Kenya rolling out it's national electricity program in half the time it took USA

[MOON Ki]

Normally you type rubbish here - but this time round you've outdone yourself.

Did you read the bit above about using that thing called the head?

Let forget about US for now -

Seems a good idea.

pick any contemporary Africa country - and show us who is electrifying at Kenya rate - you can try TZ,Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda or any country.

Kenya certainly is doing better than those countries, but that is not what I was commenting on.

and what has size has to do with anything

One more time: the head!   Answer: electricity has to be transmitted from where it produced to where it is used: distance!    Can you see how the time, effort and cost of laying the infrastructure (which is more than just poles and wires!) is related to the distance?   Surely, even you can!

if size was critical - why isn't Burundi or any small country not 100% electrified. US is big country with lots of people and lots of money. Size doesn't matter.

You are a bit slow aren't you.     Saying that size (i.e. physical distance) has an effect does not mean that a small size necessarily means that electrification will be faster.   There are other factors, and, ironically, you point out one in your absurd argument: one has to be able to afford it, and a place like Burundi apparently can't.

There has been no significant change of technology in stuff like building a house or supplying power or building a road - enough to change anything - it still as hard as it was to lay wires and poles - I don't know what technology you're talking about honestly - you may been totally out of reality - but ask around what entails supplying power? - still manual process that involve poles being trucked to be treated - trucked back - and manually digging up poles - pulling poles - and name it.

I think you have been in the "reserves" for too long.  Try getting out a bit.    Or better yet: that Google thing you say---correctly, actually, as I use it to find out about things I don't know and then get to know---try using it!   Still,let me give you some examples:

* Better transportation means that the trucks carrying those poles you mention can move around quicker and more efficiently.

* The technology used to transmit electricity over long distances---contrary to what you think, it is not just poles and wires---has improved and become available to such an extent that a place like Kenya can afford more of it.  (Do some homework on high-voltage power transmission.)

The following is a concrete example of how Kenya is benefiting from improvements in technology.   Electricity transmission  in Kenya is the job of Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO).  On one of their webpages, you will find this:

The transmission line projects will include:

- 1500 kilometers of  132kV lines;
- 700 kilometers of 220kV lines;
- 1,000 km 400kV lines; and
- 700 kilometers of  500kV lines.

When did the technology to transmit at 400kV and 500kV come into existence?   And when did countries like the USA get into major electrification?

[RV Pundit]

Sound exactly like bla de bla from the resident hair-splitter. Eti size & technology matters. How about labour then - how cheaper was it compared to now - perhaps some slave labour?. You can look for all excuses to dampen the fact that kenya is truly transforming. What makes you think all power stations are located in one area and wires have to be laid from one corner of the US to another?
Before you hair-split - universal coverage is making sure every household has electricity - size of the country matters little. If some 10 people are living in Mandera outpost - you don't have to lay wires from Tana all the way - you start small solar power there - and plug them in.

US in 1930 was a developed country with far bigger budget than Kenya and what Kenya is doing in electrification is truly impressive. Far more impressive than US electrification for example.

Kenya will achieve universal electricity coverage in one generation. That is truly amazing to me and everyone else with a brain.

I wish we can do the same on roads - move from 12-15% of bitumen standard road to 100% like Singapore.

bla de bla

[MOON Ki]

How about labour then - how cheaper was it compared to now - perhaps some slave labour?.

On what basis do you wish to make the comparison?  And how would it fit with your statement that the USA was already a rich country at the time it did most of its electrification?

What makes you think all power stations are located in one area and wires have to be laid from one corner of the US to another?

I never stated nor implied anything of the sort.   My statement is on the distance from the source of power to where it is consumed.    Generally, the bigger the country, the longer the distance; that is why some countries have power lines that are thousands of kilometres long. 

And you have missed something very basic: for the purposes of this argument what really matters is the total length of high-voltage power lines and associated infrastructure that are (or have to be) in place.     What's the difference there between Kenya and the USA?

