribution to the enhancementof people's capabilities to effec-tively improve their well-beingand actively participate in nationbuilding. Investing in educationleads to overall socio-economic

development through higher la-bour productivity, improvedhealth and nutrition, and en-hanced partnerships in the de-velopment process.

The government has alwaysstated its commitment to educa-tion and allocated 87.2% of itssocial spending on basic educa-tion. Yet combined enrolmentrates have fallen from 91.4% in1991 to 88% at present. TheMinistry of Education budgethas between 1980 and 1997 al-located 56% to primary educa-tion, 17% to secondary educa-tion and 16% to university edu-cation. These allocations trans-late into very high per capitaexpenditure (Ksh 70) at univer-sity compared with secondary(Ksh 5) and primary (Ksh 1) lev-els. In other words, tertiary edu-cation is allowed higher ex-penditure than basic education,yet the latter benefits more peo-ple in terms of laying the foun-dation for life skills and oppor-tunities,

In addition, although Ken-ya's high expenditure on formalschooling is positive in terms ofhuman development, it never-theless constrains developmentsin special education, teachertraining and vocational skillsdevelopment.36 Furthermore,despite the importance of hu-man resource technology, veryfew resources are allocated toteacher training (4%) andschools for the handicapped(1%).

The introduction of costsharing in education followingthe implementation of SAPssaw the government withdrawfinancial support for teachingand learning materials. This hasforced parents to supplement thefinancing of education. How-ever, due to increased povertyand inability to pay, parents

46


have been hard pressed to do so,leading to many cases of drop-outs. NGOs, communities anddonor organisations have alsobeen very instrumental in fi-nancing education in the coun-try.

Increasing poverty and lim-ited government expenditure onbasic school equipment and sup-plies has led to low completionrates which in turn lower humandevelopment. Gender disparitiesat national level are minimal,but they are significant in someregions. Improved gender par-ity can be attributed to feministefforts in support of girls' edu-cation. Completion rates haveremained low at about 50%. Pri-mary-secondary school transi-tion rates are equally low atabout 50%, National secondaryschool enrolment has also re-mained low at 22.8%.

Many primary school learn-ers do not pursue higher educa-tion because of limited publicsecondary school capacity.37

Poverty further incapacitates theefforts of many families to edu-cate their children. This con-trasts with the situation between1960 and the early 1980s, whenthe government subsidised edu-cation in terms of textbooks andequipment, in addition to facili-tating a thriving agricultural sec-tor, which assured families ofgood incomes and a concomi-tant ability to retain their chil-dren in schools. There were alsopositive community attitudes to-wards schooling as exemplifiedby the use of harambee38 to fi-nance education.

Rural-UrbanInequalities inEducation

WMS III data indicate educa-tion inequalities between rural

and urban areas (Table 4.1)which are a challenge to theneed for balanced social devel-opment. Primary schoolenrolments are higher in ruralthan urban areas clue to the phe-nomena of street children, urbanpoverty and juvenile delin-quency (truancy). Urban par-ents, especially the non-poor,send their children to ruralboarding and private primaryschools which are relativelycheaper. Urban secondaryschool enrolments are substan-tially higher than the rural ones.This is basically due to rela-tively higher rural poverty.Given that the rural incomebases, e.g., agriculture, pastoral-ism and tourism, have collapsedin the recent past, rural areashave become poorer and fami-lies have problems keeping theirchildren in school.

Higher urban literacy is duemainly to the fact that urban ar-eas have more avenues and fa-cilities for literacy. The tradi-tional urban bias in educationand literacy opportunities hasled to rural poverty which per-petuates rural-urban migrationfor people seeking better educa-tion opportunities away fromtheir rural homes. Followingrural-urban migration, cities andtowns further deprive the ruralareas of edueated Kenyans, thusskewing the human resourcesdistribution to the detriment ofrural human development. Ru-ral poverty also prevents thepeople from acquiring literacyskills since they are preoccupiedwith basic survival challenges.Human development efforts re-quire accelerated investments inrural literacy at both school andnon-formal schooling so that thepeople's chances of participat-ing in productive activitiescould be enhanced.

37 Each year the majority ofprimary school leavers areunable to secure p laces in thepublic secondary schools dueto poverty. The cost of privatesecondary school education ishigh for the poor.

38 Harambee means poolingtogether resources for acommon cause . People meetat an agreed place and date tomake their contributions incash or kind. As a landmark ofKenya's self-help movement,harambee has sinceindependence, been pivotal incommunity financing foreducation. Poverty isnonetheless incapacitatingmany people, so that they areunable to effectively contributeto harambees.

47


Adult literacy is the ability toread and write among thoseaged 15 yea r s and above in apopulation. The maximum fortheHDI is 100

The knowledge advantagesof urban areas over the ruralones explain why rural areas areleast equipped to participate indevelopment dialogue. Futurehuman development effortsmake it imperative to invest inknowledge for rural areasthrough community educationand literacy initiatives. This isjustified by the fact that an in-formed rural public can partici-pate more effectively in produc-tive activities, thus improvinghuman development,

Regional Inequalities in

Education

Ministry of Education data in-dicate that North Eastern Prov-ince has the lowest primary andsecondary school enrolment(9.8% and 4,8%, respectively),due mainly to poverty, remote-ness, insecurity and trans-humance (Table 4.2). Coast alsohas low enrolments due mainlyto relatively higher poverty.

Adidt literacy39 rate is low-est in Coast (62.8%) and NorthEastern (64.2%) where the HDIis also lowest. The data forNorth Eastern are mainly urban,implying that the situation of lit-eracy would be worse were therural data to be considered. Lowliteracy is due to child labour intourism at the coast and remote-ness, insecurity and poverty inNorth Eastern. In addition,many schools in Kenya arcChristian, yet Coast and NorthEastern are dominated by Islamand fewer schools. Low literacyin Eastern and Rift Valley is dueto the spillover effects of pov-erty.

Gender Inequalities inEducation

Table4.3 shows the inequalities

in education by sex. Data fromWMS III (1997) indicate thatmen have higher enrolments atall education levels than womenirrespective of poverty and re-gion. The lower enrolments ofwomen arc due mainly to rela-tively higher drop out ratesamong girls and women becauseof suchsocio-cultural factors asearly and/or forced marriages,child labour, teenage pregnan-cies and poverty.

One of the explanations forthe low literacy among girls isthe amount of domestic workthey have to do, especially thecollection of water and/or fire-wood. It is known that girls of-ten miss school or lime forhomework so as to fetch waterand/or firewood. In terms ofhuman development, the timetaken to fetch water and/or fire-wood at long distances could beused for productive activities orincreasing the women's andgirls' capabilities and skills. Thissituation is worse in poverty-stricken areas in urban slumsand such remote rural ureas asNorth Eastern, Nyanza, Easternand Coast. These regions alsohave high prevalence of nega-tive socio-cultural factors (teen-age pregnancies, early and/orforced marriages) which inhibitgirls' education and female lit-eracy. There is need for en-hanced advocacy for improvedfemale education and literacy inthese regions.

WMS III data indicate thatCentral and Nyanza have lowermale enrolments than those offemales for secondary school.The explanation here is povertyand limited school places. Inaddition, the male dropout rateat secondary school has beenhigher due mainly to the lure ofthe horticultural and fish econo-mies. Further, the proximity of

48


Central to Nairobi influencesmen to leave schooling and optfor opportunities for making"quick money" instead ofschooling.

At the primary school teach-ers training level, the gender gapis narrower. This could be sim-ply because leaching especiallyat the primary level has over theyears been considered an occu-pation for both women and men.

Ministry of Education dataindicate there are gender dis-parities in university education,with women making up lessthan 35% of the student popu-lation (Table 4.4). If the rates foronly public universities are con-sidered, the percentage forwomen would be less than 25%,This is due to Ihe continuousdropout of women along the

schooling process, especiallyalter secondary school. Privateuniversities have a higher(52.9%) population of womenwhich is due mainly to the as-sociation of these universitieswith the non-poor urban dwell-ers among whom education forgirls is becoming more posi-tively perceived.

Poverty-RelatedInequalities inEducation

Enrolments and adult literacyrates are higher among the non-poor than among the poor (Ta-ble 4.5). The exception is thecase of urban primary schoolenrolment where the poor havehigher enrolment rates. This

49


Progress is s e e n in reductionof infant mortality from 119(1960) to 51 (1992), under fivemortality from 202 (1960) to74 (1992) and crude deathsrates from 17 (1960) to 10(1992).

could be explained by the factthat the non-poor send their chi I -dren (o rural boarding and pri-vate schools.

Coast and Rift Valley havevery low enrolments, especiallyat secondary school among thepoor, while Coast and Easternhave low secondary schoolenrolments among the non-poor.The tourist economy has at-tracted young people, includingchildren, who are lured by op-portunities to make money at anearly age. Early marriages forgirls in Coast, Eastern and RiftValley provinces explain thelow rates.

4.4 Health and HumanDevelopment

Health is a basic human right ir-respective of one's race, socialclass, locality and sex. Goodhealth constitutes the total well-being of people and its achieve-ment therefore plays a centralrole in enhancing human devel-opment. A sound health caredelivery system, good nutritionstatus, food security and ab-

sence of morbidity and mortal-ity are factors that producehealthy people capable of par-ticipating in a country's socio-economic and political develop-ment.

Progress in health servicesdelivery was achieved duringthe first three decades after in-dependence (1960-1992),40

when the government goals inthis sector focused on provisionof free health care for all. Therewere programmes for freehealth care, especially for in-fants, children and mothers.Both government and donorssupported immunisation, hospi-tal supplies and equipmentprojects.

The situation has changed inrecent years following budget-ary constraints due partly to re-duced donor support but mainlyto poor governance and also thephenomenal rise in the demandfor health care services. Be-tween 1992 and 1998, infantmortality increased from 51 to71. Under five mortality alsoincreased from 74 to 105. Crudedeath rates increased after 1992.

50


Re-cmcrgcncc of malaria, pooragricultural performance whichreduced food security and de-clining income per capita havecontributed to increased mortal-ity.

The clamour for pluralistpolitics around 1992 contributedto a lag in essential service de-livery as most public officeswere preoccupied with the dy-namics of political restructuringat the expense of public servicedelivery. The emergence ofHIV/AIDS and other disastersfurther complicated health plan-ning and delivery.

State health expenditure hasbeen low amidst increasing de-mand for health. As a proportionof total government expendi-ture, the health budget has since1980 averaged only 8%. Of this,67% goes to curative health,13% to rural health and 6% topreventive health. The rest goesto general administration andplanning (6%), health training(5%), medical research (1%),medical supplies coordinatingunit (1%) and National Hospi-tal Insurance Fund (NHIF, 1 % ) .Preventive health, health train-ing and medical research areapparently not on Kenya's pri-ority list in terms of governmentbudgeting.

There is also general lack ofquality health care due tounderstaffing, under-stockingmedical supplies and poor pub-lic health facilities.41 The keyactors in health financing in thecountry are the central govern-ment (through MOH), NGOs,religious missions/bodies, pri-vate sector for profit, and localauthorities. The MOH is by farthe most important player con-troll ing about 51 % of health fa-cilities in the country. The gov-ernment finances about 50% ofthe recurrent health care costs

while the rest is accounted forthrough private arrangements.

Against the poor budgetaryprioritisation, the number ofqualified doctors in Kenya isdecreasing every month. This isdue mainly to the departure ofdoctors, dentists and other spe-cialists to the private sector andother countries, e.g., South Af-rica and Botswana, where thereare better remuneration pack-ages.42 Even nurses have re-cently been leaving the countryfor USA and United Kingdom,Frantic efforts by the Ministryof Labour and Human ResourceDevelopment to attract profes-sionals who arc overseas havenot yielded significant results.This brain drain is a loss of thecountry's human resource tech-nology which has cost substan-tial government resources toproduce. Reversing this trendwill require Kenya to makemore concerted efforts to im-prove (he remuneration pack-ages and working conditions forits medical staff.

Given present budgetary al-locutions, infant and under fivemortality are not likely to fall to23 per 1,000 by 2015 as recom-mended under the MillenniumDeclaration in the Global Hu-man Development Report 2001.Meeting these targets will re-quire Kenya to develop clearhealth investment focusing onhealth research, preventive care,health infrastructure and moti-vation of health personnel.Kenya must also redress re-gional and other inequalities insuch key health areas as fertil-ity, mortality, disease incidence,child health, nutrition status andhealth facilities.These inequali-ties in health are discussed in thenext section.

The Ministry of Health andNational Council for Popula-tion and Development KenyaService Provision AssessmentSurvey (Repubic of Kenya2001 d) indicates that morethan 50% of Kenyan publicinstitutions are ill-equipped tohandle pregnancy-relatedcomplications, leading toincreased cases of maternaldeaths. IMR and U5Mincrease due to shortages ofessential drugs, ambulances,equipment for renal, cancerand life support.Ibid.

51


43 KDHS data (1998) show thatI MR and U5M are 50% higheramong those with little or noeducation compared to thosewith secondary schooleducation and above.

44 TFR - the number of childrena woman has in herreproductive life, i.e., 15-49years .

45 KDHS 1998 indicates that TFRfor women with no educationw a s 5.80, while that of thosewith incomplete primaryschool education w a s 5.24.TFR reduces with increasededucation, e.g., women whohave completed primaryschool and secondary schooland above have TFRs of 4.79and 3.53, respectively.

Rural-UrbanInequalities in Health

In keeping with the incomeand knowledge disparities be-tween rural and urban areas,there are also inequalities inhealth (Table 4.6). The key in-dicators of health where in-equalities can be noted are mor-tality and fertility rates, foodpoverty and access to healthcare.

There are worrying mortal-ity inequalities between ruraland urban areas. Mortality dif-fers considerably, with rural ar-eas having 109 under five mor-tality and 74 infant mortality,while urban areas have rela-tively lower rates of 88 (underfive mortality) and 55 (infantmortality). These differences arereflected in the HDI, with moreurbanised areas having betterhuman development. Unlike ru-ral areas, urban areas have bet-ter health services, more accessto information and higher lit-eracy, which correlate positivelywith low infant mortality, underfive mortality and high HDI.KDHS data show that infant andchild mortality decrease witheducation, especially after pri-mary school.4' The enrolmentand literacy figures indicateclear rural-urban differences.

