Kenya’s concept of social protection has evolved since independence; from a seemingly tokenistic government response to a constitutionally recognised human right.
Over the years we have seen legislation and policy around social protection evolve from basic and aspirational, to concrete right-based frameworks that embrace international best practices; and affirmed by our judicial system.
In the course of this evolution, development partnerships have been critical in offering funding and technical support that has driven impact in diverse areas of social protection.
And while the government has progressively increased fiscal allocation to key social sectors such as social protection, the continued reliance on donor funding cannot be gainsaid. Further, many Non-Governmental Organizations across the country also rely on funding from foreign governments and other development partners to finance social protection projects that are unique to certain constituents such as children, women and refugees who disproportionately face poverty, social exclusion and vulnerability.
There is, however, a progressive decline in donor commitments and funding of critical social protection programmes. The realignment of economic or foreign policy priorities by key donor countries is slowly but surely stifling funding of important programmes in Kenya and other developing countries. Of these developments, the recent restructuring of the USAID by the current US administration has been of tremendous concern.
Furthermore, the UK government has this year reduced its international development budget by 40 per cent. Other European Union countries such as Germany have also reduced their development commitments in favour of domestic needs like bolstering their military capability.
What then can Kenya do to fill these funding gaps? There is a clarion call in development discourse for governments to reduce their reliance on donor funding by increasing fiscal headroom for financing social sector spending. While donor funding and technical support is crucial, the government needs to always create greater buy in. Overreliance on external funding puts many projects at the mercy of donor institutions and ultimately puts at risk the lives of many vulnerable households.
Evidence demonstrates that expansion of fiscal space is more a function of political will rather than adequacy of resources. Although increasing tax collection may create more fiscal space for greater social sector spending, many Kenyans already feel overtaxed making it an unpopular option. Focus should first be made towards reallocating more funds to the social sector, reducing government largesse and eliminating wasteful expenditure as has been repeatedly documented in the Auditor-General’s audit reports.
Better management and regulation of superannuation schemes for workers will guarantee workers good income replacement rates upon retirement hence reducing vulnerability, and with it, the appetite for social pension or assistance.
Currently, data from the Retirement Benefits Authority shows that there more than Sh57 billion in unremitted pension contributions. This egregious state of affairs is unacceptable as it robs workers of the funds already deducted from their pay and the growth potential of their retirement investment.
Climate change challenges
Greater use of anticipatory approaches in the face of climate change challenges lends itself to better resource planning to tackle covariate risks; investing in more poverty graduation and labour market schemes that seek to uplift livelihoods in our communities and transition households out of dependence and into self-reliance are options with huge multiplier effects and long-term dividends and ought to aggressively pursued.
In sum, social protection agendas in the Global South need to quickly realign to the changing realities of donor fatigue and the rebirth of ultra-nationalism trends in the Global North.
