Journal of Public Policy and Administration

| Peer-Reviewed |

The Impact of Devolution Policy on Water Service Delivery in Kenya

Received: Jun. 21, 2023    Accepted: Jul. 17, 2023    Published: Jul. 27, 2023
Views:       Downloads:

Share

Abstract

Various institutional models for the governance of water services have been implemented in different nations with varying degrees of success. Devolution is one such model, in which both political policymaking authority and fiscal resources are decentralised to subnational government units. Assigning specified responsibilities to various levels of government is a crucial design future of the institutional arrangements enacted through devolution policy. This article examines how the assignment of functions within Kenya's existing institutional structure, in accordance with devolution policy, has impacted the country influenced the provision of water services. The article is based on qualitative data drawn from twenty-six semi-structured interviews with policy actors from the national and county levels of government, as well as non-governmental water sector actors. Transcribed data were analysed using thematic coding through Dedoose, a tool for qualitative data processing. The article establishes that a lack of clarity on functional assignment in the devolution institutional arrangements has led to opportunistic actors, primarily from the national government, exercising their powers to assert a dominant position in water services delivery, even in functional competencies assigned to the county governments, thereby impeding the achievement of optimal outcomes in water supply services. The article concludes that when designing institutional arrangements for public service delivery in multilevel governance regimes, it is crucial that the adopted configuration recognises and adequately addresses the political complexity inherent in the distribution of authority and attendant fiscal resources through a clear definition in the legal framework, of explicit functions assigned to each level of government and concurrent functions to be undertaken jointly by both levels and how these should be coordinated. To make devolution policy more effective, the assignment of functions should also be proportional to the scale of the policy issues being addressed at what level in order to avoid situations of institutional mismatches that could undermine the desired governance outcomes.

DOI 10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12
Published in Journal of Public Policy and Administration ( Volume 7, Issue 3, September 2023 )
Page(s) 127-140
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Devolution, Institutions, Functional Assignment, Water Services Delivery