Kenya experienced a lower-ing of total fertility rate" from6.7 in 1989 to 5.4 in 1993 and4.7 in 1998; however, there areworrying rural-urban differ-ences in fertility. Rural areashave a fertility of 5.16 comparedto 3.12 in urban areas. High fer-tility in rural areas puts pressureon education and health carefacilities, leading to low humandevelopment, Urban areas havelower fertility due to relativelyhigher education, especiallyamong women,45 and the easieravailability and use of contra-ceptives. The relatively highercost of urban living increases theopportunity cost of raising many-children. This predisposes urbandwellers to limit the number ofbirths. In addition, many urbanresidents on pension stop seeingchildren as sources of social se-curity.

Mortality, especially amongunder five children, is higher inrural than urban areas, makinghigh birth rates a way of com-pensating for the risk of childdeath. This partially explains thehigh rural fertility and mortal-ity. In addition, differences inaccess to water, sanitation andtime taken to reach a qualifieddoctor would indicate why ru-ral people are more prone tomortality and morbidity.

52


Disease incidence is higherin urban than in rural areas, ir-respective of poverty status. Theurban illness incidence is 19.9%and 14.9% among the non-poorand poor, respectively (Figure4.2). This contrasts with the ru-ral rates of 17.3% (non-poor)and 13.4% (poor). Urbanpopulations have high diseaseincidence, mainly due to thepoor environmental conditionsand overcrowding, and urbandwellers, especially the non-poor, tend to report illnessesmore than rural people, duemainly to better ability to affordhealth care as well as betterhealth care accessibility.

WMS III data show that foodpoverty is high nationally(48.7%), but more in rural ar-eas (50.7%) than in the urban(38.3%). This is ironical be-cause rural areas arc agriculturalproducers, yet they cannot feedthemselves. Data from KDHS(1998) indicate that rural chil-dren are 40% more likely tohave low hcight-for-age (stunt-ing) and 22% more likely tohave low weight-for-height(wasting) than their urban coun-terparts. This is due to food pov-erty and lower literacy. The lat-ter leads to low nutritionalawareness. It is also true that thenumber of female-headedhouseholds and foster children

is higher for rural than urbanareas, leading to more rural pov-erty. It is imperative for govern-ment to accelerate its support tobiotechnology, which assuressuccess for faster-growing, dis-ease-resistant, soil-friendly andhigh-yielding varieties of foodcrops to combat food and otherforms of poverty, especially inthe rural areas.

H1V/A1DS is more prevalentin urban areas, where the preva-lence rate is 17.5% amongadults, This is due mainly to thelowering of social controls, in-crease in the incidence of com-mercial sex amidst rising unem-ployment and poverty, and in-creasing congestion in urban ar-eas, which enhances the chancesof contact with HIV positivepersons. Rural areas are notspared as exemplified by theprevalence rale of 12.2%. Gen-erally, preventive devices havelowered sex-related costs (e.g.,pregnancy), leading to higherlevels of promiscuity and hencehigher chances of HIV infec-tion. Kenya National AIDSControl Programme (KNAS-COP) achieved significant re-sults in enhancing HIV/AIDSawareness, but the programmeshave been urban biased. Greaterinvestment in rural sensitisationis a must if HIV prevalence isto be reduced.

53


Regional Inequalities inHealth

As reflected in the HDI values,there arc clearly defined re-gional variations in the indica-tors of health (Table 4.7). NorthEastern is the most disadvan-taged province considering allselected indicators. While it maybe true that the absolute popu-lation affected is lower than forother regions, there is generallylow health status and social de-velopment in the region. Yet vi-tal data on the province arerarely available.

Central Province has thelowest mortality rates with 27infant mortality and 34 underfive mortality, while Nyanza hasthe highest at 135 infant mor-tality and 198 under five mor-tality. Western also has highrates of under five mortality(122.5). The high rates inNyanza and Western are duemainly to income poverty, foodshortage, low women's empow-erment and generally poor liv-ing conditions. These regionshave high fertility due to pro-natal beliefs and attitudes re-garding the value of children asfuture assets and useful sourcesof family labour. The lowerdeath and birth rates in Centralare due to relatively higher edu-cation status and literacy rates,higher land productivity, whichassures children of better nutri-tion, and women's empower-ment (education and decisionmaking), enabling them to makeimportant decisions about childwelfare and survival.

There are also fertility differ-ences, with Nairobi having thelowest fertility (2.6) followed byCentral (3.7). The two regionsalso have higher to medium HDIvalues of 0.783 (Nairobi) and0.604 (Central). High fertility in

the other five regions impliesmore mouths to feed and pro-vide with good health, yet thepeople in these areas are quitepoor as noted in their HPI val-ues. The result is poor health andlow human capability and de-velopment. Low fertility in Nai-robi is due mainly to its urbanstatus, while the situation inCentral is due to relativelyhigher land accessibility andproductivity, and the empower-ment of women. The latter ena-bles women to make decisionsabout their reproductive lives,e.g., limiting the number ofbiiths. Central also has an urbanadvantage due to easier accessto Nairobi.

The proportion of under-weight children is higher inNorth Eastern, Nyanza, Eastern,Rift Valley and Coast. The dif-ferences are due to food poverty,which may also explain the HDIand 1IP1 variations discussed inChapter 2. Progress in humandevelopment in relation to chil-dren requires investment inchild nutrition and food securityso as to promote child life andwelfare for the benefit of futurenational productivity. This un-derscores (he need for Kenya torevisit its food productionpolicy.

Differentials in health indi-cators could be partly explainedby inequalities in facilities. Thenumber of health facilities in thecountry increased from 4,145 in1998 to 4,235 in 1999 and 4,355in 2000, but this increase is dueto more health investments byNGOs and the private sector.Some regions are actually fullysupported by the civil society.Rift Valley has the highestnumber of health institutions(25%). The province has morepeople (24% of Kenya's popu-lation) and urban centres than

54


any other in the country. Simi-larly, Eastern has 21% of thehealth institutions and 16% ofthe population. The facilitiesarc, however, widely scattered,leading to long distances toreach them. Central has 13% ofthe facilities, followed by Nai-robi (12%). Western andNyanza each have a low (8%)proportion of health facilities,yet each of them is home toabout 15% of the population.Nairobi hosts the main referralhospital (Kenyatta NationalHospital) and also the best pri-vate hospitals.

Gender Inequalities inHealth

Most indicators of health exhibitslight gender inequalities (Table4.8). Life expectancy ;tnd mor-tality are useful examples in thisregard.

Although women have ahigher life expectancy than men,the adult mortality rate is virtu-ally similar for both sexes .

While this observation couldcontrast the traditional demo-graphic view that mortality ismale selective, it is interpretedas an indicator that female mor-tality has increased. This couldbe explained by the feminisationof poverty but also due towomen choosing careers and so-cial, economic and political un-dertakings which hitherto werethe domain of males. The ca-reers in question expose womento life-threatening clangers. Inaddition, the deterioration ofKenya's health system has leftwomen more vulnerable and ex-posed to pregnancy-relatedcomplications.

In addition, women's healthis increasingly being threatenedby their reproductive roles andfunctions which increase theirvulnerability to morbidity andmortality, Furthermore, wom-en's reproductive roles as moth-ers and wives make them theprimary health seekers andcaregivers, making them moreaffected in cases of high mor-

55


bidity. They lose time for skillstraining, career developmentand other productive activitiesthat could add up to improvedhealth status. Women also suf-fer from the increased stress oflooking after the sick.

Poverty-RelatedInequalities in Health

The foregoing inequalitieswould not be very complicatedif it were not for the impact ofpoverty. There are poverty-re-lated inequalities in illness in-cidence and distance to medicalcare (Table 4.9).

Although successive Eco-nomic Surveys (1999,2000 and2001) indicate increases in thenumbers of health personnelbeing trained in the two medi-cal schools in Nairobi and Moiuniversities and the medicaltraining centres, access to thenearest doctor is still low for54.7% of the population. Themajority of the poor (54.7%) aremore than one hour away fromthe nearest doctor, with the situ-ation being worse in Eastern(80.8%) and Nyanza (69.1%)where poverty and remotenessare also more rampant. Even inEastern, which appears to havea disproportionate share ofhealth facilities. 80,8% of thepoor and 69.5% of the non-poorarc more than one hour awayfrom a qualified doctor. Lowaccess to the nearest doctor isdue to remoteness which dis-courages doctors from workingthere. Private health sector in-

vestment in those areas is alsoinhibited by poor infrastructure,especially transport and com-munication networks. More sig-nificantly, the poor are unableto purchase health care duemainly to low incomes. Thiseventually contributes to lowhuman development.

When taken ill, the poor relymore on the community healthcentres and pharmacies/chem-ists, mainly due to their low in-come. WMS III data indicatethat 51.4% of ihe non-poor re-sort to private doctors/dispensa-ries, private hospitals and phar-macies as opposed to 47.7% ofthe poor who choose the sameactions first.

In the last two decades, thequality of the health facilities inall the provincial, district andsub-district hospitals as well ashealth centres and dispensarieshas been deteriorating due topoor management and mainte-nance work. The result has beenmany people seeking health inprivate sector facilities (clinicsand pharmacies/chemists), de-spite the cost of health care inthe private sector being too ex-pensive for poor people. Publichealth facilities should be im-proved if lives are to be savedand health for all promoted.

4.5 HIV/AIDS inKenya

In Sessional Paper No. 4 of 1997on AIDS in Kenya, HIV/AIDSwas declared a national disaster,and the National AIDS Control

56


Council (NACC) was formed asa coordinating body for all HIV/AIDS programmes in the coun-try. HIV/AIDS is fast erodingthe heallh benefits gained in thefirst two decades. The illness isage-selective46 in that it infectsmainly those in the reproductiveand productive age categories(15-49 years). It is also moreprevalent in urban areas (Figure4.3), where the prevalence raleis 17.5% among adults.

HFV/AIDS is wiping out theenergetic and productive part ofthe Kenyan population. Infectedpeople and care givers lose a lotof time for productivity takingcare of those with HIV/AIDS-related i l lnesses . Patients,caregivers and women lose timewhich would have been used en-gaging in meaningful economicactivities such as farms, officesand businesses. In addition, thecare givers spend a lot of theirresources meant for capital for-mation and investment. Giventhat women are the primarycaregivers, they are more af-fected than the men. The spiraleffects of HIV/AIDS on human

development are as follows:

HIV/AIDS = less income - less health and educationmore poverty and HIV vulnerability

The pandemic is forcing thegovernment to spend a lot ofresources on HIV/AIDS patientswhich could improve quality oflife elsewhere. HIV/AIDS isactually compounding the poorstatus of health, Antiretroviraldrugs, which subdue the symp-toms of the illness, are not af-fordable to the majority. Thisunderscores the need to supportthe NACC strategy whichemphasises the need for costeffective, collaborative and in-tegrated approaches (preventionand advocacy for behaviourchange) in fighting the pan-demic.

In terms of human develop-ment, HIV/AIDS increases pov-erty by creating orphans whohave lost parents and hence theirsource of basic necessities oflife. Current estimates put thenumber of HIV/AIDS orphansat 1 million. This figure is pro-

57


jected to increase to 1.5 millionby the year 2005. Many of theseorphans lack the basic necessi-ties of life such as food, shelterand clothing, rendering thisgroup vulnerable. This also in-dicates that the AIDS problemin the country cannot be extri-cated from the wider povertyproblem.

Unless the pandemic is ar-rested, it will continue to harmhuman development by reduc-ing life expectancy at birth, in-creasing HIV/AIDS deaths, in-creasing HPT and reducing theGDP and HDL HDI figures al-ready indicate that HIV/AIDShas severely reduced human de-velopment in (he country.

4.6 Inequalities inLiving Conditions

In human development, peo-ple's living conditions constitutea critical factor in their well-be-ing in terms of whether or notthey will access proper educa-tion, knowledge and health. Anation with the right living con-ditions as defined in terms ofaccess to water and sanitation,appropriate housing, well devel-oped transport and communica-tion facilities, clean environ-ment and adherence to demo-cratic principles also has highhuman development. Kenyafaces a problem in all these ar-eas, hence low human develop-ment. Further, there arc in-

equalities in access to basic liv-ing conditions which translate toinequalities in HDI and HPI.Table 4.10. shows the rural-ur-ban inequalities in selected in-dicators of living conditions.

Rural areas are disadvan-taged when it comes to accessto safe water, sanitation andhousing. Although the quality ofurban water in Kenya is ques-tionable, 74.2% of urban dwell-ers access safe water as opposedto 45.5% of rural dwellers.Lower living conditions in ru-ral areas are due mainly to lowincomes and limited invest-ments in rural water, sanitationand housing systems. It is, how-ever, notable that urban areashave their share of poverty (Box4.3).

MICS (2000) data indicatethat the majority of Kenyans(59.2%), especially in rural ar-eas (62.5%), use traditional pitlatrines, while 18.3% have nofacilities and therefore use bushor field. The main reason for thissituation is poverty and lowawareness of the dangers of im-proper excreta disposal. The lat-ter coincides with the lower ru-ral literacy.

Across the regions, there arcinequalities in living conditionsas shown in Table 4.11. Regionswith low access to vital serviceslike water and sanitation alsohave low HDF.

Nyanza has limited access topiped water which could be a

58


contributing factor to the highmortality and low life expect-ancy (45.6 years) and HDI(0.440). Even HDI values forWestern (0.449), Eastern(0.525) and Rift Valley (0.510)are below the national average(0.539). Access to safe water inthese regions is equally low.MICS (2000) data indicate thatthe most affected districts, i.e.those with less than 30% of (hepopulation with safe drinkingwater, are Wajir (4.0%), WestPokot (8.8%), Makueni(11.0%), Kitui (13.3%), Migori(18.6%), Murang'a (23.7%),Tana River (26.4%) and Narok(29.8%). The better off districts(with over 80% access) areUasin Gishu (84.1%), Kaka-

mega (80.3%), Mombasa(83.1%). These differences arcalso reflected in the HDI, Nai-robi, the capital, has 66.0% ofits population with access to safewater.17 This is due to the exist-ence of urban slums which havelimited access to services suchas water.

Housing quality differs byregions and could explain HDIdifferences. Housing quality isassessed by the physical featuresof a unit, including quality ofbuilding materials, social andecological amenities in theneighbourhood, access to serv-ices and location of housing,among others. Table 4.11 showsthat Nyanza and Western havea high (over 75%) percentage of

47 The quality of water is notdiscussed here. Most of thewater, especially in urbanareas , is of questionablequality due mainly to poormanagement and corruptionwhich have led to theembezzlement of resourcesearmarked for the purchase oftreatment chemicals. Thereare also poor water sources:vendors, polluted rivers, dams,roof catchments andboreholes. The latter in somec a s e s are contaminated bywas te s from pit latrines andexcreta in bushes and fields.

