the civil service

BOX 6.2

Devolution and inclusion: An example of ethnic representation in the civil service

The rules and policies to limit overrepresentation of ethnic majorities include the national policy for rotating civil servants and the County Governments Act 2012 requirement that new appointments by County Public Service Boards (CPSBs) constitute less than 70 percent of employees from any single ethnic group. In practice, many counties contravene this regulation: more than two-thirds of counties have hired more than 70 percent of staff from the county’s majority ethnic group.

However, noncompliance with this rule does not necessarily mean that ethnic majorities end up being overrepresented: in 64 percent of counties, the largest ethnic group constitutes more than 70 percent of the county population, and in 42 percent of counties the majority groups exceed 90 percent of the population. Thus, although 32 of the 47 counties were found to be hiring more than 70 percent of new staff from the largest ethnic group, there were only 10 counties where the largest ethnic group was clearly overrepresented among new hires—and in many counties, this was in fact correcting for underrepresentation of that group among existing civil servants in that county.

Although the data suggest that ethnic imbalances in public service are not severe in the aggregate, the government is right to continue actively responding to issues around county-level ethnic representation. In specific county cases, the ethnic recruitment balance is more seriously skewed. Even if there are structural reasons for these imbalances (such as migration, educational inequalities, or insecurity), this can still fuel grievances, as evidenced by numerous cases of intracounty conflict since 2013. However, the legislated quota would, if rigidly enforced, lead some counties to build a civil service with an ethnic composition that is very different from the populations that they serve, without necessarily protecting small, marginalized groups.

Affirmative action that promotes specific marginalized groups in a given county may prove a more effective means of addressing grievances related to representation, rather than blanket rules to limit overrepresentation of ethnic majorities.

Source: NCIC 2016.

but soon realized that ward- and village-level forums provided better opportunities for citizens to meaningfully and inclusively engage with the county’s planning and budgeting processes.

Overall, the framework for transparency and participation exists nationally. In most counties, however, implementation remains piecemeal and fragmented— an approach that is unlikely to generate the incentives for counties to improve service delivery. Only through the integration and institutionalization of transparency and participatory public processes are county governments able to address endemic governance challenges. The example of Makueni County is illustrative (box 6.3). The County Executive made deliberate efforts to promote inclusive governance by integrating and embedding multiple participatory mechanisms—including participatory budgeting, a citizen-led project implementation committee, and the establishment of robust GRMs—that have enabled the county to address governance challenges and accountability across multiple dimensions, laying strong foundations for improving basic service delivery.

Accountability

Direct elections of governors (and deputy governors) and MCAs have offered an effective channel for citizens to hold county governments to account for their performance. Citizens have had the opportunity to directly elect the governor