wazua Thu, Apr 2, 2026
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Log In

38 Pages«<1415161718>»
Why is Africa poor in general compared to the West?
tutebeng
#151 Posted : Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:57:48 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/29/2009
Posts: 40
just came across this in webspace

BY BETTY MAINA
It is so tragic that Kenya keeps going round in circles when it comes to power issues. Just when all presidential candidates have promised Kenyans lower Energy costs, Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KPLC) is once again knocking on the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC)’s door with a proposal for power tariff increases.

ERC has subsequently sent invitations to stakeholders to discuss the same. KPLC has submitted an application for approval to the ERC for electricity energy tariff review to apply across all the consumer category specific tariffs.

ERC should not grant this review at this time, but should give KPLC some preconditions to meet before a review is considered most of which include fulfilling the promises of 2008. KPLC registers a lot of profits each year from revenue collected from consumers and yet projects to expand capacity are still stagnant.

Without sounding like a broken record industry consumes 60 percent of the power in Kenya and therefore the increase will disproportionately negatively affect industry and consumers of industrial products will bear the brunt of the resultant increase. So are we forever going to be involved in a vicious circle of power price increases?

The same issue of improving global competitiveness of our locally manufactured products always comes to mind when these power increases are mooted. It would be foolhardy to think that when Kenyan products are failing to compete at the current rates there would be any positive change if power tariffs are increased and yet we still continue to shoot ourselves in the foot.

When will it sink in the minds of anyone in authority in this country that the solution to our energy issues is not in the increase in tariffs but in expediting the completion of alternative energy resources as well as promoting more investment into the energy sector?

Like all businesses, KPLC’s revenue growth should not come from price increases alone. KPLC power revenue requirement should come from organic growth in customer numbers and volume of sales and not from increasing electricity tariffs.

All the presidential aspirants have promised Kenyans cheaper power. It is not appropriate to consider raises at this point before the eventual winner of the Presidential race is voted in and has time to implement their ideas and proposals that would lead to a decrease in energy costs.

The planned increase would negatively affect Kenya’s competitiveness. With the proposed tariff review to take effect from March 2013 (should KPLC be successful), at current fuel cost levels, average tariffs would increase by an average 40 percent. Given the centrality of power in production, which economy can afford 40 percent adjustments in prices willy nilly?

Already, industrial growth has been affected by the 2008 electricity tariff review. The manufacturing sector grew by a disappointing 3.3 percent in 2011 compared to 4.4 percent in 2010. This translates to a decline of 25 percent in industrial growth which mainly attributable to energy costs and other primary input costs.

If the increases sail through the country has to brace itself for a massive exodus of manufacturing companies to countries that have cheaper energy costs such as Ethiopia, Egypt, Tanzania and Uganda whose charges are USc 3/kw, USc5/kw, USc9/kw and USc 18.6 respectively compared to Kenya’s current USc18.7/kw.

If KPLC’s is allowed to increase costs, this shall rise to USc 28. Such a move would result in giant losses of jobs and ultimately increase in poverty levels, slow economic growth and negatively impact one of the goals of Vision 2030 of Kenya becoming an industrialized country.

The arguments presented by KPLC to support the application are without basis.

The last time electricity energy tariffs were reviewed was in the year 2008. The increase was granted on the understanding that KPLC wanted to embark on new projects that would result in system efficiency to avoid outage and to reduce system losses to no more than 15 percent. The promises of 2008 have not been fulfilled and they are projecting a gloomier picture of an even higher system loss and one wonders whether the power authority is operating in a globalised economy or are sitting on an island in an unknown world where issues of pragmatism and competency in managing resources do not exist.

Of the 13 projects KPLC argued for an adjustment of the tariff for in 2008, only five have been fully completed. The rest are all behind schedule. Therefore, additional revenue for the utility will mean there will be redundant capital as it can be noted projects do not come in as projected thus there is no need for paying for future projects now. KPLC needs to use the revenue from previous increase to complete these projects.