59


"B Syagga and Ondiege 1995.

-13 The government allocation towater and sanitation expen-ditures as a percentage ofoverall expenditure for waterand sanitation decreased from2.4% and 0.6% in 1980 to0.6% and .4%, respectively, in1997.

households constructed usingmud, sand and dung. While inthe past Ihese buildings wereviewed as non durable and in-appropriate, new knowledgepoints out that with appropriatetechnological input, these build-ings can effectively serve Iheneeds of given populations, es-pecially the poor.

Other factors relating tohousing conditions which affectthe poor include overcrowding.Studies414 have shown that theovercrowding index (thenumber of rooms divided by thenumber of occupants) is higheramong housing occupied by thepoor compared to (he mediumincome earners. Overcrowdingand poor quality housing can beseen us partly to blame for highinfant mortality, under five mor-tality and low life expectancy.In human development terms,children living in overcrowdedand inappropriate houses havedifficulties acquiring knowledgeand good health.

There are poverty-related in-equalities in living conditions.A clear example is in the caseof access to safe water (Table4.12).

More non-poor households(23%) depend on piped waterduring (he wet season than thepoor (12.7%). More of the poor(54.8%) depend on unprotectedwells, rainwater, rivers, hikesand ponds than the non-poor(46.9%). The non-poor are mid-dle-to-upper class groups withbelter education, incomes andoccupation which enable them

to value and procure clean andsafe water as opposed to theircounterparts. The latter are to befound in ecologically disadvan-taged rural areas and urbanshuns. Low quality water is acause of morbidity and mortal-ity among the poor.

Poor water, sanitation andhousing definitely aggravatemorbidity and mortality. Con-sumption of contaminated wa-ter, living in poor quality hous-ing and the use of improper sani-tation or none at all explain thefrequent disease epidemicswhich affect the health of vul-nerable groups, especially chil-dren living in poor neighbour-hoods and slums. It is impera-tive for the government to in-crease investment in provisionof water and proper sanitation.This could be done by encour-aging pro-poor and more privatesector investment in Ihis area.4'J

4.7 Transport andCommunication

Transport and communicationarc crucial for human develop-ment. Transport is vital in themovement of people and goods.Physical mobility is a basis ofaccessing useful information,opportunities and other forms ofsocio-economic and politicalcapital.

Communication technologyfacilitates exchange of informa-tion and messages which ex-pand people's opportunities andchoices. The GHDR 2001 em-phasises the crucial role of corn-

60


munication and informationtechnology for human develop-ment. The Report points out thatalthough there are inequalities incommunicalion technology, thisis a resource which could be ef-fectively used to reduce povertyand accelerate human develop-ment,

The government has madeefforts to increase the numberand accessibility of transportfacilities, but most of the expen-ditures have been channelledtowards recurrent expenditure,while the development budgetafter 1997/98 went mainly to-wards trunk roads which is jus-tified by increase in vehiculartraffic.50 Most of this traffic is,however, in urban areas whichhouse less than 20% of the Ken-yan population. Unsurprisingly,urban areas and urban-based re-gions and districts appear tohave higher HDI. Low expendi-ture on rural-based roads couldexplain the low agricultural pro-ductivity and high rural povertyincidence. Furthermore, the de-velopment of miscellaneous andsecondary roads is crucial for ru-ral productivity and the physi-cal mobility of people from re-mote areas to markets. Poor roadnetwork also hinders productiveinvestments, in addition to mak-ing it difficult for people to ac-cess health care and education.Non-motorised transport, whichwould contribute to reducing theproblems of the poor, is notproperly integrated in Kenya'smobility planning systems.

The number of postal of-fices, which are the main com-munication channels for ordi-nary and rural Kenyans, de-creased from 1,061 in 1995 to914 in 1999. The Economic Sur-vey 2001 shows increases in pri-vate letter boxes (12.2%), pub-lic call boxes (6.1%) and card

phones (21.1 % ) , but these tendto favour urban areas and thenon-poor. In addition, publiccall boxes are often vandalisedand out of order. Investing incommunications in rural areasand among the poor will be im-portant for redressing the rural-urban and social class dispari-ties in information exchangesystems.

Kenya has about 67 internetservice providers (ISPs) but allare concentrated in urban cen-tres. Although the number ofmobile telephone users rosefrom 2,580 in 1995 to 14,628 in1999 and to over 400,000 pres-ently, most of the users are ur-ban and peri-urban dwellers.Following the lowering of dutyon mobile telephone equipmentand accessories, the number ofmobile telephone users will in-crease considerably which im-plies belter communication.Mobile telephones are likely toreplace fixed lines (250,000)which have been associatedwith inefficiency and ineffec-tiveness. In spite of these devel-opments, the costs of mobile tel-ephones and other modern infor-mation and communicationtechnologies are still far abovethe purchasing power of thehardcore poor, especially in ru-ral areas. Enhanced communi-cation will have to be sensitiveto rural areas and the poor for itto contribute to improve knowl-edge, health and living condi-tions.

4.8 Environment andHuman Development

Environmental issues arc impor-tant in human development be-cause of the centrality of natu-ral resources in the enhancementof quality of life. Environmentalso plays an important role in

Republic of Kenya 2000e.

61


Toslensen et al. 1998,

agricultural development uponwhich over 80% of Kenyansrely for income and survival. InKenya, environmental manage-ment is a key challenge in anattempt to sustain the tourismsector which is a major sourceof livelihood for many in addi-tion to contributing to overalldevelopment. A country withsuch environmental problems asdeforestation, depiction of fishand other marine stocks, pollu-tion and poor conservation offauna and flora is potentiallyunable to assure its populationof a good quality of life. The en-vironment is also related to lifeexpectancy in terms of its im-pact on the incidence and spreadof air- and water-borne disease.

Figure 4.4 shows that therehas been continuous loss ofplanted forest cover in Kenya.The drop after 1995 is relatedto the drop in social develop-ment expenditure and the HDI.In addition, poverty increasedduring the same period. Povertytends to compound the alreadyexisting environmental prob-lems of inadequate water, poorsanitation and housing, particu-larly in the A S A L s , andcrowded urban neighbourhoods.Given Kenya's policy frame-works, poor people have had little opportunity to conserve theenvironment and equally littlechoice not to over-exploit it. Yetforests constitute catchment ar-eas for water which promoteslife thereby enhancing healthand human development. Prob-lems of water in recent years,including water rationing inNairobi in 2000, are largely dueto destruction of water catch-ments.

A vicious circle is self-rein-forcing us it compounds an al-ready existing problem of re-source scarcity (water, fuel

wood and soil), thereby accel-erating environmental degrada-tion. Poverty limits access toeducation for empowerment re-garding environment, amongother issues. Poverty also re-duces the possibility of en viron-mentally sensitive planning andimplementation which continu-ally negatively affects the qual-ity of the environment as wellas people's lives.

4.9 Politics andDemocratisation

The political process in Kenyais central to human developmentsince it is the basis of the mobi-lisation of socio-economic andpolitical capital for governanceand decision-making. In 1991,a constitutional amendment ush-ered in pluralism in Kenya, andthis has improved the politicalculture by allowing for a rela-tively better enjoyment of civiland political rights. People arealso able to talk more freelyabout their needs and prioritiesas well as demand their socio-economic rights. Both types ofrights are central to improvingliteracy, incomes and life oppor-tunities, thereby enhancing hu-man development.

There has recently been amajor step towards significantenlargement of the politicalspace51 as evidenced by the on-going constitutional reviewprocess, especially the merger ofthe parliamentary and faiths-led(Ufungamano) factions. A con-stitutional review commissionencompassing the two groups iscollecting and collating publicviews on a new constitution. Inan apparent move to have a coa-lition government, members ofparliament from an oppositionparty were recently appointed tocabinet. If well intentioned and

62


institutionalised, this changingpolitical process and powersharing arrangement will furtherenlarge the political space andincrease the possibility of enjoy-ing critical rights for enhancinghuman development.

The pluralist period has how-ever been characterised by in-tra- and inter-party suspicions,low levels of civic education andresponsibility, especially amongthe vulnerable people in ASALs,political violence andethnicisation of political alli-ances, and electoral mal-prac-tices.

Specifically, what seems tobe lacking in Kenya's politicalspace and democratisation proc-ess is the integration of the lo-cal level structures of participa-tion, such as CBOs, in the over-all development process. Whilecommunities, especially thepoor, are actively engaged inmaking ends meet, their activi-ties are largely de-linked fromstructures of participation inplanning and development. Ifproblems affecting the poor areto be addressed, this gap mustbe bridged and finally closed.

There are inequalities in thepolitical process in terms of re-gions and gender. In the regions,the poverty-stricken areas in theASALs arc known to have lowcivic awareness and problems of

free and fair elections. Two fac-tors account for this situation.First, poverty, which is moreprevalent in the ASALs and ur-ban slums, causes people to selltheir votes for a few shillings toenable them to buy food. Sec-ond, civic education efforts byboth government and NGOshave tended to ignore the remoterural areas mainly because ofinaccessibility. The result of thisis low political participation,and people from ASALs andother remote regions are hardlyable to influence the democra-tisation process. They also lackawareness to lobby for theirrights and entitlements.

Currently, there is a serionsmale bias in positions of powerand decision-making in Kenya.Table 4.13 indicates that the per-centage of females in policypositions is dismal as evidencedby 4.1 % (in parliament), ambas-sadors (6.1%), permanent sec-retaries (13.3%) and deputy sec-retaries (15.9%). There is oneProvincial Commissioner (PC)based in Eastern Province and afew senior women provincialadministrators, but there is nota single woman who is a minis-ter in the current cabinet. Theoverall position is that of lowwomen's representation, yetthey constitute half of the popu-lation. This explains the low

63


GEM of 0.414. Issues regardingwomen and their opportunitiesfor participation in mainstreamdevelopment are in this caselikely to be ignored or taken forgranted. Furthermore, profes-sional and technical womenworkers make up only 36.2% ofall these levels.

Close observation revealsthat even the few women in thepositions of power and decision-making arc viewed with suspi-cion when it comes to their per-formance. They are often sub-jected to stereotyping, espe-cially by men and women whohave little or no faith in wom-en's ability to hold senior posi-tions. Unsurprisingly, it is notuncommon to hear of seniorwomen being subjected to ex-amination of their dress, man-nerisms, social contacts and re-lations, movements, so as to seeif they are "misbehaving". Suchattitudes are rooted in institu-tional mechanisms (values andnorms) which are opposed to thesocial mobility of women. Thislimits women's capabilities anddevelopment. Policies promot-ing sensitisation and gender dia-logue are needed ii' the situationis to be reversed.

4.10 Conclusions

Government investment in so-cial development in Kenya hasdrastically reduced from 20% to12.4% of the total expenditurebetween 1980 and 1997, duemainly to SAPs and donor aidfreeze, in addition to public sec-tor inefficiency, corruption, ero-sion of social values, and inabil-ity to integrate the poor in de-velopment planning and man-agement. Poor governance hasmade it increasingly difficult forthe disadvantaged to engage indevelopment and negotiate fortheir entitlements. At the sametime, it was equally difficult toreprimand errant public serv-ants. The result has been limitedaccess to vital services, espe-cially by vulnerable groups and/or regions. In human develop-ment terms, this has translatedto limited capabilities for peo-ple to effectively participate innation building.

The results of the decliningeconomic growth have com-bined with poor policies andprioritisalion and led to limitedaccess to vital assets such asland and employment whichgives an opportunity for earning

64


a livelihood and acquiring ba-sic human capabilities for socialdevelopment. The cycle is self-reinforcing with poverty leadingto poor human capability whichincreases poverty. Limited ac-cess to human capabilities haslowered human development,especially for the vulnerablegroups, including women, thepoor, rural dwellers and peoplein hardship regions such asNorth Eastern Province.

There are economic and so-cial disparities which in humandevelopment terms imply thelimitation of basic human capa-bilities and opportunities for dis-advantaged regions and vulner-able groups. Such people areunable to realise their potentialfor effective participation in na-tion building. The future chal-lenge is for government and de-velopment partners (NGOs,

CBOs, private sector and VSOs)to come up with pro-poor poli-cies and invest in the poor andprogrammes which enhance ac-cess to BSSs by the rural andurban poor.

In all the areas of capabili-ties, inequalities exist despitenumerous interventions by gov-ernment departments, NGOs,CBO.s, volunteer service organi-sations (VSOs) and the privatesector. The disturbing issue isthat several policies and pro-grammes have been put in placebut very minimal changes havebeen realised. This raises thequestion of why inequalitiespersist despite many efforts toaddress them. The next chapterreviews the policies and pro-grammes that have been pur-sued and examines some of thereasons for poor performance.

65


Chapter 5Policies and Initiatives Against Social and EconomicInequalities

52 UNDP 1998a.

Since independence, the reduc-tion of poverty and inequalitieshas been a major developmentobjective of the government,The government thereforesought to achieve this objectivethrough a number of policiesand programmes which empha-sised rapid economic growth.This emphasis on economicgrowth as the principal meansof reducing inequalities andpoverty is reflected in variousgovernment policies containedin major policy documents fromSessional Paper Number 10 of1965 which emphasised highand growing per capita incomesto the later development planswhich emphasised growth of theprivate sector.

After almost three decades ofinterventions, social and eco-nomic inequalities still exist indifferent dimensions as dis-cussed in previous sections ofthis report. It is therefore rel-evant at this point to analyse theextent to which the differentpolicies and initiatives under-taken by the government haveaddressed this problem. An im-portant consideration is thecountry's economic perform-ance resulting from these poli-cies and whether they have ben-efited the poor, and contributedtowards reducing social andeconomic inequalities. Thischapter analyses the perform-ance of the economy in terms of

its growth, the sources of suchgrowth and the extent to whichthe different policies and initia-tives undertaken by the govern-ment, the private sector and thecivil society have addressed theproblems of social and eco-nomic inequalities.