Before you hair-split - universal coverage is making sure every household has electricity - size of the country matters little. If some 10 people are living in Mandera outpost - you don't have to lay wires from Tana all the way - you start small solar power there - and plug them in.

That might be so, but as a matter of fact that is not how most of the electrification that has you excited is taking place.

Oh, you wanted to know about improvements in technology over time.  Glad you have mentioned solar power, which  is one of them.

US in 1930 was a developed country with far bigger budget than Kenya and what Kenya is doing in electrification is truly impressive.

Did you pay attention to the bit about improvements in technology driving down costs, to the point where people who previously could not afford them are able to do so?   According to your absurd argument, Kenya is very impressive in a whole lot of other areas.  E.g. just compare the computing power (multiply CPU clock rate with the number of devices) that are in the hands of our toddlers-with-tablets with the computing power available in all of the USA in, say, 1960.    Or the number of Kenyans with ready access to phone service today compared with the USA in 19xx.  Or the number of Kenyans who have more than two pairs of shoes.  Or ....  Kenya today vs. the USA in the late 19th and early 20th century.   Yes, we have indeed advanced tremendously.   

And, yet, with all these "advances" we still can't feed ourselves and have to regularly resort to begging for food.

Kenya will achieve universal electricity coverage in one generation. That is truly amazing to me and everyone else with a brain.

Being able to borrow money and buy technology that has been developed by others is one thing.   But how many generations will it take before Kenya can achieve the basic requirement of being able to feed itself?   

And other things: Health?  Life expectancy?  Etc.   Should we take into account the fact that we are in the 21st Century, or should be be content with our "tremendous development" relative to where other countries were 80-100 years ago?

Surely, the fact that you find it amazing proves that a brain is not a requirement.   

I wish we can do the same on roads - move from 12-15% of bitumen standard road to 100% like Singapore.

Bizarre and absurd thinking.   Singapore is a small city (by large-city standards), with an area of around 700 square kilometres.  That's probably the size of Nairobi county.   Use your head and, even in your wild imaginations, try to aim for the practical.

[Kichwa]

Pundit.  You are a smart dude.  This argument/comparison is silly at many levels not even worth debating-give it up.  You can praise Jubilee without embarrassing yourself.

Sound exactly like bla de bla from the resident hair-splitter. Eti size & technology matters. How about labour then - how cheaper was it compared to now - perhaps some slave labour?. You can look for all excuses to dampen the fact that kenya is truly transforming. What makes you think all power stations are located in one area and wires have to be laid from one corner of the US to another?
Before you hair-split - universal coverage is making sure every household has electricity - size of the country matters little. If some 10 people are living in Mandera outpost - you don't have to lay wires from Tana all the way - you start small solar power there - and plug them in.

US in 1930 was a developed country with far bigger budget than Kenya and what Kenya is doing in electrification is truly impressive. Far more impressive than US electrification for example.

Kenya will achieve universal electricity coverage in one generation. That is truly amazing to me and everyone else with a brain.

I wish we can do the same on roads - move from 12-15% of bitumen standard road to 100% like Singapore.

bla de bla

[Nefertiti]

It is really possible to differ without insults?

Obviously there are many technology and economic improvements that make electrification easier now than 80 years ago. Solar, wind, nuclear, etc -power. Cable quality too - it's cheaper with less leakage. In Kenya transmission leakage is still 16%... US 4%. 1930s there were big leakage problems. Grid quality - we are installing basic - Karen hospital gets a blackout while kiosks have power in Ngong - cause its static grid is fixed on Kiambu line. We have access to state-of-art tech unlike US who had to invent as they go along.

Why we are really cynical, Pundit, is that since electrification is so basic, we are only nicking it in 21st century? Oxymoronic, isn't it? I think our level of overall economic development is the real culprit. It is the same reason UhuRuto cannot just borrow trillions and build universal infrastructure - roads, rail, power grid, etc. Dr Doom has labored the argument -- that ability to borrow and build is not development.

