Nairobi x13 ZOOM

In 1963, the population of Nairobi was 350,000. It is now estimated to be 4.5 million, ie 13 times more populous. Nairobi has its unique flaws that revolve around crime, poor sanitation, overcrowded living conditions, terrible traffic, lack of reliable water and electricity and others – in order of severity in my opinion. They are all connected and congestion coupled with inadequate opportunities make up some of the reasons behind these flaws. However, Nairobi functions as a city and while some issues continue to get worse, like crime, other aspects like traffic and electricity are improving.

Nairobi in 1963

 Nairobi’s explosion in population was the result of rural – urban migration that has continued unabated since independence and really since Nairobi began in the late 19^th century.  And the only reason people have been coming is because of jobs – this is still where the jobs and opportunities are to be found. Nairobi has youth unemployment of 40%, but it is impossible to monitor the informal economy and we know that slums in Nairobi have a domestic product of millions of dollars a day. Nobody is really from Nairobi, and even people who have grandparents who were born in the city claim that their real home is in the countryside. As a result, there is no feeling of animosity from an ‘indigenous’ population who feel that the land of their forefathers has been invaded by foreign tribes.(It also means that nobody feels responsible for looking after the place but that is another story). Occasionally, there have been pockets of Nairobi that have been the scenes of proprietorial clashes between two tribes such as the conflicts in Kibera in the 1990s and the post-election violence in 2008 but for the most part different tribes have lived side by side without any explicit concern for groups of economic migrants moving in as neighbours.

That is because people are aware that the migrants are an opportunity as much as they are a challenge. If the commonly believed myth was true that there is a set quota of jobs in any one country or city then clearly over 90% of people in Nairobi would be unemployed – leaving only the original 350,000 people with the original jobs that were designed by some master plan. The economic migrants have come to look for jobs but unwittingly they have created jobs at the same time. Those who really want to work have found a way to do so and their energy has spurred Nairobi’s economy and the economy of Kenya as a whole.

It is easier to make this argument in Kenya because a detractor cannot say that these economic workers have been a drain on the welfare state – you pay for what you get in Nairobi with very few exceptions.

With this history in mind I am surprised that many Kenyans feel threatened by the presence of refugees in Nairobi. If anything, refugees are even less of a drain on the state because they don’t qualify for the very few benefits that Kenyans enjoy on the expense of the tax payer. So if they are living a sustainable lifestyle in Nairobi they must by definition be contributing to the economy – they are not taking away anyone’s job. Those who feel that their jobs are being taken by refugees should look at all the other Kenyans the same refugee is supporting by successfully surviving here.  What is more, the estimated 80,000 refugees living in Nairobi make up less than 2% of the population. If you are one of the 350,000 Kenyans who was living in Nairobi in 1963 then I can understand you complaining about the massive explosion in population, but why target your concerns at this 2% and not the other 90% who have joined you since independence? The only difference is the nationality on their passports in every other way they are exactly the same – yes they look different, but Kenyan tribes can look different; they speak different languages, but so do Kenyans from all parts of the country. Their influx has been no more dramatic than an influx from Western Province or Nyanza.

A lot going on

So Nairobi manages OK with a 2% population of refugees and a 90% population of economic migrants, and yet I believe that Nairobi is the worst case scenario of what could happen if we were more liberal about migration worldwide. Nairobi has faced challenges that would be easily avoided by the majority of countries that migrants are heading to. Since independence the city has been poorly managed. Corruption has been a key ingredient in keeping people in poverty and allowing crime to escalate, and poor economic policies ensured that Kenya as a whole had a stagnant economy for a long time and a shrinking one throughout the 1990s. Desperation pushed people to live in conditions that are not fit for humans and the slums with all the challenges they brought were able to sprawl unabated. But with a few steps forward and a few steps back Nairobi is evolving in the right direction. Just to give a few examples: thousands of youth every day are moving through the slums developing better sanitation, de-polluting and building infrastructure under the National Youth Service; Kenya Power and Lighting Company are providing legitimate power to the slums on a pre-pay basis while electricity output is getting closer to meeting demand; slum regeneration projects starting on the peripheries of slums are transforming whole areas into lower-middle class neighbourhoods; the Chinese are developing the roads and I believe noticeably taking the sting off the huge increase in car ownership in the city that inevitably leads to congestion. The city has a dark side but the hopeful Nairobi spirit is the light at the end of the tunnel.

Nairobi functioning (courtesy of chelipeacock.com)

If this is the worst case scenario is it really that bad? Let’s stop the fear mongering over migration first – more on other positive benefits later.