I. Introduction

Many governments in Sub-Saharan Africa have adopted several stabilisation and adjustment programmes to improve the living conditions of the urban working poor. Poverty issues have taken a centre stage in all development agendas in Sub-Saharan Africa (Sevageldin 1989). In the case of Kenya, poverty eradication has been the main objective of the country’s development policy since independence in 1963 (Republic of Kenya 1997). For instance, the first National Development Plan highlighted the rise in ignorance, diseases, and poverty and called for their eradication (Republic of Kenya 1966). However, poverty is still a widespread and severe problem (Mwabu and Mullei 2000).

Although very high poverty rates are found in Kenya among subsistence farmers, pastoralists, large households, widows, polygamous households and households with limited access to social amenities (Mawabu et al. 1999; Republic of Kenya 1998; Mwabu and Mullei 2000). This paper focuses on the conditions of the urban working poor. In 1994, for instance, the overall poverty in urban areas stood at around 30% (Republic of Kenya 1998). It is argued in the paper that a community development approach can be initiated by the Municipal Councils and local authorities to eradicate poverty among urban workers.

II. Urban Poverty in Kenya

Urban areas in Kenya are currently facing a wide variety of serious employment problems. Of the 14 million unemployed Kenyans, close to 50% of them live in urban areas. For those who work, wages are low and many urban workers are unable to make ends meet. The Kenyan economy provides too few ‘good jobs’. Problems of poverty, underemployment, indecent working conditions and limited job vacancies exist in urban areas. Gordon (1979) notes that a ‘good job’ is one which provides adequate wages and fringe benefits, job security and stable employment, decent working conditions and opportunities for both advancement and control. Given the current retrenchment of employees in both public and private organisations, good jobs are rare to find in the Kenyan labour market.

In urban areas, job expansions are mainly in the ‘Jua Kali’ sector. If we have to go by the definition of a ‘good job’, then the majority of the jobs created in the urban setting are poor jobs. These will hardly reduce poverty among the urban working poor since the poor already work in "poor jobs". With the collapse of the textile industries in Eldoret, Kisumu and Nakuru, many workers in these urban areas are in and out of "poor jobs" with great frequency. They encounter layoffs, dismissals, or unemployment. A number of urban workers have been reported to have committed suicide because of dismissal, poor working conditions or forced transfers. There is also increased crime especially in Nairobi. This can be attributed to high unemployment rates among the urban dwellers. This has confined the majority of urban workers to compulsory poverty.

As we examine the conditions of the urban working poor, we must define the employment situation of the urban dwellers. We must be able to answer one major question. Why does the Kenyan economy and specifically that of Municipalities and local councils fail to generate enough good jobs? This question does not have a straight answer. However, it is a truism that the Kenyan economy does not offer sufficient number of "good jobs" because of the structure of the modern economy and especially its domination by non-performing state corporations. In the case of urban areas, the Municipalities and town councils have weak leadership that is not answerable to the consumers of the services they provide. To address the poverty of the urban working poor, it is necessary to:

· create jobs that provide a regular wage;

· create jobs that allow individual success and advancement;

· generate more primary jobs instead of secondary ones.

III. Poverty Measurement

Having looked at how ‘poor jobs’ lead to increased poverty, it is also important to look at how poverty can be measured. Mwabu and Mullei (2000) observe that poverty exists in a given society when one or more persons do not attain a level of economic well-being that constitutes a reasonable minimum by the standards of that society. Thus the minimum standard of economic well-being is an abstract and theoretical poverty line. Individuals whose income is below the line are considered poor. The poverty line can also be translated into monetary terms, i.e., as the cost of goods and services which, when consumed, deliver a minimum level of economic well-being accepted by the community concerned (Mwabu and Mullei 2000).

The poverty line, though abstract, identifies the poor without measuring the poverty itself. The magnitude of human deprivation in society can best be measured by social welfare indices such as access to clean drinking water, quality health services and sufficient food intake (UNDP 1990; Nafukho 2000). Other poverty measures include the headcount index (fields 1997). The index is the proportion of the population for whom consumption (or other measure of living standard) is below a poverty line. The main shortcoming of the headcount ratio is that it ignores the inequality existing among the poor.