[Nefertiti]

Pundit is saying that the "disruption" that has enabled this transformation is Jubilee

Pundit.  You are a smart dude.  This argument/comparison is silly at many levels not even worth debating-give it up.  You can praise Jubilee without embarrassing yourself.

Sound exactly like bla de bla from the resident hair-splitter. Eti size & technology matters. How about labour then - how cheaper was it compared to now - perhaps some slave labour?. You can look for all excuses to dampen the fact that kenya is truly transforming. What makes you think all power stations are located in one area and wires have to be laid from one corner of the US to another?
Before you hair-split - universal coverage is making sure every household has electricity - size of the country matters little. If some 10 people are living in Mandera outpost - you don't have to lay wires from Tana all the way - you start small solar power there - and plug them in.

US in 1930 was a developed country with far bigger budget than Kenya and what Kenya is doing in electrification is truly impressive. Far more impressive than US electrification for example.

Kenya will achieve universal electricity coverage in one generation. That is truly amazing to me and everyone else with a brain.

I wish we can do the same on roads - move from 12-15% of bitumen standard road to 100% like Singapore.

bla de bla

[RV Pundit]

US of 1930 was not as poor as Kenya of now. US of 1930 was a cusp of becoming the biggest economy in the world - overtaking Brits who had colonies all over including India. US of 1930s - most people were rich to afford to pay for electricity. Kenya of 2017 is poorer than US of 1930s. US of 1930s was industrial super-power - manufacturing everything.

That a poorer kenya in 2017 is electrifying at dizzy rates make the usual negativos boil with rage.

For once admit kenya is doing something. This is akin to M-pesa. Majority of negativos will never praise kenya until Raila become PORK. I am used to this kind of fools. I didn't support Kibaki from 2005 - but never failed to acknowledge when he got stuff right. I never wish my country ill.

I know what I am dealing with...embittered folks...who will never admit that we are making tremendous progress. If 10yrs ago you told me half my village would get electricity or tarmac I would have laugh at you...now it happened. It's surreal. The rural transformation is breathtaking.

It is really possible to differ without insults?

Obviously there are many technology and economic improvements that make electrification easier now than 80 years ago. Solar, wind, nuclear, etc -power. Cable quality too - it's cheaper with less leakage. In Kenya transmission leakage is still 16%... US 4%. 1930s there were big leakage problems. Grid quality - we are installing basic - Karen hospital gets a blackout while kiosks have power in Ngong - cause its static grid is fixed on Kiambu line. We have access to state-of-art tech unlike US who had to invent as they go along.

Why we are really cynical, Pundit, is that since electrification is so basic, we are only nicking it in 21st century? Oxymoronic, isn't it? I think our level of overall economic development is the real culprit. It is the same reason UhuRuto cannot just borrow trillions and build universal infrastructure - roads, rail, power grid, etc. Dr Doom has labored the argument -- that ability to borrow and build is not development.

[RV Pundit]

I didn't make the comparison - someone did it - the link is up there.

Pundit.  You are a smart dude.  This argument/comparison is silly at many levels not even worth debating-give it up.  You can praise Jubilee without embarrassing yourself.

[MOON Ki]

Majority of negativos will never praise kenya until Raila become PORK. I am used to this kind of fools. I didn't support Kibaki from 2005 - but never failed to acknowledge when he got stuff right. I never wish my country ill.

I know what I am dealing with...embittered folks...who will never admit that we are making tremendous progress. If 10yrs ago you told me half my village would get electricity or tarmac I would have laugh at you...now it happened. It's surreal. The rural transformation is breathtaking.

Go easy on the excessive and unhelpful emotion and hyperbole, and deal with the facts and logic, which you have already been given.  In particular, refrain from assuming that everyone who does not buy into the line that the present government is leading Kenyans to "The Land of Milk and Honey" is necessarily bitter, or supporting the opposition, or whatever.  If you have a real case to make, then just present the facts and string them together in a logical argument.

