As the government rolls out the new "Nyota Fund" for creative artists, a familiar question haunts the policy corridors: is this genuine economic empowerment, or merely a rebranding exercise for political legacy? An analysis of the last decade reveals a graveyard of similar funds—Uwezo, Youth Fund, Women Enterprise Fund, Hustler Fund—each launched with fanfare but plagued by the same structural rot.

The Nyota Fund, championed by President Ruto, promises low-interest loans to musicians and content creators. Yet, the Controller of Budget’s latest report shows that the default rate on existing government affirmative action funds stands at a staggering 68%. Billions of shillings are stuck with borrowers who view the money as a grant rather than a loan.

The Cycle of Rebranding

"Every administration wants its own shiny new fund," says development economist Dr. Joy Kioko. "Kibaki had the Youth Fund. Uhuru had Uwezo. Ruto has Hustler and now Nyota. But the delivery mechanism is always the same: politicized disbursement, poor vetting, and zero recovery strategy. We are just changing the logo on the cheque."

• Fragmentation: Experts argue that fragmenting resources into niche funds (youth, women, artists) increases administrative costs. A single, well-capitalized revolving fund would be more efficient.
• The Legacy Trap: The rush to launch new funds is often driven by the need for quick political wins. However, without business training for the beneficiaries, the money is often consumed, not invested.

As young artists line up for the Nyota cash, the lesson from history is clear: money without mentorship is charity, and charity is not an economic policy.