About a month ago, the national government gazetted the guidelines for Kenya’s Equalisation Fund. They were long overdue; the Equalisation Fund was created by the 2010 Constitution to improve services in the most marginalised parts of the country.

It should have started operating by 2013 at the latest. It probably could have started to operate even earlier, but it required a policy from the Commission on Revenue Allocation on marginalised areas, which was provided only in February 2013. 

So let us say that we are about two years late with these guidelines, which in turn require ministerial work plans that may not be approved in time for this budget season, meaning we may need to wait still longer for these funds to be disbursed. That is a shame, as the objectives of the Equalisation Fund are earnestly desired by so many Kenyans.

Was it worth the wait? I don’t think so. First of all, on the one issue that the Constitution left open, and on which we would have wanted clarity from these guidelines (will the money be used by national government directly or will it be given as conditional grants?), there is none.

The guidelines indicate that we will deal with this on a case-by-case basis, based on the ministerial work plans mentioned above. Flexibility is not a bad thing, but this is a small, time-bound fund.

For it to have an impact, there must be a focused plan for its use. Yes, a “robust management structure” is needed, as National Treasury states in the guidelines. But what is needed far more is a vision for how to achieve something memorable with this fund. 

The guidelines anticipate a board consisting of principal secretaries of the national departments related to the four constitutionally mandated services (roads, water, electricity and health).

Their respective departments will propose work plans to be reviewed by the board. The board will advise on how much to put here or there and whether it should be a conditional grant or not. This sounds like a recipe for lots of small projects divided across lots of counties.

Although the four services covered by the Fund are all shared or devolved functions, there is no county representation on this board. Who will ensure that the national work plans are related properly to county plans, take into consideration local priorities, and recognise the complementary roles of the two levels of government?

Perhaps such representation will be covered by the four additional members that are “outside the public service”, but perhaps not. The board may also form local “committees” to advise on projects, which sounds ominously like CDF, and another parallel programme that will duplicate or undermine county plans.

The main problem with the way that the Equalisation Fund is rolling out, aside from delays caused by parliament’s attempt to grab it and drive it through the CDF, relates to CRA’s marginalisation policy rather than these guidelines. By choosing to focus on counties as the unit of analysis, the CRA missed an opportunity to help us think about the massive inequities within counties.

Inequalities in Kenya are in most cases more severe at constituency and ward level than at county level.

For example, data from Kenya National Bureau of Statistics and the Society for International Development released in 2013 show that the range of poverty rates among counties is four to one.

This means that the county with the highest share of poor people has four times the share of the county with the lowest share of poor people. But at the ward level, the ward with the highest share of poor people has 30 times the share of the ward with the lowest share of poor people. 

Given that the Constitution speaks of marginalised areas and marginalised communities, there is no reason to assume that the Equalisation Fund should target counties. It would make as much sense to target the most marginalised wards in the country through a conditional grant that brought together a stream of resources capable of overcoming that marginalisation.

This would require an assessment of the most marginalised wards in the country by access to the four services, and a strategy that links the available funds to guaranteeing that in those wards, however many can be managed, it would be possible “to bring the quality of those services in those areas to the level generally enjoyed by the rest of the nation, so far as possible.”

Whether this is done through a conditional grant or not is less important than whether there is an ambitious, coherent plan to make it happen and to which national departments and counties make their contributions. In this regard, both the CRA policy and the guidelines fall short. When it comes to ending marginalisation, it seems, there will be no big bang.

Jason Lakin is Kenya country manager for the International Budget Partnership. E-mail:[email protected]