Kenya's county governments may soon be in a dispute with the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA). The CRA has approved a new way to share money among the counties. This new approach favors counties with more people. It is similar to a past idea that was very controversial. The idea was called the "one-man-one-shilling" proposal.
Some leaders from counties with fewer people are against this new approach. They say it is unfair. Senator Danson Mungatana called it "selfish." He said it continues the economic segregation of certain areas in Kenya.
The CRA has suggested five factors to consider when sharing money. Population size is the most important factor, accounting for 42% of the decision. The current approach only gives the population an 18% weight.
The geographical size of a county is also a factor. It weighs 9%, up from 8%. This means that if the money given to counties stays the same, counties with a lot of land could lose a big part of their share.
The CRA wants to increase the total amount of money given to counties to Sh417.42 billion. This would ensure that no county gets less money than it does now.
The CRA's approach also includes equal share, poverty levels, and a new factor called "income distance." Equal share has a weight of 22%, poverty levels stay at 14%, and income distance has a weight of 13%.
This new way of sharing money would be used for five years, from 2025 to 2030. It will likely upset leaders from counties with fewer people, and those counties could get less money than before.
But even under the current approach, counties with more people are starting to receive money amounts closer to those of counties with fewer people.
Some leaders want the CRA to explain how they chose the factors and weights. Others have been pushing for sharing money based on population for a while. But those from areas with few people and a lot of land are against this idea. They want the land size to matter more.
The Constitution says the way money is shared should be reviewed every five years. The first two times had to be done every three years. The population has always been the most important factor. But other factors like poverty, land size, and more have also been used.
Finding a way to share money that everyone thinks is fair is not easy. There are a lot of different opinions. The CRA's new approach will have to be approved by Parliament. The discussion is likely to continue for some time.
Some leaders from counties with fewer people are against this new approach. They say it is unfair. Senator Danson Mungatana called it "selfish." He said it continues the economic segregation of certain areas in Kenya.
The CRA has suggested five factors to consider when sharing money. Population size is the most important factor, accounting for 42% of the decision. The current approach only gives the population an 18% weight.
The geographical size of a county is also a factor. It weighs 9%, up from 8%. This means that if the money given to counties stays the same, counties with a lot of land could lose a big part of their share.
The CRA wants to increase the total amount of money given to counties to Sh417.42 billion. This would ensure that no county gets less money than it does now.
The CRA's approach also includes equal share, poverty levels, and a new factor called "income distance." Equal share has a weight of 22%, poverty levels stay at 14%, and income distance has a weight of 13%.
This new way of sharing money would be used for five years, from 2025 to 2030. It will likely upset leaders from counties with fewer people, and those counties could get less money than before.
But even under the current approach, counties with more people are starting to receive money amounts closer to those of counties with fewer people.
Some leaders want the CRA to explain how they chose the factors and weights. Others have been pushing for sharing money based on population for a while. But those from areas with few people and a lot of land are against this idea. They want the land size to matter more.
The Constitution says the way money is shared should be reviewed every five years. The first two times had to be done every three years. The population has always been the most important factor. But other factors like poverty, land size, and more have also been used.
Finding a way to share money that everyone thinks is fair is not easy. There are a lot of different opinions. The CRA's new approach will have to be approved by Parliament. The discussion is likely to continue for some time.
