EDUCATION AND YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT IN KENYA

Conventionally, “School” is perceived as the most important means of preparing young people for the future. African scholars use the term “school” to refer to the educational system in all its forms. With such level of significance education is seen as one of the main determinants of unemployment rate given that it equips young people with skills for economic and life survival. This is why most studies have found strong link between educational level and employment rate.

However, education in African countries, and Kenya in particular, is less effective in providing young people with employable and life skills. This gap is orchestrated by many factors from primary to higher education. From the formative stages children attend schools in conditions that seem to “brutalize” them physically and psychologically. These range from learning facilities (mostly dilapidated or non-existent), nutrition is boarding schools, and most recently ‘commercialization’ of education through remedial classes at extra costs, selling national exam leakages, and teachers demanding sexual favours for marks. These are cases that have been frequently reported in Kenya.  These challenges kill the morale of learners in pursuit of education. 

Pupils during a class session in Kibera Slums

 To parents in Kenya, especially in rural setting, education and success in life are synonymous; implying a well paying job, a big house and cars among other fringe benefits. As a result, high unemployment rate among young graduates discourages pupils in lower levels since education attainment is no longer the gatekeeper success. Most young people therefore fail to invest in higher education.

Consequently, the disenchantment in higher education is counter-productive. Studies have established relationship between educational rates of return and unemployment rate.  The explanation goes that when young people invest in their education they decrease their unemployment opportunity cost. That is to say, there is lower risk of unemployment at higher levels of education because educated workers find new jobs or adapt to workforce market easily as a result of job training and market demand. Also, human resource practitioners point out that educated workers are efficient in seeking new jobs and bargaining for more wages.

 

Graduands unleashed into job market

Contrarily, a study by African Development Bank (AfDB) reveals that young people with highest education levels tend to take long to search for a job and have higher unemployment rates than those who are less well educated. The trend is blamed on high wage expectation coupled with unwillingness to take up jobs in the informal sector.

Further, a study in Kenya by a renowned social researcher, Awuor Ponge, revealed miss-match between skills possessed by young workers and those demanded by employers. The study recommends that educational system in terms of vocation and technical training must be transformed to provide youth with relevant skills to adapt to labour market. In line with this finding, AfDB observes that institutions of higher learning (in Kenya) equip the students with theoretical knowledge and are not cognizant of the fact that the demands of job market are changing with time.

It is little wonder that most employers put up as prerequisite for some appointments age limit and extensive experience. As such young people are locked out. This is worrying for the reason that 1.2 million young Kenyans enter labour market without formal training. According to Kenya Country Report for the Ministerial Conference on Youth Employment in 2014, at age 24 only 11% of young Kenyans have formal training. Policy makers must devise ways of continually reviewing curriculum to respond to skill levels demanded by dynamic labour market. Education must cease being mere numeracy and literacy. 

Shem Sam is researcher and statistician. He is also youth and governance specialist. shem.sam@gmail.com Mobile: +254712505196

AN INSIGHT INTO YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT IN KENYA

Today September 24, 2015, the world marks transition from Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs will be declared during United Nations General Assemblies (UNGA) between 25^th and 27^th September by presidents following a consultative people owned process.

 Even with the revamping of MDGs into SDGs, the conditions of young people in Africa, and Kenya in particular, have not been improved as was envisioned. It is the expectation of young people that there is a fundamental shift from just another ‘global political declaration’ to a new transformative and ambitious development framework that will provide national governments with a road map on measures to meaningfully improve young people’s quality of life ( and lead to fulfillment of their rights).

In Kenya, the most pressing issue among youth is unemployment. The Kenya constitution defines youth as persons between the ages of 18 and 35. In country, youth constitute 35% of the population. The youth population almost tripled from 4.94 million in 1979 to 13.67 in 2009. In 2009, Kenya’s population was projected to be 46.33 million in 2015 and 69.93 million by 2030. This implies that youth population is 35.35% this year and will be 35.18% in 2030. According to 2009 Census the youth population expressed as a percentage of adult was 66.6%.

