DECENTRALISATION AND POVERTY REDUCTION IN LUUKA DISTRICT, UGANDA
BY
KYOZIRA MARTHA
BDS/44147/ 1.43/ DU
A RESEARCH REPORT SUBM~rrED TO THE COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN PARTIAL FULFILlMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OF KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
JUNE, 2018 DECLARATION
I Kyozira Martha, declare that this research report is original and is a result of my personal efforts and it is to the best of my knowledge and has never been submitted to any higher institution of learning for the award of any qualification
Signed ~
Name of the student:
Kyozira Martha APPROVAL
This is to certify that this research report under the topic; Decentralisation and Poverty Reduct~ uuka district, Uganda was carried out under my supervision.
Signed (11
Name of the supervisor:
Pr. Rwabuhihi Emmanuel Festus
Date4~/d7E~/.~ DEDICAflON
I dedicate this research report to my dear parents Mr. Kawanguzi David and Mrs. Kawanguzi Beatrice Namubya who worked hard to support me up on this research report and my studies in general, may God bless them abundantly.
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank the Almighty God for making it possible for me to complete this piece of work. Special thanks to Him for the knowledge, wisdom, courage and determination he has granted me.
My special thanks go to the university members of Kampala International University, especially those under the department of Humanities of Social Sciences.
I am particularly indebted to my supervisor Pr. Rwabuhihi Emmanuel 1-estus for his timeless guidance and correction in the conduct of this research report. He really Inspired, motivated and assisted me during the process of this work.
Further thanks to the administration of Luuka district for their support in providing me with the data and to the authors whom I have used their references in coming up with this report. Also to respondents who sacrificed their time in giving me relevant information that backed my research.
I am greatly Indebted to my friends such as Mwawala Rajab, Namulawa Mary, Mugoyo Yakin, Naigaga Phiona, Kawanguzi Samali, Mukama Eddy and Kananbi Martin for their support, care and courage during my study. I am so grateful my dear parents. May God Bless them abundantly.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECL.Dd~~D~rION . ,.. APPROVAL ii
DEDICATION . ~ w TABLE OF CONTENTS v [.151 OF TABlES
L.IS~T OF FIGUl~.ES ...... [.151 OF ~ x ft~85fR4*~Cr ...... xi
CHPJ”TER ONE 1 INT1~ODtJC11ON 1
1.0 Introduction . 1 1.1 Baclcground of tiie stuch’ 1 1.1.1 Historical perspective 1 1.1.2 Conceptual perspective 3 1.1.3 Contextual perspective 4 1.2 Problem statement 4 1.3 Purpcse of the sttidy 5 1.4 Research obJecth~es 5 1.5 Research Questions 6 1.6 Scope of the study 6 1.6.1 Geographical scope 6 1.6.2 Content scope 6 1.6.3 Time scope 7 1.7 SIgnificance of the stuch, 7
Cl—LeJ’rER r~ivo 8 LITEF~LTIJR~E RE\IIE~I 8 2.0 Introduction 8 2.1 l)eflnitlon of Decentralization 8
V 2.2 Conceptual frarnewvorlc .10 2.3 Measuring l)ecentrallzation .10
2.4 Definition of poverty reduction . 11 2.5 Decentralization and poverty reduction 12 2.5.1 Political decentralization and poverty reduction 12 2.5.2 AdmInistrative decentralization and poverty reduction 13 2.5.3 FIscal decentralization and poverty reduction 15
ClIAPrER li—IREE 19 19 3.0 Introduction 19 3.1 Research Design 19 3.2 Target Population 19 3.3 Sample Size 20 3.4. SamplIng techniques 21 3.5. Data sources 21 3.5.1 PrImary data 21 3.5.2 Secondary data 21 3.6 Data collection Instrunients 21 3.6.1 QuestIonnaires 21 3.6.2 Interview guide 21 3.7. Data analysis and presentation 22 3.7.1 Data Editing 22 3.7.2 Data Cociing 22 3.7.3 Data analysis 22 3.7.4 Data presentation 22 3.8 EthIcal consideration 23 3.9 l.Jrriltations of the studs’ 23
Cl—Ia l’TER FOI.JR 24 PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 24
4.0 Introcluction . 24
Vt 4.1 Bio data of respondents .24 4.1.1 Age bracket of respondents 24 4.1.2 Gender of respondents 25 4.1.3 Marital status 25 4.1.4 Level of education attained of respondents 26 4.2 Effect of political decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district 27 4,3 Effect of administrative decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district.29 4.4 Effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district 32
CHAPTER FIVE 34 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34 5.0 Introduction 34 5.1 Summary of findings 34 5,1.1 Effect of political decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda 34 5.1.2 Effect of administrative decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda 36 5.1.3 Effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda 37 5.2 Conclusions of the study 38 5.3 Recommendations 39 5.4 Areas for future research 10
REFERENCES 41 APPENDICES 47 APPENDIX A:SELF ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE 17 APPENDIX B:INTERVIEW GUIDE 51 APPENDIX C:TIME FRAME 53 APPENDIX D:ACTUAL STUDY BUDGET 54
vH LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Population and sample size of respondents 20 Table 4.1: Age bracket of respondents 24 Table 4.2: Gender of respondents 25 Table 4.3: I’larltal status of respondents 25 Table 4.4: Level of education attained by respondents 26 Table 4.5: Effect of political decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district
. 27 Table 4.6: Effect of administrative decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district . 29 Table 4.7: Effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka distrlct.32
viii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Conceptua’ framework of decentralization and poverty reduction ...... 10
ix LIST OF ACRONYMS
$ US dollar
% Percent
E East e.g. For example etc et cetera
GDP Growth Domestic Product
KM Kilometre
LCV Local Council Five
N North
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UN United Nations
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
US United States of America
x ABSTRACT