5.1 EconomicPerformance,GovernmentExpenditure andSocio-EconomicInequalities in Kenya

Analysis of PastPerformance

There is no disputing the role ofeconomic growth in poverty re-duction and hence human devel-opment. However, not allgrowth is good for all sectionsof the population. "When growthis not pro-poor and is not allo-cating resources and incomes tothe sectors here the poor areconcentrated or to the factors ofproduction that the poor pos-sess, it will not reduce povertyor inequality. Such growth willtherefore not be translated intosubstantial increases in the kindof employment that would liftthe poor out of poverty. Pro-poor growth requires combininggrowth with equity.52

66

5: POLICIES AND INITIATIVES AGAINST SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES

The performance of the Ken-yan economy since independ-ence displays certain character-istics which are important in ad-dressing the issue of social andeconomic inequalities in thecountry. Apart from the first dec-ade of independence when thecountry recorded impressivegrowth rates (reaching a peak of6.6%), there has been a continu-ous decline in economic per-formance. Since the mid-1980s,the economy has experienceddismal performance which con-tinued into the 1990s until theyear 2000 when the country re-corded a negative growth rate.This has meant a continuous de-cline in the living standards fora majority of Kenyans. The de-clining economic performancealso largely accounts for the per-sistence and increasing levels ofpoverty especially in the ruralareas over the past decades. Thepoor economic performancecould ensure neither an increasein employment generation, norstructural and economic trans-formation of the economy nec-essary for the diversification ofthe economy which could spreadthe benefits of growth to a widersection of the population. Hencethe problems of inequality andunemployment have not onlypersisted but have increased.

Although there has been ageneral decline in the economy,there have been pockets of posi-tive growth in certain sectors.Such growth has been concen-trated in only a few sectors anda few commodities within thosesectors. Nol only has the generalperformance of the economybecome vulnerable to fluctua-tions in these sectors, but theextent to which economic per-formance can contribute to re-duction in poverty and inequali-ties depends on (he pro-poor

growth in these sectors.

Performance of theAgricultural Sector

Agriculture is the single mostimportant sector in the Kenyaneconomy, contributing approxi-mately 25% of the GDP andemploying 75% of the nationallabour force. Over 80% of thecountry's population live in therural areas and derive their live-lihoods directly or indirectlyfrom agriculture. Most of thevulnerable groups—pastora-lists, the landless and subsist-ence farmers—also depend onagriculture for their main live-lihoods. Growth in the sector istherefore expected to have agreater impact on a larger sec-tion of the population.

The importance of the sec-tor in the economy is reflectedin the relationship between itsperformance and that of the keyindicators, GDP and employ-ment. Figure 5.1 shows trendsin the growth rates for agricul-ture, GDP and employment. Thedeclining trend experienced in(he sector's growth, especiallyin the 1990s, is reflected in thedeclines in employment andGDP. Despite its declining per-formance, agriculture continuedto support the livelihoods ofover two-thirds of the labourforce. This was mainly becausethe decline in agriculture's per-formance since the mid-1980swas not matched with any realtransformation in the economywhich would have ensured thatthe share of other sectors in GDPand employment increased asagriculture's share declined. Al-though the decline in agricul-tural sector was matched by acorresponding increase in theperformance of the service sec-tor, it is noteworthy that the

67


53 S e e ILO/EAMAT 1999, p.1.

service sector draws its contri-butions from activities in tour-ism, financial and trade sectorswhere employment may not besignificant.53 The result was amarked slowdown in the crea-tion of formal sector employ-ment,

Pro-poor growth, which isnecessary for poverty reduction,requires that growth be concen-trated not only in the sectorswith the highest potential forreaching the majority of thepoor but also in commoditieswhose production is likely tobenefit the poor most. Althoughagriculture is the leading con-tributor to GDP and employ-ment in the country, the sector'sperformance has been domi-nated by a few cash crops con-centrated mainly in the highpotential areas. This implies thatonly a small proportion of thepopulation dependent on thesecommodities has participated inits contribution. Good examplesare coffee and ten which to-gether contribute over 45% ofwage employment in the sector

Although the sector has ex-perienced a general decline ingrowth in the recent past, therehas been positive growth in spe-

cific commodities in the sector.The important point is howgrowth in such commodities hasbenefited the poor. The coffeesector has witnessed positivegrowth in recent years. Coffeeproduction increased between1997 and 2000 after a declinebetween 1995 and 1997. Thisincrease has been from both theestates and cooperative sector,hence benefiting both small andlarge-scale farmers. Horticul-ture, dominated by large-scaleproduction from a few privatecompanies, has also recently be-come a major source of growthin the sector, Horticultural ex-ports have increased steadilysince the early 1990s.

These factors help to explainthe disparity in earnings not onlybetween agriculture and othersectors, but also between the ru-ral and urban areas. While agri-culture provides over 80% ofrural employment, it accountsfor only 9% of the total publicand private sector earning in thecountry. The result of this pat-tern of growth has been themarginalisation of groups andregions in the process of devel-opment, with the incidence ofpoverty being highest in the ru-

68


ral areas where agriculture is thedominant activity.

Given the importance of ag-riculture in the economy, its de-velopment is necessary for thereal isation of a pro-poor growthin the country. This requires in-centives to farmers in the formof improved access to markets,inputs and credit facilities aswell as increasing agriculture'sproductivity and competitive-ness both domestically and in-ternationally. For a broad-basedrural development, there shouldbe increase in public invest-ments in rural infrastructure likeroads which are both necessaryfor and complementary to pri-vate investment in agricultureand rural areas.54 The agricul-tural sector in Kenya has suf-fered from lack of such incen-tives, with poor rural infrastruc-ture being a major constraint toincreased investment in the sec-tor.

Investments in basic healthservices and education in the ru-ral areas is also important in fos-tering pro-poor growth by en-hancing the human capabilitiesof the rural population, espe-cially the rural poor. In Kenya,there exist wide disparities inaccess to basic health and edu-cation facilities, with the ruralareas being highly disadvan-laged. All these limit the sector'spotential, especially the small-scale sector in facilitating thepattern of growth that can elimi-nate poverty and inequality. Theresult has been inequality be-tween agriculture and non-agri-cultural sectors, as well as be-tween regions with different ag-ricultural potentials.

Performance of theManufacturing Sector

In the manufacturing sector,

growth has resulted largely fromthe strategy of import substitu-tion industrialisation (1SI) strat-egy with capital intensive pro-duction technology and limitedemployment potential. Thisstrategy, however, failed to cre-ate adequate dynamism in thesector. The sector's growth de-clined from 8.5% in the 1960sand early 1970s, to only 4% inthe subsequent periods. Thislimited the sector's ability togenerate employment needed toabsorb the increasing labourforce. By the mid-1980s, thescope for ISI had been ex-hausted due to limited expan-sion in the domestic demand. Inaddition, the manufacturing sec-tor developed limited linkageswith the domestic economymainly due to its reliance onimported inputs and the capital-intensive bias of its production.The policy of IS1 therefore re-sulted in a structure of growthwhich favoured urban manufac-turing with no potential to gen-erate substantial formal employ-ment and broad-based develop-ment. Furthermore, the protec-tionist policies associated withISI gave rise to inefficiencieswhich made Kenyan industrialproducts non-competitive. Thisresulted in significant slowdownin the sector's growth as thescope for ISI diminished.

Since the 1990s, the sectorhas experienced declining per-formance both in terms of em-ployment and GDP. This hasmainly been due to economicmismanagement, political un-certainty, world recession andweather conditions affectingagro-based industries. There hasalso been a decline in the indus-trial financing since the late1990s due to high interest rates,low investor confidence, poorinfrastructure and the general

An example is given of Chinawhere pro-poor growth basedon agriculture-led develop-ment was achieved throughequitable land redistribution,price incentives to farmers andheavy investments in ruralinfrastructure as well as basiceducation. See UNDP 2001 b,p. 3.

69


"• S e e ILO/EAMAT 1999, p. 15.

™ Economic Survey 2001,c/ Lustig 1999.

poor economic performance.The slow growth of the manu-facturing sector among otherwage-earning sectors has beenlargely responsible for the lackof expansion in wage employ-ment. Indeed, while agriculturalsector's share in GDP has beendeclining, the manufacturingsector's expansion has beenvery marginal. Since the 1980s,the manufacturing sector's sharein GDP only increased from12% to 13% in the 1990s. Thishas largely contributed to theslowdown in the growth of for-mal wage employment and con-sequently rising unemploymentand under-employment. Overtime this has led to a significantincrease in informal sector em-ploy men t.

The informal sector, specifi-cally the small and micro-enter-prises (SMEs), has become animportant source of livelihoodthrough its capacity to generateemployment and incomes. In-deed, while wage employmentin the formal sector has showeda continuous decline, employ-ment in the informal sector hassteadily increased over time.The share of wage employmentin the formal sector in total em-ployment declined from 90% in1972 to 37% in 1996, while thatof the informal sector increasedfrom 10% to 63% over the sameperiod,55 This increased to 70%in 2000.56 This trend under-scores the increasing impor-tance of the informal sector inabsorbing a large proportion ofthe unemployed labour forceand as a source of livelihood toan increasing majority of thepopulation. However, the sectorhas suffered from luck of com-mitment from the government.The increasing importance ofthe informal sector as a sourceof employment can be seen as a

reflection of the worsening per-formance of the formal .sectorand its failure to generate em-ployment.

GovernmentExpenditure

For growth to benefit the poorand reduce inequality, resourceallocation should favour thosesectors where the poor work(such as agriculture), the areasin which they live (mainly ruraland other under-developed re-gions) and the factors of produc-tion that they possess (such aslabour). This also requirespolicy measures that comple-ment reforms in the macroeco-nomic framework. Such policyshould address the distributionalconsequences of macroeco-nomic policy. Budgetary alloca-tions and expenditure are impor-tant indicators in governmentpriorities and commitment topro-poor growth. A reallocationof public expenditure to benefitthe poor is an important indica-tor of a pro-poor policy shift.Deliberate influence of govern-ment policies on expenditures isTherefore necessary for pro-poorgrowth and human develop-ment."

Public expenditure as re-flected in the budgetary alloca-tion to the different .sectors is animportant indicator of the extentto which government policy ispro-poor. In this section, gov-ernment expenditure is exam-ined in terms of allocations tothe real sectors as well as thesocial sectors. In Kenya, despiteagriculture being a lending sec-tor in the economy, it has notreceived the proportionate sharein government expenditure andinvestment. Figure 5.2 showsagriculture's share in GDP, gov-ernment expenditure and gross

70


fixed capital formation (GFCF).Both expenditure and invest-ment have remained below10%. This contrasts with thesector's contribution to employ-ment and GDP.

The agricultural sector andthe rural areas in general arccharacterised by disproportion-ately lower availability of socialand economic infrastructure asalready discussed in the previ-ous chapters. With the large sizeof the population, depending on(he sector and the rural economyin general, this limits the reali-sation of its potential in reduc-ing social and economic in-equalities.

Another way to assess therole of government expenditurein addressing inequalities isthrough its expenditure in basicsocial services, like health andeducation. Until the 1980s,Kenya had made significantprogress in the provision of edu-cation and health. This has sincereversed, with the decline ingovernment expenditure beingone of the major factors. This ismainly a. result of ihe cost shar-ing introduced in the sectors asa result of the wider economicreforms undertaken since themid-1980s. The governmentexpenditure on health and edu-cation shows a general decline

from the 1990s, with the shareof recurrent expenditure beingsignificantly higher than the de-velopment expenditure in bothsectors.58 This has had implica-tions of access to these servicesby the poor and vulnerablemembers of the population.

In education, the policy ofcost sharing between the gov-ernment, parents and the com-munities, which has been inplace since the late 1980s, hasmeant a decline in governmentfinancing of education andhence access especially for thepoor. While the bulk of govern-ment subsidies arc in the formof teachers' salaries, the policystill has implications for poorstudents who cannot afford topay for books and equipment,thus leading to poor quality edu-cation for the poor. In the healthsector, the gap between the de-mand and supply of health serv-ices continues to widen. Thedecline in expenditure has af-fected the ability of the publichealth sector to provide healthcare services. Overall, an analy-sis of the budget suggests thatthe government does not viewthe development of human ca-pabilities as a priority. In the lasttwo decades, for example, ad-ministration, economic affairsand defence have received 54%

58 S e e Republic of Kenya 2001c.

71


Republic of Kenya 2000c.

of recurrent expenditure whilehealth and social security, whichare core sectors in pro-poorbudgeting, have received only

The foregoing analysisshows that Kenya has not beenable to generate economicgrowth necessary to reduce so-cial and economic inequalitiesin the country. Where growthhas occurred, it has been in thosesectors with minimum impacton employment generation andpoverty reduction, hence thepersistence of social and eco-nomic inequalities in the coun-try. The level of absolute pov-erty has increased to 52%, hu-man poverty stands at 34.5,while inequality in income hasworsened. The share of the poorin national income has thereforedecreased, with the bottom 20%of the population getting 2.5%of the income while the top 20%get 59%. Regional disparities interms of incomes and access toresources have increased, withrural areas increasingly beingmarginalised despite a majorityof the population deriving theirlivelihoods there. While the in-formal sector provides an im-portant source of low skilledjobs that can absorb the poor, thesector has for a long lime suf-fered from lack of coherentpolicy guidelines and favour-able regulatory frameworkwhich have inhibited its growthand contribution to the reductionin disparities.

Addressing social and eco-nomic inequalities in the coun-try therefore needs deliberatepolicies not only to restart eco-nomic growth, but also to ensurethat such growth benefits all sec-tions of the population and isespecially geared towards thereduction of poverty and in-equalities,

5.2 GovernmentResponses to Socialand EconomicInequalities

The government emphasis oneconomic growth as a majorprincipal means for reducingpoverty and inequalities, andrealising improved livelihoodsis reflected in various govern-ment policy documents, mainlydevelopment plans and ses-sional papers. Sessional PaperNumber 10 of 1965 on AfricanSocialism and its Application toPlanning in Kenya underscoredthe need to achieve high andgrowing per capita incomes eq-uitably distributed among thepopulation and to raise thestandards of living. Subsequentpolicy documents emphasiseddifferent ways of achieving thisgoal. Whereas the policy meas-ures to achieve these objectiveshave changed over time, theobjectives remain true today asthey were three decades ago.This section discusses the dif-ferent policies and programmesthat have been used to respondto the problems of social andeconomic inequalities.