Consequently, with these staggering numbers, also described as “youth bulge”, the Kenyan youth are afflicted by many challenges. Key among them is unemployment. The youth cohort is experiencing much higher unemployment rates at 67% than the rest of the Kenyan population at 34%. For young people of this country, there exists a small formal sector alongside a large informal sector. As such majority of youth are involved in the informal sector.

Every year, there are more young entrants in the job market than actual jobs created. For instance, there are 200,000 youth without primary education; 300,000 primary school drop-outs; 250,000 KCPE certificate but fail to join secondary school; 180,000 secondary school drop-outs; 250,000 KCSE certificates but fail to join tertiary institutions; 45,000 tertiary institutions drop outs, and 155,000 graduates. These figures imply that 1.2 million youth enter job market every year whereas not more than 500,000 jobs are created annually. For instance, the target for total job creation in 2009 was 425,000 but the actual jobs created were 467,300 of which 433,500 were in the informal sector, 33,700 were wage employees and 100 were self employed.

Previous studies have revealed that youth unemployment is costly for any country.  These studies have established a positive relationship between employment rates and countries economic development. In this regard, youth unemployment rate has negative impact to country’s GDP.  For instance, a study in Turkey in 2012, noted that when the economic activity is healthy and developing, youth employment will be better. However, economic crises affect general employment negatively.

 On the same note, youth employment result into increased aggregate demand as well as increase in capital formation. Further on this, International Labour Organization argues that youth are likely to spend a higher percentage of their income on goods and services, which boost the countries’ aggregate demand. Again, youth who receive higher salaries make savings and invest or deposit them in banks resulting in increased pool of capital which can be used to finance SME and start small businesses thereby boosting a counties economic development. It is also commonplace knowledge that young people have a marginal propensity to consume more than adults. Therefore, unemployment rate in young people negatively affects consumption and total investment.

In another twist, youth employment reduces social costs within the societies by decrease in violence, criminal activities, drug addiction and prostitution. The “youth bulge” and attending challenges of unemployment result in increase social evils and political violence (rioting, civil war and terrorism) if left to accumulate over a period of time.

It is commendable that young people and other stakeholders, both state and non-state actors, are doing many things to improve youth conditions. The British High Commission Chevening Scholars, Young African Leadership Initiative, Youth Enterprise Development Fund, Office of the President, Young Achievers Association, Organization of African Youth, Africa Youth Trust, Action 2015, Council of Governors and many others actors are ameliorating the conditions of young people in Kenya.

However, while young people laud both previous Grand Coalition and current Julibee administrations for youth targeted preferential interventions, a lot more needs to be done to curb accumulated youth unemployment backlog for the prosperity of this country.

Lastly, we hope that UNGA and all governments represented have learnt crucial lessons from implementation of MDGs and making amends for complete success of SDGs for the benefit of young people worldwide. 

Shem Sam is a researcher and an expert in youth and governance:  Email: shem.sam@gmail.com

We ate houseflies!

After listening to a bonding session between journalists and scientists organized by Internews Kenya on 25 June,2013, which session could as well be themed as ‘Demystifying Science and Understanding Journalism’, I could not help calling to mind the story my grandmother once told me:  a story of great famine called Gorogoro, translated as ‘tin of maize’. The story goes that two old men leaving in different parts of South Nyanza were the best of friends. Their friendship flourished in good and bad times; in plenty and in scarcity. Othacha of Kagan Location and Oula of Kanam, despite distance, were closer than brothers. The biblical story of David and Jonathan would not do their loyalty justice. 

A prolonged drought hit the land. Green foliage withered and trees dried up leaving livestock without pasture. Cattle and poultry died of starvation. The people hit by this misfortune preserved meat (nay skeleton) by drying to feed children during the prolonged disaster. A deafening eerie silence fell upon the land. No bleating of sheep, mowing of cows, nor crowing of cockerels at dawn. The land was dead. Children too stopped playing, laughing and spent day time cuddled under empty granaries hoping that it rained each passing day. 