The study was about decentralisatlon on poverty reduction In Luuka distdc4 Uganda The study was based on the following three objectives; (I) to examine the effect of political decentralisatlon on poverty reduction; (iQ to establish the effect of administrative decentralisatlon on poverty reduction; and (iIQ to examine the effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka distzlct Uganda The study employed descriptive research design and methodology used was both qualltative and quantitativa The study used a total population of 120 and a sample size of 92 respondents were considered for the study whereas the questionnaire was used as the research instrument In regard to effect ofpolitical decentrallsation on poverty reduction in Luuka district Uganda; it was revealed by the majority of the respondents; 50% who strongly disagreed that the political power of the poor in Luuka district plays an important role in affecting their levels of living; majority 4750% disagreed that the poor people in Luuka district are given opportunity to participation In the election process at all levels of the district; 58.75% agreed that the civil conflicts are associated with the rise in poverty in Luuka clistfict 4L25% disagreed that people of Luuka district are well represented which enable the poor to have better access to special needs; 42.50% who strongly th~agreed that decentralization in Luuka district prevents violent conflicts and war and facilitates in overcoming them to absolutely reduce povertyt In regard to effect of administrative decentrallsation on poverty reduction in Luuka distric4 Uganda; majority 56.25% disagreed that decentralization in Luuka district redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among different levels ofgovernment 43.75% dIsagreed that In order to be effective for poverty reduction, decentrah~ation of Luuka district establishes accountabillty structures; 41.25% agreed that elected officials in Luuka district are accountable to Its citizens; 42.5% strongly agreed that the local government of Luuka district strengthens poor peoples’ organizations within communities and through cross-community networks; and 36.25% and 46.25% respectively agreed or strongly agreed that national anti-poverty programs have been established in Luuka district to transfer resources to the poor. In regard to effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka distric4 Uganda; majority 36.25% and 43.75%, respectiVely agreed or strongly agreed that fiscal decentralization of Luuka district helps In generation and redistribution of income to reduce poverty; 3825% and 33.75% respectively disagreed and strongly disagreed that decentralization of Luuka district promotes good governance that improves on reducing pgvertyq 43.75% strongly disagreed that the decentralization and better governance improve local services and outcomes that are related to the wellbeing of the poor which reduces poverty; 375% strongly disagreed that decentralization of Luuka district improves the prioritization ofbudget allocation; ofprograms favouring the poor; 42.5% agreed that economic instability tends to affect Luuka district due to the lack financial cushions and personal assets. It was concluded that poverty is closely linked to political factors such as access to power and resources and the accountable and transparent management of local affairs. It was recommended Autonomous elected subnational governments should be estabiishea~ district should redistribute authority responsibility and resources among different levels of government
xi CHAPTER ONE
I NTRO D U CTIO N i~O Introduction
This chapter presents the background of study, problem statement, purpose of the study, research objectives, and research questions, scope of the study and significance of the study.
Li Background of the study
1~i.1 Historical perspective
Decentralisation has become a key issue in development policy in the past two decades. Whereas the advantages and risks of transferring power and resources to local tiers of government have been debated for quite some time, the linkages between decentralisation and poverty reduction have not been addressed. Decentralization has been considered by many as one of the most important strategies in public sector reform agenda. This is because donors and governments in sub-Saharan Africa have considered decentralization as a strategy that will bring service delivery closer to consumers, improve the responsiveness of the central government to public demands and thereby reduce poverty, improve the efficiency and quality of public services and empower lower units to feel more involved and in control.
According to VVorld Bank research on the decentralisation experience in 30 African countries, only a very small number of countries, including South Africa and Uganda, have undertaken a comprehensive devolution of powers and resources to the local level. In the majority of the countries reviewed, the decentralisation process is at its first stages and resembles de-concentration, rather than real devolution (Jutting et al, 2005).
Decentralisation advocates argue that, because decentralisation brings government closer to the government both spatially and institutionally, government will be more
1 knowledgeable about and responsive to poverty reduction (Peterson, 1994 and Tendler, 1997). This tendency to conflate decentralisation with enhancement of participation at the ‘community’ level underlies the belief that decentralisatlon will lead to greater responsiveness to the ‘poor’. Insofar as the majority of the population In developing countries such as Uganda Is both poor and excluded from elite politics, any scheme that appears to offer greater political partidpatlon to ordinary citizens seems likely to Increase their ‘voice’ and hence (it is hoped) the relevance and effectiveness of government’s policy.
According to World Bank World Development Report, evidence from a group of selected sub-Saharan African countries with recent experience of decentralised government is reviewed In a comparative framework which takes account of cases where decentrails~tion has Indeed successfully contributed to poverty reduction (World Bank World Development Report, 2001; Crook and Sverrlsson, 2001) The focus is primarily on political and administrative decentralisation, that is, the allocation of power amongst territorially defined and nested hierarchies (Utvack et al., 1998). It is argued that the degree of responsiveness to the poor and the extent to which there Is any impact on poverty are determined primarily by the politics of local-central relations and the general regime context; particularly the commitment of the central political authorities to poverty reduction. Countries throughout the world are embracing decentralization as a way of empowering citizens through their local governments (Kelly, 2010). The local government offers best opportunity to the people by adopting local knowledge, interest and enthusiasm to put up with on the solution of their problems of poverty.
In Africa, three hundred and forty (340) million people or half the population of Africa lives on less than $1.00 per day (Africa’s Development Report, 2002). The UNDP (2005) view poverty as revealed by Rakodi (1995) as a situation of people deprived of those opportunities and choices that are essential to human development, for a long healthy creative life, a reasonable standard of living, freedom, dignity, self-respect and respect from others. This is referred to as the life situation approach to poverty.
