Selfishness driving one-man-one-shilling campaign

By MUNGAI KIHANYA

The Sunday Nation

Nairobi,

09 June 2024

The one-man-one-shilling-one-vote campaign is mathematically unsound. It is also socially and economically unwise. First, let us tackle the mathematical angle. Ever since the introduction of the first county revenue allocation formula in 2012, politicians from the densely populated areas of the country have claimed that their regions are unfairly treated.

Every time the Committee on Revenue Allocation (CRA) releases the amounts to be allocated to the counties, these politicians are quick to dividing the figures by county populations to illustrate that their regions get lower amounts per person. Then they make a seemingly valid argument that “development is for people, not land area, therefore all regions should get same amount per person”.

That argument is not only simplistic, but also mathematically disingenuous. It gives the impression that CRA only looks at the size of the county in determining the allocations. That is simply not true.

The current revenue allocation formula considers the following eight factors: Basic equal share (20 per cent of the money), Population (18pc), health facilities (17pc), poverty levels (14pc), agricultural activities (10pc), road networks (8pc), land area (8pc) and urbanization levels (5pc).

Clearly, population is already considered and, not only that, it carries more than double the weight of land area (18pc versus 8pc). Since the population is already factored in, it is completely wrong to go round and divide the allocated amounts by the populations. Furthermore, demanding that this be the only consideration creates the impression that this money will be given to individual citizens in cash!

This money is for social-economic development and for public services. It should benefit the people wherever they are located within the county. The challenges of serving a large number of people concentrated in a small area deserve recognition; but so too do the challenges of serving few people who are scattered over a wide area.

A simple example will help illustrate this: building a 20km road in, say Murang’a might connect 5 market centres. One carriageway might not be adequate hence the County may opt for a dual carriageway. A 20km road in Marsabit will end in the middle of nowhere – it will not connect any markets! Marsabit might need 100km of road to connect 5 centres.

This is the reason why both land area and population must be considered when allocating the county revenues. The debate we should be having is what proportion of the money should be given to each of these factors.