Since independence the creation of productive
and sustainable employment opportunities has remained a central policy
priority of the Kenya government.
A number of policy
interventions have been formulated and variously implemented in that
period. Key among these policies is the growth-oriented development
strategy augmented by a high wage and Kenyanization policies adopted at
independence.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, government
employment interventions targeted enhancing the acquisition and
promotion of efficient use of labour market information, reliance on
market forces to mobilise resources for sustained growth, provision of
public infrastructure, industrial policy, enhancement of private sector
investment and participation in the economy, promotion of industrial
harmony and productivity and liberalization of the labour market.
In
2003, the government of the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC)
formulated a five-year development strategy (Economic Recovery Strategy
for Wealth and Employment Creation, 2003-2007). This strategy was
anchored on the principles of democracy and empowerment. The strategy
put a case for empowerment of the people through creation of employment
and other income earning opportunities.
Despite all
these interventions, creation of adequate, productive and sustainable
employment continues to be the greatest economic challenge for Kenya.
This has been aptly recognised in the country’s long-term development
blueprint: Vision 2030, the Medium Term Plan (2008-2012), and Labour,
Youth and Human Resource Development Sector Plan (2008-2012).
According
to these policy documents, the country’s employment problem is
manifested in slow growth of formal sector employment vis-à-vis a
burgeoning informal and jua kali sector offering many, increasingly
precarious jobs; a 15.7 per cent open unemployment rate; increasing
number of the working poor; rapidly changing forms of employment with
limited job security; high youth unemployment, 90 per cent of whom lack
appropriate vocational and professional training to effectively
participate in the labour market.
Economic theory
identifies several types of unemployment. The main ones, which are also
relevant to Kenya are structural, frictional, seasonal, cyclical, and
wage rigidity unemployment.
Structural unemployment is
caused by changes in the structure of demand, technology and problems of
labour mobility that characterises the Kenyan labour market.
Frictional
or search unemployment is the unemployment due to skills mis-match,
imperfect information flow within the labour market, difficulties and
long time lags experienced in changing or finding alternative jobs and
other rigidities within the labour market.
Just like in
other countries, the Kenyan labour market is always in a state of flux
with people leaving and changing jobs while others are joining. With the
information asymmetry that characterises the Kenyan labour market, it
generally takes quite some time for job seekers and employers to match.
Seasonal
unemployment occurs due to seasonal variations experienced in the
various sectors of the economy such as agriculture, fishing, tourism and
manufacturing. The variations are attributed to changes in the climatic
conditions, and time-variant consumption patterns and demands.
Cyclical
unemployment or demand-deficient unemployment is associated with the
downswings of the trade cycle. It explains much of the redundancies that
have been witnessed in the Kenyan labour market especially with the
onset of SAPs, economic liberalization and globalization.
Wage
rigidity unemployment is unemployment that results from existence of
relatively high real or nominal wages. This may be occasioned by
inappropriate wage determination/ compensation mechanisms, including
inefficient wage fixing policies and institutions. At the same time,
unemployment may also arise due to workers pricing themselves out of
jobs because of a high reservation wage.
In Kenya,
existence of such unemployment may be examined within the framework of
effectiveness of minimum wage regulation, collective bargaining, and
administered systems of wage determination to employment creation and
poverty reduction. Similarly, the efficiency, competitiveness promotion
ability and degree of adherence to the widely used wage compensation
parameters may need to be re-examined.
The greatest
leap in the growth in informal sector employment was witnessed as from
1991. This period of rapid growth in informal employment in Kenya (1991
onwards) coincided with the period when the Kenyan labour market started
suffering formal sector employment losses triggered by liberalization
policies, renewed government strategy towards promotion of growth and
development of the informal and “Jua Kali” sector (1992), and broadening
of the definition and more consistent capturing of informal sector data
in the national statistics.
Even though no reliable
statistics are available on the dynamics of the jobs, it may as well be
true that much of the informal sector jobs may have been accounted for
by relocation or switching of workers from formal to informal sectors of
the economy due to the negative effects of the Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), implemented in the 1980s, liberalization policies, which were deepened in 1990s, and increased globalization.
Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), implemented in the 1980s, liberalization policies, which were deepened in 1990s, and increased globalization.
It’s
clear that since 1991, formal jobs have decreased rapidly, while the
informal sector has grown at a tremendous speed without any support from
the government.
The biggest question is why are we
letting the so-called reformers take us for a ride yet as far as the
employment issue is concerned, none of these guys can offer any credible
solution?
Even with the promised 30% procurement
presidential directive for youth, this is still a mirage that will not
solve the unemployment equation as the directive lacks the requisite
legal framework to ensure that it works and that ministries can be held
accountable for failing to follow it.
A friend of mine
told me on twitter that 0.005% of youth applicants will succeed at the
30% procurement issue because the system is designed to frustrate us and
that despite the president promising awesome aspects for youth, he has
not enforced legislative frameworks to ensure his directive works.
Another
friend told me that the president flags off these programs to teach
youth a lesson. A lesson of patience. A lesson that riches do not come
that easily. The unfortunate bit about all these, is that, the policy
formulation lacks the legal backing to make it work and this has been
the scenario for years.
Unless the policy formulation
changes, we the youth are being given a tall tale and the story teller
is the Ministry of Devolution
No comments :
Post a Comment