2 In Uganda, the debate on the issue of poverty gradually evolved after the 1980s, It is important to note that in a developing country like Uganda, poverty is a deeply entrenched and complex phenomenon (Rakodi, 1995). According to Gabazira (2015), over the last 10 years, Luuka district has been debilitated by poverty with poverty quickly turning into a ‘brand’ unique to most of rural-Uganda, the people of Luuka (Ba-Luuka) are a reflection of that brand-strength, as the metrics below from UBOS show: 74% of population never studied beyond primary school level, 3.8%, of population studied beyond secondary school, 36% of population does not own land, Stunting among children is 47% and Poverty density (Number living on less than $1 per square KM) is 62% (highest in Busoga). However, as the metrics above show, poverty is still deeply embedded in Luuka district and this is because local people are not involved in decision making.
1.1.2 Conceptual perspective
It is an accepted wisdom that poverty is a multidimensional and complex concept. According to Steiner (2005), poverty reduction cannot be achieved by any single remedial measure like decentralization but it requires the combination of policies designed for country specific conditions. Decentralisation by itself is not enough to truly empower local communities and to achieve pro-poor outcomes (UNDP, 2005). Decentralisation consists of a transfer of public functions from higher tiers to lower tiers of governance. It can be administrative (transfer of civil servants and public functions to the local level), fiscal (devolution of fiscal resources and revenue generating powers), political (devolution of decision-making powers) or a mixture of these (Jutting et al, 2004), Decentralisation is usually referred to as the transfer of powers from central government to lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy (Crook and Manor 1998, Agrawal and Ribot, 1999). This official power transfer can take two main forms. Administrative decentralisation, also known as deconcentration, refers to a transfer to lower-level central government authorities, or to other local authorities who are upwardly accountable to the central government (Ribot, 2002). In contrast, political, or democratic, decentralisation refers to the transfer of authority to representative and downwardly accountable actors, such as elected local governments (Larson, 2005).
3 Poverty reduction is desIgning, implementing and targeting appropriate methods to ensure that scarce resources are allocated to activities that are likely to yield the greatest impact on the poor and to decrease their levels of deprivation and vulnerability (World Bank, 2001; Sen, 1999). Decentralization is seen by donors, governments and academics as one of the most important and appropriate strategies that will reduce the levels of deprivation and vulnerability of the poor.
1.1.3 Contextual perspective
There is no clear, automatic, relationship between decentralization and poverty reduction. The empirical studies on the relationship between decentralization and poverty reduction have not been satisfactory and a return to the literature on decentralization’s primary effects may be a more useful way to think about the relationship between decentralization and poverty reduction. In spite of these facts, It is accepted that poverty in underdeveloped countries like Uganda is a local phenomenon and the local government can play the role for poverty reduction (JUtting et al., 2004). Furthermore, there are no studies that have been conducted on decentralisation and poverty reduction in Luuka district. Based on this explanation, this study that has prompted the researcher to study on the effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district Uganda.
1.2 Problem statement
Though new laws on décentralisation have opened up new opportunities for participation in local governance of developing countries such as Uganda, specific attention has not been placed on ensuring a poverty reduction (Moore and Putzel, 1999; Moore et al., )1999). Well, it Is safe to assume that Luuka like most of Uganda is still poor not because Ba-Luuka are condemned to a life in poverty~ but because of poor leadership at all levels including civil society with much corruption, persistent lack of accountability, and an ineffective vision for poverty eradication (Gabazira, 2015).
Golooba-Mutebi (1999) observes the importance of traditional structures of authority In Uganda which inhibit free exchange of ideas and render people unwilling to
4 demand accountability from those In authorIty. Thus ‘decentralisatlon’, rather than necessarily being fair and democratic, Is often manipulated from the top, with powerful individuals imposing poverty redóctlon decisions on others. However, the nature of decentralisation in its concept and orientation does not allow people to participate effectively in eradicating poverty and achieve development goals.
The World Bank estimated In 1995 that 5.8% per annum GDP growth was required to restore Uganda living standards to their 1965 level by the year 2000. On this basis, it would take 10 years for the average poor Ugandan to escape poverty, and 40 years for the poorest of the poor. Poverty among Ugandans is overwhelmingly a rural phenomenon with 80 percent of the people classified as poor, residing in the rural areas (World Bank World Development Report, 2001).
According to Ribot (2001), decentralisation reforms do not appear to be structured in ways likely to deliver the presumed benefits of eradicating poverty. Thus the preliminary findings concerning the limits to decentralisation in Uganda suggest that the constraints on decentralisation have negative Implications for pro-poor outcomes (World Bank World Development Report, 2001). It’s upon this that prompted the researcher to conduct a study on decentrallsatlon and poverty reduction.
1.3 Purpose of the study
The study generally was sought to examine the effect of decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda.
1.4 Research objectives
More specifically, the study was set out to achieve the following;
(i) To examine the effect of political decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka dIstrIct, Uganda. (Ii) To establish the effect of administrative decentrallsation on poverty reduction In Luuka district, Uganda.
5 (iii) To examine the effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda.
1.5 Research Questions
In order to address the above objectives, the following research questions were posed and served as a guide;
(I) Does political decentralisation affect poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda? (ii) What Is the effect of administrative decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda? (iii) What Is the effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda?
1.6 Scope of the study
1.6.1 Geographical scope
The study focused on Luuka district. Luuka District is bordered by Buyende District in the north, Kaliro District to the northeast, Iganga District to the southeast, Mayuge District to the south, Jinja District to the southwest and Kamull District to the northwest. Luuka, where the district headquarters are located is approximately 33 kilometres (21 mi), by road, northwest of Iganga, the nearest large town. The coordinates of the district are at a latitude of 000 42 00~ N and iongitude of 330 18 000 B
1.6.2 Content scope
The study covered the effect of political decentralisation on poverty reduction, effect of administrative decentralisation on poverty reduction and effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda.
6 1.6.3 Time scope
This study was conducted from Mardi 2018 to June, 2018, whereby proposal writing took place from March 2018 to April 2018, data collection and analysis was done in May 2018, and then the data presentation and final report were written and submitted in June 2018.
