This archive report was first published on 31 July 2020.
The Commission on Revenue Allocation's (CRA) Third Formula for sharing county revenue has been criticized for its unintended consequences, which include channeling resources to developed regions while revoking support for poorer ones.
According to critics, the formula's emphasis on population and economic factors has led to a disproportionate allocation of resources to well-off counties, leaving less fortunate ones with limited resources to deliver essential services.
As noted by critics, the formula's allocation of 70% of shareable revenue to already well-off counties against 30% for the less fortunate is a throwback to Sessional Paper No.10 of 1965, which prioritized resources for agriculturally productive regions, leaving marginal regions behind.
However, the Constitution has since shifted resources to dire needs, renouncing institutional marginalization. Article 174(a) of the Constitution emphasizes the importance of devolution in fostering national unity, protecting minority rights, and promoting social and economic development.
Moreover, Article 175(b) demands that county governments have reliable sources of revenue to enable them to govern and deliver services effectively. The Constitution also emphasizes the importance of equitable sharing of national and local resources throughout Kenya.
Chapter 2 of the Constitution, Article 6(3), states that a national State organ shall ensure reasonable access to its services in all parts of the Republic, so far as it is appropriate to do so having regard to the nature of the service.
Critics argue that the CRA formula runs counter to these principles, reversing the overall objective of devolution and failing to ensure equitable sharing of resources. They also point out that the formula's emphasis on land factor is a fallacy, as it should be a factor only as an enabler or not in access to and provision of a service.
As noted by critics, the formula's allocation of resources is not based on genuine need, but rather on economic and population factors. This raises concerns about the Constitution's emphasis on equality and freedom from discrimination, as well as the State's obligation to take legislative and other measures to redress any disadvantage suffered by individuals or groups because of past discrimination.
Mr. Kabatesi, a communications and governance consultant, has expressed concerns about the CRA formula's impact on devolution and the Constitution. He argues that the formula's adoption would be a threat to the Constitution's principles of devolution, equity, and social and economic development.
