It has been concerning seeing Kenyans' reactions to President Uhuru Kenyatta’s housing policy.
Most people see it as yet another plot to steal billions of shillings from hard working Kenyans. This is understandable. Throughout his tenure, Uhuru has let almost every single major public project be hijacked by the lords of corruption – from the Galana irrigation scheme, to the Standard Gauge Railway, to the last mile Kenya Power project.
The public has ended up paying a lot more than they should have. And the President has done little more than give dire warnings about accountability. But why should the public care about the new housing policy? Public opinion matters for the cost of policy implementation. Public distrust will likely impact the uptake of the housing project. Public perceptions will also impact how both the public and the bureaucratic agencies approach the implementation. What are the opportunities for waste and corruption? What are the potential scandals? How will the government ensure that graft does not hobble this project? These questions may sound trivial. But they capture what a reasonable administrator ought to do to ensure the success of a planned policy.
Yet it does not appear like the government is concerned about public perception or the need to safeguard the policy from the potential risks highlighted above. This could mean just one of two things. Either the government remains ignorant on how to ring-fence its core programmes from corruption, or this is yet another one of the many theft-through-the-Budget schemes that we have become accustomed to. If history is prologue, the latter is more likely to be true than the former.
Which is unfortunate. As I have argued before, housing (and land) policy has the potential of unlocking enormous amounts of wealth for Kenyans. In most countries, the housing stock is a critical store of value that is backed by deliberate government policies and all manner of financial products. The financialisation of the housing sectors in such countries makes it possible to have thriving construction sectors that create millions of jobs. Financialisation also enables households to borrow against the equity of their homes, and be able to spend money on important investments – such as education for their children.
In other words, if done well, Kenyatta’s housing programme has the potential to not only provide our people with decent housing, but also create tens of thousands of jobs. Has State House thought through how the housing market will be structured should the programme succeed? Will we have a single housing market, or does the government plan to create incentives for a jua kali housing sector alongside the formal one?
Given the importance of housing to every Kenyan household, a coherent single-economy housing policy would have far-reaching effects on our economy. It would also strengthen an important lever of policy transmission – in ways that would allow the government to tweak the economy behavior of households as well as the dynamics of a large sector. These are the things I hope are keeping our policymakers up at night, and not just which banks will process the loans, or which companies will be allowed to overcharge the government with inflated contract costs.
If, and that is a big if, Kenyatta’s housing programme is properly implemented, it has the potential to be a game changer. It could be the basis for improving how we distribute water and sanitation services, access to schools and hospitals, green spaces, emergency services, and many more.
The writer is an assistant professor at Georgetown University.