It is known that disasters do not affect their victims equally. Most natural disasters discriminate geographically.  Thanks to the great lake, Nam Lolwe, Oula could lay fish traps in the evening and harvest fish the following morning. The lake never failed to bless him. Fishermen always perceived Nam Lolwe as one generous water goddess who according to legend had in the past visited Nyamgondho son of Ombare. Perhaps, Oula fell among the progeny of her favoured priest Anam.  Othacha who lived in milambo, far from the lake bore the brunt of Gorogoro. He lost the sweat of his manhood to drought and famine. The labour of his youth vanished before his eyes like clouds scattered by furious Ogingo winds. His compound had stopped being a cattle boma and became a den of misery and perpetual sorrow. 

As the sorrow of death by starvation danced before his gates, Othacha remembered his good friend Oula with a sigh of relief. The following morning he sent his elder son Oteku on kisuma, relief food errand, to his best friend Oula of Kanam – the land bordering the abode of generous water goddess. But Oteku arrived at Oula’s homestead on a bad day when his father’s friend had attended funeral at his in-laws, leaving his family with no food since he had not gone fishing for a week. So when evening meal came, the family gathered around the fire and ate houseflies they gathered during the day. 

Oula arrived the following day and found Oteku distraught and set to embark on a return journey empty handed.

“Young man, you just arrived yesterday and now you are leaving. How have we wronged you?” Oula enquired. Upon which Oteku said that there was great famine in Kagan but they had not eaten houseflies yet. He added that his father had sent him to ask for relief food from his best friend only to find Oula’s family surviving on houseflies.

Burning with shame, Oula set for his traps in the lake which he had not inspected for a week and returned with the biggest catch ever. His wife preserved the fish and packed them in atonga (traditional basket) for Oteku to coney to kagan. Before the young man left, Oula enquired what he would tell his father.

“When I arrived we ate houseflies. The following day your friend caught a lot of fish. We ate some and the rest are in this bulging atonga”, Oteku replied.

But Oula’s pride could not entertain the housefly story so he detained the young man a day longer and slaughtered a goat.  When they had feasted on the ruminant the remaining was packed for the young man and Oula asked the earlier question.

The young man replied, “When I arrived at your friend’s compound we ate houseflies, the following day we ate fish, and the last day we feasted on a goat. The rest are this big atonga.”

Incensed that the young man could not forget the housefly story, Oula detained him and slaughtered a bull and asked the begging question once more.

Oteku replied and this time mentioned the houseflies rather pointedly, “When I arrived at your friend’s compound we ate houseflies, lots of the insects, fish, goat, and a bull on the last day. The rest are in this enormous atonga.”

On realizing that the young man would not let go of the housefly story, he gave up and instructed Oteku to tell his father that the houseflies were only eaten when he was away at his in-laws. He did not ask Oteku to omit the housefly in the story but to include all the other animals eaten during his stay after adding that the flies were only eaten when the owner of the homestead was away.

Although this story was told to me for instructions on the importance of first encounter, in this context, Oteku represents a journalist itching to run a juicy housefly-eating story while Oula, on the other hand, is the scientist who wants every tiny detail included in proper chronology. The housefly part would sell; all the other details do not matter in Oteku’s perspective, were he a journalist.

Why would I delve into drab parts of laying fish traps, removing fish scales, drying or smoking them? What’s the importance of recounting how my father’s friend was peeling off goatskins and bull hides? And what with the boiling cauldron of bull meat when mentioning housefly would send everyone laughing sore? I imagine that these were the thoughts running through Oteku’s mind if he was a journalist covering Gorogoro story.

Now, all the laying and inspection of fish traps, slaughtering of goats and bulls, drying and smoking of fish and meat have suddenly become smaller than houseflies? Seriously this young man is a snobbish ingrate! What would his father think of my folks? How will his relatives take this matter? Will I ever visit them again? Oula was not at peace after the incident. His charity, hard work, and loyalty to friendship were brought to ridicule by an excited narrator –who was also an object of his charity.

When a scientist is looking for a pin in the hay-stack, a journalist is waiting for the pin to prick the searching hand in order to write a story that sells. The report will not elaborate the process of turning every hay block but will rather sensationally illustrate the incident of a bleeding finger tip. Alas! The pin pricked him!

Shem Sam!