District planning and local government in Kenya
| Published date | 01 October 1990 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230100407 |
| Author | Malcolm Wallis |
| Date | 01 October 1990 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Vol.
10,437452
(1990)
District planning and local government
in
Kenya
MALCOLM WALLIS
University
of
Birmingham
SUMMARY
In many ways the autonomy of local government in Kenya has declined in the last twenty
years. After reviewing the various tendencies towards centralization which can be observed
and looking at some of the reforms which have occurred, the current district planning approach,
known as the District Focus for Rural Development Strategy, is analysed in order to explore
the roles played within it by local government. Policy documents and other official statements
are discussed, as are the attitudes of political and administrative leaders. Whilst the new
strategy is supposed to bring about greater decentralization, it has led to a continuing reduction
of local government autonomy especially for the county councils. However, pessimistic conclu-
sions can not be easily drawn. Local government is not likely to be abolished, the new approach
may enable it to play a more effective planning role-even if a less autonomous one-and
there are other forms of local participation (especially through community development) which
partly compensate for the erosion of formal local government.
INTRODUCTION
During the past two decades, Kenya’s experience of development administration
at the local level has been both consistent and paradoxical. Two trends have been
discernible. On the one hand, the central government has frequently affirmed its
belief in the concept of decentralization, an affirmation which has become even more
pronounced in recent years. However, during the same period, elected local govern-
ment-generally regarded as a key component of any meaningful decentralization
strategy-has in some ways become weaker. Two questions which arise from this
apparent contradiction will be addressed in this article. First, what is the reality
of decentralization in Kenya? Secondly, given the relatively marginal role being
played by local government, what is implied for future strategy? These issues will
be discussed with special reference to a policy of the Kenya government which is
currently being implemented, the
District
Focus
for Rural Development Strategy
(DFRDS). By way of historical background, reference will also be made to previous
approaches which have been adopted, the DFRDS being in a sense an outgrowth
of earlier policies towards local institutions and planning. In this discussion, the
county councils will be our principal concern, as they are the main type of local
authority representing rural people. Urban local government will thus only be referred
to in passing. Reference will also be made to the role played by local government
Dr Wallis is a lecturer at the School
of
Public Policy at the University
of
Birmingham, Edgbaston,
Birmingham B15
2TT,
U.K.
027
1-2075/90/040437-16$08.00
0
1990
by John Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
438
M.
Wallis
in the wider political context. There is a network of political patronage in Kenya
within which local government at all levels has played a key part for many years.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING:
THE
1960s
AND
1970s
The processes by which much of Kenya’s local government system has experienced
‘institutional decline’ are quite complex, a number of factors having been involved
at various points in time (Oyugi,
1983).
A Commission of Inquiry into local govern-
ment was set up in
1966
under the chairmanship of Mr
W.S.
Hardacre. This body
was asked to look into the question of how to improve ‘the capacity of local authorities
to contribute towards the implementation of the National Development Plan’
(Republic
of
Kenya,
1966,
prefatory note). The Commission decided to go beyond
its brief and also discussed the general role of local authorities in planning. The
fate of its recommendations provided a foretaste of the trends towards centralized
government which followed in the
1970s
and
1980s.
By
the time the Commission started work (mid
1966),
a rudimentary district plan-
ning structure had been set up in the form of District Development Committees
(DDCs) and District Development Advisory Committees (DDACs), complemented
by provincial equivalents. These bodies were both strongly dominated by central
government administrators, the leading figures being officers of the Provincial Admin-
istration under the office of the President, the District Commissioners. The DDACs
were the bodies on which a district’s local authorities were mainly to be represented,
along with members of Parliament elected for constituencies within the district con-
cerned, although Clerks of Councils were included in the DDCs. As implied by
their name, the DDACs had quite limited functions. In a sense, they were redundant
committees since even the DDCs were essentially also advisory in nature. DDACs
were thus advisory to a further committee (the DDCs) which in turn could only
make suggestions on development issues to higher levels in the hierarchy dominated
by central government. In any case, DDACs had only small local authority member-
ships since only Council Chairmen and Clerks were to be included. This meant
that a very limited role in planning could be played by the local authorities even
though at that time they had important functions to perform (especially education,
health and roads).
The Hardacre Report presented quite a different picture of how district planning
might proceed. Expressing concern at the lack of any provision for local authority
participation in plan preparation, the commission argued that ‘the local authorities
either individually or in suitable groups ought to be consulted at the drafting stage
and also at the stage of implementation on any matters affecting local government’
(Republic of Kenya,
1966,
p.
59).
To this end it proposed that all county councils
should appoint development committees with wide ranging powers
of
co-optation
‘to collect and examine schemes to be put forward to the appropriate Ministry and
also give advice as to any relevant priority and control the implementation’ (Republic
of Kenya,
1966,
p.
59).
Hardacre also argued that these committees might replace
the DDACs, on the grounds that the latter seemed to be making little progress.
In its response to these proposals, the government accepted in broad terms that
local authorities ought to be involved in the planning process but rejected the idea
To continue reading
Request your trial