Every government believes it is working hard. Most leaders wake up early, hold meetings, launch projects, travel across the country and genuinely believe they are moving the nation forward. Their frustration often comes when the public does not see results fast enough. But history teaches a difficult lesson: effort alone does not guarantee progress. Working hard and working smart are not the same thing.
For generations, porters carried goods from Mombasa to the interior, sweating under immense loads. Their effort was real. Then came railways and trucks. Productivity changed. The same journey that once required hundreds of labourers could now be completed faster, cheaper and at a far greater scale. Likewise, women once spent hours pounding maize with a pestle and mortar. Then came the posho mill. The objective remained the same, but the method transformed productivity.
Development follows the same principle. A father may sincerely buy the largest television in town to make his family happy. But if school fees is unpaid, medical bills are accumulating, and the family business lacks capital, the purchase becomes difficult to defend. The problem is not the television. The problem is timing and priority.
Questionable economic priorities
Proverbs 24:27 advises: “Put your outdoor work in order and get your fields ready; after that, build your house.” History offers many examples of governments pursuing grand projects with good intentions but questionable economic priorities.
For example, Nigeria's Ajaokuta Steel Project, launched in 1979, consumed billions of dollars over decades without becoming the industrial engine originally envisioned. In Côte d'Ivoire, the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace in Yamoussoukro became a magnificent architectural achievement, yet many questioned whether the same resources could have produced greater social returns through investments in health, education and rural development. Myanmar built an entirely new capital city, Naypyidaw, complete with vast highways and monumental government buildings. Whether one views the project as visionary or excessive, it remains a reminder that physical structures alone do not guarantee broad-based prosperity.
The lesson is not that governments should avoid ambitious projects. It is that ambition must be matched with careful prioritisation. Before undertaking any major expenditure, policymakers should ask three simple questions. First, who benefits? A good project should eventually improve many lives. Even when benefits begin in a specific location or sector, the path toward broader national gains should be clear.
Second, does it raise productivity? The most transformative investments help people learn, heal, produce, trade, innovate and create wealth.
Third, what is the opportunity cost? Every shilling spent in one place is a shilling unavailable elsewhere. Good governance is not merely about choosing worthwhile projects. It is about choosing the most worthwhile projects among many competing needs.
Jesus captured the principle elegantly in Luke 14:28: “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost?”
Kenya’s housing debate should be viewed through this lens. Decent shelter improves dignity, health and quality of life. Construction creates jobs and stimulates demand for materials and services. The question, therefore, is not whether housing has value. But at this moment in Kenya's development journey, could scarce public resources generate greater national returns elsewhere?
Consider education. Kenya has 2.6 million learners in public secondary schools, according to the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Every improvement in teaching quality, school infrastructure, technical training and affordability expands the nation's future productive capacity.
Education remains the most reliable pathway through which a child born into poverty can enter the middle class.
Then there is health. No economy can outperform the health of its people. When hospitals lack medicines, when patients delay treatment because of cost, or when families are pushed into poverty by medical emergencies, the consequences extend far beyond individual suffering. Productivity declines, savings disappear, businesses lose workers, and communities lose potential.
Consider manufacturing. No country has achieved sustained middle-income status without expanding its productive base. Manufacturing creates something unique: it generates new wealth rather than merely redistributing existing wealth. Kenya's manufacturing stands at 7.6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, while Vietnam's is at 16 per cent. Closing even half that gap would add roughly Sh800 billion to Kenya's economy.
This is why countries such as South Korea, China and Vietnam invested heavily in human capital and productive industry long before they achieved widespread prosperity.
Development economist Albert Hirschman observed that successful development often begins with investments that create strong linkages across the wider economy. Likewise, Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson have argued that prosperity flourishes when institutions and opportunities are broad-based rather than concentrated around narrow interests.
The political lesson is equally important. Citizens eventually distinguish between monuments and opportunities; between a cathedral and a clinic; between a ribbon-cutting ceremony and a job.
The governments that endure are not necessarily those that spend the most. They are the ones who spend where the greatest number of citizens can feel the difference.
In development, the objective is not to work harder than everyone else. The objective is to work smarter. Nations, like families, become prosperous not by building the biggest house first, but by educating their children, keeping them healthy and giving them productive work.