My own position is a straightforward one: I will not think much of any Kenyan government as long as the basics are not met that by now should not be constitute major issue---feeding the country, people not dying from easily preventable illnesses, a slowdown on the mindless corruption, etc.

[RV Pundit]

There you go with your simplistic thinking. There is no major or small thing in country. A country is complex org with varying needs. Gok job is to balance the varying needs. You can bet we need some nuclear & rocket scientist & space scientist although we still have problem with some people unable to feed. It's not gov job to feed the people or prevent illness or whatever. Gov is the facilitator/lever to give you a small push. Many people in kenya can afford 5 or 10 square meal. Some cannot hack it. Gov has maybe ten thousands stuff it need to worry about...prioritizing is not say shut down the country..and fix the basic. Never works like that. It works like this..parliament sit down...listen to all millions of competing needs..and prioritize them into budget..and executive try to execute...you can bet some people will want for good reason for gov to invest in marine science..others will extol the virtues of investing in space station..others will convince us that getting kids laptops will be good..while others will want gok to invest in sport facilities...others will want relief food ..other will want street kids educated..etc.

It's like a classroom..if you're a teacher..you cannot stop teaching until every kid learn how to read or write..you have to understand & accept some will never read or write..what about the others who are far ahead?

Go easy on the excessive and unhelpful emotion and hyperbole, and deal with the facts and logic, which you have already been given.  In particular, refrain from assuming that everyone who does not buy into the line that the present government is leading Kenyans to "The Land of Milk and Honey" is necessarily bitter, or supporting the opposition, or whatever.  If you have a real case to make, then just present the facts and string them together in a logical argument.

My own position is a straightforward one: I will not think much of any Kenyan government as long as the basics are not met that by now should not be constitute major issue---feeding the country, people not dying from easily preventable illnesses, a slowdown on the mindless corruption, etc.

[MOON Ki]

There you go with your simplistic thinking. There is no major or small thing in country.

That seems to be the thinking of the leadership of this country too.  That is why we still keep begging for food, why the simple lack of clean water affects the health of millions (to the point of death), why money is spent on to give tablets or whatever to toddlers of whom 25% will have permanent physical and mental underdevelopment because of poor nutrition, etc.   

Now, for a simple lesson: At any stage in a country's history, some things are more important than others, and one can establish a list of priorities.   As you yourself put it

and prioritize them into budget

The high-priority ones are "major"; the low priority ones are "small". (Did you think of that while stating that nothing is "major or small" but priorities can be established?)   If we look at even the  20th century, the countries that have made the biggest advances are those that have first focused on certain things: agriculture (food), health, education, etc.   They did not go around bragging about being able to borrow and build stuff while starving and begging for food, dying from "small" diseases, etc.   That we are where we are is perhaps explained by your silly notion that "there is no major or small thing".

It's not gov job to feed the people or prevent illness or whatever.  Gov is the facilitator.

And governments in places like Kenya are (and have been for 50+ years) doing bugger on whatever "facilitation" you have in mind.  Compare the GoK budget on "water and irrigation" with that for "laptops and toddlers", and you will see why Kenyans are begging for food in the 21st.  In the countries that I referred to, one can clearly see the role of properly-thought-out and implemented policies.   Whether you choose to call it a "job" or "facilitation" doesn't matter---in fact, to simplify things, I'm happy to consider it as facilitation---the simple fact is that governments like GoK have failed it.

There are also projects like Galana.   If it is not the "gov job to feed", why has billions of taxpayer shillings been blown on that little joke?  Also, come to think of it, what's with the unga business?   Etc., etc., etc. 

At about the very same time that Uhuru (President of Kenya) was pictured doing some odd dance, he was also sending an urgent plea to the "international community" for food.    In the meantime, no relaxing on "our wonderful SGR" etc.   See any problem there?

Take some time to reflect on all that before rushing to knock off another half-arsed response.   

