By Leonard Wanyama
Kenya’s tough economic situation needs significant creative thinking to take the country back towards prosperity.
The existing public finance management (PFM) system simply dwells on revenue cycle in a somewhat traditional way.
With constant reports of new revenue collection measures such as revised corporate taxes; reintroduced minimum taxes; reviews of value added tax (VAT); refocusing on education, insurance, petroleum, tobacco, alcohol; and introduction of vehicle plus carbon taxes, is it possible to think differently about how tax collection in public finance can be structured towards uplifting marginalised areas?
For instance, it is assumed that a high population should guarantee existence of more revenue potential hence the need for increased numbers of paramilitary agents to help in tax collection efforts.
In thinking about pathways for prosperity, the country’s PFM allocation priorities are geared towards the enhancement of service delivery and promotion of balanced development.
However, is there any possibility of including the promotion of local opportunities within this matrix?
Following taxation, revenue allocation in counties identify health services, agricultural features, population dynamics, urban amenities, basic portion, land area, rural access through roads, poverty levels as indexes of spending needs.
Yet, current circumstances demand additional thinking on how to spur enterprises, particularly in marginalised or peripheral areas.
This, as a key aspect of Kenyan policy imagination to encourage productivity that will uplift communities across the country.
This may require changes or improvements in language and definitions.
Marginalised areas should not only be understood in terms of geographical scarcity for reclamation, but also as spaces of prospected growth.
Public finances can then be structured to propel structural economic advancement for the benefit of all by encouraging investment in distressed localities as means of dealing with questions concerning prevailing inequalities.
Above and beyond equitable contributions, marginalised areas can also be designated as ‘County Opportunity Zones (COZ)’ that serves as spaces through which investments are channeled to ensure employment creation is targeted towards low-income communities.
How different or unique would a COZ be different from other Special Economic Zones (SEZs) such as Free-trade zones (FTZ), Export Processing Zones (EPZ), Free Economic Zones (FZ/FEZ), Industrial Parks/Estates (IE), Free ports, Bonded logistics parks (BLP), Urban Enterprise Zones?
