A Critical Analysis of the County Governments’ Capacity to Handle Devolved Educational Services in Kenya

There have been mixed views with regard to devolution. Some have argued that devolution is expensive and therefore may not work. Others have seen it as the start of disintegration of the country hence going against the objective of fostering of national unity through diversity. On the other hand devolution has been seen as an opportunity to protect and promote the interests and rights of minorities as well as the marginalized communities. Some have even argued that devolution can promote social and economic development and the provision of easily available services throughout Kenya. To others devolution is an opportunity to equitably share national as well as local resources Under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of Kenya (2010). Education in Kenya is a National Function except for the management of Pre-Primary Education, Village Polytechnics, Home craft centers and Childcare facilities which have been allocated to the Counties. This provides to us an opportunity to examine the Sector in the face of devolution and also try to understand the implications and challenges that arise out of the same Vis a Vis the previous dispensation where education was solely a prerogative of the national government This critical analysis was done using qualitative and quantitative data analysis. It can be concluded from the research that the county governments have no capability to offer educational services with efficiency of the national government. More funding is recommended. The Souffle Theory and Principal-Agent Theory guided the research.

Keywords: County Governments’ Capacity, Devolved Educational Services Devolution, County, National Government, National Function.

Abdumlingo, H., and Mwirigi, M. F. (2014).Challenges of managing Devolved funds in the delivery of services: study of Mombasa county. International journal of research in commerce & management, 5(5),1-4.

Ahmad, Junaid, Devarajan, S., Khemani, S., and Shah, S. (2005). Decentralization and Service Delivery. Policy Research Working Paper 3603. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.

Akorsu, P. K.(2015). An evaluation of the effectiveness of revenue Mobilization in the public sector of Ghana cape coast metropolitan assembly. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 3(1),1-16.

Azfar, O.E.A. (1999). Decentralization, Governance and Public Services: The Impact of Institutional Arrangements. Working Paper No.255, IRIS Center.

Batchelor, S., Smith, J.,and Fleming, J. (2014). Decentralization In Sub-Saharan Africa: Prevalence, Scope And Challenges. Working Paper 2.

Batley, R. (2004). The Politics of Service Delivery Reform. Development and Change, 35(1), 31-56.

Bogopane, L. (2014). A qualitative exploratory analysis of the impact of perceived erosion of the politics administration dichotomy on good governance and service delivery in a democratic developmental state: South African perspective. European Scientific Journal, 211-222.

Constitution of Kenya(2010). The Constitution of Kenya. Nairobi. Government printer.

Dasgupta, A., and Victoria, A. B. (2007). Community Driven Development, Collective Action and in Indonesia. Dev. Change, 38(2), 229-249.

Davis, J. H., Donaldson, L., and Schoorman, F. D. (1997 ). Toward a Stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20–47.

Diaz-Serrano, L., and Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2014). Decentralization and the Welfare State: What Do Citizens Perceive? Munich Personal Archive.