1.7 SignIficance of the study
The study was an assessment of what districts in Uganda can do to alleviate or at least reduce poverty and also provide socio-economic infrastructure. The significance of the study stems from the fact that the concept of decentralization has in times past received and is receiving serious attention In the fight against poverty and thereby promote development
In addition to the above, the research study was an important scholarly and intended to add to the continually growing body of knowledge in the area of good governance, local governance, local economic development and poverty reduction.
This was particularly so in terms of how these relate to the macro policy framework and programmes In Uganda and the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2003).
Finally, the findings and conciusions of the study served as a basis for further research on the subject in the future.
7 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2M Introduction
Under this chapter the researcher analyzed and gave critical views on issues that have been put forward by different scholars and academicians. Different subjects were reviewed under different headings.
2.1 Definition of Decentralization
Decentralization is the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from a central government to subordinate governments. Governments are typically heterogeneous and complex entities that may consist of central, provincial, and local layers. Centralization and decentralization are modes of governance ic. ways in which control is exercised and decision-making operates within the government. Decentralization involves devolution of different decision-making powers and responsibilities to sub-units of the government. The following types of decentralization shall be distinguished in evaluating impacts of decentralization on poverty (Litvack et al., 1999):
Political decentralLzation gives local citizens and their representatives more power in any type of decision making, including setting standards and legal frameworks. According to smith (1996), a government is not decentralized unless the country contains “autonomous elected subnational governments capable of taking binding decisions in at least some policy areas~” This can either mean that such local governments have to be established or that their powers and responsibilities need to be increased.
Administrative decentralLzation redistributes authority, responsibility and resources among different levels of government. Suitable capacities and institutional strength at all tiers are a precondition for the effectiveness of this.
8 fiscal decentralization entails the definition of authority over raising revenues or access to transfers and making decisions on current and investment expenditures.
The three basic types of decentralization are interiinked and their effects for poverty reduction cannot be evaluated separately. Often, decision-making is mixed between layers of government: e.g. financial decisions can be centralized, but the provision of public goods can be decentralized. It is often the case that taxation and expenditure responsibilities for various kinds of pubilc services and transfers are not clearly assigned by the constitution or by law (Ahmad, 1997). Moreover, the extent to which any particular decision is decentralized or not, is often unclear. Less extensive forms of administrative and fiscal decentralization, include deconcentration, with the central government merely posting employees to the local level, and delegation or shared governance systems where some functions are delegated to the local level but the central state remains In charge.
Governments at central and local level may go beyond decentralization and pass on functions to the private sector (e.g. utilities) or to non-governmental organizations (e.g. for hospitals) through deregulation and privatization of public service provision. Contrary to the three forms of decentralization mentioned above, the consequences for regional supply patterns are endogenous and not predetermined. The outcome may or may not result In reduced size of “decentralized” supply units (companies, cooperatives, civil society organization) providing the (former public) services and infrastructures.
9 2.2 Conceptual framework
Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework of decentralization and poverty reduction
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
Decentralization Poverty Reduction
• Empowerment and participation in Political decentralisation decision-making • Control over local statutory structures • Local resource mobilisation • Improved public goods and services Administrative/Institutional provision decentralisation f • Influence of citizens/institutions of the state • Alleviate many of the common causes of poverty such as Illness, decrepit Fiscal decentralisation economic infrastructure and illiteracy
Intervening. variables • Government policy • Local government’s size Gross domestic product
Source: Asante, 2003
22 Measuring Decentralization
Given its various dimensions, measuring decentralization in an aggregate way is not straight forward, One way of measuring it is to apply governance indicators to different layers of government. Kaufmann et al. (1999) analysed numerous of cross- country indicators as proxies for various aspects of governance including: voice and accountability; political stability; government effectiveness; regulatory burden; rule of law and control of corruption. In principle, each of these aspects can also be
10 applied to decentralized structures. Such governance indicators are often problematic with respect to coherence and comparability of data. For example, it is obvious that the measurement of corruption e.g. based on perceptions in the business community causes difficulties; comparing scores between regions is generally problematic. In addition, indicators are always externally imposed and not related to the norms of a society. Despite these shortcomings, a number of Indicators shall be used below as proxies for the different types of decentralization:
• Political decentralization shall be captured by the degree of decentralization of elections (elections held at first, second, third tier government); • Administrative decentralization shall be approximated by the degree of sub division of nation states, and by the size of countries in terms of population; • Fiscal decentralization shall be approximated by the share of sub-national expenditure in total expenditure.
All these types of decentralization have their deficiencies. Local elections as such do not guarantee local power, and for instance the extent to which a state is sub divided may not say much about accountability and functions.
2.4 Definition of poverty reduction
The conceptualisation and measurement of poverty are complex issues. It defies precise definition and In general remains the notion of ‘lack of or ‘deficiency’ (Rahnema, 1996). Traditionally, poverty has been defined in terms of consumption or income, undertaken through survey-based measurement (White, 1998:1). A commonly used income definition is subsisting on US$1 per day or less. However, It must be noted that the priorities and perceptions of the poor are rarely examined or ‘amplified’. Effectiveness In poverty alleviation will be greater if the assessment addresses issues the pcor Identify as constituting poverty. ‘If the poor are viewed as statistics, figures and ciphers, then the policy that is formulated to alleviate poverty will, In all likelihood, follow suit and be more relevant to manipulation of statistics than to needs of people’ (Beck, 1994:6).
12. 2.5 DecentralizatIon and poverty reduction
2.5.1 Political decentralization and poverty reduction
According to Agrawal and Nun (1999), stated that within the political context of decentralization, political power of the poor plays an important role in affecting the levels of lMng. On the one hand, the democratlt form of government does not allow the state to bypass the poor. The major power of the poor is participation in the election process. On the other hand, decentralization has to do with political conflicts and macroeconomic stability. However, theoretical reasons for a positive impact of political decentralization (with democratic elections) on poverty reduction can be derived from a simple political economy concept: In case poverty is a regional phenomenon and applying the median voter model, the needs of the poor are better served In a decentralized setting, at least when each constituency receives the same per capita amount in fiscal transfers (Agrawal & Awn, 1999).
