Rapid urbanisation is inevitable for economic growth, so encourage it
What you need to know:
- Both the national and county governments should adopt policies that allow settlement in urban areas.
- The value of actively escalating the growth of urban areas by allowing more Kenyans to relocate there is not immediately evident, and may find resistance.
- Consider that despite their undeniable deprivation and the discomfort of their lives, the poor people in Kenya’s urban areas still have higher incomes than virtually all those in the idyllic rural areas.
Because agriculture has been a major contributor to employment and economic growth, Kenyans have retained a high affinity for rural areas. Kenyans also assume that rural areas must retain this role in economic growth.
The reality is that, given the tag of a “middle income” nation, a disproportionate share of the population living and working in rural areas is not consistent with that status.
The most recentNational Population and Housing Census of 2009 showed then that about 70 per cent of Kenya’s population lives in rural areas. Compared to the census held in the decade before that, the figures suggest that with the exception of a few suburban areas around Nairobi and Mombasa, the rest of the country remains largely rural.
Further comparison of overall figures shows that the growth in overall urban population is almost half of the overall growth of the population.
The history of economic growth shows that poorer countries also tend to be overwhelmingly rural, with subsistence agriculture as the primary source of employment.
Part of Kenya’s transformation must involve providing impetus for urban growth, both in population and scope of economic activities. Despite the fact that most Kenyans households are based in the rural areas and are engaged in running farms of different sizes, the falling productivity of land and rural labour demonstrates that in comparison to urban areas, rural areas are not only less productive but also occupied by a vast but dispersed population.
Economic policy should not be based on explicit support for either rural or urban areas, but rather on the possibility of individuals contributing towards raising the productivity of labour. Both the national and county governments should adopt policies that allow settlement in urban areas.
LEAVE SUBSISTENCE FARMING
For instance, policies for infrastructure development should provide incentives for population density. The advantage of city dwelling is that higher population density allows for more efficient provision of infrastructure such as energy, roads and water pipelines.
It does not take a very sophisticated equation to realise that the cost of connections achieved under the Rural Electrification Programme (REP) compares poorly to that in Kenya’s main urban areas because of lower population density in rural areas.
A policy drive towards the promotion of urban living does not mean discrimination towards citizens living in rural areas. County governments may also have an interest in encouraging higher density in settlements since this would not only generate more economic activity, but also create opportunities to provide services and revenues that most county governments need badly, but are struggling to get today.
Another advantage from policies that encourage growth of cities and dense settlements is the empirical finding that cities contribute to growth of new businesses. Kenya, having tripled its population in the last four decades, is clearly under rising pressure to utilise land more efficiently.
This means there is a need for many Kenyans to find opportunities away from subsistence farming. Without a doubt, the firms that will dominate business in this country are being formed in large and small cities. This is evidence that cities are the seedbed for firms that will provide cutting edge services and goods.
The value of actively escalating the growth of urban areas by allowing more Kenyans to relocate there is not immediately evident, and may find resistance.
NOT A ROSY LIFE
Understandably, the adulation towards rural areas and farmers as the growers of our food and generators of a substantial part of Kenya’s foreign exchange makes the idea of facilitating urban growth look questionable.
Existing slums in Nairobi and Mombasa are considered an eyesore and sometimes a national embarrassment, and it seems laughable, therefore, that one would argue for a policy that encourages urban growth.
It is true that the uncollected refuse and flowing water through the unlit streets of slum settlements of Nairobi do not point to a rosy life. The relative deprivation in Kenya’s urban slums is a mirror of the poverty of the country.
Consider that despite their undeniable deprivation and the discomfort of their lives, the poor people in Kenya’s urban areas still have higher incomes than virtually all those in the idyllic rural areas.
As urban economist Edward Glaeser states, “Cities are not full of poor people because cities make people poor, but because cities attract poor people with the prospect of improving their lot in life”.
The ‘turudi mashamabani’ (let’s return to the farm) call should be retired and Kenyans should be encouraged to bring their skills to urban areas.
Kwame Owino is the Chief executive Officer of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA-Kenya), a public policy think tank based in Nairobi. Twitter: @IEAKwame