KPLC has gone to satellite reading from the previous way of reading meters by KPLC personnel. The introduction of prepaid metering has reduced the operational costs and helped in reducing bad debts and the utility still hold onto consumer deposits. The increase in fixed charges is thus not justifiable.

The tariff is based on long term marginal cost. From the planned projects, renewable sources of energy are taking up the bulk share both in the long term and short term plan which should translate to lower tariffs due to reduced fuel costs as the thermal power plants will be scaled down in the planned period. KPLC’s proposal does not take account of this reduction in thermal power in the system.

In addition, the timing for tariff increase is wrong as the devolution process will take effect this year. Thus this should wait until the new dispensation takes place and the draft energy policy is finalized and gazetted to give guidelines on energy pricing and ownership of the utility services.

Sh8 billion earmarked for way leaves and other levies in the proposal by KPLC to ERC as anticipated payments to local authorities and Kenya Railway are presumptive and should not be factored in the tariff until the policy dictates. This matter should await the outcome of the energy policy currently under review.

For the period 2011-2016, the Non-Fuel Cost charges are increasing as fuel cost component reduces. This is indicative of KPLC trying to maintain the same level of revenues at current rate per unit of energy without passing the benefit of reduced fuel costs to the consumer. Moreover, KPLC does not plan to improve efficiencies in debt collection. KPLC is budgeting for increase in bad debts at the same time asking for a tariff increase!

The bad debt is projected by the company to even increase from Sh1.2 billion in 2013 to Sh1.4 billion in 2014. It is high time KPLC ups its game and desist from increasing power tariffs in response to its own inefficiencies. There is a limit to what consumers can take and that limit has been passed. The increase is just unacceptable to industry!

(The writer is the chief executive of Kenya Association of Manufacturers and can be reached on ceo@kam.co.ke)
The Associate
#152 Posted : Sunday, September 08, 2013 1:13:33 PM
Rank: New-farer

Joined: 9/2/2013
Posts: 22
We are poor because our people lack financial education and entrepreneurial skills. We are also a young nation hence inherit little or no capital from our ancestors unlike Europeans who inherit an already developed nation. Our graduates are educated, but lack financial education and entrepreneurial skills. Instead of starting their own businesses from the little cash that comes their way, they seek fatter paychecks who dont materialize often
murchr
#153 Posted : Sunday, September 08, 2013 5:13:16 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 15,980
"There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
Alba
#154 Posted : Sunday, September 08, 2013 8:16:05 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 12/27/2012
Posts: 2,256
Location: Bandalungwa
If you want to know why Africa is poor, look no further than Kenya: Tribal voting means even the most incompetent/lazy/dont care boobs can cling to power.

It means that people put tribal interests ahead of the country even if it means making Kenya a pariah state. Never mind the fact that making Kenya a pariah state means less tourism and less foreign investment. But many Kenyans do not care so long as the interests of their tribal leaders are put first.

It means Kenyans cant come together to protest and demand better performance by public officials or demand an end to corruption because we are too tribally divided.
The net result is diminshed economic growth.
Lolest!
#155 Posted : Sunday, September 08, 2013 10:04:58 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 3/18/2011
Posts: 12,069
Location: Kianjokoma
obiero wrote:
Lolest! wrote:
Someone said we are poor because our good climate inhibits growth. The harsh weather in the West forced them to be innovative and advanced in thought.

African weather poor? Clearly that person is not well-travelled..

re-read my post
Laughing out loudly smile Applause d'oh! Sad Drool Liar Shame on you Pray
murchr
#156 Posted : Sunday, September 08, 2013 11:53:20 PM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 15,980
Alba wrote:
If you want to know why Africa is poor, look no further than Kenya: Tribal voting means even the most incompetent/lazy/dont care boobs can cling to power.

It means that people put tribal interests ahead of the country even if it means making Kenya a pariah state. Never mind the fact that making Kenya a pariah state means less tourism and less foreign investment. But many Kenyans do not care so long as the interests of their tribal leaders are put first.

