Lessons on resource utilisation after a decade inside devolution

More than a decade after the rollout of Kenya’s devolved system of governance, the promise of localised development remains largely unmet in many of the 47 counties. Counties were to drive grassroots transformation through tailored services and inclusive growth.

Instead, many have fallen into fiscal mismanagement; overspending on salaries, travel and hospitality, while underinvesting in real development. Yet even in this stagnation, there are lessons in both failures and successes. Kisumu County stands out for its strong focus on urban modernisation and economic growth. Its County Integrated Development Plan prioritises climate-resilient infrastructure, lakeside tourism, waste management and renewable energy. The county also plans to expand smart city solutions and has shown real commitment to environmental conservation through urban greening and lakefront restoration.

Embu County has focused on agricultural transformation. Key projects include large-scale irrigation for rice and horticulture, livestock improvement programmes, and support for farmer cooperatives. Embu has also aligned its health investments with agriculture to ensure food security is matched by strong public health outcomes. Nyeri County, though boasting some success in health systems—such as its pioneering role in piloting Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and enacting health-specific legislation—lags significantly in industrial and infrastructural investment. While the county has partially completed a large transport terminus in Nyeri town aimed at decongesting the CBD and providing business space, financial constraints have stalled its full realisation. Additionally, despite ambitious rhetoric in previous CIDPs, Nyeri’s current development agenda lacks tangible, large-scale agricultural transformation projects akin to Embu’s irrigation schemes or Kisumu’s integrated urban economy. Nyeri’s CIDP reads more as a catalog of aspirations rather than a plan anchored in catalytic, sector-specific investments.

The contrast among these counties yields several insights. First, effective county governance is rooted in strategic prioritisation and results-based planning. Kisumu’s data-backed urban planning and Embu’s sector-specific investment in agriculture show a clarity of purpose that is often absent in Nyeri’s diluted focus.

Second, counties that integrate local economic development with environmental sustainability—like Kisumu—position themselves better for long-term impact. Third, robust fiscal discipline is critical. Embu and Kisumu have committed to reducing their recurrent expenditure burdens through public financial management reforms and digitisation of county services.

Moreover, leadership matters. Counties that perform well are typically helmed by governors who articulate a vision, delegate effectively, and measure performance. Embu’s CIDP shows evidence of interdepartmental synergy, notably between agriculture, water, and health—an indicator of cohesive leadership. Kisumu’s ability to attract donor-funded urban initiatives, such as the Lakefront Development Program and the Kenya Urban Support Program (KUSP), speaks to diplomatic and technocratic agility. In contrast, Nyeri’s reliance on past glory and legacy figures as cultural capital has not translated into contemporary administrative innovation. One glaring weakness in Nyeri is lack of outcome indicators. Aside from health—where a few outcomes are tracked—other sectors rely mainly on output measures. Outcome indicators assess real change in people’s lives, such as the percentage of children who are stunted due to poor nutrition.

Why have Kisumu and Embu done better? While there may be many factors, leadership stands out. Kisumu’s Governor Prof Anyang’ Nyong’o was a Minister of Planning under President Kibaki and helped develop the Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS), the foundation of Vision 2030. In Embu, the CEC for Economic Planning is Prof Joe Kamaria.

Lastly, counties must actively pursue blended financing. They must leverage public-private partnerships, diaspora bonds, and international development grants, to unlock funding for critical infrastructure without depending solely on national transfers. The promise of devolution is not dead; it merely demands leaders willing to fulfill it.