Power and usage determines industrialisation, says report

With income inequality soaring higher amid luckluster in job creation, Uganda’s economy is at a crossroads.

Government is peering at industrialisation as the rightful route to transition into a middle income status.

Government has targeted that by 2040, industrialisation should contributing 31 per cent of the GDP, employing 26 per cent of labour force and contributing 50 per cent of exports as manufactured goods.

However, a new research done by Makerere University Business Schools (Mubs) and Friedrich Ebert Stifftung, found that industrialisation aspirations are doomed to fail if business as usual continues.

According to researchers, the ability to influence actions of others with respect to getting the desired outcomes is largely dependent on who owns the power and how they use it.

“Overall, the Office of the Presidency and Cabinet, Office of the Prime Minister and Operation Wealth Creation commands more than 60 per cent of the implementation power,” the research found.
Eighty four per cent of the study participants said the national industrialisation strategy lacks clear focus.

Sixty eight per cent said ministries, departments and agencies (MDA) also had no clear task allocation.

Researchers reasoned that Uganda’s industrialisation intentions will be turned into sustainable results only if the key players, those who are highly interested and powerful get mobilised to lead the agenda.

“The subjects, those highly interested but powerless are empowered by giving them more formal authority and resources,” the researchers found.

They proposed that the President should champion this agenda through establishing a separate Ministry for Industry and Investment (MoII).

The study titled “From Paper To Practice: Implementation of Uganda’s Industrialisation Agenda,” was aimed at unmasking the pitfalls that must be avoided for Uganda to realise its industrialisation ambitions.

The research that was presented last week at Kampala Serena Hotel was conducted, among officials from the office of the presidency, ministries, factory owners and citizens.

The research that was led by Mr Ramathan Ggoobi of Mubs also found that policy implementations had higher chance of success when: “Street-level bureaucrats, the people closer to the real problems are offered key roles in solving problems.”

Giving a large amount of discretionary power to front-line implementers, according to the researchers also yielded better success in policy implementation.

According more weight into coordination and collaboration among separate but mutually dependent actors, was also a major factor for success.

The researchers also found having clear objectives and goals, accountability, evidence-based decision making and internal management support as key drivers of success.

The also recommended deeper analysis into the quality of the strategy, besides finding that there was no one actively in charge of industrial policy, as admitted by 62 per cent of participants.

Three power sources
Formal authority. This is derived from the position one holds as described in law or policy which qualifies them to take decisions with respect to others.

Possession of resources. This happens when those with a more direct access and control of the national treasury a possess more power.

Relational power. This is derived from relationships with other actors, especially those with access to certain power resources.