Economic growth should not be only gauge of devolution success

What you need to know:

Until now, the country’s policy makers and economist measure our economic success based on tracking the growth of GDP.
I remain uncertain whether any independent data is available that has measured county governments contribution to the growth of the country’s GDP.
Organisations such as the International Monetary Fund have been trumpeting the need for states to reconsider this approach and measure the success of an economy beyond a strong balance sheet.

Recently, I read an online article highlighting how New Zealand, led by Prime Minister Jacinda Adern, was considering adopting a different model in measuring the country’s economic success. In this proposal, New Zealand plans to be the first in the world to measure its success against how it does socially, culturally and environmentally.

Until now, the country’s policy makers and economist measure our economic success based on tracking the growth of GDP. I remain uncertain whether any independent data is available that has measured county governments contribution to the growth of the country’s GDP. Organisations such as the International Monetary Fund have been trumpeting the need for states to reconsider this approach and measure the success of an economy beyond a strong balance sheet.

To this end, the county governments play a central role in the country’s economic, social and political growth. It is however notable that success of devolved units is mistakenly premised more on economic success with tonnes of flagship programmes being initiated by the 47 administrations.

County governments should equally prioritise enacting social policies designed to guarantee income security and access to essential social services for all, paying particular attention to vulnerable groups. It is time we approach judging devolution success holistically using indicators that are robust and relevant.

Economic success is not the only determining factor as far as devolution success is concerned; residents need good governance, a functioning institution where services are rendered aptly, a healthy and pleasant environment to live in and most importantly, the improvements of their’ wellbeing.

Economic success should not be viewed as an end in itself. We need to interrogate how counties are not only utilising the billions being channelled from the central governments, but what impact have these funds had on the social development of the residents.

It is in my opinion that the framers of the constitution incorporated the element of devolution in the governance framework with the noble idea that it could exist to improve people’s lives. But this economic end is by no means the only one.

This brings into focus the issues that are really important, like promoting unity of communities living in the counties, provisions of essential services and promequality.

These are much better indicators in judging the health and success of the 47 county governments. If social indicators are incorporated in the devolution discussion, electorates will have an opportunity to judge the success of their respective governors not just on visible development projects but by including these indicators. In the private sector, success is judged by the amount of money made by a business, this is essentially straightforward.

However, the same cannot be said of governments as the main role of administrations is maximising tax collected for greater public good.

Much preference has been placed on opinion polls as the yardstick in gauging success or failure of a devolved unit. The clear problem is the unavoidable politicisation of the subject, thereby affecting the legitimacy of any report published.

There is need for an independent audit to gauge the immediate net cost devolution has so far had in the 47 counties, the conclusion may or may not be favourable, nevertheless , it will be a great compass in guiding economic , social and political policies.

What is especially significant now is the immediate need for a completely different approach in defining development and growth in counties; the reforms required in the county’s economic and social model will ensure the units do not become hostage of their own image of success, characterised by shiny and expensive projects which unfortunately end up having no meaningful impact for residents.

Incorporating social development as an important agenda in devolution will contribute more towards reducing poverty, containing inequality, sustaining equitable economic growth and encouraging greater empowerment and autonomy for women in counties.

Oliver Mwenda, Nairobi