In addition, civil conflicts are associated with a rise in poverty due to population displacement and destruction of infrastructure. Potentially, decentralization can reduce vulnerability of the poor to such external shocks (Spoor, 2004). Improved representation and organIzation of formerly excluded groups through decentralized governance can enable the poor to have better access to safety needs and social security schemes, reducing their vulnerability and insecurity (Jutting et al., 2004). In addition, by establishing grounds for political• consensus in ethnically divided societies, decentralization can reduce instability, to which the poor are most vulnerable (Bird et at., 1998).
Decentralization prevents violent conflicts and war, or facilitates overcoming them, this will help the undernourished poor to absolutely reduce poverty. Absolute poverty expressed in terms of hunger normally is concentrated in countries affected by internal wars and violent conflicts (Wiesmann et al., 2000). In famine prone and ethnically diverse developing countries, decentralization has become a tool for deflating secessionist tendencies to poverty reduction. However, the central government in developing countries still controls most of the revenues and has a
12 strong redistributive function. Decentralization provides an institutional mechanism for bringing dMded groups Into a formal, rule-bound bargaining process (Treismann, 1998). South Africa and Uganda are two examples where decentralization has served as a path to national unity.
However, decentralization Is not a panacea for ending conflicts. It can also exacerbate political tensions between regions if they have significantly different Income levels, or If they lay claim to the natural resources in their regional territory. Costs of providing public services may also vary because of regional characteristics, such as population density and geographic location. To correct for these inequalities, most decentralized fiscal systems include equalization grants (Ahmad, 1997). Evidence from India and Indonesia shows that even dramatic redistribution across regions will have limited results unless targeting is improved within regions themselves. In many countries, Income inequality is based mainly on differences among lndMduals, rather than on differences among regions (Ravallion, 2000).
Political decentralization should, as hypothesized above, give more voice and influence to the poor close to their social environment Less poverty will be expected in countries with voting at a provincial level (second tier) and a district level (third tier) than in countries voting only for central governments, or not having democratic elections at all.
2.5.2 AdministratIve decentralization and poverty reduction
Administrative and institutional decentralization redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among different levels of government. In order to be effective for poverty reduction, administrative and Institutional decentralization establishes accountabihty structures. Public accountability entails at least two different mechanisms which are affected by both, political and administrative decentralization: first, elected officials’ accountability to the citizenry, and second, bureaucrats’ accountability to elected officials (Blair, 2000). Through both mechanisms the poor can gain, but the problem of ‘capture’ by local elite still exists. “The power wielded by the local elite about poverty reduction is often in inverse
13 proportion to the degree to which they are held accountable for their actions and decision making” (Narayan et al., 2000). One approach to reduce the probability of elite-takeover of decentralized programs towards poverty reduction, is to strengthen poor peoples’ own organizations within communities and through cross-community networks. Nevertheless, the more effective and sustained approach is the strengthenIng of rule of law and of democracy in general, which is not just a matter of local initiative.
There is a large body of literature that sees small countries at a disadvantage due to economies of scale in industries and administrative capacities In the public sectors. However, the implications of countries’ smallness may be different from a poor people perspective and arguments in favour of decentralization Imply that small countries should have better, more coherent fiscal institutions, and show better performance In targeting the poor than large countries. If a territory is too large to be optimally administered by one government, it is seen as better to have several smaller governments.
Easterly and Kraay (2000) found out from a sample of 153 countries, that poverty and welfare indicators are significantly better in small countries (below one million people). Easterly and Kraay (2000) contend that small states are doing better at poverty reduction and this casts doubt on the wide spread notion that small states and their citizen are more vulnerable than other countries.
The direct effects of administrative decentralization for poverty reduction much depends upon harmonious or conflicting goals at central level and beyond that at local levels, on accountability and enforcement. National anti-poverty programs, for Instance, often rely on central governments to transfer resources to the poor, but outcomes then will depend on the behaviour and capacities of central governments of which differ in relevant ways in their targeting performance (Ravallion, 2000).
According to Ahluwalia and Uttle (1998), the short administrative process facilitates quick and focused responses to immediate poverty reduction needs in case of disasters and stable long term planning. The local village leaders are widely
14 respected for its ability to resolve disputes between villagers fairly. This means that conflicts can be resolved at the local level without resorting to the police or courts (Abluwalia and Uttle, 1998). The downside of the decentralized administration is fiscal deficiency, lack of Information and management capacity within the districts, missing supportive administration, politicized elections, and sometimes limited powers In specific states.
Koehn (2000) measures the impact of decentralization on poverty in two steps. First, two Indicators for decentralization on the lowest level of administration and government, namely the population, and poverty indicators have been correlated. Second, a partial cross-section and time-series analysis has been conducted. The partial correlation (controlling for a set of other factors) indicates a clear positive correlation of the decentralization on per dpita income and on poverty reduction.
The effects of decentralized decision making relevant for the poverty reduction do not stop at the lowest administrative level, but reaches all the way to village and inside-village levels. For Bangladesh’s community based Food-for-Education Program, a program that does attempt to reach the poor in poor villages, Galasso and Ravalllon (2005) found that the targeting performance of the program waE due to poverty reduction within villages.
2.5.3 Fiscal decentralization and poverty reduction
Fiscal decentralization affects generation and redistribution of income and vulnerability of the poor to economic downturns. Fiscal decentralization may affect basic needs of the population through the provision of services in areas such as primary education, basic health and social services. Essentially, these impacts can take place at the various stages of government action aimed toward satisfaction of these basic needs. Decentralization can bring an improvement at each of these stages by promoting good governance. Kaufmann et al. (2000), argued that good governance improves a variety of outcomes, such as school achievement, quality of life indicators, or even GDP growth. Decentralization and good governance are in many ways symbiotic and reinforcing processes, especially when political
15 decentralization (with local elections and participation) is present (Martinez-Vazquez and McNab 2005; Blair 2000; and Manor 1999). To the extent that decentralization and better governance improve local services and outcomes that are related to the wellbeing of the poor, reductions in absolute poverty should follow. Relative poverty may also be reduced if the improvements in the quality of services are in those areas that are more than proportionally consumed by the poor (Ravallion, 2000).
