Every few years, Kenya launches another program aimed at solving youth unemployment, and each time the ritual unfolds in familiar fashion. The names change, the logos become more polished, President and Cabinet Secretaries preside over elaborate launch ceremonies, development partners speak confidently about empowerment, and young people queue in large numbers to register. The country is assured that a new chapter has begun, one that will finally address a problem that has lingered for far too long.
Yet as the excitement fades, another year passes, another cohort of graduates enters the labor market, and before long, another program is announced. The repetition has become so routine that many Kenyans no longer pause to ask the most obvious question: if youth empowerment programs have multiplied for nearly two decades, why does youth unemployment remain one of the country’s most persistent economic challenges?
The latest initiative in this long line is NYOTA, a World Bank-supported program that promises to improve employment opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young Kenyans through training, grants and business support. There is nothing inherently wrong with helping young people acquire skills or start businesses; indeed, every young Kenyan who benefits deserves that opportunity, and many families will undoubtedly feel the impact in meaningful ways.
The difficulty, however, lies elsewhere.
From Relief to Root Causes: Rethinking Economic Policy
NYOTA is not an isolated intervention but rather the latest chapter in a much longer story. Our country has travelled this road before, moving from the Youth Enterprise Development Fund to Kazi Kwa Vijana, then to the Uwezo Fund, followed by Ajira Digital, the Kenya Youth Employment and Opportunities Project (KYEOP), and more recently the Hustler Fund. Each program arrived carrying hope, each promised to unlock the potential of Kenyan youth, and each produced beneficiaries whose lives genuinely improved.
Yet despite these efforts, Kenya continues to graduate hundreds of thousands of young people every year into an economy that struggles to absorb them at scale. This persistent mismatch between the supply of labor and the capacity of the economy to employ it should compel us to pause and reconsider our approach.
Perhaps the problem has never been that Kenya lacked youth programs. Perhaps the deeper issue is that Kenya has spent years designing interventions for unemployed young people instead of designing an economy that does not produce unemployed young people in the first place. The distinction between these two approaches is not merely semantic; it is fundamental.
Also Read:Â Kenya Is Becoming a Compliance State Instead of a Developmental State
Helping unemployed youth is necessary and often urgent, but building an economy that steadily creates productive jobs is transformative. One approach manages the consequences of economic weakness, while the other addresses its underlying causes. Somewhere along the way, Kenya appears to have blurred this distinction.
Looking back over the past decade, one notices something unsettling. Rather than redistributing prosperity, we have largely been redistributing survival. Each new program has enabled some young people to navigate an economy that still cannot employ them at the scale required. Survival matters, and no one should dismiss the difference that a grant or business loan can make in an individual’s life. Yet survival should never be mistaken for development.
Development, in its truest sense, alters the structure of the economy itself.
The arithmetic makes this clear. Every year, Kenya produces a large cohort of young people who leave universities, TVET institutions, and other post-secondary training programs. Even the most ambitious youth fund cannot keep pace with these numbers if the economy itself is not generating sufficient productive work. Grants may assist thousands, but the labor market must absorb hundreds of thousands.
Building Productive Capacity Instead of Managing Survival
This is not primarily a financing problem; it is a production problem.
When governments diagnose unemployment as a capital shortage for young people, the natural response is to create another fund. However, when unemployment is understood as evidence of a weak productive economy, the response shifts significantly. The conversation moves toward manufacturing, agriculture, value addition, affordable energy, industrial parks, transport infrastructure, export competitiveness, technological innovation and investments that expand productive capacity.
Such investments rarely lend themselves to dramatic launch ceremonies, yet they accomplish something far more consequential: they create employers instead of beneficiaries.
Lessons from Successful Economies and Thinkers
This distinction helps explain why many countries that have successfully reduced unemployment did not begin by creating endless youth funds. Instead, they built productive sectors capable of absorbing large amounts of labor. Factories employed young people before youth ministries could, expanding industries hired graduates before government programs could reach them, and farmers found reliable markets as processing industries emerged nearby. Infrastructure reduced production costs, enabling businesses to employ more workers profitably.
In such contexts, jobs became the natural consequence of economic transformation rather than the stated objective of yet another empowerment program.
The late John Perkins, in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, argued that developing countries sometimes mistake externally financed development programs for development itself. Whether one agrees with every aspect of his account is less important than the broader warning it conveys: countries can become highly proficient at administering development projects while making limited progress toward building economies capable of sustaining their own growth.
A similar caution appears in the work of economist Ha-Joon Chang, who has long argued that genuine development requires deliberate efforts to build productive capabilities, particularly in manufacturing and industry. According to Chang, countries that industrialized successfully did so not by relying on fragmented interventions but by systematically nurturing sectors capable of generating sustained employment and economic expansion.
Taken together, these perspectives invite a deeper reflection on Kenya’s development trajectory.
Development loans can indeed finance productive transformation, but they can also be used to repeatedly manage the symptoms of an economy whose productive foundations remain weak. The difference lies in what the borrowed resources ultimately build. If borrowing finances irrigation, reliable electricity, freight rail, agro-processing, manufacturing, mineral value addition, technology and competitive industries, it expands the economy’s capacity to generate future income. If, however, borrowing repeatedly finances programs that help citizens survive within an unchanged economic structure, the country risks borrowing to manage problems that should have been resolved structurally years earlier.
Kenya now risks drifting toward that second model.
This is why the debate around NYOTA should extend beyond the program itself. It should not be judged solely by the number of beneficiaries enrolled or businesses launched, but also by whether it prompts a broader reconsideration of our development strategy. The critical question is whether we are building an economy that will make future programs of this nature increasingly unnecessary.
That should be the real ambition.
Also Read: The Political Cost of Unfinished Grief in Ruto’s Re-election Calculus
A successful economy should eventually render emergency employment programs exceptional rather than permanent features of national policy. Kenya possesses enormous advantages, including a young population, fertile agricultural land, entrepreneurial citizens, strategic access to regional markets, abundant renewable energy potential and growing technological capability. None of these advantages naturally lead to mass unemployment; on the contrary, they should support expanding production, rising exports, growing industries and increasing demand for labor.
Realizing this potential requires a different philosophy of development.
The priority should be lowering the cost of production, expanding manufacturing, strengthening value addition, improving logistics, investing in energy, supporting competitive domestic enterprise and creating conditions under which businesses employ young people because doing so makes economic sense. Public policy should ultimately be measured not by how many grants government distributes, but by how many jobs the economy creates independently.
I genuinely hope that every young Kenyan selected under NYOTA succeeds, and many lives will undoubtedly improve because of it. My concern lies elsewhere. Youth policy is an economic policy, which means Kenya cannot continue to measure success by the number of beneficiaries enrolled in the latest program while postponing the more demanding task of transforming the economy, which determines whether young people find meaningful work at all.
The real measure of success will come when the government no longer needs to launch another youth employment program because the economy has become the country’s largest employer of young people. Until then, we risk celebrating each new initiative while quietly mistaking relief for development.
This article was written by George Nyongesa, a lecturer of philosophy and logic at the University of Nairobi and Chuka University
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
