By Paul Njenga
Researcher, Finance and Development Expert
More than a decade after the advent of devolution, county governments have become synonymous with development in the public imagination. Across the country, governors proudly showcase roads, markets, office blocks, stadia, health facilities, and other physical infrastructure as evidence of progress. Yet beneath this impressive landscape of visible projects lies a troubling reality: many counties are confusing expenditure with development and construction with transformation.
This is the development fallacy that has increasingly characterised county governance.
True development is not measured by the number of buildings erected or kilometres of roads constructed. Rather, it is reflected in improved livelihoods, higher household incomes, better healthcare outcomes, quality education, enhanced agricultural productivity, expanded economic opportunities, and sustainable job creation. Infrastructure is an important enabler of development, but it is not development in itself.
The constitutional promise of devolution was not merely to decentralise projects but to improve the welfare of citizens through responsive and accountable governance. Yet in many counties, development has become an exercise in maximising capital expenditure, often with little regard to economic returns, sustainability, or long-term fiscal consequences.
The result has been a growing culture of overcommitment. In pursuit of politically attractive projects, counties frequently approve expenditure levels that exceed their realistic resource capacity. Projects are launched with great fanfare, contracts are awarded, and commitments are made, only for contractors, suppliers, consultants, and service providers to wait months or even years for payment.
This has contributed significantly to the ballooning stock of pending bills across county governments.
Pending bills are not merely accounting entries. They represent unpaid businesses, struggling contractors, lost jobs, disrupted cash flows, and weakened local economies. Small and medium enterprises that supply goods and services to counties are often forced to borrow at high interest rates, lay off workers, defer investments, or shut down altogether while waiting for payments that may never come on time. Ironically, projects intended to stimulate economic growth end up impoverishing the very business communities that counties rely upon to create employment and generate wealth.
Unfortunately, county governments have often sought to shift responsibility for this crisis to delays in disbursements from the National Treasury. While delays may occasionally create short-term liquidity pressures, they do not adequately explain the persistent accumulation of pending bills.
The reality is that counties eventually receive virtually 100 percent of their approved equitable share allocations and other legally authorised transfers. If pending bills continue to accumulate despite the eventual release of these funds, then the underlying problem is not disbursement but fiscal management.
The more fundamental issue lies in unrealistic budgeting, weak expenditure controls, poor procurement planning, and commitments made without sufficient regard to actual revenue capacity. Counties commit expenditure against approved budgets, not against cash available in their bank accounts. Consequently, when budgets are based on inflated revenue projections, the stage is set for the creation of pending bills.
In many instances, county budgets are built on overly optimistic assumptions regarding own-source revenue growth and future resource availability. These projections create an artificial fiscal space that encourages spending commitments far beyond what can realistically be financed. The inevitable outcome is a widening gap between commitments and available resources, resulting in unpaid obligations.
This is why the debate on pending bills must move beyond cash flow considerations and focus on the quality of budgeting itself. The larger the deficit embedded within a county budget, the greater the probability of generating pending bills.
It is therefore time for stronger institutional safeguards to promote fiscal realism within county governments. The Office of the Controller of Budget should consider developing and enforcing a standardised framework for county revenue growth projections. Such a framework could establish objective parameters based on historical revenue performance, macroeconomic growth trends, inflation forecasts, and demonstrated collection efficiency.
By limiting excessive optimism in revenue forecasting, counties would be compelled to prepare more realistic and balanced budgets. This would reduce overcommitment, strengthen fiscal discipline, improve project prioritisation, and significantly lower the risk of accumulating pending bills.
Equally important, county assemblies must exercise greater oversight during the budget approval process. Budgets should not be judged by their size but by their credibility, sustainability, and alignment with development outcomes. The objective should be to ensure that every commitment made by a county government can realistically be financed and delivered.
As counties enter the next phase of devolution, a fundamental shift in thinking is required. Leaders must stop equating development with physical infrastructure alone and begin focusing on measurable improvements in the lives of citizens. They must also recognise that fiscal discipline is not an obstacle to development but a prerequisite for it.
A county cannot claim to be developing while simultaneously accumulating unsustainable pending bills, weakening local businesses, and creating economic uncertainty. Genuine development occurs when public investments translate into improved livelihoods, thriving enterprises, productive economies, and better public services.
The future success of devolution will not be determined by the number of projects launched, but by the extent to which county governments can deliver sustainable development within their means. A realistic budget, prudent financial management, and a relentless focus on outcomes remain the surest path towards achieving that goal.