It means Kenyans cant come together to protest and demand better performance by public officials or demand an end to corruption because we are too tribally divided.
The net result is diminshed economic growth.


I beg to differ. Tribal voting is no different than racial voting that is witnessed in the US forexample. Funny thing is it wrong in Africa but its right elsewhere. In the US you'll hear line in the form of Latino voters, African American voters etc. On corruption...almost anyone can be corrupt it doesnt matter the tribe but the system should prosecute the corrupt without favor.

"There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
Alba
#157 Posted : Monday, September 09, 2013 1:30:59 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 12/27/2012
Posts: 2,256
Location: Bandalungwa
murchr wrote:
Alba wrote:
If you want to know why Africa is poor, look no further than Kenya: Tribal voting means even the most incompetent/lazy/dont care boobs can cling to power.

It means that people put tribal interests ahead of the country even if it means making Kenya a pariah state. Never mind the fact that making Kenya a pariah state means less tourism and less foreign investment. But many Kenyans do not care so long as the interests of their tribal leaders are put first.

It means Kenyans cant come together to protest and demand better performance by public officials or demand an end to corruption because we are too tribally divided.
The net result is diminshed economic growth.


I beg to differ. Tribal voting is no different than racial voting that is witnessed in the US forexample. Funny thing is it wrong in Africa but its right elsewhere. In the US you'll hear line in the form of Latino voters, African American voters etc. On corruption...almost anyone can be corrupt it doesnt matter the tribe but the system should prosecute the corrupt without favor.



There is very little racial voting in the US when compared to Kenya.

Blacks vote for the party that best suits their interests. If Obama was a republican , scarcely any blacks would have voted for him.

Secondly Blacks dont just blindly vote for their fellow blacks unless they are competent and deliver. This is unlike Kenya where people support incompetent boobs for the simple reason that they are from their tribe.

As proof that, black people dont simply vote for black democrats, I offer 2 examples: In 2000 for example, Al Sharpton ran. And in 2004, Carol Mosely Brown ran. Black voters in the primary did not vote for them. Even Obama had to work extra hard before he was accepted by blacks who initially preferred Hillary Clinton.

Latinos also vote based on their interests which is primarily around immigration issues. In 2004, about 44% of Latinos voted for George Bush even though he is republican. In 2008 many of them shifted to Obama who is a democrat.

Kenyans also ought to be voting based on their personal interests i.e who will fight corruption best, who will enhance security etc. The fact that we dont even consider issues is the reason Africa is a black hole.


murchr
#158 Posted : Monday, September 09, 2013 1:52:33 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 15,980
Alba wrote:
murchr wrote:
Alba wrote:
If you want to know why Africa is poor, look no further than Kenya: Tribal voting means even the most incompetent/lazy/dont care boobs can cling to power.

It means that people put tribal interests ahead of the country even if it means making Kenya a pariah state. Never mind the fact that making Kenya a pariah state means less tourism and less foreign investment. But many Kenyans do not care so long as the interests of their tribal leaders are put first.

It means Kenyans cant come together to protest and demand better performance by public officials or demand an end to corruption because we are too tribally divided.
The net result is diminshed economic growth.


I beg to differ. Tribal voting is no different than racial voting that is witnessed in the US forexample. Funny thing is it wrong in Africa but its right elsewhere. In the US you'll hear line in the form of Latino voters, African American voters etc. On corruption...almost anyone can be corrupt it doesnt matter the tribe but the system should prosecute the corrupt without favor.



There is very little racial voting in the US when compared to Kenya.

Blacks vote for the party that best suits their interests. If Obama was a republican , scarcely any blacks would have voted for him.

Secondly Blacks dont just blindly vote for their fellow blacks unless they are competent and deliver. This is unlike Kenya where people support incompetent boobs for the simple reason that they are from their tribe.