Development Plans andSessional Papers

The five-year developmentplans and sessional papers havebeen major documents in articu-lating government policy in thecountry since independence.The first two development plansfocussed on rapid growth as ameans of alleviating poverty andreducing unemployment. The1970/74 Development Plan em-phasised more labour-intensiveproduction technology and thepromotion of small-scale ruralindustries. The 1974/78 Devel-

72


opmcnt Plan focused on greaterequity and employment genera-tion; persistent unemploymentand income disparities were tobe eliminated by shifting invest-ment away from capital-inten-sive projects towards labour-in-tensive ones, especially in agri-culture. Due to the inability toachieve the projected growthduring the 1974/78 plan period,the government adopted agrowth with redistribution strat-egy which was outlined in Ses-sional Paper Number 4 of 1975on Economic Prospects andPolicies. This paper sought toshift the economy from capital-intensive urban infrastructureprojects to labour-intensive ag-ricultural production and basicrural infrastructure like rural ac-cess roads and water supplyprojects.

The 1979/83 DevelopmentPlan emphasised the provisionof basic needs like food, educa-tion, health care, water andhousing. Recognising the needfor a comprehensive set ofmeasures to tackle the problemof poverty and deficiency inbasic needs, the plan placedemphasis on employment ex-pansion and productivity en-hancement as a means of in-creasing incomes of the poor.The plan also proposed inter-ventions in the land market dueto the growing problem of thelandless poor. The plan furtheradvocated for the introductionof economic reforms in thecountry, mainly at the instiga-tion of the donor community, es-pecially the Bretton Woods In-stitutions.

During the 1984/88 and1989/93 Development Plan pe-riods, the government tookmeasures to liberalise theeconomy, emphasising the re-moval of structural and admin-

istrative constraints and the pro-motion of rural developmentemployment creation and agri-cultural expansion. SessionalPaper Number 1 of 1986 onEconomic Management for Re-newed Growth articulated thespecific measures for the struc-tural adjustment programmeswhich called for a drastic reviewof the economic policy frame-work. These involved increasedreliance on market forces, a re-duction in the role of govern-ment in economic affairs and thecreation of an enabling environ-ment for the private sector.

The Policy Framework Pa-per of 1996 stilted the necessityof shifting government budget-ary resources to core functionslike the provision of broad-based basic education and healthservices and provision of eco-nomic infrastructure, with pri-ority being given to those whichreach a large number of thepopulation, especially the poor.

The current developmentplan of 1997/2001 shifts empha-sis to private sector investmentwith the aim of transformingKenya from a predominantlyagricultural economy to a newlyindustrialised country by theyear 2020. With the theme ofRapid Industrialisation for Sus-tainable Development, the planoutlines the government's long-term development strategy ofsustainable development with astrong industrial base. The goalof industrialisation by the year2020 is also emphasised by Ses-sional Paper Number 2 of 1997on Industrial Transformation tothe Year 2020.

The development planspresent government policies inaddressing social and economicinequalities over time. Whileearlier development plans re-flect strategies formed in the

73


framework of government inter-vention, the later developmentplans, formed in an environment

of liberalisation and greater pri-vate sector participation, havetended to be more macro in theirapproach. However, while Ihepolicy measures Stipulated in thedevelopment plans and their as-sociated paradigms have shiftedover time, the development ob-ject ives have remained un-changed. Although the govern-ment has been consistent in pre-paring development plans, oneof the major factors limitingtheir effectiveness has been thelack of implementation of theirpolicies. Plan implementationshave mainly suffered frompolicy gaps between broad na-tional frameworks and routinesector actions and projects. De-velopment plans have alsotended to reflect donor prefer-ences and have therefore beenused us tools to attract develop-ment assistance rather than re-flect real commitment to solv-ing development problems.Over time, some of the policiesstated in these plans have alsomissed the intended targets, thusimpeding any further growth.

Special ProgrammesAgainst Poverty andInequality

In addition to the policies andstrategics spelt out in the vari-ous government policy docu-ments, the government under-took special programmes aimedat reducing unemployment,poverty and other social in-equalities. These are discussedbelow:• Through the Land Resettle-

ment and Reform Pro-gramme, the governmenttransferred land to indig-enous Kenyans using special

schemes. Although theschemes were able to inte-grate those Kenyans whobenefited into the main-stream development process,less than 5% of the popula-tion were included. Povertyand inequality thus persisted.

The Special Rural Develop-ment Programme (SRDP)initiated in 1969 had the ob-jectives of increasing agri-cultural, commercial and in-dustrial production in the ru-ral areas; and reducing un-employment in the SRDPareas through public worksand wage employment in lo-cal enterprises. Investmentswere made in the supply ofinputs, construction of live-stock marketing facilities,promotion of cash crops andprovision of credit. The pro-gramme did not, however,achieve its objectives,mainly because it was cen-trally designed and imple-mented in a top-down man-ner.

The Rural Works Pro-gramme was initiated in1974 to create additional ru-ral employment by directinggovernment finances to la-bour-intensive projects. Theprogramme was designed tocreate jobs specifically forthe rural poor while provid-ing economically useful as-sets and stimulating local de-velopment efforts. The pro-gramme covered a widefield, including agriculturalsupport projects, conserva-tion and social infrastructureprojects. Its success wasmainly due to its labour-in-tensive nature.

The Rural Access RoadsProgramme was started in1974 and aimed at using la-

74


bour-intensive methods forconstructing rural accessroads between farminghinterlands and major mar-ket centres. It was designedto create employment in therural areas and contribute todecentralised district levelplanning. It also aimed atensuring that labour was notdiverted from agriculture.The programme was suc-cessful in creating labour-in-tensive methods.

• The Rural Trade and Produc-tion Centres (RTPCs) werelaunched during the 1979/83plan period as means of cre-ating a balance between ru-ral and urban areas. The pro-gramme sought to establishstrong trade linkages be-tween urban and rural sectorsand spur development in se-lected growth centres. Theprogramme suffered fromvested interests which under-mined the selection criteria,while administrative delaysmarred its implementation.

• The District Focus for RuralDevelopment Strategylaunched in 1983 had theobjective of allocating re-sources on a more geo-graphically equitable basis.The aim of the approach wasto create a devolved, inte-grated and efficient admin-istration at the district leveland within reach of the ruralcitizens, However, the poorand the vulnerable who werethe target beneficiaries werelargely excluded fromproject design and imple-mentation, limiting .successin the achievement of objec-tives.

These programmes reflectthe government's efforts in ad-dressing the problems of in-equality. However, as early as

the 1970s it became clear thatthe problems of poverty, in-equality and unemploymentwere on the increase. Dispari-ties in income and asset owner-ship as well as access to re-sources and opportunities there-fore not only persisted but con-tinued to increase.

A careful review shows thatthese initiatives suffered from anumber of weaknesses whichlimited their effectiveness inachieving their goals. These in-cluded inability to target thebeneficiaries, insufficient atten-tion to involving thestakeholders, and implementa-tion problems related to lack ofresources. Failure to target andreach the vulnerable groups wasalso a major weakness of theseinitiatives,

Other weaknesses of theseefforts stem from the fact thatmany of the initiatives did notfocus exclusively on povertyand inequality. They werelargely disjointed and spreadover many programmes andprojects competing for limitedfunds. Lack of coordinationamong the various actors, inaddition to lack of, or inad-equate participation by the poorand the vulnerable groups them-selves also limited their abilityto address the problems effec-tively. The impact of these ini-tiatives was further limited bythe government's failure to putin place policies that would en-sure equitable distribution ofincome and wealth, with the re-sult that the majority of the peo-ple did not get access to thegoods and services generatedfrom them.

Another important factor isthat most of these interventionswere donor driven, and weretherefore not integrated into thelong-term development goals of

75


the country. The result is thatthey were short-term in natureand suffered from discontinuityand inconsistency. All these lim-ited the effectiveness of theseinterventions in addressing so-cial and economic inequalities.It is therefore important to as-sess whether the current policyinitiatives are adequate to ad-dress theses problems.

The StructuralAdjustmentProgrammes and theSocial Dimensions ofDevelopment

By the mid-1980s, the countrywas experiencing stagnation ineconomic performance. Thiswas reflected in the severeslowdown in the growth of GDPsince the mid-1970s largely at-tributed to the country's pooreconomic management, and in-appropriate macro economicpolicies. The governmentadopted the structural adjust-ment programmes (SAPs) in thecontext of wide ranging reformsduring this period under the ae-gis of the World Bank and theIMF. The main elements of thereform process involved the lib-eralisation of trade, privatisationof public enterprises and re-forms in the civil service. Thereforms also involved the reduc-tion in government expenditurewhich had far-reaching implica-tions in access to some of thebasic social services, like edu-cation and health, especially forthe poor and the vulnerablegroups,

In an effort to address thenegative effects of SAPs on thevulnerable groups, the SocialDimensions of Development(SDD) Programme was initiatedto address economic and social

problems experienced by thelow-income and vulnerablegroups due to the implementa-tion of SAPs. II embraced acombination of social actionprogrammes, policies and pov-erty monitoring programmes.

Although the SDD initiativescould make important contribu-tions to poverty reduction andaddress other inequalities whenfully implemented, the designlacked a framework for long-term planning and policy anddid not therefore provide a long-term solution to the problems ofunemployment and poverty. Inaddition, the SDD did not be-come fully operational. Lack ofadequate funds and appropriateinter-ministerial coordinationmechanisms also impeded itsfull implementation. Further-more, the existing sector priori-tics within which the SDDprojects were conceived andimplemented were not consist-ent with the national goals forpoverty reduction and employ-ment. Hence, many of theprojects turned out to be non-targeted sectoral undertakingswith minimal benefits for thepoor and vulnerable groups.

Current Initiatives onSocial and EconomicInequalities

In the recent past, governmentstrategies and priorities onsocio-economic developmentreflect a shift to a strategic fo-cus on poverty. This is reflectedin a number of policy docu-ments which form (he frame-work for this shift to a strategicfocus on poverty. These includethe Eighth National Develop-ment Plan (1997/2001) whichset the goals and objectives ofthe five-year cycle, the NationalPoverty Eradication Plan

76


(NPEP) which outlined thescope of poverty and set targetsfor its reduction, and the InterimPoverty Reduction StrategiesPaper (IPRSP) which incorpo-rated the adoption of the Me-dium-Term Expenditure Frame-work (MTEF) as the organisingbudgetary framework for theuse of resources. The recentlyconcluded Poverty ReductionStrategies Paper (PRSP) is animportant iniliative by the gov-ernment to tackle the problemof deepening poverty in thecountry.

The National PovertyEradication Plan(NPEP)

The NPEP has the objectives ofreducing the incidence of pov-erty in both rural and urban ar-eas by 50% by the year 2015,and strengthening the capabili-ties of the poor and vulnerablegroups to earn income. It alsoaims to narrow gender and geo-graphical disparities and createa healthy, better educated andmore productive population.The NPHP has been prepared inline with the goals and commit-ments of the World Summit forSocial Development (WSSD) of1995. The plan focuses on thefour WSSD themes of povertyeradication, reduction of unem-ployment, social integration ofthe disadvantaged people, andthe creation of an enabling eco-nomic, political and culturalenvironment.60

The plan is tn be imple-mented mainly by the PovertyEradication Commission (PEC)formed in 1999 in collaborationwith government ministries,community-based organisa-tions, private sector, non gov-ernmental organisations, bilat-eral and multilateral donors. The

functions of the PEC arc tomonitor, co-ordinate and over-see the poverty reduction effortsby various stakeholders in thecountry. It is to define the ena-bling policy options required forthe implementation of theNPEP, develop strategic sectoralpolicies and assist the respectivesector ministries to implementtheir own poverty reduction tar-gets.

Poor people and their com-munities are at the core of pov-erty eradication. The NPEP em-phasises the empowerment ofpoor people and their commu-nities to better manage theiravailable resources for collec-tive advancement. This is animportant strategy in raising hu-man capabilities and hence hu-man development.

Poverty ReductionStrategies- Paper(PRSP)

The Poverty Reduction Strate-gies Paper (PRSP) is the docu-ment articulating Kenya's com-mitment and approach to fight-ing poverty. The rationale for thePRSP was that the war againstpoverty cannot be won withoutthe participation of (he poorthemselves. As a signatory to theresolutions of the WSSD, Kenyais committed to the eradicationoi poverty as a cornerstone tohuman development. Initialconsultations showed that na-tional priority must be to reducepoverty and improve the well-being and standard of living ofall Kenyans. This entails:

• Reducing the number of ab-solute poor and those livingbelow the poverty line.

• Satisfying the basic needs offood, clean water, clothing,shelter, health services, edu-

Republic of Kenya 1999b.

77


cation, social welfare and se-curity.

• Breaking the self-perpetual-ing vicious cycle of povertythrough sustainable highquality economic growthwhich benefits ail levels ofsociety, especially the poor-est.

The main principles of the PRSPinclude:

• Linking policy, planning andbudgeting which ensures thatimplementation takes intoaccount resource availabilityand constraints us well us ex-pected outcomes.

• Harmonisation of the financ-ing framework facilitated bythe PRSP and MTEF budget.

• Quality expenditure leadingto efficiency gains central tothe PRSP and MTEF proc-ess.

• Equitable distribution of na-tional resources and devel-opment initiatives by allocat-ing resources to the prioritiesidentified by the people,

• Giving a voice to the people.The PRSP strengthens andgives credibility to povertyreduction efforts by empow-ering communities to iden-tify their basic needs andrights.

The PRSP has the twin ob-jectives of poverty reductionand economic growth. Eco-nomic policies and strategics tobe implemented under the PRSPoutline a three-year macro-eco-nomic framework aimed at pro-moling robust economic growthand poverty reduction. It is ex-pected to provide the basis forresource allocation and shiftingof public expenditure towardspriority sectors and provision ofbasic social services that de-monstrably benefit the poor.

In its objectives, the PRSPcomplements other efforts toeradicate poverty. It is, for ex-ample, central to the long-termvision outlined in the NPEPwhich proposes a 15-year timehorizon to fight poverty. ThePRSP seeks to implement theNPEP in a scries of three-yearrolling plans, while puttingbudgetary allocation aspects tothe implementation process. Themedium-term and long-termsolutions call for focussinggrowth in the sectors that caneasily propel economic growth,as well as reforming the publicfinance structure as a key long-term strategy.

The PRSP revealed not onlythe depth and entrenchment ofpoverty, but also its differentdimensions. The PRSP providesan opportunity for a pro-poorgrowth strategy through its par-ticipatory nature, and it directsbudgetary allocations to the pri-ority sectors identified duringthe consultative process, By ad-vocating for a focus on the sec-tors that can easily propelgrowth, the PRSP if successfullyimplemented provides an oppor-tunity for a majority of the popu-lation to participate in the proc-ess of growth and therefore ben-efit from it.