The other two approaches commonly used to derive a poverty line include the Cost of Basic Needs (CBN) method and the Food-Energy-Intake (FEI) method. In both methods, the expenditure of achieving a given nutritional requirement is first computed. The expenditure item is the food cost of basic needs or the food poverty line. To understand and address the poverty issues, there is need to establish how the urban poor understand their own conditions. We also need social welfare indices that can capture the state of poverty.

IV. Causes of Poverty

Several scholars have identified the various causes of poverty (Mwabu and Mullei 2000; Schultz 1997; Bates 1997; North 1990; Evenson 1992; Schultz 1961) identify the following as the major causes of poverty:

· Corruption

· Inappropriate institutions

· Failure to use social services

· Low wage incomes

· Insufficient capacity to produce for the market

· Insufficient capacity to self-provide

· Income inequality.

Each of these issues requires urgent research especially in the case of Kenya.

V. Poverty and Human Development

Nafukho (2000), Mwabu and Mullei (2000), and UNDP (1999) show that poverty and low levels of human development are closely associated. The only way to address poverty is to focus on investment in intellectual capital (Nafukho 2000). As a way of addressing urban poverty in Kenya, a "Community Development" agenda is crucial. A "Community" approach to urban unemployment problem would seek to develop, encourage, and support non-profit community-based mechanisms for providing good jobs (Gordon 1979). This approach has worked in the US to generate state employment opportunities. Though the approach cannot be borrowed wholesale, some useful lessons can be learned. A key issue to resolve is: How likely is it that a "community" approach could actually help moderate the serious urban unemployment problem by increasing the number of "good jobs"?

The future of job creation in Kenya lies in entrepreneurship. Any enterprise therefore faces six necessary conditions for effective provision of a good service. These include:

· Provision of raw materials and improved infrastructure;

· Development of workers in sufficient quantity with the required competency and skills;

· Appropriate production technology;

· Administrative and coordination capacity;

· Capital funds necessary to generate and sustain the enterprise;

· A demand for its output which arises from the consumers of the community-based enterprises.

In the community-based approach, social objectives such as the quest for better jobs deserve higher priority than profits. Thus, a ‘community’ approach to the generation of good jobs for the urban working poor is both plausible and desirable. The idea is to shift the responsibility of job creation from the government to the municipality and local authorities. For success to be achieved there is need for:

· Skills training

· Tax incentives and investment subsidies

· Wage subsidies

· Policy instruments to support community approach to poverty eradication

· Involvement of community members in major decision-making processes such as election of councillors and mayors.

The elected leaders should then develop a community approach to address urban poverty. All the issues raised in this paper require urgent research. There is need for action-based research to address the issue of poverty among the urban working poor.

References

Bates, R. H. 1997. Institutions as Investments. Journal of African Economies 6 (3): 272-87.

Evenson, E. R. 1992. Research and extension in agricultural development. International Center for Economic Growth, Occasional Paper, no. 25. San Francisco: ICS Press.

Gordon, M. D. 1979. The working poor: Towards a State agenda. Washington, D.C.: The Council of State Planning Agencies.

Mwabu, G. et al. 1999. Poverty in Kenya: Identification, measurement and profiles. University of Nairobi and Ministry of Planning and National Development, Nairobi. Memeo.

Mwabu, G., and A. Mullei. 2000. Status of poverty in Kenya. In The link between corruption and poverty: Lessons from Kenya case studies, edited by A. Mullei. Nairobi: The African Centre of Economic Growth.

Nafukho, F. M. 2000. Intellectual capital: The most critical asset for poverty alleviation and development in Kenya. Journal of World Education 30 (1): 3-6.

North, D. 1990. Institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Republic of Kenya. 1966. The National Development Plan. Nairobi: Government Printer.

_____. 1997. The National Development Plan. Nairobi: Government Printer.

_____. 1998. The National Development Plan. Nairobi: Government Printer.

Schultz, T. W. 1961. Investing in human capital. American Economic Review 51 (1): 1-17.

_____. 1997. Assessing the productive benefits of nutrition and health: An integrated human capital approach. Journal of Econometrics, 77: 141-158.

Sevageldin, I. 1989. Poverty, adjustment and growth in Africa. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

UNDP. 1990. Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.

_____. 1999. Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.