[RV Pundit]

That is your development theory. There are a dozen a dime theories on how country can develop and what to prioritize. There is no one size fit template for all countries. Most countries followed different paths to prosperity. I personally think giving laptops to kids can help us leapfrog from your "conventional" model. What works I think (seriously think) is to work on everything - and hopefully  hope that one of it will work. I'd prefer the country tried so many ideas - and pray 1 or 2 works. That is how the real world works anyway. For one success story - there are many failures. Coz unlike you I don't think anybody has this FIGURED OUT.

There you go with your simplistic thinking. There is no major or small thing in country.

That seems to be the thinking of the leadership of this country too.  That is why we still keep begging for food, why the simple lack of clean water affects the health of millions (to the point of death), why money is spent on to give tablets or whatever to toddlers of whom 25% will have permanent physical and mental underdevelopment because of poor nutrition, etc.   

Now, for a simple lesson: At any stage in a country's history, some things are more important than others, and one can establish a list of priorities.    The high-priority ones are "major"; the low priority ones are "small".   If we look at even the  20th century, the countries that have made the biggest advances are those that have first focused on certain things: agriculture (food), health, education, etc.   They did not go around bragging about being able to borrow and build stuff while starving and begging for food, dying from "small" diseases, etc.   That we are where we are is perhaps explained by your silly notion that "there is no major or small thing".

It's not gov job to feed the people or prevent illness or whatever.  Gov is the facilitator.

And governments in places like Kenya are (and have been for 50+ years) doing bugger on whatever "facilitation" you have in mind.  Compare the GoK budget on "water and irrigation" with that for "laptops and toddlers", and you will see why Kenyans are begging for food in the 21st.  In the countries that I referred to, one can clearly see the role of properly-thought-out and implemented policies.   Whether you choose to call it a "job" or "facilitation" doesn't matter---in fact, to simplify things, I'm happy to consider it as facilitation---the simple fact is that governments like GoK have failed it.

There are also projects like Galana.   If it is not the "gov job to feed", why has billions of taxpayer shillings been blown on that little joke?  Also, come to think of it, what's with the unga business?   Etc., etc., etc.

Take some time to reflect on all that before rushing to knock off another half-arsed response.   

[Nefertiti]

I would like to believe noone is negative enough not to see the positive. But national development is complex and debate is healthy. It takes all kinds to make the world go round.

Pundit, let me ask you a question. I have never bought the Ndii argument that development must be organic and his vehemence against megaprojects. I believe that if most ingredients (90%) are put in place a miracle can happen.

What if we borrow trillions of dollars and build universal infrastructure in a few years? Roads, rail, subways, power, water, housing, sewers, etc. Would we be bankrupted by the loans or would swift development follow? I believe the latter.

[RV Pundit]

I agree it a complex debate. Nobody knows the answers for your questions.I would say borrow and borrow. If today I went to my bank and they told me my loan limit is 1B kshs - I will take it all. Why should I care if I go bankrupt. It none of my problem. I'ts lender to worry about me going bankrupt. It not my money. When I default - I simply default. They can choose to blacklist me or forgive my loan or reposses some assets. This is free money to experiment.

When It come to borrowing - no brainer - borrow borrow borrow. Let the lender worry about the details. That is leverage.

Of course China is not stupid - so if they lend - they lend for infrastructure and they don't give you money - so it win-win.It likes asset financing rather than personal loan. With asset financing you get lorry - but with personal loan you get money and you can squander everything.

Take bloody advantage of it.

I would like to believe noone is negative enough not to see the positive. But national development is complex and debate is healthy. It takes all kinds to make the world go round.

Pundit, let me ask you a question. I have never bought the Ndii argument that development must be organic and his vehemence against megaprojects. I believe that if most ingredients (90%) are put in place a miracle can happen.

What if we borrow trillions of dollars and build universal infrastructure in a few years? Roads, rail, subways, power, water, housing, sewers, etc. Would we be bankrupted by the loans or would swift development follow? I believe the latter.

[MOON Ki]

That is your development theory. There are a dozen a dime theories on how country can develop and what to prioritize.