Given the role of the PRSPas a blue-print for poverty re-duction, an important point to beconsidered is the level of em-phasis it places on the produc-tive sectors like agriculture andrural development. In nationalconsultations, agriculture andrural development were givenfirst priority in the PRSP proc-ess. Agriculture, small-scale in-dustries and off-farm rural ac-tivities have the highest poten-tial benefits to the poor in thecountry. The PRSP emphasis onagriculture and rural develop-

78


ment is therefore appropriate.This will need to be backed byreallocation of resources tothese sectors where the poor areconcentrated. However, for thisto be realised, the PRSP shouldbe able to explicitly influencegeneral economic and socialpolicies, and the allocation ofpublic resources through thebudgetary process.

The PRSP lacks adequatefunds and the political will toimplement the policies. It needsto be implemented in such a wayas to ensure the access of thepoor to basic social services. Itshould be used to target the mosteffective programmes with thelargest impact on the poor.

An important considerationfor the PRSP is how to balanceits twin objectives of growth andpoverty reduction. This shouldaddress not just the increase inincomes but how much the in-comes of the poor will increase.For growth to contribute to pov-erty reduction, the PRSP needsto be accompanied by decisivepublic actions which removesocial constraints on the poorand give them a political voiceto enable them to participateeconomically. There is thereforethe need for pro-poor policies,accompanied by favourable so-cial and political contexts, to fa-cilitate the development of ba-sic human capabilities amongthe poor.

The PRSP is a learning proc-ess and is likely to suffer fromsome mistakes. For its imple-mentation, there is need for in-put from the poor themselves inaddition to a responsible and ac-countable government. It alsoneeds to build on existing na-tional institutions and processesagainst poverty, hence the needfor greater coordination be-tween the different implement-

ing agencies.

Other GovernmentInitiatives in AddressingInequalities

A number of initiatives by thedifferent government ministriesare in place to directly or indi-rectly address the social andeconomic inequalities in thecountry. These focus on genderand other forms of inequalitiesin employment and access to in-come-earning opportunities bydisadvantaged groups who in-clude women, youth, the disa-bled, the aged, the retrenchedand retired workers (Box 5.1).

Arid and semi-arid lands(ASALs) fall among the poor-est and most vulnerable. Despitetheir being well endowed withlivestock resources, the realisa-tion of their full potential is lim-ited by lack of reliable market-ing outlets for livestock andlivestock products, and poor in-frastructure, among otherthings. Improving access tomarkets for their products pro-vides one of the important av-enues for reducing their vulner-ability to droughts and poverty.

An intervention lo addressthe needs of the vulnerablepopulations in the ASALs is theArid Land Resource Manage-ment Project (ALRMP) aimedat addressing the developmentconstraints in ASALs by inte-grating the population into thecountry's mainstream economy(Box 5.2).

An important observationfrom these initiatives is that al-though they exist within thegovernment to address differentforms of inequalities, they ap-pear to suffer from a lack ofcommon objectives and coordi-nation among the implementingministries. There is, therefore,

79


Source: Key informant interviews in government ministries

80


81

need for stronger coordinationbetween the different depart-ments to ensure increased effi-ciency in service provision andminimum duplication of activi-ties and interventions by the dif-ferent departments. There is alsothe need to build common ob-jectives among the governmentdepartments and ministries toensure that there is cohesion andcomplementarity regarding theirinterventions. Most of these ini-tiatives also aim at short-terminterventions and responses tocrises rather than long-term sus-tainable development policy.This limits their effectivenessand impact on socio-economicdisparities. There is thereforeneed to integrate these initia-

tives into sustainable develop-ment programmes. The effec-tiveness of these initiatives hasfurther been limited by the pro-cedures for enacting policieswhich result in lack of imple-mentation.

5.3 The Role of theCivil Society

Civil society organisations havean important role to play in coin-billing poverty and the reductionof social and economic inequali-ties. Such organisations includeNGOs, trade unions, humanrights groups, cooperatives,women's groups, religiousgroups and consumer groups,


UNDP 1998b, pp. 59-60.

See Republic of Kenya 1999g.

among others. These organisa-tions have major contributionslo make in pioneering new ap-proaches to development andcreating livelihoods and eco-nomic opportunities for thepoor. Civil society organisationshave also played important po-litical and social roles in sup-porting the poor andmarginalised throAugh upholdinghuman rights and promotingtransparency and accountabilityin public decision making.'1

Holding the government ac-countable is also one of thefunctions of the civil society or-ganisations ranging from com-munity self-help groups to tradeunions and political parties. Thiswill ensure accountability in theuse of public resources.

Civil society organisationshave contributed to empoweringthe poor which is an importantstep in eradicating poverty. Thepoor need more organisationalcapacity and the power to influ-ence the direction of their lives,and emphasis needs to be put onbuilding this capacity. Civil so-ciety organisations can also bestrong advocates for the inter-ests of the poor. It is thereforein the interest of the poor for thegovernment and civil society or-ganisations to forge strategic al-liances for poverty reduction.

Civil society organisations,like religious bodies, charitableorganisations, NGOs, interestgroups and professional associa-tions are important actors inpoverty eradication in the coun-try. They support the poor anddisadvantaged, monitor and fa-cilitate the flow of informationand mould public opinion onissues of common inlerest. Mostof them are also involved in thecommunity mobilisation, prepa-ration of community actionplans and building of self-reli-

ance among the poor.62

A number of civil societyorganisations in Kenya, particu-larly NGOs, are involved in de-velopment initiatives addressingsocio-economic problems insociety. One intervention is in-creasing the people's capabili-ties through the provision ofsocial services like water, edu-cation and health care. An im-portant aspect of improving peo-ple's capabilities is involvingcommunities in project manage-ment or services. This strength-ens ownership and participationfrom beneficiaries.

Another intervention focuseson sustainable livelihoods toprovide not only basic serviceslike education and health, butalso the right to humanitarianassistance and the right lo beheard. In this context, humani-tarian assistance is combinedwith initiatives in peace makingand conflict reduction, as wellas providing an environment forpeople to be able to identify theirneeds and participate in problemsolving.

Intervention at the policylevel is mainly through research,documentation, disseminationand participation in policy dia-logue. Such interventions in-volve influencing governmentpolicy decisions or negotiationswith international organisationsto protect the interests of vulner-able groups.

Most NGO initiatives tend tohave geographical or sectoralfocus and direct their interven-tions to specific sections of thepopulation. They also lend tofocus their activities onmarginalised groups and spe-cific socio-economic problems.Despite the fact that NGO ini-tiatives are targeted at specificsocio-economic problems, theyare mostly short-term in nature

82


and have limited geographicalcoverage. This limits their long-term impacts. NGO initiativesalso suffer from lack of coordi-nation among the different play-ers, leading to both duplicationof efforts, and conflicting objec-tives. In most cases, there is lackof coordination between NGOsand government departmentsoperating in the same fields.This needs to be improved toincrease the potential of theirbenefits.

5-4 Conclusions

This chapter has reviewed Ken-ya's economic performance andanalysed the policies and pro-grammes initiated to addresssocial and economic inequalitiesin the country over time! Theanalysis shows that Kenya hasnot been able to generate eco-nomic growth necessary to re-duce social and economic in-equalities in the country. Wheregrowth has occurred, it has beenin those sectors with minimumimpact on employment genera-tion and poverty reduction. Theslow economic growth, lack ofeconomic diversification anddeclining agriculture continuingto support an increasing propor-tion of the population have ledto the lack of expansion in wageemployment, rising unemploy-ment and consequent wide in-equalities between the rural andurban areas, as well as between

agriculture and non-agriculturalsectors.

Past government efforts toaddress social and economic in-equalities have suffered from anumber of shortcomings. Whileinitiatives exist by the differentgovernment departments aimedat addressing socio economicdisparities in the country, theysuffer from lack of coordinationand common objectives amongthe implementing departments.It is also apparent that there islittle coordination between gov-ernment initiatives and those ofthe civil society organisations.This needs to be addressed toharness all development effortsand maximise their benefits.

There is need for a bottom-up strategy if growth is to be ac-companied by a proportionateflow of increases in national in-come to the poor who form themajority. In Kenya, since themajority of the poor are basedin the rural areas, broad-basedrural development is thereforeessential for reduction of in-equalities.

There is also need for part-nerships between the differentplayers in development. Thiswill ensure that critical concernsare discussed and reflected inpolicies. The challenge for thecivil society in this respect is tobe willing to develop capacityto negotiate their positions andaccommodate governmentviews.

83


Chapter 6Future Policy Challenges

6.1 Shortfalls inHuman Development

Human development involvesthe process of expanding humancapabilities and access to oppor-tunities in social, economic andpolitical arenas, and thereforethe overall improvement in thequality of life. The most basicof these capabilities are to leadlong healthy lives, to be knowl-edgeable and to have access tothe resources needed for a de-cent standard of living. Humandevelopment requires expand-ing opportunities for people tobe able to do more for them-selves economically, sociallyand politically.

Kenya has experienced de-clining economic performanceespecially since the I980S. Thegains made in the provision ofsocial services, such as healthcare, access to education and lit-eracy levels, have also consid-erably decreased. This trend hasresulted in a drop in the humandevelopment situation in thecountry as reflected in the mainindicators: life expectancy, percapita incomes and literacy. Inaddition, absolute poverty hasincreased, human povertystands at 34.5% and the level ofincome inequality has in-creased.

6.2 HumanDevelopmentChallenges

Since independence, the gov-ernment has identified the maindevelopment challenges facingthe country as the alleviation ofpoverty, employment creationand the reduction of unequalaccess to land as a major pro-ductive resource. Subsequentpolicy documents identified de-velopment challenges as theprovision of basic needs likefood education, health care,water, sanitation and housing.To address these challenges, thegovernment put in place anumber of policy measures.While the policy measures toachieve these objectives andtheir associated paradigms mayhave changed over time, theobjectives and hence the devel-opment challenges have re-mained the same.

The trends in the country'shuman development underlinethe fact that the country faces anumber of human developmentchallenges which go beyondsimply increasing economicgrowth to addressing the exist-ing social and economic in-equalities. These include:

• Providing an enabling envi-ronment to facilitate (he par-ticipation of all sections ofthe population in the produc-

84

6: FUTURE POLICY CHALLENGES

lion process through accessto productive resources andopportunities.

• Expanding human capabili-ties by improving access tobasic education, health,housing, water and sanita-tion.

• Increasing access to employ-ment opportunities for therapidly expanding labourforce.

• Increasing people's capacityto assert their rights.

• Redefining the value of lifein Kenya in order to increaserespect for life and self-es-teem in society.

• Addressing the differentforms of inequalities existingbetween regions as well usthe different segments of thepopulation. This includesaddressing inequalitieswhich are gender-related,and other forms of inequali-ties affecting specific vulner-able groups.

• Addressing the problem ofinsecurity to enable in-creased investment and par-ticipation by a wider sectionof the society.

6.3 New PolicyDirections

New policy directions areneeded so as to redress inequali-ties In Kenya. Inequalities havecontributed immensely to unac-ceptable levels of poverty, un-employment and general socialdeprivation. Poverty has placedgreat stress on families in gen-eral and women, children andyouth in particular. These highlevels of poverty have been re-inforced by equally low levelsof economic growth and in-comes, lack of public account-

ability and participation by all,especially the poor. The end re-sult has been low human devel-opment.

Because of the human devel-opment challenges in the coun-try, there is need to refocuspolicy on human development.From a human developmentperspective, focus should be onexpanding human capabilitiesand access to opportunities in ailspheres of life. This would en-tail:

• Economic, social and politi-cal empowerment as a meansof changing the balance infavour of those who havebeen kept out of mainstreameconomic and social activity.

• Re-starting growth and fo-cusing on distributional as-pects through pro-poorgrowth strategics. Directingresources to the poor andvulnerable groups throughpro-poor budgeting willform an important aspect ofthis strategy.

Empowerment

Empowerment includes a widerange of efforts to enhance thepower of individuals, groupsand organisations in society.Policies and actions intended toempower are aimed at improv-ing the participation of Ken-yans, especially (hose previ-ously disadvantaged, in govern-ment and business, Three formsof empowerment arc necessary:economic, social and political.

Economic empowermentthrough macro-economicgrowth and stability

There is no doubt that growth iscrucial for poverty reductionand human development. Thisis because growth creates eco-

85


nomic opportunities, incomesand jobs. Recent economic per-formance in Kenya has beenvery dismal, and poverty in thecountry has increased. The chal-lenge for Kenya therefore is toensure the implementation ofmacro economic policies, bothfiscal and monetary, that lead togrowth while reducing povertyas envisaged in the PRSP. Themajor vehicles for this shouldbe :

• The promotion of labour-in-tensive private sector-ledgrowth by facilitating the ex-pansion and job creation ca-pabilities of the private sec-tor.

• Properly implemented fiscalpolicies with clear growthand pro-poor effects. Taxa-tion should in no way in-crease inequality and pov-erty but should decreasethem on the margin.

• Reforming the public fi-nance structure. This will en-sure macro-economic stabil-ity and equitable economicgrowth,

• Environmental conservationprogrammes that arc labour-intensive, e.g., terracing, ir-rigation and afforestation.

Empowerment throughimproved rural earnings

Over 80% of Kenya's popula-tion live in the rural areas anddepend largely on agriculture,fishing, forestry and the exploi-tation of natural resources. Outof these, an estimated 52%(about 14 million people) arepoor and live below the povertyline. A major characteristic inrural areas is the lack of employ-ment and very low incomes.Given that so many people re-side in these areas, efforts arerequired to improve incomes

and employment. Various meas-ures are needed to strengthenrural agriculture by addressingconstraints in the sector. Theseinclude poor land use policies,limited quality of farm inputs,poor access to improved tech-nologies, poor infrastructure,inadequate markets and marketinformation, limited access tocredit and high cost of borrow-ing, declining soil fertility andthe effects of acceding to theWTO, COMRSA, RAC and1GAD agreements.

Measures are also needed toimprove non-farm income-earn-ing activities such as fishing,forestry and small-scale busi-nesses. This can be done by im-proving rural transport infra-structure; promoting innovativeand efficient rural finance andcredit supply system for farmand non-farm activities; promot-ing investor-friendly environ-ments through proper policies,institutions and legal frame-work; improvement of commu-nication networks in rural areas;and rural electrification.

