Please note - this is a temporary window. id21 is joining forces with Eldis and therefore the id21 website has been suspended. Soon all id21 content will be available on the Eldis website.

Decentralisation in Uganda: is the jury still out?

Decentralisation is trendy. Enthusiasts in donor agencies and academia see political legitimacy, democratisation, economic efficiency, lean government and poverty reduction as likely consequences of a decentralised government. Yet, is there hard evidence that decentralisation delivers the goods?

A paper from Ryukoku University, Japan explores this question in Uganda, a nation with fourteen years of deep commitment to decentralisation. Since the National Resistance Movement (NRM) took power in 1986 it has developed a clear legal framework for decentralisation. Significant resources have been transferred to local government. The NRM depends on rural political support and has staked its credibility on making the Local Council (LC) system work. Indeed, local health and education initiatives attest to the beginnings of a productive relationship between NGOs, the local business community and LCs. Conflict resolution is now in LC hands. The NRM has succeeded in making LCs the core of social networks for most Ugandans.

However, the report makes clear that decentralisation is not a social engineering tool with a universally applicable blueprint. It has its downside. Decentralisation can foster regional identity and encourage secessionism and there is potential for the system to revive conflict within the kind of multi-ethnic society that is Uganda. And as long as information is disseminated from the top, there are opportunities for those in power to manipulate and monopolise.

Other conclusions from the study are that:

The LC system is more likely to be ‘pro-poor’ than the model it replaced.
Continued central control of security and police is against the ethos of decentralisation.
Public services costs are not necessarily reduced.
The long-term consequences of central insistence on making policy may erode the support base of the LC system.
As state structures become more decentralised, the cost of coordination and monitoring is likely to continue to rise: contrary to the expectation of a minimalist state, decentralisation may not end with downsized governments.
External support is useless without national ownership of decentralisation.

Uganda is at a critical crossroads. Policy pointers to safeguard decentralisation here, and in other countries, include the need for:

stakeholders to have a clear understanding of their role in a decentralised disposition
incentive mechanisms to encourage providers and recipients of services to sign up to decentralisation.

Source(s):
‘Decentralisation theories revisited: lessons from Uganda’, Annual Bulletin of Research Institute for Social Science #31, Ryukoku University by Fumihiko Saito March 2001 (also presented at the annual DSA conference SOAS, London 2000) Full document.
Details of book published: Full document.

Funded by: Ryukoku University, Japanese Ministry of Education

id21 Research Highlight: 9 May 2001

Further Information:
Fumihiko Saito
Faculty of Intercultural Communication
Ryukoku University
Otsu
Shiga 520-2194
Japan

Tel: +81 77 543 7860
Fax: +81 77 543 7860
Contact the contributor: fumisait@world.ryukoku.ac.jp

Ryukoku University, Japan

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.