Deepening Decentralization in Uganda

Deepening Decentralization in

Uganda

Dr. Fumihiko SAITORyukoku University,Visiting Professor

ASAFAS, Kyoto University

F. Saito Ryukoku University Oct 19 2006 at ASAFAS

2

The main purpose of the visit

To examine differences between the situation of 2000 and that of 2006.

The 2000 filedwork formed the basis for Saito (2003).

A rare opportunity to see the process of evolving policy implementation.


3


4

The RC/LC system

Figure 2.1 Five- tier RC system

Tier Name Numbers

RC/ LC 5 District 45

RC/ LC 4 County 214

RC/ LC 3 Sub- county 893

RC/ LC 2 Parish 4,517

RC/ LC 1 Village 39,692

Source: * Uganda, MoH [1999] National Health Policy (Kampala: MoH), p. 17.


5

Typical Structure of District GovernmentFigure 2.2 Typical Local Council structure at district level

Political wing of the CouncilCouncil of elected leaders(legislature)Political Supervision and Control

ChairpersonPolitical Supervision and Control

Executive Committee (cabinet)

Political Interactions

Finance and Production and Education and Health and Works andAdministration Extension Services Sports Environment Technical ServicesCommittee Committee Committee Committee Committee

Political Supervision and Administrative Subordination

Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Department 1 Department 2 Department 3 Department 4 Department 5

Administrative Supervision and Control

Chief Administrative OfficerAdministrative wing of the Council


6


7


8

Uganda enters into a new phase

Implementation has evolved into a new “phase” which is different from the past.The policy framework becomes more

coherent than before.More attention paid to the results of

decentralization (outcomes) rather than decentralization arrangement itself.


9

Deepening decentralization in Uganda

policy and planning fiscal decentralization human resources1962 Independence

1995 Constitution1997 Local Governments Act

UPPAP

Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) Local Government Finance Commission (LGFC)1997-20002001-2003 FY 2002-03 30% of national budget 2004/ 05-2007/ 8 spent by local governments (LGSIP, p.16)

Local Government Development Programme (LGDP)1st phase 1999-2004 2002 Fiscal Decentralization Strategy (FDS)

change from 3 types of grants toLGDP Recurrent Transfer System and 2nd phase 2003-2007 Development Transfer System I@Mak project:

Yet progress is slow? World Bank- funded MU pilot project2002-2006

2004 J oint Annual Review of Decentralisation (J ARD) 2005- / 6 Graduated Tax abolished without substitute

2005 District Tender Board -> Contracts Committee 2005 Local Government Public Financial Management Assessment 2005 National Local Government Capacity Building Policy (NLGCBP)

National Planning Authority 2005 Local Governments (Rating) ActHarmonised Participatory Planning Guide (HPPG) on property tax, but still confused

2006 Decentralisation Policy Strategic Framework (DPSF)strategic frameworkLocal economic development (LED) as a newarea of emphasis for sustainability

2006 The Local Government Sector Investment Plan (LGSIP)harmonization and mainstreamingDecentralisation Sector Working Group (DSWG)

2005 District Tender Board -> Contracts Committee Local Government Public Accounts Committee (LGPAC) District Service Commission

Local Government Information and Communication System (LOGICS)

Local Government Finance and Accounting System (LOGFIAS)


10

Improved links between different tiers of government

Support from line ministries to local governments.

Support from LC 5 (districts) to LC 3 (sub-countries).

Support to service delivery points.Political mobility between the center

and local levels – stark difference between the situation of 1960s and now.


11


12

The Central GovernmentDonors e.g. Line Ministries

regional offices funds support/ mentoring

LC 5 District funds support/ mentoring

LC 3 Sub-county support/ mentoring

Service Delivery Pointse.g. schools health clinics

electionservices

G R A S S R O O T S P O P U L A T I O N


13

Increased Satisfaction?

Public Satisfaction with LC system 2000 (%)

Very

satisfactory

Somewhat

satisfactory

Somewhat

unsatisfactory

Very

UnsatisfactoryDo not know

LC 1 43 30 12 13 2LC 3 24 30 20 17 9LC 5 21 28 15 20 16Overall 32 46 9 10 3

Source Saito 2003


14

Increased satisfaction?

NSDS 2004, p. 99 No significant deterioration of public approval from 2000 to 2004

Afrobarometer round 2 data reports that following % of people saw the improvement of respective services provided by LC 5 in the last five years (p.43). 77% education 69% health care MORE satisfaction than dissatisfaction 64% feeder roads 54% water and sanitation 46% agriculture (LESS THAN HALF of the population) MORE dissatisfaction than satisfaction


15

Increased satisfaction?

NSDS 2004, p. 99


16

Public perception of local officials

Differences across regions are small. Afrobaromete round 2 data 2002


17

Decentralization for whom?

“Decentralization has led to a situation in which everyone has power to influence important decisions made by the local councils.”

44% think so.

“Despite decentralization, there are only a few individuals who have the power to influence important decisions made by the local council.“

49% think so. Afrobarometer round 2

p.43-44.


18

Leaders and accountability

Our leaders in the local councils are accountable to the community for the decisions that they make.”

67% agrees

“Our leaders in the local councils make decisions without any consideration for what the community wants.”

31% agreesAfrobarometer round

2 p.44.


19


20

Progressive implementation

LC 3 has more personnel in both quality and quantity.

Uganda Local Government Association helps increase the influences of local governments vis-à-vis the central government, and also facilitates mutual learning.

Harmonization for planning.


21

Remaining Concerns- Administration

Increased personnel costsCreating more districts

Ethnic cleansing of personnel narrows the experiences and perceptions

Replacement of the abolished graduated tax


22

Remaining concerns- Political 1

The Museveni regime started to show ill-effects of its long grip of power.

The increasing tendency of (semi) authoritarian nature of politics.

The predominance of neo-patrimonialism is shown Creation of more districts.CAO and top local government officials

will be assigned by the central government.


23


24

Remaining concerns- Political 2

The effects of multi-party politics(Re)introduction of party politics.

New culture of coalition making!New culture of coalition making!To whom are representatives To whom are representatives

accountable?accountable?To parties or to constituenciesTo parties or to constituencies

Separation of LC system/administrative hierarchy from NRM/party.

Ethnic diversity


25

Collective Action in the future

NSDS 2004. p.96


26

Collaboration

Local government with NGOs, and othersHealth: reasonably wellEducation: no longer active?Agriculture/ NAADS: reverse crowing out?

The irony: the more institutionalized, more superficial.

Leadership does matterFrom conventional to facilitative leadership


27


28

Collaboration

Contradiction?Community cohesion and voluntary

complianceIncreasing privatization of services


29

Deepening Decentralization in Uganda

Documents

Transcript of Deepening Decentralization in Uganda