How Counties Spent KSh 66.89 Billion of Your Taxes for Development

By Korir Isaac / January 23, 2019



2018 budget Kenyans

Amidst reports of fund misuse and misappropriation, the Financial Year 2017/2018 was not a smooth ride for several counties in terms of expenditure. Where others seemed to have gotten their act together, others faced various challenges in terms of budget implementation and whereas others breached the public finance management framework.

All the 47 counties used a total of 303.83 billion shillings for various purposes. This was broken down into 236.94 billion shillings for recurrent expenditure (87.3 percent of the annual recurrent budget), and 66.89 billion shillings for development expenditure (48.1 percent of the annual development budget).

According to the 2017/2018 Controller of Budget report, the total expenditure was 74 percent of the aggregated annual county governments’ budgets during the period under review.

The report notes that the counties with the highest overall budget absorption rates were; Kiambu at 85.5 percent, Marsabit at 85 percent, and Laikipia at 84.2 percent.

Those that recorded the lowest rate of absorption included Nakuru, Tana River, and Vihiga counties at 59.3, 53.7, and 48.5 percent respectively.

A focus on the development expenditure showed that Mombasa, Marsabit, Kilifi and Murang’a registered the best absorption rate at 76, 74, 73.1, and 72.5 percent respectively. Kisumu, Wajir, Vihiga, and Taita Taveta with rates of 23.6, 22.9, 17.5, and 12.7 percent, respectively, had the lowest absorption rate.

The overall absorption rate in development expenditure was a decline from the 65.3 percent, reported in FY 2016/17 when the total development expenditure stood at 103.34 billion shillings.

Mandera County led in terms of total expenditure for development purposes at 3.89 billion shillings. Kakamega, Kitui, and Kilifi followed closely 3.88 billion, 3.28 billion, and 3.12 billion shillings respectively.

Those that hit above 2-billion mark in total development expenditure include Mombasa, Marsabit, Murang’a, Nairobi, and Kwale with 2.90, 2.54, 2.20, 2.18, and 2.14 billion shillings respectively.

A total of 20 counties used above 1 billion shillings in development activities. The approximate expenditure and overall position in total expenditure ranking is as shown below:

Kericho, Baringo, West Pokot, Elgeyo Marakwet, and Tana River spent 996.24, 987.44, 983.31, 948.90, and 918.61 million shillings respectively.

Counties like Nyandarua, Bomet, Wajir, Meru, Siaya, Kirinyaga, Nandi, and Kisumu weren’t far off behind. They respectively spent 895.37, 873.53, 842.54, 812.68, 777.57, 722.27, 716.91 and 669.36 million shillings for development activities.

Consecutively, Samburu spent a total of 549.02 million shillings with Nyamira spending 527.66 million shillings.

Closing the list of the 47 counties were those that spent the lowest in development expenditure. They include Lamu, Vihiga and Taita Taveta at 361.27, 297.47, and 206.45 million shillings, respectively

In retrospect, Turkana is the only county that has spent the most since devolution began in 2013. However, much of the developments remain incomplete, which is why the overview of the expenditure cannot be derived from the living standards of people.

On average, Turkana’s development to total expenditure ratio stands at 58 percent compared to Mandera which has spent 53 percent in the past half a decade to FY 2017/2018.

An analysis of the report shows that counties under the Arid and Semi-Arid Land (ASAL) have overshadowed other counties in allocating most of their funds to development projects. Wajir and Marsabit are also among the ones on top.

How much investment is made in key areas such as infrastructure and health largely determines the economic growth of a country. If anything, the total expenditure on development across the 47 counties gives a bearing on how Kenya is faring regarding infrastructure.

This comes at a time when another Controller of Budget report for the first quarter of the 2018/2019 financial year showed that 14 counties spent nothing on development.

The counties include Kirinyaga, Kisumu, Embu, Garissa, Meru, Nakuru, Nandi, Nyandarua and Nyeri Counties. Others are Siaya, Taita-Taveta, Tharaka-Nithi, Vihiga, and West Pokot.

The report says that these 14 counties spent funds allocated on recurrent expenditure including paying salaries, sitting allowances, and trips of county officials and MCAs.

The implications of such actions are that it amounts to stifled investments, which denies the economy the proper drive it needs to grow. Clearly, more elaborate measures and conspicuous development expenditure policies need to be implemented to dictate or to set goals that should be achieved. Otherwise, funds will continue being misappropriated and spent on unseen projects.



About Korir Isaac

A creative, tenacious, and passionate journalist with impeccable ethics and a nose for anticipated and spontaneous news. He may not say it, but he sure can make one hell of a story.

View other posts by Korir Isaac


More Articles From This Author








Other Related Articles










SOKO DIRECTORY & FINANCIAL GUIDE

ARCHIVES

2019
  • January 2019 (256)
  • February 2019 (216)
  • March 2019 (285)
  • April 2019 (254)
  • May 2019 (272)
  • June 2019 (252)
  • July 2019 (340)
  • August 2019 (151)
  • 2018
  • January 2018 (291)
  • February 2018 (219)
  • March 2018 (278)
  • April 2018 (225)
  • May 2018 (238)
  • June 2018 (178)
  • July 2018 (257)
  • August 2018 (249)
  • September 2018 (256)
  • October 2018 (287)
  • November 2018 (284)
  • December 2018 (187)
  • 2017
  • January 2017 (183)
  • February 2017 (195)
  • March 2017 (207)
  • April 2017 (104)
  • May 2017 (169)
  • June 2017 (205)
  • July 2017 (190)
  • August 2017 (195)
  • September 2017 (186)
  • October 2017 (235)
  • November 2017 (253)
  • December 2017 (266)
  • 2016
  • January 2016 (165)
  • February 2016 (165)
  • March 2016 (190)
  • April 2016 (143)
  • May 2016 (246)
  • June 2016 (183)
  • July 2016 (271)
  • August 2016 (249)
  • September 2016 (234)
  • October 2016 (191)
  • November 2016 (243)
  • December 2016 (153)
  • 2015
  • January 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (4)
  • March 2015 (166)
  • April 2015 (109)
  • May 2015 (117)
  • June 2015 (121)
  • July 2015 (150)
  • August 2015 (157)
  • September 2015 (189)
  • October 2015 (170)
  • November 2015 (174)
  • December 2015 (208)
  • 2014
  • March 2014 (2)
  • 2013
  • March 2013 (10)
  • June 2013 (1)
  • 2012
  • March 2012 (7)
  • April 2012 (15)
  • May 2012 (1)
  • July 2012 (1)
  • August 2012 (4)
  • October 2012 (2)
  • November 2012 (2)
  • December 2012 (1)
  • 2011
    2010
    2009
    2008
    2007
    2006
    2005
    2004
    2003
    2002
    2001
    2000
    1999
    1998
    1997
    1996
    1995
    1994
    1993
    1992
    1991
    1990
    1989
    1988
    1987
    1986
    1985
    1984
    1983
    1982
    1981
    1980
    1979
    1978
    1977
    1976
    1975
    1974
    1973
    1972
    1971
    1970
    1969
    1968
    1967
    1966
    1965
    1964
    1963
    1962
    1961
    1960
    1959
    1958
    1957
    1956
    1955
    1954
    1953
    1952
    1951
    1950