During the last week of August, I was privileged to observe the public participation process around Elgeyo Marakwet’s Annual Development Plan. In one ward, a trader pleaded that the entire budget proposal for the ICT department be diverted towards building a public toilet at the market. Her sentiments: ‘We need a toilet more than we need internet connection’.
There are often good reasons for the decisions made by government. If these reasons are not revealed, however, then the decisions stand a high chance of rejection. In this case, the county had only justified its investment in ICT by saying it would “enhance service delivery”.
Governments should distribute public resources in a transparent manner and based on publicly acceptable criteria. For the counties, this means that we should have information about the distribution of resources and projects among wards to the grassroots. The choices made should be based on widely accepted principles, such as equity. In order to distribute funds equitably, an argument must be put forward explaining, for example, why certain areas deserve more resources than others.
These reasons, which should be based on reliable and accessible data, might involve historical marginalisation, or the relative health or welfare of the different areas, or the degree to which different areas are able to meet their own needs with their own resources. When reasons are well articulated and justified, citizens are more likely to support decisions because they understand them, and more likely to accept decisions they disagree with.
How often do the counties provide information on distribution and justifications for that distribution? This past year, IBP Kenya conducted research analysing the distribution of resources within the counties. Three key budget documents were scrutinised from 2013 to 2016 for detailed information on distribution: County Integrated Development Plans, the Annual Development Plans, and the annual budget estimates.
We also took a more cursory look at County Fiscal Strategy Papers for information on the criteria used for distribution. We focused on the water sector for all 47 counties and the entire development budget of three counties: Kisumu, Elgeyo Marakwet and Nakuru.
Our first question was whether the county governments reveal the geographical location and specific allocations for projects. We then investigated whether the documents contained reasons for the distribution of resources (we call these ‘public reasons’ or ‘public justifications’ because they are available to the public for debate).
The first obstacle to our research was the lack of key budget documents. While all but three counties had their CIDPs publicly available, the majority did not have a single ADP available. We were able to access about 80 per cent of all county budget estimates for 2013-2016.
Of the documents available, less than 60 per cent of CIDPs, roughly half of ADPs and less than a third of budget estimates have information about both the geographical location of projects and their costs. Most documents that mention the criteria used for distributional decisions give inadequate explanations, meaning the reasons can generally not be linked to specific decisions made.
Many county budgets include a foreword with a casual assertion that they were produced after extensive consultations. However, there is no way to link the output of these consultations to the documents. It is impossible to identify specific proposals from the public as reports on public participation are not generally published. In the few cases where they are available, it is unclear why some projects are rejected and what criteria was used in selecting those that make it to the budget documents.
This lack of serious public justifications for decisions made tends to weaken the decision-making process, undermine confidence in government and make it difficult for government to advance its agenda. While a public toilet may well be more urgent than an internet connection, had the ICT department offered a better justification than enhancing service delivery, there might have been meaningful debate about it before it was rejected.