As proof that, black people dont simply vote for black democrats, I offer 2 examples: In 2000 for example, Al Sharpton ran. And in 2004, Carol Mosely Brown ran. Black voters in the primary did not vote for them. Even Obama had to work extra hard before he was accepted by blacks who initially preferred Hillary Clinton. There was no question about who the blacks would vote for in the democratic primarys Senator Obama was their choice from the beginning. He dint even have to work for it. As for the other earlier candidates, then blacks were not interested in politics registered voters among the blacks was dismal.

Latinos also vote based on their interests which is primarily around immigration issues. In 2004, about 44% of Latinos voted for George Bush even though he is republican. In 2008 many of them shifted to Obama who is a democrat. Key word interests.....the same case here tribes vote according to interests. No difference at all

Kenyans also ought to be voting based on their personal interests i.e who will fight corruption best, who will enhance security etc. The fact that we dont even consider issues is the reason Africa is a black hole. Personal interests NEVER party interests yes most parties are tribal outfits



"There are only two emotions in the market, hope & fear. The problem is you hope when you should fear & fear when you should hope: - Jesse Livermore
.
Nabwire
#159 Posted : Monday, September 09, 2013 1:54:51 AM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 7/22/2011
Posts: 1,325


There is very little racial voting in the US when compared to Kenya.


Hi ndio inaitwa serious political spin a la faux news!!! You've gotta be kidding me!!! US voting is extremely racial, there are areas where Democrats do not even bother campaigning coz they are considered red zones. Obama campaign in 08 was vastly different than his '12 campaign, this is because they crunched numbers and strategized on areas where they would be wasting their time, TN, AL, GA, MS come to mind. Even among special groups, there is a serious racial divide, white women vote completely different from black women, coz they have completely different issues they care about. That's why the term "women's" vote is a misnomer, there is no such thing. Hillary learned the hard way in 08, she assumed that she had the black and women vote, thats why her campaign was in shock and it took them quite a while before conceding that a junior Senator had indeed beaten them. The US vote is extremely racial, till today you will find die hard tea party knuckleheads still insist that Obama only won because he was black. Truth is Obama won in spite of being black, he had to convince liberal white voters to vote for him, otherwise he would have never won with just the black vote.
Alba
#160 Posted : Monday, September 09, 2013 2:46:23 AM
Rank: Elder

Joined: 12/27/2012
Posts: 2,256
Location: Bandalungwa
There was no question about who the blacks would vote for in the democratic primarys Senator Obama was their choice from the beginning. He dint even have to work for it.

You are a bit clueless. Hillary Clinton was initially way ahead of Obama amongst blacks. It was only after Obama got key endorsements from big wigs like Oprah, Ted Kennedy
There were many blacks who said that since Obama was not descended from slaves, he should not be considered black. Those who doubt should read this article:


http://www.freerepublic....us/f-news/1730861/posts

As for the other earlier candidates, then blacks were not interested in politics registered voters among the blacks was dismal

This is so cluless. Ati blacks were not interested in politics. Do not make me laugh. Do you realize that Bill Clinton was called “The first black president” because of how he managed to get blacks to turn out in large numbers to vote for him ? Eti blacks were not interested ?


Key word interests.....the same case here tribes vote according to interests. No difference at all

There are no common interests between Kenyan politicians and their people. The average gikuyu peasant gains nothing from blindly supporting Kibaki or anyone. The only people who gain are those close to Kibaki who for example can gain access to tenders.

Personal interests NEVER party interests yes most parties are tribal outfits

Kenyans don’t even consider their own interests. If they did then issues like security, corruption, healthcare etc would be key issues to be addressed. No such thing happens in Kenya. Its 95% about tribal numbers. If kenyans voted based on personal interests like security, we would be much better off.


For you to sit there and compare USA to Kenya is quite frankly laughable. To begin with in Kenya a politician can brazenly campaign based on tribe. Kenyan politicians get away with making hatreful remarks about other tribes.
If Obama ever told people to vote for him because he was black he would never win anything

38 Pages«<1415161718>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Copyright © 2026 Wazua.co.ke. All Rights Reserved.