Time flies with great content! Renew in to keep enjoying all our premium content.
Strategic governance lessons from China’s Five-Year Plan model
Kenya President William Ruto and Chinese President Xi Jinping shake hands in Beijing, China September 5, 2024. China’s new Five-Year Plan offers lessons in disciplined, long-term planning that Kenya can no longer afford to ignore.
China's ruling party, the Communist Party of China, recently charted the country's path forward through its 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030).
The plan sets out a framework for China’s continued development over the next five years, focusing on key areas such as technological innovation, economic reform, environmental sustainability, and social welfare. The resolutions are a reflection of both the nation's ambitions and the complexities of the global landscape in which it operates.
With this latest long-term plan, the world’s second-largest economy is once again demonstrating the power of disciplined, forward-looking governance.
Few policy instruments have shaped modern nations as effectively as China’s planning framework, which has since its inception in 1953, guided the country’s economic and social transformation from an agrarian society to a global superpower.
China’s Five-Year Plans (FYPs) were inspired by Soviet-style centralised planning but have evolved to reflect China’s unique political and economic context.
The First Five-Year Plan (1953–1957) focused on heavy industrialisation, laying the foundation for a modern industrial base. Subsequent plans navigated periods of turbulence, including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but the planning tradition endured — adapting to new realities.
The turning point came with the 6th Five-Year Plan (1981–1985), when China began shifting from a centrally planned economy to a “socialist market economy.” From then on, the plans have become strategic blueprints — setting long-term goals, identifying key priorities, and mobilising resources and institutions toward their achievement.
The significance of China’s Five-Year Plans lies in their discipline, continuity, and focus. Each plan articulates clear national priorities — from industrial restructuring to technological innovation and environmental protection — backed by measurable targets. They align central and local governments, private enterprises, state-owned firms, and civil society behind a common vision.
Importantly, the plans are not static; they undergo rigorous consultation, research, and revision, reflecting a mix of top-down direction and bottom-up feedback. This ensures that China remains nimble in responding to internal and external changes while keeping its long-term objectives intact.
China’s achievements over the past seven decades are, in many ways, the story of its Five-Year Plans. Poverty alleviation to technological advancement, infrastructure development to environmental goals.
African countries, including Kenya, can draw powerful lessons from China’s planning model. First is the centrality of strategic discipline. China’s plans are not political slogans that change with each administration; they are national compacts that transcend political cycles.
Second is institutional alignment. China ensures that ministries, local governments, and economic actors are working toward shared goals. In Kenya, by contrast, national plans often clash with county priorities or are derailed by political contestation.
Third is forward-looking vision. China plans for decades, not just electoral cycles. It identifies strategic sectors, invests heavily in research and development, and prepares its workforce accordingly.
Kenya’s Vision 2030 was a bold step in this direction, but its execution has been uneven, often derailed by leadership transitions and resource leakages.
Perhaps the most critical lesson is discipline and commitment. The success of China’s plans hinges on rigorous implementation and accountability.
In Kenya, while policy documents abound — from development blueprints to sectoral strategies — the gap between policy formulation and execution remains wide.
None other than the Cabinet secretary for the Treasury and Economic planning John Mbadi has admitted to this misalignment.
Mbadi agrees that planning over the years has been treated as a mere ritual with little or no serious attempts being made to follow through on the agreed areas of focus, something he is promising to change.
China’s unwavering commitment to planning is partly driven by necessity. With a population exceeding 1.4 billion and regions that experience harsh winters, droughts, and floods, failure to plan would mean not just inefficiency but national catastrophe. In China, as the saying goes, “failing to plan is planning to die.”
This sense of existential urgency is largely absent in many African states, where planning is often treated as a bureaucratic ritual rather than a matter of survival and national destiny.
For Kenya, embracing a disciplined planning culture would require several shifts: Depoliticising national development plans, ensuring they are owned by the State, not just the government of the day; strengthening monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure plans are not just written but executed with precision.
Focus should also be on building a culture of long-term thinking in political leadership, civil service, and the citizenry; investing in research and data, as China does, to base planning on evidence, not guesswork.
Ultimately, Kenya’s developmental aspirations — from industrialisation to universal health coverage — will only be realised if planning moves from paper to practice.
