Highlights:
- Rising Administrative Costs: Request for UGX 51 Billion for New District Offices
- Decentralization Dilemma: Expanding Administrative Burden
- Exorbitant District Expansion: Soaring Administrative Costs and the Quest for New Offices
Uganda’s economy has seen a substantial increase in the number of administrative districts, as the government implemented its decentralization policy. From just 16 districts in the 1950s, Uganda now boasts a staggering 175 districts, in addition to 30 municipalities and 10 cities, significantly escalating the cost of governance.
The Ministry of Local Government is requesting UGX 51.2 billion to build 332 offices for districts and sub-counties, many of which currently operate in makeshift locations like verandas and streets. Of these, 20 offices are for districts, and the remaining 312 are for sub-counties. The estimated cost for each district office is UGX 1 billion, while sub-county offices are expected to cost UGX 100 million each.
The urgency for these funds arises from the need to relocate 10 districts whose office premises were either absorbed by newly created cities or are now situated within these cities. This situation emerged after the operationalization of 10 cities on July 1, 2020, which aimed to decentralize power and reduce congestion in Kampala. However, it left their mother districts without proper administrative premises, creating an additional burden for the central government.
Despite the rising expenses associated with the decentralization policy, Minister of Local Government Mr. Raphael Magyezi defended it as an essential initiative that empowers local communities. This policy, initiated in 1993, shifted political power to local entities, with each district led by an LC5 chairperson. However, the rapid proliferation of administrative units has made Uganda’s governance more costly compared to its neighboring countries.
Uganda’s parliament, with 529 members, is one of the largest globally, exceeding Kenya’s 349 members and Tanzania’s 393 members. Despite a population of approximately 45 million and a GDP of $45 billion, Uganda’s parliament size is disproportionately large compared to its neighbors.
The expansion of administrative districts has led to a decrease in the average population served by each district. Previously, districts accommodated between 400,000 and 500,000 people, but the current combination of 135 districts, 10 cities, and 30 municipalities serves an average of 257,000 people per administrative unit.
Moreover, the costs associated with these administrative units are substantial. Each Member of Parliament earns an estimated UGX 25 million per month, while LC5 chairpersons, city mayors, and municipality mayors earn about UGX 2.68 million per month. This financial burden is exacerbated by local governments’ reliance on central government grants, which contribute 98% of their total funding.
Efforts to increase local revenue collection are ongoing, but the dependence on central government grants remains a major challenge. The Ministry of Local Government is implementing local government revenue collection automation to improve collection efficiency.
As Uganda struggles with the fiscal implications of decentralization, some experts suggest that reducing the number of administrative units may be a more sustainable approach. However, the government’s commitment to empowering local communities through decentralization persists.
The growth of districts in Uganda has been a gradual process over the decades, with the number of districts increasing from 16 in the 1950s to 175 today. Despite the government’s intentions to enhance service delivery and community governance, studies have shown that the rapid creation of districts may not necessarily lead to improved service delivery or greater citizen participation.
The funding dilemma associated with decentralization is exacerbated by the practice of local governments sending all their revenues to the national Treasury before receiving partial funding in return. While decentralization has been seen as a positive tool for improving service delivery, there is a need to revise the financial aspects of the policy to ensure efficient utilization of resources.