Nothing to do with a "development theory".   If you have an argument to the effect that some things are more important than, say, basic food, basic health, and decent shelter, I'd be happy to "hear" it.    Perhaps you could point us to countries that have done enormously well while nevertheless ignoring those things; such countries could serve as models for the Kenya you seem to have in mind.

And I'll add this: It's all very well for Kenya to decide that it will prioritize certain things and to insist on that, but should it then keep begging for food from places that long ago decided (and still take the view) that food security is of the most importance?   

I personally think giving laptops to kids can help us leapfrog from your "conventional" model.

On current figures, something like 20-25% of Kenyan children will suffer permanent physical and mental damage due to poor nutrition and general health before age 5.   It is an interesting idea---that stunted idiots who get access to "high tech" early in life will somehow "leapfrog" anything and everyone who gets into it later in life--but do you have any evidence from the history of humanity to support it?

What works I think (seriously think) is to work on everything - and hopefully  hope that one of it will work.

But as you have already pointed out, there must be priorities---money (budget), etc.

Coz unlike you I don't think anybody has this FIGURED OUT.

This is the 21st Century.  It is not all up to fickle "Gods".   In all things, we have a pretty good idea that some things will work out and some things are unlikely to work out.   That is why people go to school (to learn about stuff, in all areas,  that will be productive, in any number of ways).  That is why we look at history.  Etc. Etc. Etc.  We can do much better than "nobody has this figured out, so let's just do whatever".

[RV Pundit]

Country of 45m people have competing needs. I assume your small family has those competing needs. I am okay if we decide that stunting is a problem -25% - and we work on reducing it annually by 1% - and hopefully in 25yrs it will be history. What I don't get is how a modern gov (leave alone a family) can come up with basic priorities and leave all the other competing needs - until say everyone is fully feed. For example in schools - stunting is an issue - lack of books an issue - lack of sport facilities an issue - lack of apt technology an issue - lack of laptops an issue - lack of proper trained teachers an issue - lack of well payed teachers an issue - lack of toilets an issue - go on and on -  we cannot say stop everything - focus on food, shelter and clothing - that is most simplistic thinking one can conjure. There are people in this country who have dealt with those issue but also need gov services elsewhere.

You suffer from simplistic linear thinking...that A leads to B which lead to C. In reality life is more complex than that. Sometimes A takes your straight to Z. Those are sort of winners we try to get..like laptops for kids...as opposed to say school feeding. Laptop for kid can help the 75% non-stunted kids meet others needs - books/resources/labs/teachersetc.

That is your development theory. There are a dozen a dime theories on how country can develop and what to prioritize.

Nothing to do with a "development theory".   If you have an argument to the effect that some things are more important than, say, basic food, basic health, and decent shelter, I'd be happy to "hear" it.   

I personally think giving laptops to kids can help us leapfrog from your "conventional" model.

On current figures, something like 20-25% of Kenyan children will suffer permanent physical and mental damage due to poor nutrition and general health before age 5.   The idea that stunted idiots who get access to "high tech" early in life will some "leapfrog" anything and anyone is an interesting one.  Do you have any evidence from the history of humanity to support it?

What works I think (seriously think) is to work on everything - and hopefully  hope that one of it will work.

But as you have already pointed out, there must be priorities---money (budget), etc.

Coz unlike you I don't think anybody has this FIGURED OUT.

This is the 21st Century.  It is not all up to fickle "Gods".   In all things, we have a pretty good idea that some things will work out and some things are unlikely to work out.   That is why people go to school (to learn about stuff, in all areas,  that will be productive, in any number of ways).  That is why we look at history.  Etc. Etc. Etc.

[MOON Ki]

What I don't get is how a modern gov (leave alone a family) can come up with basic priorities and leave all the other competing needs

I see where you are confused.  Prioritizing does not mean ignoring all other needs.   What it means is an assignment of a degree of "importance" or "urgency" or ....     The general idea is that things deemed to be of "high priority" ("importance", "urgency", etc) are to be given the most money, resources, effort, etc.   (Note that "most" does not mean all.)   And I can't think of anything that is more "urgent" or "important" or whatever than basic decent nutrition, basic decent health, basic decent shelter.  Nor can I think of any part of the world, at any time in history, that has made positive and sustainable development by taking a view to the contrary. 