References
[1] African Development Bank. (2010). Water Sector Governance in Africa.
[2] Aligica, P. D. (2015). Institutional Diversity and Political Economy: The Ostroms and Beyond. Perspectives on Politics, 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714003399
[3] Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in Decentralization: A Framework with South Asian and West African Cases. Journal of Developing Areas, 33 (4), 473-502.
[4] Andrews, M., & Schroeder, L. (2003). Sectoral decentralisation and intergovernmental arrangements in Africa. Public Administration and Development, 23 (1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.257
[5] Bolleyer, N. (2006). Federal dynamics in Canada, the United States, and Switzerland: How Substates' internal organization affects intergovernmental relations. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 36 (4), 471-502. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjl003
[6] Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019). Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons. Policy Studies Journal, 47 (4). https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212
[7] Chowns, E. (2015). Is Community Management an Efficient and Effective Model of Public Service Delivery? Lessons from the Rural Water Supply Sector in Malawi. Public Administration and Development, 35 (4). https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1737
[8] Commission for Revenue Allocation. (2022). Comprehensive Own Source Revenue (OSR) potential and Tax Gap Study.
[9] Datta, P. K., & Sodhi, I. S. (2021). The rise of the Panchayati Raj institutions as the third tier in Indian federalism: Where the shoe pinches. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 67 (1), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/00195561211005569
[10] De Mello, L. R. (2000). Fiscal decentralization and intergovernmental fiscal relations: A cross-country analysis. World Development, 28 (2), 365-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00123-0
[11] Dillinger, W. R. (1994). Decentralization and its implications for urban service delivery. World Bank.
[12] Dubois, H. F., & Fattore, G. (2009). Definitions and typologies in public administration research: The case of decentralization. International Journal of Public Administration, 32 (8), 704-727.
[13] Farazmand, A. (2018). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20928-9
[14] Ferrazzi, G., & Rohdewohld, R. (2017). Emerging practices in intergovernmental functional assignment. Taylor & Francis.
[15] Frimpong Boamah, E. (2018). Polycentricity of urban watershed governance: Towards a methodological approach. Urban Studies, 55 (16). https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017750080
[16] Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? In Governance (Vol. 26, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12035
[17] Garrick, D. E. (2018). Decentralisation and drought adaptation: Applying the subsidiarity principle in transboundary river basins. International Journal of the Commons, 12 (1), 301. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.816
[18] Glicksman, R. L. (2010). Climate Change Adaptation: A Collective Action Perspective on federalism Considerations. Environmental Law, 40 (2), 1159-1193.
[19] Hassenforder, E., & Barone, S. (2019). Institutional arrangements for water governance. In International Journal of Water Resources Development (Vol. 35, Issue 5). https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1431526
[20] Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Kenya Population and Housing Census Results. https://www.knbs.or.ke/2019-kenya-population-and-housing-census-reports/
[21] Lewis, B. D. (2016). Is central government intervention bad for local outcomes? Mixed messages from Indonesia. The Journal of Development Studies, 52 (2), 300-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1068293
[22] Marshall, G. (2007). Nesting, Subsidiarity, and Community-based environmental Governance beyond the Local Scale. International Journal of the Commons, 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.50
[23] Marshal, G. R. (2015, May). Polycentricity and adaptive governance [Paper presentation]. 15th Biennial Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons, Edmonton, Canada.
[24] Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007). Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104 (39). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702296104
[25] Ménard, C., & Saleth, R. M. (2012). The Effectiveness of Alternative Water Governance Arrangements. In Investing in Water for a Green Economy. Services, infrastructure, policies and management. United Nations Environment Program/Routledge.
[26] Mumma, A. (2005). Kenya’s new water law: an analysis of the implications for the rural poor. International Workshop on ‘African Water Laws: Plural Legislative Frameworks for Rural Water Management in Africa.’
[27] Musiga, T. (2016). Kenya-south Africa dialogue on devolution. Strathmore Law Journal, 2 (1), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v2i1.24
[28] Mutschinski, K., & Coles, N. A. (2021). The African Water Vision 2025: its influence on water governance in the development of Africa’s water sector, with an emphasis on rural communities in Kenya: a review. Water Policy. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2021.032
[29] Okeyo Obosi, J. (2021). Community Management and Water Service Delivery in Africa. In Resources of Water. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90746
[30] Okiya Omtatah Okoiti and 3 others versus Nairobi City County and 5 others (2014) KLR (High Court of Kenya, Petition No 143 of 2014, consolidated with petition no 142 of 2014 & judicial review appl. no 140 of 2014) http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/104026/
[31] Ostwald, K., Tajima, Y., & Samphantharak, K. (2016). Indonesia’s decentralization experiment: Motivations, successes, and unintended consequences. Southeast Asian Economies, 33 (2), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1355/ae33-2b
[32] Purwanto, E. A., & Pramusinto, A. (2018). Decentralization and functional assignment in Indonesia: The case of health and education services. Policy Studies, 39 (6), 589-606. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1530413
[33] Riverson, J., Gaviria, J., & Thriscutt, S. (1991). Rural Roads in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons from World Bank Experience. World Bank.
[34] Rohdewohld, R. (2022). Sector Decentralization and Functional Assignment in Asia and the Pacific. In Decentralization, local governance, and localizing the sustainable development goals in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 104-130). Taylor & Francis.
[35] Sarker, A., & Itoh, T. (2001). Design principles in long-enduring institutions of Japanese irrigation common-pool resources. Agricultural Water Management, 48 (2). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00125-6
[36] Simeon, R., & Murray, C. (2009). Reforming multi-level government in South Africa. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines, 43 (3), 536-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2010.9707569
[37] Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50 (155). https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00106
[38] UNDP. (2009). Review of Functional Assignments for Provinces / Provincial Governments in Solomon Islands. UNDP/UNCDF.
[39] van den Brandeler, F., Gupta, J., & Hordijk, M. (2019). Megacities and rivers: Scalar mismatches between urban water management and river basin management. Journal of Hydrology, 573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.01.001
