Making Devolution Work for Service Delivery in Kenya

Page 145

Citizen Engagement and Service Delivery

|

BOX 6.4

County elections matter: The hotly contested 2017 gubernatorial and MCA elections County-level elections in Kenya allow voters to make a judgment on the performance of their elected governors and members of County Assemblies (MCAs), and can be hotly contested. The first county-level elections took place in 2013, at the start of devolution; a second set of county elections was held in 2017, four years into the process. Voter turnout for these elections (which take place at the same time as national elections) has been relatively high: 86 percent in 2013 and 78 percent in 2017. The 2013 gubernatorial race attracted many professionals and technocrats. At the time, county governments were perceived as needing leaders who could plan and execute development programs. As a result, almost half of the candidates winning the elections had an administrative or managerial background, such as working for NGOs or bureaucrats in the public and private sector.a By 2017, however, perceptions had changed: governorships were now seen as being powerful political positions requiring candidates with political skills and the ability to negotiate for more resources for the counties. As a result, many elected leaders in the Senate and National Assembly began to show an interest in running for the office of county governor.b Service delivery performance was an important campaign issue in the highly competitive 2017 elections. The challenge of service delivery—and how the first group of governors had performed in delivering development in their respective counties—informed the political campaigns for the 2017 gubernatorial elections. Those competing against the incumbent governors argued that their competitors’ performance had been poor, and they often claimed that the incumbent governors misappropriated funds or spent them to implement projects that they had identified to help their reelection. Over half of the first-generation governors lost their seats in the subsequent election. As shown in 2017, governors need to perform if they want to stay in office.

Because MCAs are elected at the ward level and are expected to champion the priorities of their constituents at the county level, they also need to perform to ensure their reelection. The first generation of MCAs does not appear to have taken this responsibility seriously, preferring to use their positions to pursue narrower self-interests or reward political allies. Ward-based constituents, however, clearly saw things differently—and used the 2017 elections to vote out large numbers of MCA incumbents judged to have done a poor job of addressing ward needs and priorities. Across all counties, about three-quarters (74 percent) of incumbent MCAs lost their seats in 2017; only 376 (26 percent) were reelected. In some counties, as many as 90 percent of incumbent MCAs lost their seats in 2017. This appears to have strongly incentivized the 2017 MCA cohort to take on a much more active representational role and to be much more responsive to the needs and demands of their ward constituents. MCAs now find that they must be perceived as taking the priorities of their ward constituents to heart if they are to seek and gain reelection. The relative robustness of the accountability relationship between MCAs and their ward constituents is both encouraging and a cause for concern. In terms of the impact on service delivery, it suggests that MCAs—to the extent they can—must push to bring public goods and services to their electoral wards. Although positive, this somewhat narrow focus on the well-being of their ward constituents does not incentivize MCAs to address wider issues concerning neighboring wards or the county as a whole. As countywide institutions, County Assemblies do not seem to operate on the basis of countywide priorities and needs but remain much more focused on the narrower and more parochial interests of the MCAs’ electoral wards.

Source: World Bank 2020b. a. Some of the counties where a candidate with administrative or managerial experience in the running of private and public sector won in the 2013 elections include Tharaka Nithi, Siaya, Homa Bay, Kisumu, Isiolo, Turkana, Taita Taveta, Samburu, Kericho, Narok, Laikipia, Nyandarua, Kisii, Nyamira, and Murang’a. b. Out of the 47 first-generation senators, 17 decided to run for governor in 2017 (only 6 of whom were successful), while one decided to return to running for MP (Hornsby 2018).

123


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Articles inside

A.4 Service delivery oversight, management, and systems

4min
pages 180-181

A.1 Functions and responsibilities

5min
pages 170-172

A.3 County resource allocation and use

5min
pages 177-179

Major achievements and challenges

10min
pages 154-157

Delivering the future promise of devolution

2min
pages 167-169

The role of development partners

2min
page 166

Policy options to make devolution work for service delivery

18min
pages 158-165

Introduction

1min
page 153

References

2min
pages 151-152

Conclusions

2min
page 149

6.6 Project management committees

2min
page 148

MCA elections

3min
page 145

the civil service

2min
page 143

communication

2min
page 140

Makueni County

3min
page 144

6.1 Elements of social accountability systems

4min
pages 136-137

Citizen engagement and service delivery

2min
page 135

Introduction

2min
page 134

Key Messages

1min
page 133

5.1 Categories of staff on county payrolls in Kenya, FY2018/19

2min
page 127

5.1 Initiatives to improve HRM in Makueni County

2min
page 128

References

1min
page 132

Overarching HRM frameworks

2min
page 126

Capacity building

2min
page 129

Staff performance

2min
page 125

with equitable share funding per capita in FY2018/19

1min
page 118

as a share of FY2019/20 total, by county

1min
page 117

Key messages

1min
page 115

allocation and use of resources

2min
page 112

4.14 Budget execution rates, by county, FY2014/15–FY2018/19

6min
pages 108-110

4.6 Postdevolution asset and liability management remains incomplete

2min
page 106

4.5 Participatory planning in public financial management

2min
page 105

FY2019/20

1min
page 104

expenditure in Kenya, by county, FY2018/19

1min
page 102

4.4 Weaknesses in the structure of budgets at the county level

5min
pages 100-101

4.3 County budget cycle in Kenya after devolution

2min
page 98

4.1 Performance-based conditional grants

2min
page 92

4.2 County creditworthiness

2min
page 95

counties in Kenya, FY2017/18

1min
page 91

Allocation and use of resources at the county level

2min
page 96

spending

2min
page 97

Key messages

1min
page 83

by county, FY2017/18

2min
page 89

3.7 Deficiencies in ECDE information management

2min
page 75

3.8 Quality assurance in the ECDE sector

2min
page 76

Conclusions

2min
page 80

Intergovernmental relations

2min
page 77

under devolution

2min
page 73

3.9 Intergovernmental coordination in the agriculture sector

2min
page 78

County management of sector service delivery

2min
page 69

3.6 Information management in the devolved health sector

2min
page 74

perspectives B3.1.1 Institutional arrangements in the urban water and sanitation

3min
page 66

delivery, by sector

2min
page 59

Disparities in county expenditure on devolved services

2min
page 54

References

1min
pages 31-32

FY2017/18

1min
page 57

Devolution of functions

2min
page 64

2.9 Total county per capita spending, FY2013/14–FY2017/18

1min
page 44

Context

1min
page 23

Kenya

2min
page 65
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
Making Devolution Work for Service Delivery in Kenya by World Bank Publications - Issuu