According to Arze et al, (2005), argued that decentralization improves the prioritization of budget allocations (leading to the more effective allocation of programs favouring the poor) through better access to information about needs and costs. Thus, it seems to be the case that the composition of budgets tends to be different in decentralized versus centralized systems, with decentralized systems spending relatively more on social services, which have the potential of benefiting the poor in reducing poverty.
Arze et al., (2005), further argued that decentralization may also make a difference in the implementation of budgeted priorities by ensuring that resources budgeted for the poor on poverty reduction reach their intended destination. More effective implementation of the programs may be the result of local input and participation, improved quality of the information used for implementing programs, and enhance accountability of local officials to their constituencies. Better accountability and improved flows of information may also create incentive for service providers (public entities or private contractors alike) to deliver services effectively and efficiently.
Enhanced efficiency in service delivery can directly improve access by the poor to basic services, such as education, health, water, sewage and electricity thereby reducing poverty. These improvements in service delivery performance have been attributed to the fact that local communities have more information and a greater stake in monitoring service delivery. According to World Bank (2004), parent~teacher associations, water user associations, community health groups, and so on can similarly play an effective role in encouraging suppliers, tailoring services to needs identified by communities, and holding providers accountable for service delivery.
16 Bardhan and Mookherjee (1998), however, stated that these benefits of decentralized service delivery can depend critically on the level of capture by local elites and on the level and nature of local Inequality. If there is local capture and the interests of the local political elites are not aligned with those of the local poor, decentralization may work against the wellbeing of the poor. Similarly, in situations with pronounced Inequality In local relations of power and authority, decentralization, and In particular the decentralization of poverty programs in such contextican worsen local inequality and reproduce or entrench local power relations (Conning and Kevane, 2002; and Galasso and Ravallion, 2005).
Besides non-Income basIc needs, decentralization can also enhance economic opportunities for the poor. Decentralization may affect private income in four ways. First, decentralization may facilitate economic growth through its Impact on macroeconomic stability (Martlnez-Vazquez and McNab, 2005; and Agenor, 2004). Macroeconomic recessions decrease the probability of finding new employment and the level of earnings for those already employed. Second, decentralization can enhance economic growth through the level and quality of economic infrastructure (roads, ports, and so on).
ThIrd, decentralization can promote the inclusion of poor people in the growth process by removing constraints and empowering them to take control of their own development (through better education and health) and to take advantage of existing economic opportunities (Stem et al., 2005). FInally, private income can be affected through redistrlbutive policies both via taxation and allocation of public resources.
Skoufias (2003), contend that the aspect of poverty that can potentially be affected by decentralization relates to vulnerability. Economic instability tends to affect the poor more directly because of their higher vulnerability to economic turmoil due to the lack financial cushions and personal assets, diminished access to safety needs, and so on. According to Easterly et al., (2001), contend that poor households mostly rely on informal insurance arrangements through their extended family and community, they are insecure In the face of an economic crisis affecting the entire
17 community. Therefore, the kind of coping strategies they have to rely on in those circumstances can entrench poverty and transmit it to other generations (selling productive assets, reducing healthcare and nutrition for their children, reallocating their time from schooling to earning income, etc).
18 CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter described the procedures that were followed In conducting the study. These Induded research design, target population, sample size, sample techniques, data sources, data collection procedure, data presentation and analysis and ethical consideration.
3.1 Research Design
The researcher used descriptive research design so as to collect qualitative data about the variable under study. The study also used cross sectional survey design using both qualitative and quantitative tools. The quantitative research technique was basically used because of the desire to solicit and present data numerically.
3.2 Target Population
The population of the study involved a total of 120 people of Luuka district, Uganda. These respondents included 20 from health department, 11 from budgeting committee members, 1 chief administrative officer, 10 from education department, 2 councillors, 1 town clerk, 1 LCV chairperson, 4 from procurement department and 70 from beneficiaries as shown in table 3.1;
19 Table 11: Population and sample size of respondents
Respondents Population Sample size Health department 20 19 Budgeting committee members 11 11 Chief administrative officer 1 1 Education department 10 10 Councillors 2 2 Townclerk 1; 1 LCV chairperson 1 Procurement department 4 4 Beneficiaries 70 60 Total 12O~ 92i
3.3 Sample Size
The researcher used Slovene’s formula in determining the minimum sample size.
According to this formula, the sample size is obtained using n =
Where, N is the target population, n is the sample size and e is the level of statistical significance and in this study is 0.05.
N
= 1+Ne2
120 1 ± 120(0.05)2
120 H =
n = 92
Therefore, 92 respondents were selected for the study.
20 3.4. Sampling techniques
The researcher used purposive sampling to get the required information from the reipondents. This was based on the researcher’s judgment in as far as the purpose for which the information is sought
3.5. Data sources
The researcher used both primary and secondary data sources for data collection.
3.5.1 Primary data
Primary data for this study was collected using questionnaires and interview guide.
3.5.2 Secondary data
Secondary data was gathered from secondary sources, Internal or external. Secondary data sources are “books and articles in which other researchers report the results of their research based on (their) primary data or sources.” This data was collected from existing literature of authors that have written about the variables. Secondary data for this study were from abstracts and journals of various scholars and archived reports.
3.6 Data collection Instruments
3.6.1 Questionnaires
This research used self-administered questions that are both structured and semi structured. The researcher used self-administered questionnaires. These allowed respondents to choose from alternatives that were provided by the researcher.
