How to understand inequality in Kenya

Inequality is not only the income gap between the rich and poor. It entails differences in access to education, health, access and enjoyment of political rights and representation.

By M.J. Gitau

There are three foundational issues that need to be understood for a debate on inequality to be useful. First, there is the distinction between poverty and inequality. These are distinct but related concepts. Poverty entails the inability of a person to afford the basic needs for living. It is therefore a measure of the levels of well-being seen from the perspective of a pre-defined threshold, the so-called poverty line. Inequality entails the differences in well-being, that is, how distinct are two people or families, one from the other, whether poor or rich.

Secondly, inequality does not just mean the income gap between the rich and poor. It entails differences in access to education, health, access and enjoyment of political rights and representation.

Thirdly: does a given society strive for equality or equity? In essence, equality connotes perfect parity. It does not give consideration to the fact that people will inherently have different endowments, efforts and choices. Equity, on the other hand, is founded on fairness and social justice. It is important to stress, that there are certain things that demand equality as opposed to equity. Legal and human rights are an example. Regardless of skills, background, colour or race the law must treat everyone equally.

The root of inequality

From this discussion, we can now look at the root causes of the inequality that we observe in Kenya today. There are four inter-linked causes to consider.

1) The politics: A writer once wrote that there cannot be such a thing as an apolitical economic problem. For a long time politics has dominated public policy. Since independence the patrimonial state (patrimony where property is inherited from one’s ancestors) has favoured those who were close to power. It rewarded political loyalty with economic goods. In recent times, this skewed political structure has given rise to (grand) corruption. Fundamentally, graft entails the giving of rewards that are not earned, thus giving rise to undue disparities.

For instance, early this year the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) was in the middle of a scandal involving the irregular hiring of warders for training, who were later to be fired. If this would have been let to continue, then someone who was more deserving (possessed qualifications required but lacked a “godfather”) would have ended up losing out, making them poorer in the long term, with the less deserving warders moving on to secure employment at the KWS, and a better life after that.

Patronage politics and corruption thus rewards more to those who work less and less to those who work more. This is a serious distortion of equal chances and fair play, and can explain a lot of inequalities in Kenya.

2) The policy process: In Kenya this may have contributed to inequality either by design or unintended consequence. Consider, for instance, Kenya’s post-independence planning blueprint, the session paper #10 of 1965 on African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya. While this paper was aimed at integrating the ideals of African socialism to policy, it may have been the origin of the dichotomy between “high potential” and “low potential” zones in Kenya. The paper noted that “to make the economy grow as fast as possible, development money should be invested where it will yield the largest increase in net output. This approach will clearly favour the development of areas having abundant natural resources, good land and rainfall, transport and power facilities, and people more receptive to, and active in, development.”

Structural adjustment in the 1980s may also have had a disproportionately high negative impact on the less well-off. Negative policy outcomes can also be by sheer distortion of how policy is designed. The Public Expenditure Review 2004 indicated that the ratio of the top and minimum salary in the civil service is 118:1. This is a staggering disparity, which may not even be explained by skills and performance.

3) The geographical factor: For a long time Kenya has been a predominantly agricultural country. This meant that areas that were suitable for agriculture (for both domestic consumption and export) have tended to be well-off over time. One can make a casual link between Central Province—the least poor province in Kenya—and the fact that it produces three export crops (tea, coffee, horticulture) and has relatively good development indicators. Agro-ecological conditions of a region therefore seem to be a relevant factor in explaining regional disparities in Kenya, holding other factors constant.

4) The issue of natural talents and skills: This factor may perhaps explain the inequalities that may not be explained by any of the above factors, and lead us to what one might call natural disparities. For instance, people coming from certain areas in Kenya are known to be predominantly good athletes and runners. Now, even if these were comparable opportunities for all, these communities would on average be better just by the mere fact that they excel in a very lucrative sport.

Equal opportunities create equity

How has policy responded to the issue of inequality? In the 1970s and ‘80s there was a concern of boosting social spending to give Kenyans capacity to lead productive livelihoods. Heavy investments in education and health in the 1970s and the focus on district rural development in the 1980s can be said to have been a tacit way of dealing with disparities in Kenya.

In the 1990s the main focus of policy was on poverty reduction. Starting with the National Poverty Eradication Plan 1998-2015, the formation and demise of the Poverty Eradication Commission, and the Bretton Woods inspired Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, there seems to have been a clear focus on reducing poverty in Kenya. (The PEC has since been revived.) This said not much success was registered. The number of people living in poverty increased from 11 million in 1990 to 18 million in 2004.

Today, the Economic Recovery Strategy broadly aims at economic recovery and poverty reduction. It sees revival of the economy as the key to availing resources and opportunities for an empowered populace to improve their own lives. Its success will depend on how the twin goals of economic growth and distribution (the social agenda) will be balanced.

What are the broad policy options for reducing inequalities? Firstly, there is the promotion of equal opportunity to important factors of life such as education, health, political rights and representation. Once this is granted, people’s efforts and choice should lead to equitable outcomes. Secondly, as is the case in Kenya, the conduct of the state and market, meaning governance and reforms respectively, will be critical. Two people can work hard, given equal opportunity, but nepotism and corruption can make one to be better off than the other. Thus, good governance will be very much linked with reducing inequalities.

Thirdly, the combination of equal opportunity and good governance may not fully guarantee equitable outcomes especially for certain individuals who are inherently disadvantaged. This is where affirmative action comes in. This should be seen from the perspective of policies that give due recognition to those who cannot participate effectively in the normal process of life. They include the marginalized, handicapped and victims of calamities and historical injustices.

Mr. Gitau is programme officer at the Society for International (SID). He is writing in his personal capacity, so the views represented are not necessarily those of the SID.

Email: mjgitau@sidint.org