Efficient spending, not more cash, is what we need

In convening the public participation exercise last week during which the public was invited to participate in presentations on various government initiatives funded by the public, the Ministry of Finance and Planning ticked an important policy requirement box but only achieved dialogue between like-minded people.

Policy wonks from the ministries and departments exchanged jargon with non-governmental public and private sector experts. There was very little participation from the famous “common mwananchi”, the person that our President popularised as the “hustler”.

Hardly surprising as these guys are not paid to burn three days listening to seriously boring presentations on the budget. It is probably a good thing they did not attend because there was little uplifting news from the Kenyatta International Convention Centre.

Non-attendance means that they can now only receive depressing news through third-party reporting. The worst of that news is that sectors that are most directly involved in hustler promotion work are getting less than half of what their sectors had requested. They cumulatively asked for Sh136.7 billion but have only been allocated Sh47 billion in the 2023/24 budget.

This is money intended to fund activities that should ultimately put some cash in the pockets of ordinary people by saving them some costs or directly earning them some income. The sectors include Cooperatives, Trade, Medium Small and Micro Enterprises, Industry promotion, Investment Promotion, Tourism, the East African Community and Arid and Semi-Arid Lands. Other than the agricultural sector, none other can offer as much opportunity for employment as those affected.

As the Kenya Institute of Public Policy Research notes, this sector “is key to the realisation of the government development agenda as relates to manufacturing, value addition, food security, MSME and tourism development.” The budget decisions will reportedly directly affect 17 projects lined up for implementation in the next three years.

The hustlers, mama mbogas, watu wa mjengo, boda boda operators and others may not be too happy to hear this but this is the reality. It is during budgeting that the cold-hearted nature of government comes to the fore. Resources are sliced, diced and served with heartless efficiency completely devoid of the campaign nonsense. The butchering is particularly bloody when the demand far outstrips the supply as in our case.

Inadequate funding 

A number of things are likely to happen in the circumstances. Even with inadequate funding, the requesting departments will rush to implement most of the projects that they had planned, at the same scale, meaning that many will not be completed at all, or be partly completed with inevitable cost overruns because of variations.

There is going to be a huge amount of unpaid bills because commitments will be made without fund allocations. And it will create a huge opportunity for rent-seeking as contractors and service providers jostle for front-of-queue positions to get paid.

This wanton approach to project implementation in the face of compelling reasons to pause and review is something that this government must address. Must we start new projects because of political expediency when there are many important projects that should be completed? Why is it so difficult to complete ongoing projects, pay off debts and then start new ones? It is only political hubris that tries to legitimise this scandalous and deliberately wasteful inefficiency.

In the allocations will also be read all sorts of political gamesmanship. Communities that voted contrary to the winning wave will be seen to be punished, political friends will be reportedly rewarded, etc. That is the nature of the political beast and nothing will wish it away. What is hardly ever fully interrogated is whether the little that is allocated actually gets to do what it was intended for.

Extracting value

If we effected the same level of efficiency in extracting value from the money allocated to various causes as President Paul Kagame’s government does in Rwanda, the billions actually invested (forget what the requests are) would have achieved extraordinary results. We would not be in the debt hole we are in even with the same debt levels because we would be paying what we owe comfortably.

All is not lost, even if most sectors got less than what they had asked for. We should and must flip the argument to demand that the public gets full value for its tax shillings whether a sector gets 20, 50 or 110 per cent of what it asked for in the first place.

Those public participation sessions must be restructured to start with a full account of how past allocations were spent because therein lies inexcusable failures people should be jailed over rather than successes they should be applauded (and given more) for.

Mr Mshindi, a former editor-in-chief of Nation Media Group, is now consulting. [email protected]; @TMshindi