Economic empowerment byjob creation

Economic empowerment mustlead to access to income-earn-ing opportunities for povertyalleviation and human develop-ment. There is need for directgovernment intervention to ini-tiate, promote and consolidatejob creation programmes in thecountry. This should be done byfinancing programmes andbuilding capacity through train-ing. One such programme in thecountry is the ILO/UNDP Jobsfor Africa Programme (Box6.1).

The government has been re-ducing its work force, improv-ing the productivity of enter-prises and privatising state as-

86


sets. These measures are part ofa broader strategy of structuralreform by the government ex-pected to provide opportunitiesfor economic empowerment.The dilemma that these meas-ures present to the governmentis that they inevitably result inlay-offs and unemployment. Ifthe government continues withprivatisation and retrenchment,the result should not inevitablylead to unemployment but ratherjob creation. The challenge forgovernment is to rethink its pub-lic reform strategy. The govern-ment of South Africa has optedfor a public-private sector part-nership rather than outright pri-vatisation (Box 6.2).

Hollowing the opening up ofthe political space and the PRSPprocess, there is a clamour forattracting expertise from the pri-vate sector as a way of enforc-ing a culture of efficiency inKenya's public sector. The Of-

fice of the President has been in-strumental in contracting privatesector expertise for public serv-ice. The challenge in this ap-proach is to ensure that the ex-perts are able to fit within pub-lic service operations in termsof being able to work with ex-isting professionals. In addition,it will be important to raise themorale of existing experts so asnot to create divisions withindepartments and offices.

The Ministry of Labour andHuman Resource Developmenthas also been developing an in-ventory of skills in Kenya so asto determine deficits or sur-pluses. For one or two decades,the Ministry has endeavoured to"import" professionals withskills that are scarce in Kenya(e.g., those of doctors and radi-ologists) as well as "export"excess skills (e.g. arts teachersand nurses). The aim is to treatskills as a commodity so as to

87


rationalise and enhance nationalproductivity. The challenge forhuman development will be toavoid brain drain and also im-port those skills that will notpush able Kenyans out of theproductive labour sector. In ad-dition, it will be important forgovernment to plan on usingskilled Kenyans who are livingand working overseas. One wayof doing this is to take advan-tage of the fast-growing infor-mation technology so as tostimulate exchange of ideas withthese experts. A human devel-opment perspective makes itimperative for Kenya to seethese experts as friends of rhecountry and not absconders.

Social empowerment

There are various definitionsand perspectives on what socialempowerment is. However,there is agreement that the twomain components of social em-powerment are education andhealth. With a legacy of socialinequalities in access to healthand education in Kenya, it isimperative that the governmenttogether with all other actors in

the sectors map out strategies toensure that these essential socialservices are available to all andparticularly to those previouslyignored. Social empowermentmakes it imperative for Kenyato redress issues of health andeducation as core areas of hu-man development.

Despite some positive out-comes as a result of the govern-ment commitment and initia-tives in the health sector inKenya, poor health still prevailsin the country. There also existregional, gender and qualitativedisparities in access to healthservices. Poor access to healthservices in the country havebeen attributed to financial con-straints, skewed expenditure infavour of salaries, inefficiencyand corruption, poverty, lowstaff morale, inconsistent andpoor implementation of poli-cies, new health challenges suchas HIV/AIDS and increased de-mand due to population growth.In view of the prevailing cir-cumstances, the challenge forpolicy is to increase access tostrategies which:

• Enhance the availability ofdrugs and other medical sup-

88


plies in the country, espe-cially in the rural areas;

• Target the poor and the vul-nerable groups directly;

• Step up the fight againstHIV/AIDS;

• Encourage and promote pri-vate and NGO sector partici-pation in health care provi-sion;

• Ensure quality and afford-able health services to allsegments of the population,

Education is crucial in en-hancing the quality of individuallife and that of the country.Since independence, the gov-ernment has put a lot of empha-sis on education as evidenced inmore than ten reviews by spe-cial commissions and workingparties, the latest being theKoech Commission of 2000.The sector takes about 8% of thecountry's GDP. Despite these ef-forts, education in Kenya stillfaces difficulties. The systemfaces inefficiencies and ineffec-tiveness, declining enrolmentrates, high dropout rates espe-cially among women and de-clining quality. Besides, the sec-tor is characterised by stark re-gional and gender inequality.

The implication for policy isthat there is need to develop andimplement strategies to acceler-ate access, enrolment and com-pletion. It is imperative forKenya to focus on basic literacyand primary education, espe-cially in the rural areas. Such astrategy needs to be responsiveto gender and regional dispari-ties. More importantly, educa-tion should be at the core of pov-erty reduction.

Political empowermentPolitical empowerment calls forpower sharing between centralgovernment, local authorities,

NGOs, CBOs and the people.Over the years, power in Kenyahas been over-concentrated inthe executive, not allowing forparticipation by all especiallythe poor. Women and other vul-nerable groups have particularlybeen disadvantaged as they havenot had representation. Thiscalls for development of bothadministrative and social capa-bilities by decentralising bothdecision making power and theresources for implementingthose decisions. An importantelement of political empower-ment is the need to improve gov-ernance.

Human development de-pends quite a lot on the effec-tive functioning of bureaucra-cies, regulatory frameworks,civil liberties, and transparentand accountable institutions.The outcome of state policiesand laws and the interests of theelite in society often bias incen-tives and public expenditure to-wards less socially productiveassets. This erodes the benefitsthat would go to society and re-duces the impact on welfare. InKenya, lack of transparency andaccountability in (he manage-ment of resources and funds hasbeen cited as a main cause ofpoverty. Thus, investing in (hecapacity for better governanceshould be a top priority for bet-ter economic performance andhuman development.

Involving all stakeholders—the private sector, NGOs, Civilsociety and the government—inimplementing commonlyshared development agendamay be necessary in forming anNGO-government partnership.An example of how this couldbe done through government-civil society collaboration ispresented in Box 6.3. Some ofthe actions that could be insti-

89


tutionalised in this respect in-clude empowering peoplethrough voice, participation andgreater civil and political liber-ties and institulionalisation ofparticipation by all groups.

Pro-Poor Growth:Focusing on theDistributional Aspectsof Growth

While growth is imperative torpoverty reduction and humandevelopment, it is not alwaysbeneficial for all sections of so-ciety. For growth to be pro-poor,it needs to be rapid enough toimprove the absolute conditionsof the poor while improvingtheir relative position,

This is possible either at thebeginning of the growth proc-ess through an equitable distri-bution of human capital, landand other productive assets orby decreasing inequality duringgrowth. The analysis in Chap-ter 5 of this report indicates thatKenya's growth has not inmany ways been pro-poor.There is no doubt that growthneeds to be re-started and in apro-poor manner if it has tomeaningful to all Kenyans.

Two important questionsarise out of this: Is redistribu-tion an option in pro-poorgrowth strategy in Kenya?What would it take to makeKenya's growth pro-poor? Asregards the first question, it isto be noted that land ownership

90


and control in Kenya has overthe years been so ethnicised andpoliticised that an equitable ac-cess can only be attainedthrough radical reform. The"Asian tigers" are noteworthyfor having instituted radical re-forms in land ownership. It isquite unlikely that such reformscan take place in Kenya unlessthey are based on the market.This is because land ownershipin the country involves emotionsand provides important waysthrough which political influ-ence is practised. The feasibil-ity and relevance of land reformin Kenya varies from one areato another. In a situationwhereby redistribution of landis not feasible for political rea-sons or too costly, creation ofnew assets would be a morepromising avenue for improvingthe welfare of the poor. Thiswould apply to both the ruraland the urban poor. In Singa-pore, pension funds have beenused as a way of redistributingassets to the poor. There is needin Kenya to search such inno-vative means of overall asset re-distribution. A possible option inland assets would be to imposetaxation for all under-utilisedland. If well enforced, thiswould stimulate maximum useof hitherto unused land.

As regards the second ques-tion, a number of options existto ensure the distributive aspectsof growth in Kenya. These in-clude:

• Ensuring that the poor andvulnerable groups in societycan access education, tech-nology and health services aswell as land, credit, skills,training and job opportuni-ties in the open market;

• Putting into place effectiveregulatory frameworks andanti-corruption mechanisms

to ensure that resourcesreach the poor;

• Reforming, restructuring andrevamping the economy toinclude mechanisms formitigating the costs of thecrises which are in mostcases borne disproportion-ately by the poor;

• Adjusting macro-economicpolicies and especially fiscalpolicies to make growth pro-poor.

Directing Resources tothe Poor andVulnerable Groups

Past government initiatives tocombat poverty and inequalityin the country have had littleimpact mainly because theyhave not focused directly on thepoor and vulnerable groups. Tobe successful in combating pov-erty, there is need to deliberatelydirect resources to the poor. Anumber of options can be pur-sued in this regard.

Pro-poor budgeting

Budgets can be used to gener-ate pro-poor effects byprioritising expenditure and taxincidence in the pro-poor direc-tion. This would entail tilting re-duction in tax burden to the poorand the other vulnerable groups.It would also mean mobilisingrural savings via post office sav-ings banks. This requires thesensitisation of rural people onthe importance of savings. Di-recting resources to the sectorswhere the poor are employed—agriculture, rural off-farm enter-prises, urban micro enterprisesetc. For this to be effective, it iscrucial to do a geographicalmapping of the country in termsof the extent of poverty and hu-man development.

91


UNDP 2000a.

Rehabilitation of poorregions

Poverty in some areas in Kenyais due largely to factors that areregion-specific. Insecurity hasbeen identified as a principlecause of poverty in some areaswhere hijackings, banditry andstock theft are prevalent. In suchareas, it is necessary that thegovernment restore peace as afirst step in rehabilitating thepopulations concerned.

Special attention to

marginalised areas

The ASALs of Kenya have beenleft out of the mainstream socio-economic development. Ad-dressing the specific problemsin the ASALs is important forhuman development in the re-gion. First, it is necessary toimprove the overall economy ofthe ASALs fay improving live-stock production through betterprovision of water supply. Thereis also need to produce drought-resistant crops such as cottonwherever possible. Promotionof land rights, protection of theenvironment and security arealso crucial. Targeting ASALsfor increased social pro-visioning (particularly healthand education) is crucial forhuman development.

6.4 Role of Key Actors

In redressing socio-economicinequalities, all key actors (gov-ernment, NGOs, CBOs, UN,family, private sector and indi-vidual citizens) have a role toplay in the foregoing policy di-rections for enhancing humandevelopment. The future willrequire learning from one an-other and respecting all the dif-ferent perspectives so us tocome up with common objec-

tives and a concerted frameworkon equity.

In human developmentterms, government will have torecognise and sustain stronglinks with civil society and theprivate sector. More specifically,the government will have to en-hance its trust worthiness amongthe other development actors inaddition to coming up with waysof tapping financial resourcesfrom the private sector. This willin future depend a lot on the out-come of the regulatory frame-works for addressing economicmismanagement and crimes. Itwill also be prudent for govern-ment to continually learn fromNGOs and other developmentpartners regarding the processand usefulness of an effectiveparticipatory approach. This isdue to the fact that NGOs andCBOs have relatively more ag-gressive orientations to grass-roots-based synergies whichhave been tested and found towork.

The process started under thePRSP and NACC strategies em-phasised stakeholder consulta-tions at the local and grassrootslevels. The consultations consti-tuted a critical and hitherto un-precedented participatorymechanism in the fight againstpoverty. The challenge emanat-ing from the PRSP and NACCprocesses is whether similarconsultations will be extendedto the implementation, monitor-ing and evaluation phases ofPRSP.

Given that participation is acivil and political right of everyperson,63 the government will infuture have to strengthen andinstitutionalise consultativepartnerships with all develop-ment actors because socio-eco-nomic inequalities touch the do-mains of all parties. It is, how-

92


ever, notable that participationis defined differently by thevarious development actors.There is thus a need tooperationalise the concept ofparticipation so as to make itmore useful in the pro-poor pov-erty eradication approaches forredressing inequalities. A radi-cal approach to participation

will be needed so as to redresssocio-economic inequalities.64

Another challenge is tostrengthen popular local fora forpro-poor people's participation(Box 6.4). CBOs and other lo-cal institutions will require a lotof strengthening for them to en-hance their negotiating compe-tencies and capabilities. In this

Radical development analysislooks at participation parexcelfence in terms of aprocess through whichdevelopment targets the poorand decides when, how and inwhat ways they will benefitfrom their resource.

93


way, CBOs will manage tocome out of the dependency thathas traditionally been en-trenched by the "hand-out" ap-proaches by both governmentand NGOs. Useful tools in thiscapacity enhancement for CBOswill be community resourcesand mass media. Capacity build-ing strategies for CBOs shouldbe sensitive to inequalities ineducation, skills and other par-licipation capabilities betweenthe poor, non-poor, rural, urban,regional and class categories.

6.5 Future Role ofHuman DevelopmentReport

Muring the process of preparingthis HDR, it clearly emergedthat the HDR process is stillunknown by many governmentdepartments, NGOs, CBOs, uni-versities and the common citi-zens. Few people have copies ofthe HDR and even fewer peo-ple use it. Human developmentis in fact confused with humanresource development. The rea-son has been that, unlike thissecond Kenya HDR which aimsat the institutionalisation of theprocess, the first HDR did not

attract popular participation. Inaddition, many organisationsand individual citizens associ-ate the HDR process with ex-ternal forces, mainly donors andbilateral and multilateral agen-cies.

The challenge for the futureof the HDR is to make it moreencompassing and participatoryright from the conception of thetheme on to data collection, dataanalysis and validation, reportpresentation and disseminationto the wider public. The HDRwill have to be indigenised andlocalised in terms of the KenyaGovernment and developmentpartners who should lake thelead in the overall HDR proc-ess,

Since the HDR is meant toassess progress in human devel-opment, an important role willbe to stimulate national devel-opment dialogue and debate oncritical human growth and wel-fare issues. In addition, theHDR has Ihe potential of sensi-tising development partners onthe sectors, social groups andregions requiring urgent atten-tion as well as the impacts ema-nating from past interventions.

