Post-2010 Devolution Paradox in Kenya

Devolution refers to the constitutional transfer of administrative, political, and fiscal power to lower levels of government (Counties in Kenya). The Kenyan 2010 Constitution legally established two distinct government levels, the national and county governments. Each has legislative and executive branches operationalized in 2013. The two levels of government are to work within a “cooperative” premise that is constitutionally autonomous. The aim was to promote democracy, provide good governance at the local level, and enhance equitable redistribution of resources to the hitherto underdeveloped and politically marginalized regions of the country.

Article 174 of the Kenyan Constitution anchors devolution as a key pillar for local empowerment, through equitable resource distribution to promote national unity. It is the foundation for state power decentralization, protection of minority rights, facilitation of participation in governance, and the promotion of social-economic development in the country. Article 203 mandates counties to receive at least 15% of the national budget every fiscal year. This revenue ensures that county governments have funds to perform their functions as designated in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. Additionally, a special equalization fund is set aside to cater for historically marginalized counties (Kenya Laws, 2010). Kenyatta (2024) reiterates that addressing regional imbalances and empowering the citizenry demanded their active and meaningful participation in governance, the transfer of power in the management of devolved functions, and accountability.

The Promise: Strengthening Local Governance and Equity

Devolution has the potential to alter Kenya’s long-entrenched political economy. Fiseha (2024) points out that devolution was a platform aimed at disrupting decades of centralized governance that funneled development and resources to fewer politically connected regions and elites. This was possible if power were embedded at the subnational level (counties). County governments provided an opportunity to marginalized communities, especially those in arid and semi-arid areas, to have the authority to make decisions over local priorities such as investment in infrastructure, health facilities, and local economic development.

Bigambo (2022) argues that devolution has democratized governance in Kenya by allowing citizens to directly elect county governors and members of county assemblies (MCAs), thus establishing a greater degree of accountability. Counties with leaders who prioritize practices like participatory budgeting and inclusive governance enjoy notable advancements, such as tailored interventions to county needs (Muwonge et al., 2022).

The Paradox Emerges

Despite recording gains, Kenya’s devolved experiences reveal a paradox. It has succeeded to decentralize power but, in some instances, it has perpetuated the same dysfunctions it purported to eradicate. The persistence of challenges hinders the full realization of the normative and constitutional dream of devolution.

Devolved Corruption and Patronage

Devolution appears to have increased the redistribution of patronage politics and networks from the center to the counties rather than eroding them. Kivoi, Wanyonyi & Naeku (2022) highlight that the discretionary budgetary powers of the counties have been, in some instances, a means of creating avenues for rent-seeking, ghost projects, inflated procurement, and misappropriation of funds. Devolved budgets are at times misused by county actors without meaningful accountability. This is evident in instances where public works can be poorly executed or even budgeted for, yet the project does not exist on the ground. Scholarly assessment points out this theme where, while devolution is intended to empower county governance, it can be a breeding ground for devolved corruption that replicates the malpractices of the national government at the county level. This phenomenon compromises narratives that equate devolution to enhanced governance.

Uneven Development and Institutional Capacity

The outcomes of devolution are uneven across Kenya’s 47 counties. According to Muwonge et al. (2022), counties with high civic engagement, strong leadership, and able institutional capacity have harnessed devolved functions to gain development. In contrast, those with weak administrative capacity face challenges to deliver services, perennial project execution delays, and struggle to manage devolved responsibilities efficiently. For instance, the health sector is fully devolved but always faces systemic challenges that reverse the earlier gains in health indicators due to insufficient resources and coordination problems that compromise the ‘cooperative’ principle herein (Muwonge et al., 2022).

Centralization within Devolution

The major paradox of devolution is the persistent control of particular significant devolved functions by the national government. For instance, the constitution provides that land governance and conflict resolution are central to counties; however, they are still retained by the national government (Muwonge et al., 2022). This holds back countries from effective spatial planning, land distribution, and solving longstanding land conflicts. Further, instances of delayed and unpredictable revenue disbursement to counties by the national government undermine the intent for fiscal autonomy since some county executives have to rely on ad hoc disbursement to fund integral county functions, thereby lacking financial independence (Muwonge et al., 2022).

Public Participation and Democratic Deficits

The 2010 constitution safeguards the premises of devolution as the embodiment of the will of the people; however, at times, there are varied and perplexing realities in the practical application of devolution on the ground. Often, public participation and consultation gatherings happen for formalities rather than meaningfully incorporating citizen views (Luvaga & Abdoulaye, 2025).

Conclusion

A decade of devolution implementation in Kenya has revealed a contradictory phenomenon characterized by devolved corruption, encroachment by the national government, democratic deficits, and uneven capacities of counties. This scenario challenges the narrative of unambiguous success. Addressing this paradox requires further institutional reforms like creating mechanisms for accountability, fiscal predictability, and equipping county governments with the fiscal capacity to deliver their mandated functions. Further, the country has to invest in civic reinvigoration both in form and practice, and engage in a long-term commitment to address and limit structural

inequalities as intended by the devolved framework. As quoted by the framers of the Kenyan constitution, devolution aimed to “bring services closer to the people, enhance democratic governance and foster equitable development.” Kenyans have the responsibility to further institutionalize devolution and ensure the devolved power materializes into tangible development that improves the living conditions of every citizen, not merely devolving more power to counties.