3.6.2 Interview guide
The researcher used formal interviewing as a method of data collection and the interviews offered a chance to explore topics in depth and allowed interaction between the researcher and the respondents such that any misunderstanding of the
21 questions and answers provided were easily corrected. The researcher interviewed the respondents using the interview guide. This was used to tap the vital information that were not collected using the questionnaires from the respondents.
3.7. Data analysis and presentation
3.7.1. Data Editing
The collected data was edited for accuracy, completeness. Editing was done to find out how well the answered questionnaires were done in line with consideration paid to questions and responses from interview guide answered by the study respondents.
3.7.2 Data Coding
The edited data were coded. Coding involved assigning numbers to similar questions from which answers are given unique looks to make the work easier. In this case computer packages were used to analyse the coded data.
3.7.3 Data analysis
Data collected from the field from the respondents were analyzed using a Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), which helped to show data in percentages. Qualitatively, data was analyzed and presented In themes of the research objectives using Microsoft Word and Excel computer packages to produce quantitative Information In form of percentages and tables. This ensured completeness and correctness in achieving the set purpose and objectives.
3.7.4 Data presentation
After analysis, the results were tabulated In terms of frequency, percentages and cumulative percentages for Interpretation.
22 3.8 Ethical consideration
Before commencing the research, an introductory letter from the Department of Development, Peace and Conflict Studies, Kampala International University was sought and the purpose of the study was explained to the authorities to avoid inconveniences and misunderstandings about the purpose. The information collected was kept highly confidential. Respondents were assured of confidentiality and their names were not included in the questionnaire.
3.9 Limitations of the study
There were various limitations to this study that threatened the research validity. To address this, issue the researcher daimed an allowance of 5% margin of error at 0.05 level of significance. Measures were also indicated In order to minimize, if not to eradicate the threats to validity of the research findings of the study.
There was attrition/mortality in that not all questionnaires were returned completely answered yet some were nqt retrieved back due to circumstances on the part of the respondents such as travels, sickness, hospitalization and refusal/withdrawal to participate. In this case, the researcher received more respondents by exceeding the minimum sample size. The respondents also were reminded not to leave any item in the questionnaires unanswered and were closely followed up as to the date of retrieval.
The research instruments on the study were not standardized. Therefore, there validity and reliability test were done to produce a credible measurement of the research variables of the study.
During the administration of the questionnaires, the research assistant brought about inconsistency in terms of time of administration, understanding of the items in the questionnaires and explanations given to the respondents. Therefore, to minimize this threat, the research assistant was oriented and briefed on procedures to be done in data collection.
23 CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATIOL, ILTER2RETATIO,, At~D ANJSXSIS 3F FI~lDINGS
4.0 Introduction
Under this chapter the researcher presented, interpreted and analyzed the findings. The researcher followed the objectives of the study to help in making a thorough analysis. The researcher used tables to present and analyze the findings.
4.1 810 data of respondents
The bio data of respondents were considered to be significant in terms of evaluating decentralisation and poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda. The bio data consisted of age bracket, gender, marital status and level of education attained by respondents
.1.1 Age bracket of respondents
Tab’e 4~1: Age bracket of respondents
Age Frequency ~Percent
- i1~50 29-38 36 38.75 39-48 ~ 28 30.00 ~ 49 and Above 17 18.75 Total 92 100.00
Sc irce: ~-rirnary Data, 2J18
It was found out that the biggest percentage of respondents were in age bracket of 29-38 and 39-48 years as shown by 38.75% and 30% respectively. 18.75% were for 49 years and above, whereas l2.SO% were for age bracket of 18-28 years. This implies that respondents in age bracket of 29-38 & 39-48 years actively participated
24 in the study. This implies that these age brackets have relevant ideas on answering the questionnaire presented to them well.
4.1.2 Gender of respondents
Tab~e 4.2: Gender of respondents Gender Frequency Percent Male 79 86 Female 13 14 Tota~ 92 100 Source: Primary Data, 2018
It was found out that the biggest percentage of respondents were males as shown by 79% whereas l3% were females, implying that males actively participated in the study.
4.1.3 Marita~ status
Tab’e 4.3: Marital status of respondents
Marital Status Frequency Percent ~ngle 26 28.26 Married 36 39.13 Divorced 14 15/16 Widowed 16 17.53 Total 92 100.00
Source: Primary Data, 2018
From table 4.3, it can be seen that 39.13% of respondents were married followed by 28.26% of respondents who were single whereas 17.53% of respondents were widowed and 15.46% divorced. Therefore, it was indicated that respondents who were married actively participated in the study.
25 4.1.4 Level of education attained of respondents
Table 4.4: Level of education attained by respondents
Level of Education Frequency Percent Below Certificate 11 12.32 Certificate 21 23.19 ~ Diploma 22 23.91 Degree 25 26.81 ~ Post-Graduate 13 13.77 ~ Qualification Total 92 100.00
Source: Primary Data, 2018
The biggest percentage of respondents had degree as it was revealed by 26.81% of the respondents. This was followed by 23.91% of respondents who had diploma, then 23.l9% of the respondents had PLE certificate, 13.77% of respondents had postgraduate qualification and 12.32% of respondents were below certificate. This implied that respondents in Luuka District possessing degree are knowledgeable about the study.
The next section, that is, the quantitative analysis of the data will provide greater insight into the responses to the questionnaires administered to respondents.
26 4.2 Effect of political decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district
Table 4.5: Effect of political decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district
Response Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly Total ~ Disagree Sure Agree The political power of the poor in Luuka district plays an important role in affecting their levels of living.