Is it really reasonable to ignore lessons that have been learned by other countries over time---because "there is no sure-fire approach to development and everyone must develop all must develop in their own ways---and still keep begging from those very places?   

You stated that:

It works like this..parliament sit down...listen to all millions of competing needs..and prioritize them into budget..and executive try to execute...

Presumably you do not have it in mind that that means "parliament" will settle entirely on some "needs" and "leave all other competing needs". 

Sometimes A takes your straight to Z. Those are sort of winners we try to get..like laptops for kids...as opposed to say school feeding. Laptop for kid can help the 75% non-stunted kids meet others needs - books/resources/labs/teachersetc.

Here's an essential point about priorities: because resources are limited, we must make decisions on how to allocate them.   And the normal way to do so is to decide on what is most important or urgent or whatever; that's the prioritizing bit.   We then decide on what is likely to bear the most fruit, when, how, etc.; and to do that, we generally make projections based on some history.   

I asked you this question:

[Is there enough evidence to support the view that the 20-25%] stunted idiots who get access to "high tech" early in life will somehow "leapfrog" anything and everyone who gets into it later in life?

You have chosen to focus on the 75-80%.  So let me ask this:

Is there enough evidence to support the view that arming this lot with tablets or whatever will somehow make a huge difference in anything?    And I should add that there are other things that are other things that have been shown to be really important: physical infrastructure (have laptops but sitting on a stone under a tree?), teacher absenteeism (what is it in Kenya?), social problems (kids on the farm, herding farm animals, ...), etc.

[Kichwa]

Pundit- what you are saying is interesting,  convoluted and I can see you are still struggling to fully develop it. Correct me if I am wrong but it  sure sounds like the discredited concept of "trickle down economy". It appears that you are saying that if we feed, educate, a few people or develop a few areas then it will spread all over. 

Here is Wikipedia on tricle down.
"Trickle-down economics", also referred to as "trickle-down theory", is a term associated with laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. The term is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged, while being framed as good for the average citizen.

In recent history, the phrase has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". David Stockman, who as Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but then became critical of them, told journalist William Greider that the "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea: "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[1][2] Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[3]

Country of 45m people have competing needs. I assume your small family has those competing needs. I am okay if we decide that stunting is a problem -25% - and we work on reducing it annually by 1% - and hopefully in 25yrs it will be history. What I don't get is how a modern gov (leave alone a family) can come up with basic priorities and leave all the other competing needs - until say everyone is fully feed. For example in schools - stunting is an issue - lack of books an issue - lack of sport facilities an issue - lack of apt technology an issue - lack of laptops an issue - lack of proper trained teachers an issue - lack of well payed teachers an issue - lack of toilets an issue - go on and on -  we cannot say stop everything - focus on food, shelter and clothing - that is most simplistic thinking one can conjure. There are people in this country who have dealt with those issue but also need gov services elsewhere.

You suffer from simplistic linear thinking...that A leads to B which lead to C. In reality life is more complex than that. Sometimes A takes your straight to Z. Those are sort of winners we try to get..like laptops for kids...as opposed to say school feeding. Laptop for kid can help the 75% non-stunted kids meet others needs - books/resources/labs/teachersetc.

That is your development theory. There are a dozen a dime theories on how country can develop and what to prioritize.

Nothing to do with a "development theory".   If you have an argument to the effect that some things are more important than, say, basic food, basic health, and decent shelter, I'd be happy to "hear" it.   

I personally think giving laptops to kids can help us leapfrog from your "conventional" model.

On current figures, something like 20-25% of Kenyan children will suffer permanent physical and mental damage due to poor nutrition and general health before age 5.   The idea that stunted idiots who get access to "high tech" early in life will some "leapfrog" anything and anyone is an interesting one.  Do you have any evidence from the history of humanity to support it?