[40] Vezbergaite, I. (2016). Decentralisation policies, Subnational autonomy and federal executive power. Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava, 16 (1), 55-76. https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.16.1.2
[41] WASREB. (2022). IMPACT 14 - a Performance Report of Kenya’s Water Services Sector – 2020/21. Water Services Regulatory Board (WASREB). https://wasreb.go.ke/impact-report-issue-no-14/
[42] WHO/UNICEF. (2021). Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2020: Five years into the SDGs. World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
[43] World Bank. (2023). Unblocking sector financing for universal access to water supply and sanitation in Kenya. World Bank Group. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099451403012317614/idu0d60b57e701ea9047af09b6d08712dedc048e
[44] World Bank. (2018). Own-Source Revenue Potential and Tax Gap Study of Kenya’s County Governments.
Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    James Origa Otieno, Joseph Okeyo Obosi, Justine Mokeria Magutu. (2023). The Impact of Devolution Policy on Water Service Delivery in Kenya. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 7(3), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    James Origa Otieno; Joseph Okeyo Obosi; Justine Mokeria Magutu. The Impact of Devolution Policy on Water Service Delivery in Kenya. J. Public Policy Adm. 2023, 7(3), 127-140. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    James Origa Otieno, Joseph Okeyo Obosi, Justine Mokeria Magutu. The Impact of Devolution Policy on Water Service Delivery in Kenya. J Public Policy Adm. 2023;7(3):127-140. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12,
      author = {James Origa Otieno and Joseph Okeyo Obosi and Justine Mokeria Magutu},
      title = {The Impact of Devolution Policy on Water Service Delivery in Kenya},
      journal = {Journal of Public Policy and Administration},
      volume = {7},
      number = {3},
      pages = {127-140},
      doi = {10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12},
      eprint = {https://download.sciencepg.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jppa.20230703.12},
      abstract = {Various institutional models for the governance of water services have been implemented in different nations with varying degrees of success. Devolution is one such model, in which both political policymaking authority and fiscal resources are decentralised to subnational government units. Assigning specified responsibilities to various levels of government is a crucial design future of the institutional arrangements enacted through devolution policy. This article examines how the assignment of functions within Kenya's existing institutional structure, in accordance with devolution policy, has impacted the country influenced the provision of water services. The article is based on qualitative data drawn from twenty-six semi-structured interviews with policy actors from the national and county levels of government, as well as non-governmental water sector actors. Transcribed data were analysed using thematic coding through Dedoose, a tool for qualitative data processing. The article establishes that a lack of clarity on functional assignment in the devolution institutional arrangements has led to opportunistic actors, primarily from the national government, exercising their powers to assert a dominant position in water services delivery, even in functional competencies assigned to the county governments, thereby impeding the achievement of optimal outcomes in water supply services. The article concludes that when designing institutional arrangements for public service delivery in multilevel governance regimes, it is crucial that the adopted configuration recognises and adequately addresses the political complexity inherent in the distribution of authority and attendant fiscal resources through a clear definition in the legal framework, of explicit functions assigned to each level of government and concurrent functions to be undertaken jointly by both levels and how these should be coordinated. To make devolution policy more effective, the assignment of functions should also be proportional to the scale of the policy issues being addressed at what level in order to avoid situations of institutional mismatches that could undermine the desired governance outcomes.},
     year = {2023}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - The Impact of Devolution Policy on Water Service Delivery in Kenya
    AU  - James Origa Otieno
    AU  - Joseph Okeyo Obosi
    AU  - Justine Mokeria Magutu
    Y1  - 2023/07/27
    PY  - 2023
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12
    DO  - 10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12
    T2  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
    JF  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
    JO  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
    SP  - 127
    EP  - 140
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2640-2696
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20230703.12
    AB  - Various institutional models for the governance of water services have been implemented in different nations with varying degrees of success. Devolution is one such model, in which both political policymaking authority and fiscal resources are decentralised to subnational government units. Assigning specified responsibilities to various levels of government is a crucial design future of the institutional arrangements enacted through devolution policy. This article examines how the assignment of functions within Kenya's existing institutional structure, in accordance with devolution policy, has impacted the country influenced the provision of water services. The article is based on qualitative data drawn from twenty-six semi-structured interviews with policy actors from the national and county levels of government, as well as non-governmental water sector actors. Transcribed data were analysed using thematic coding through Dedoose, a tool for qualitative data processing. The article establishes that a lack of clarity on functional assignment in the devolution institutional arrangements has led to opportunistic actors, primarily from the national government, exercising their powers to assert a dominant position in water services delivery, even in functional competencies assigned to the county governments, thereby impeding the achievement of optimal outcomes in water supply services. The article concludes that when designing institutional arrangements for public service delivery in multilevel governance regimes, it is crucial that the adopted configuration recognises and adequately addresses the political complexity inherent in the distribution of authority and attendant fiscal resources through a clear definition in the legal framework, of explicit functions assigned to each level of government and concurrent functions to be undertaken jointly by both levels and how these should be coordinated. To make devolution policy more effective, the assignment of functions should also be proportional to the scale of the policy issues being addressed at what level in order to avoid situations of institutional mismatches that could undermine the desired governance outcomes.
    VL  - 7
    IS  - 3
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

Author Information
  • Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

  • Section