In February 2022, the Government of Uganda launched the Parish Development Model (PDM) to lift 39% of households out of the subsistence economy. The PDM intends to deepen the decentralization process, improve household incomes, enable inclusive, sustainable, balanced, and equitable socio-economic transformation, and increase accountability at local levels. Eventually, it is supposed to contribute to the Uganda Vision 2040, which envisages a transformed Ugandan through the prioritization of inclusive growth, employment, and sustainable wealth creation at the household level. However, the model is littered with structural flaws that make it unrealistic for Uganda’s economic setup.
Although the model is premised on the notion that the common citizens in the village are better placed to identify and respond to their own needs, Ugandans were not consulted in its formulation, and awareness remains low. Research indicates that citizen engagement can lead to improved service delivery, social inclusion, financial management, and empowerment. By involving ordinary citizens in the decision-making process, governments can better identify and address local needs and concerns. The PDM emphasizes the importance of involving the Parish Development Committee and common citizens in the allocation of resources and the identification of local needs. Despite these good intentions, the PDM has not been implemented as a truly bottom-up approach. Instead, it was developed by the central government without sufficient consultation with local stakeholders and the people it is intended to benefit. This top-down approach undermines the very principles that the model is built upon and limits its effectiveness.
It is observed that there has been limited consultation with the local governments in the design of the guidelines for the implementation of the Parish Development Model (PDM). This lack of consultation is likely to present challenges relating to the active participation of beneficiaries and low levels of responsiveness to citizen needs. According to a position paper by the Uganda National NGO Forum, the citizens targeted by the PDM have not been adequately prepared to participate in the interventions of this model. There is limited or no knowledge of how beneficiaries will be selected or who qualifies to benefit and who does not. However, it is crucial for beneficiaries to understand what is required of them for the model to be successful. Limited knowledge of core responsibilities renders the parish development model futile.
The model ignores the high domestic inflation that has hit the country in the past year. According to the Uganda Bureau of Statistics, domestic inflation hit double digits for the first time in a decade, rising to 10 percent in September 2022. Under the initiative, each of the 10,500 parishes in the country is supposed to get 17 million shillings to start the implementation of the program and later receive 100 million shillings. The model’s low-cost Parish Revolving Fund (PRF) loans introduce more money into circulation, worsening the inflation problem. Even though the fund accommodates inflation by 1% in its interest rate, this restriction is inadequate in the face of unprecedented inflation figures. As commodity and fuel prices rise unprecedentedly, it is simply unwise for the government to pursue an expansionary monetary policy.
As the most entrepreneurial nation in Africa, Uganda’s economy is primarily driven by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for over 80% of the country’s business activities and employ more than 2.5 million people. Unfortunately, the capital-oriented approach of the model is out of touch with reality on the ground. While 28% of adults own or co-own a new business, Uganda’s business sector does not suffer from a lack of capital or entrepreneurship, as the model suggests. In contrast, over 60% of SMEs in Uganda fail within their first year of operation, indicating that there are deeper underlying issues at play. Therefore, it is imperative for the government to address the regressive fiscal policies that curb the growth of SMEs in the country. By doing so, the government can create an enabling environment that supports and encourages the long-term sustainability of entrepreneurship and business development in Uganda.
The model promises to increase production and entrepreneurship but leaves the market question unanswered. The model’s guidelines entail area-based commodity clusters to increase production and productivity, which will create sustainable agricultural production. Still, encouraging market-based approaches is inadequate for increasing comparative advantage in the region. In 2021, Uganda’s trade deficit will amount to around 4.59 billion U.S. dollars. This trade balance is particularly exacerbated by tariff wars and bans by neighboring countries. The three-year closure of the Katuna border cost Uganda over 14 billion shillings in revenue collections. Moreover, Uganda’s surplus trade partners are troubled markets like the DRC and South Sudan. Retrogressive trade policies governing the production and sale of agricultural products, like the National Coffee Act, are a detriment to the sale of goods beyond the border. If the prevailing hostile commercial environment is unaddressed, increasing production will only widen the trade deficit.
Furthermore, the PDM largely neglects the effect of climate change on the economy. Despite the model being primarily an agribusiness strategy, not much attention is given to climate change issues. As changing water patterns, dropping water levels in several bodies of water, and extreme weather events such as floods, landslides, and prolonged drought become more frequent in the country, people’s livelihoods are threatened. In 2022, more than 900 residents of the Karamoja sub-region were killed by hunger-related diseases, and approximately 91,000 children suffered from acute malnutrition. The famine was mainly attributed to a locust invasion, a prolonged drought, and cattle rustling. According to the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (2021), Uganda ranks as the 13th-most vulnerable country in the world to climate change and 160th out of 192 nations in readiness to confront the threat. The environment and other climate change mitigation measures that the model suggests are simply inadequate to combat the climate crisis.
The model’s development strategy is yet another trial and error. From the unsuccessful National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS), Operation Wealth Creation (OWC), and Youth Livelihood Programme (YLP) to the Presidential Initiative on Wealth and Job Creation (Emyooga), the model’s blueprint has proven impractical. Parliament unanimously agreed that the recent Emyooga program across the country was poorly implemented and faulted the government for the systemic failure in the implementation of the presidential initiative aimed at wealth and job creation. The legislators concluded that the top-down approach, similar to the model of program, did not allow the SACCOs to identify their problems and, therefore, identify and own the solutions to their problems. The corruption, bureaucracy, and shoddy politics that ruined previous government programs prevail in the Parish Development Model.
Whereas the Parish Development Model looks excellent on paper, it fails to address issues that are peculiar to Uganda. Unless the defects and implementation deficiencies are addressed, the model is bound to flop. Another 200 billion shillings down the drain.
ــــــــــــــــــــ
This article expresses the views and opinions of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of Qiraat Africa and its editors.