What works I think (seriously think) is to work on everything - and hopefully  hope that one of it will work.

But as you have already pointed out, there must be priorities---money (budget), etc.

Coz unlike you I don't think anybody has this FIGURED OUT.

This is the 21st Century.  It is not all up to fickle "Gods".   In all things, we have a pretty good idea that some things will work out and some things are unlikely to work out.   That is why people go to school (to learn about stuff, in all areas,  that will be productive, in any number of ways).  That is why we look at history.  Etc. Etc. Etc.

[MOON Ki]

I believe that if most ingredients (90%) are put in place a miracle can happen.

Perhaps.   But what would constitute the 90%? 

What if we borrow trillions of dollars and build universal infrastructure in a few years? Roads, rail, subways, power, water, housing, sewers, etc. Would we be bankrupted by the loans or would swift development follow? I believe the latter.

Entirely possible, but for one awkward: we lack the record (or natural resources to milked) for truly "world-class" loans.    And there is another thing: development of "attitude".   Elsewhere, someone---I think it was kichwa---noted that the average Kenyan's attitude towards "government property" has not changed since 1960: "it belongs to whomever, so I may help myself to it".   Apart from the financial "eating", people also stole physical parts of the railway infrastructure.   That is already happening with the SGR. 

When the EAC developed its railways Master Plan, their Japanese consultant had this to say: (a) by the time you have spent all this money on this new SGR, you will have trains that run slower than what we have on cargo lines that are much older than your lines, and (b) you can get actually better speeds and capacity by refurbishing your present lines and using better signalling.   (Silly man.  How can refurbishing and better signalling show real "development" and "success" in the 21st ... I brought this new thing to the village vs. I fixed the problem with the old one.)

Here's part of what I am trying to get at, beyond the "obvious" economic arguments of loan amounts and repayments and dot dot dot: why did the old line fail, and why do we believe that the new line will succeed without seemingly-impossible changes in our society?   Once the SGR starts to carry a non-trivial amount of goods, are we sure that the sort of fiddling that happens at "weigh bridges" won't simply be transferred?   Are we sure that money allocated for maintenance will go to maintenance, or will it be the usual, "it's still working, so let's just eat this money"?  Let's see how all that shiny stuff looks like a year from now.

There is also this idea that the Chinese lending the money for the SGR shows that they are really confident of its success; I'm not so sure about that.   First, Kenya is paying serious insurance for that loan.   Second, while Kung Fu was flexible on the repayment of the principal and interest, it insisted on the insurance premium being paid upfront.   Smart move: if the SGR collapses today, they still get paid.    There's a "rap song" that testifies to this sort of thinking:

Not a valid youtube URL[/youtube]

Oh a word on the "hard economics" and  "really cheap" fares and cargo rates.   I have seen Sh. 700 fares with a flag of "promotional rates" ... on the orders of H. E. Uhuru, down from an initial Sh. 900.    That has got many people really worked up.   Now, as a matter of simple economics, charges on such infrastructure have to be sufficient to (at least) maintain it.   So what are the basis of the current charges?   GoK has been very shy on that, but we know at least two things: (a) Kung Fu suggested much higher figures; (a) GoK's Canadian consultants recommended starting off with rates lower than for road and then jacking them up once the SGR had sufficient market-share.    So, if I were down there, I would moderate my excitement.

Here's another part what I am trying to get at: borrowing money and throwing it into infrastructure, arming toddlers with laptops, ... these are of limited worth in developing a country such as our.  We need to focus on serious fundamentals.  Have mobile phone, can do the MPESA stuff, and ride on spanking new SGR ...  but no food to eat (without the President leading the begging), constant diarrhoea from lack of clean water .... that's development?  Really?

[Nefertiti]

Indian teen builds world's 'lightest satellite'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-39931556

These sorts of things can happen with laptop-equipped kids.