94

Appendix 1 Tables

95

APPENDIX 1: TABLES


Human Development Index

96

Human Development Index

APPENDIX 1: TABLES

97


Gender-related Development Index

98

APPENDIX 1: TABLES

Gender-related Development Index

99


Human Poverty Index

100

Appendix 2: Technical Notes

APPENDICES 2-4; BIBLIOGRAPHY

101


102


103


Appendix 3: Data Sources

This report has utilised data fromsources of different quality. It isthus important to explain how theinformation was collected, its qual-ity and the underlying conceptsused in collecting the data. Such areview helps the user and reader tobetter understand and interpret thedata.

Data for the HDR were mainlygenerated from three sources: ad-ministrative records, populationand housing censuses, and samplesurveys. Some of this informationwas in published form while mostwas unpublished. While the pub-lished information was largely in itsfinalised form, most of the unpub-lished data were raw in the sensethat they were undergoing furtheranalysis in preparation for publica-tion. Such raw data are likely tochange, albeit slightly, after furthervalidation and are therefore provi-sional.

These data sources are re-viewed below with a view to judg-ing quality and limitation of usage,especially in making spatial andtemporal comparisons.

Administrative Records

Administrative records mainly gen-erated school enrolment data fromthe Ministry of Education for theHDR. The main weakness is in-completeness in primary and sec-ondary school data, where onlyenrolment data on public schoolsis complete. The enrolment data forprivate schools is either incompleteor totally missing. The shifting ofdata collection responsibility fromthe Ministry to the Teachers Serv-

ice Commission is the main causeof this weakness; the latter hasfailed to effectively collect datafrom private schools. Aggregateddata on tertiary training were avail-able from the Ministry of Educa-tion. Data from household surveyswere also used.

Sample Surveys

Most of the HDR data arc derivedfrom sample surveys conducted byCBS. The main surveys generatingthe data are the 1994 Welfare Moni-toring Survey (WMSII), the 1997WMSIII, the 1998 Kenya Demo-graphic and Health Survey(KDHS), the 1998/99 IntegratedLabour Force Survey and the 2000Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey(M1CS)

The main limitation in the datais the aggregation level. The sur-vey results are reasonable at na-tional and provincial levels of ag-gregation. However, the precisionof the estimates declines when weattempt to disaggregate the resultsto district level. This is mainly be-cause sample size is reduced as wemove from the province to focuson the district as the domain ofstudy. This becomes more acutewhere there are high none re-sponses.

The other limitation is omissionof the rural areas of North EasternProvince and three other ASAL dis-tricts of Masarbit, Turkana,Samburu and Isiolo. The surveyscover only the urban clusters inthese districts. Of the above listedsurveys, only (WMSII) covered therural components of such areas by

use of special sampling methods forsuch "floating populations". There-fore, results from these districtsshould be indicated as representingthe urban, i.e., North Eastern (ur-ban). The urban results becomemore unreliable as we go down tothe districts and individual towns.For example, only one cluster wascovered in Isiolo town during the2000 MICS. All seven respondinghouseholds had taped water. Sogeneralising this observation to thedistrict or the whole town is verymisleading. To overcome this prob-lem, figures from these regionswere adjusted by a computed ratioof urban to rural for the respectiveprovinces.

Population andHousing Censuses

Data from the censuses are morereliable since they emanate fromcomplete coverage. In particular,they arc the only sources of bench-mark data for estimating and pro-jecting demographic indicatorssuch as life expectancy at birth,mortality and fertility.

The main constraint faced intrying to use the 1999 populationand housing census data was thatthe data were still undergoing fur-ther cleaning. Therefore, the maindemographic indicators could notbe obtained from this source, forthey are contained in the analyticalvolumes which are yet to be com-piled. Only the basic results onpopulation counts in volumes I andthe housing stock in II were fullyutilised.

104


Annual Publications

Use was made of published datacontained in the two annual publi-cations of Statistical Abstract andEconomic Survey. The figures arereliable but limited to national ag-gregates. The other caution is thatthe current year figures are alwaysprovisional and hence subject tochange in the subsequent editions.

Comparability andTrends

Constructing a trend using datafrom different surveys can be prob-lematic, especially when there weredifferences in survey methodologyin terms of coverage, data collec-tion methods and questionnairecontent, Also, spatial comparabil-ity of the results is limited if datawere from different sources.

Concepts

This section attempts to explain themain concepts and unfamiliar termsin-built in the data contained in theHDR.

HouseholdHouse is the unit of enumerationthat is used in all household-basedsample surveys and population cen-suses. It is defined as a person or agroup of persons residing in thesame compound, answerable to the

same head and pooling and shar-ing resources for common provi-sions such as food and house rent.

Work and employmentThe concept of work covers all per-sons undertaking economic activi-ties for pay, profit or family gain.The term employment refers to per-formance of work. Employed per-sons include paid employees, self-employed (working employers andown account workers), unpaid fam-ily workers and apprentices. Em-ployed persons so defined maywork any of the non-overlappingsectors of the economy, i.e., mod-ern sector, informal sector or small-scale agriculture and pastoratistsectors.

Unemployed andunemployment roteUnemployed persons generally in-clude those who reported during thereference survey period that theywere without work, were bothavailable for work and seekingwork. The unemployment rate isthe percentage of unemployed tothe total labour force, where labourforce is the sum of employed andunemployed.

Household incomeHousehold income covers all re-ceipts that accrued to the house-hold or its individual members. Itis the sum of primary income (con-

sisting of income from paid and selfemployment); property income(consisting of imputed rents ofowner-occupied dwellings, interestreceived and paid, dividends re-ceived, and net rents and royaltiesreceived for the use of buildings,land, copyrights and patents); cur-rent transfers (consisting of socialsecurity benefits, pensions and lifeinsurance annuity benefits, alimonyetc.); and other benefits received byall ihe members of (he household.

Household expenditure.Household expenditures may besplit into consumption and non-consumption expenditure. Thehousehold expenditure data con-tained in the HDR report refer toconsumption expenditure whichincludes only goods and servicesthat are acquired or purchased forhousehold use. Consumption ex-penditures are further split to cashpurchases and imputed expendi-tures. The latter include value ofgoods and services produced andconsumed by the household duringthe reference period such as con-sumption from own business stocksor from own agricultural produc-tion, imputed rent value of owner-occupied housing and grows rentalvalue of free employer-providedhousing occupied by the household.The former covers actual expensesmet by the household in paying forconsumption goods and services.

105


District and Town Codes Used in the Report

106

APPENDICES 2 - 4 ; BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appendix 4: GIS Maps

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

107

APPENDICES 2 - 4 ; BIBLIOGRAPHY

HUMAN POVERTY INDEX

109


Bibliography

Action Aid Kenya (2000), A Syn-opsis of Action Aid Kenya'sPartnership with the Govern-ment in the Build-up to ihcThird Ministerial Conference ofthe World Trade Organizationin 1999. Nairobi: Action AidKenya.

Alisena, A. and D. Rodrik (1994)."Distributive Politics and Eco-nomic Growth," The QuarterlyJournal of Economics 109:465-489.

Alisena, A. and R. Parroti (1996),"Income Distribution, PoliticalInstability and Investment," Eu-ropean Economic Review40(6): 1203-122M.

Deineger, K. and L, Squire (1996),"A New Data Set MeasuringIncome Inequality," WorldDank Economic Review 10:565-591.

Fajnzylbcr, P., D. Lcderman and N.Loazya (1998), "Determinantsof Crime Rates in LatinAmerica and the World," WorldBank and Latin America and theCaribbean Series Paper. Wash-ington, DC: World Hank.

Hazlewood, A. (1974), "IncomeDistribution and Poverty," inKillick, T. (ed.) Papers on theKenyan Economy. Nairobi:Heinemann.

IEA (2001), "Economic Impera-tives in the Context of PoliticalTransition," The Point no. 43.Institute of Economic Affairs.

1LO(2000), Investment for PovertyReducing Employment StudyReport. Geneva: InternationalLabour Organization Jobs forAfrica Poverty-Reducing Strat-

egies for sub-Saharan Africa(ILO/JFA-PRESSA).

ILO/KAMAT (1999), Kenya:Meeting the Employment Chal-lenges of the 21st Century. Ge-neva: ILO.

KARI (2001), Partnerships: KenyaAgricultural Research Insti-tute's Experience. Nairobi:KARI.

Klassenn, S. (1999), "Docs In-equality Reduce Growth andDevelopment?"

Lustig, N. (1999), "Crises and thePoor: Socially ResponsibleMacroeconomics.'' Presidentialaddress to the Fourth AnnualMeeting of the Latin Americaand Caribbean Economic Asso-ciation, Santiago, Chile.

McCormick, D. and C. Aboudha(2000), Differences BetweenRural and Urban Enterprises,IDS staff seminar paper, Uni-versity of Nairobi, Institute forDevelopment Studies, May.

M inistry of Education, Science andTechnology (2001), Educationfor All in Kenya: A Handbookfor 2000 and Beyond. Nairobi:Government Printers.

Ministry of Health and NationalCouncil for Population and De-velopment (2001) Kenya Serv-ice Provision Assessment Sur-vey

Mwabu, G. et al. (2000), Povertyin Kenya: Profiles and Determi-nants. Nairobi: Department ofEconomics, University of Nai-robi and Ministry of Financeand Planning. Mimeo.

Mwangi wa Gethinji (2000), "In-

come Distribution and Dual-ism: The Case of Kenya," Re-view of Development Econom-ics 4(3).

NACC (2000), Kenya NationalHIV/AIDS Strategic Plan2000-2005. Nairobi: Office ofthe President, National AIDSControl Council.

Nyamwaya, D. (ed.) (1997), Cop-ing Without Coping: What PoorPeople Say About Poverty inKenya. Nairobi: AMREF/HRSSD, Ministry of Financeand Planning.

Obudho, R. A. (ed.) (1992), "Ur-banisation and Planning theCity of Nairobi," African UrbanQuarterly 7(1,2).

Republic of Kenya (1996), WelfareMonitoring Survey 1994, BasicReport. Nairobi: Central Bu-reau of Statistics.

Republic of Kenya (1998), KenyaDemographic and Health Sur-vey. Nairobi: GovernmentPrinters.

Republic of Kenya (1999a), Inte-grated Labour Force Survey1998/99. Nairobi: Central Bu-reau of Statistics,

Republic of Kenya (1999b), Na-tional Poverty Eradication Plan.Nairobi: Government Printers.

Republic of Kenya (1999c), Eco-nomic Survey. Nairobi: CentralBureau of Statistics.

Republic of Kenya (I999d), KenyaHuman Development Report1999. Nairobi: Ministry of Fi-nance and Economic Planning,Central Bureau of Statistics,IRIS.

110


Republic of Kenya (1999c), Wel-fare Monitoring Survey 1997.Nairobi: Central Bureau of Sta-tistics.

Republic of Kenya (19990, TheNational Micro and Small En-tcrprises Baseline Survey. Nai-robi: Central Bureau of Statis-tics and International Centre forEconomic Growth.

Republic of Kenya (1999g), Ses-sional Paper Number 3 of 1999on National Poverty Eradica-tion 1999-20IS. Nairobi: Gov-ernment Printer.

Republic of Kenya (2000a), TheInterim Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper 2000-2003, Pre-liminary Draft. Nairobi: CentralBureau of Statistics.

Republic of Kenya (2000b), Sec-ond Report on Poverty inKenya, Vol. 1 and II, Nairobi;Ministry of Finance, GenitalBureau of Stalistics.

Republic of Kenya (2000c), Gov-ernment Expenditures on BasicSocial Services. Nairobi: Officeof the President/UNDP/UNICKR

Republic of Kenya (2000d), Mul-tiple Indicator Cluster Survey.Nairobi: Central Bureau of Sta-tistics.

Republic of Kenya (2000e), Eco-nomic Survey. Nairobi: CentralBureau of Statistics.

Republic of Kenya (2001a), 1999Census Provisional Results.Nairobi: Central Bureau of Sta-tistics.

Republic of Kenya (2001b), ChildLabour Report 1998/99. Nai-robi: Central Bureau of Statis-tics.

Republic of Kenya (2001c), Eco-nomic Survey. Nairobi: CentralBureau of Statistics.

Republic of Kenya, (2001d), KenyaService Provision AssessmentSurvey. Nairobi: Ministry ofHealth and National Council forPopulation and Development.

Republic of South Africa (2000),South Africa Human Develop-ment Report. Pretoria:

Syagga, P.M. and P. O. Ondiege(1995), Development of Infor-mal Housing and SettlementCooperative Society Ltd: AnEvaluation of Private Commu-nity Development Project. Nai-robi: USAID/LEDSO/HSA.

Tostensen, A. et al. (1998), Kenya'sHobbled Democracy Revisited:The 1997 General Elections inRetrospect and Prospect. Oslo:Norwegian Institute for HumanRights.

UNDP (1997), Human Develop-ment Report 1997. New York:United Nations DevelopmentProgrammne/Oxford UniversityPress.

UNDP (1998a), Progress AgainstHuman Poverty in Africa. NewYork: United Nations Develop-ment Programme/Oxford Uni-versity Press.

UNDP (1998b), Poverty ReportI998. New York: United Na-tions Development Pro-gramme/Oxford UniversityPress.

UNDP (2000a), Human Develop-ment Report 2000. New York:United Nations DevelopmentProgramme/Oxford UniversityPress.

UNDP (2000b), Assessment ofGender Mainstreaming in sub-Saharan Africa. New York:United Nations DevelopmentProgramme,

UNDP (2000c), Poverty Report2000. New York: United Na-tions Development Programme.

UNDP(2000d). Social Watch, NewYork: United Nations Develop-ment Programme.

UNDP (2001a), Human Develop-ment Report 2001. New York:United Nations DevelopmentProgram me/0 s ford UniversityPress.

UNDP (2001 b). Economic Policiesand Poverty Reduction: Macr-oeconomics, Restructuring andRedistribution. New York:United Nations DevelopmentProgramme/Oxford UniversityPress.

United Nations (1996), Platformfor Action and the Beijing Dec-laration: Fourth World Confer-ence on Women, Beijing,China, 4-15 September 1995.New York: UN Department ofPublic Information.

Vali, J. (1982), Rural-Urban Gapand Income Distribution. AddisAbaba: ILO.

World Bank (2001), World Devel-opment Report 2000/2001:Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (2000), Can AfricaClaim the 21st Century? Wash-ington, DC: World Bank.

111

Documents

Kenya - Human Developmenthdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/kenya_2001_en.pdf · Kenya Human Development Report 2001 ... Growth Rales in Agriculture, ... Crisis of Social Development