Frequency 46 38 8 0 0 - 92 Percent 50 41.25 8.75 0 0 100 The poor people in Luuka district are given opportunity to participation in the election process at all levels of the district. Frequency 35 ~l4 7 7 0 92 Percent 37.5 47.5 7,5 7.5 0 100 To better serve the needs of the poor in Luuka district, each constituency receives the same per capita amount in fiscal transfers Frequency 56 30 6 0 0 92 Percent 61.25 32.5 6.25 0 0 100 The civil conflicts are associated with the rise in poverty in Luuka district Frequency 0 0 8 54 30 92 Percent 0 0 8.75 58.75 32.5 100 People of Luuka district are well represented which enable the poor to have better access to special needs. Frequency 20 38 20 8 7 92 Percent 21.25 41.25 21.25 8.75 7.5 100 Decentralization in Luuka district prevents violent conflicts and war and facilitates in overcoming them to absolutely reduce poverty Frequency 39 36 10 5 2 92 — Percent 4205 38.75 ~ 11.25 5 2.5 100
--__
Source: Primary Data, 2018
27 From table 4.5, It was found out that the majority of the respondents, that Is, 50% In this study strongly disagreed that the political power of the poor in Luuka district plays an Important role In affecting their levels of lMng. 41.25% of respondents disagreed with this view and 8.75% of respondents were not sure whereas 0% number of respondents neither agreed nor strongly agreed, implying that the political power of the poor In Luuka district does not play an Important role in affecting their levels of IMng.
The findings illustrated in table 4.5 IndIcate that the majority of the respondents, that Is, 47.50% disagreed that the poor people In Luuka district are given opportunity to participation In the election process at all levels of the district. 37.50% of the respondents strongly disagreed while 7.50% of respondents were not sure and none of respondents strongly agreed, ImplyIng that the poor people In Luuka district are not given opportunity to participation In the election process at all levels of the district.
From table 4.5, the majority of the respondents, that is, 61.25% in this study strongly disagreed that to better serve the needs of the poor In Luuka district, each constituency receives the same per capIta amount In fiscal transfers. This was followed by 32.50% of respondents who disagreed, 6.25% were not sure and none of respondents strongly agreed or agreed, implying that to better serve the needs of the poor In Luuka district, each constituency does not receive the same per capita amount in fiscal transfers.
According to table 4.5, 58.75% of respondents agreed that the dvii conflicts are assodated with the rise In poverty in Luuka dIstrict. While 32.50% of respondents strongly agreed and 8.75%, 0% and 0% number of respondents were not sure, disagreeing and strongly disagreeing with this opinion respectively, implying that the dvil conflicts are assodated with the rise in poverty in Luuka district.
As can be seen In table 4.5, 41.25% of respondents dIsagreed that people of Luuka district are well represented which enable the poor to have better access to special needs. 21.25% of respondents strongly disagreed and the same percentage were for
28 respondents who were not sure. 8.75% and 7,5Q% of respondents agreed and strongly agreed with this statement respectively. This implies that people of Luuka district are not well represented which unable the poor to have better access to special needs.
From table 4.5, it can be seen that 42.50% strongly disagreed that decentralization in Luuka district prevents violent conflicts and war and facilitates in overcoming them to absolutely reduce poverty. While 38.75% of the respondents disagreed to this opinion. ll.25% of respondents were not sure, 5,Q% agreed and 2.SO% of respondents strongly agreed. This implies that decentralization in LuLika district does not prevent violent conflicts and war and does not facilitate in overcoming them to absolutely reduce poverty.
4.3 Effect of administrative decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district
Table 4.6: Effect of administrative decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district
Response Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly Total Disagree Sure Agree Decentralization in Luuka district redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among different levels of government Frequency 20 52 10 8 2 92 Percent 21.25 56.25 11.25 8.75 2.5 100 In order to be effective for poverty reduction, decentralization of Luuka district estabhshes accountability structures Frequency 30 40 3 7 12 92~ Percent 32.5 43.75 3,75 7.5 12.5 100~ Elected officials in Luuka district are accountable to its citizens Frequency 7 8 20 38 20 92 Percent 7.5 8.75 21.25 41.25 21.25 100 The local government of Luuka district strengthens poor peoples’ organizations within
29 conimunities and through cross-community networks Frequency 6 2 10 35 39 92
Percent 6.25 2.5 11.25 37.5 42.5 100 — National anti-poverty programs have been established in Luuka district to transfer resources to the poor. ~ T~ 2 33 92 Percent L25 2.5 3625 ‘16.25 1100 ~ ~ ~L_~ — The administrative process of Luuka district for quickly and focusing on responses to immediate poverty reduction needs takes long to be achieved. Frequency 0 3 12 47 30 92
- ~~Percent 0 3J5~2.5 51.25 3~5 100
Source: Primary Data, 2018
As illustrated in table 4.6, 56.25% of respondents disagreed that decentralization in Luuka district redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among different levels of government. This was so high as compared to 21.25%, 1i.25%, 8.75% and 2.5% of respondents who strongly disagreed, not sure, agreed and strongly agreed with this respectively. This implies that decentralization in Luu~a district does not redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among dift~erent levels of government.
According to table 4.6, 43.75% of respondents disagreed that in order to be effective for poverty reduction, decentralization of Luuka district establishes accountability structures. While 32.5% of respondents strongly disagreed and 3.75%, 7.S% and 12.5% of respondents were not sure, agreeing and strongly agreeing with this opinion respectively, implying that in order to be effective for poverty reduction, decentralization of Luuka district does not establish accountability structures.
As can be seen in table 4.6, 4L25% of respondents agreed that elected officials in Luuka district are accountable to its citizens. 2l.2S% of respondents strongly agreed and the same percentage were for respondents who were not sure. S.75% and
30 7.5% of respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed with this statement respectively. This implies that elected officials in uuka district are accountable to Its citizens.
From table 4.6, it can be seen that 42.5% strongly agreed that the local government of Luuka district strengthens poor peoples’ organizations within communities and through cross-community networks. Whereas 37.5% agreed and 11.25% of respondents were not sure, 2.5% disagreed and 6.25% of respondents strongly disagreed. This implies that the local government of Luuka district strengthens poor peoples’ organizations within communities and through cross-community networks.
The results displayed In table 4.5 indicate that the majority of the respondents, that is, 36.25% and 46.25%, in this study, respectively agreed or strongly agreed that national anti-poverty programs have been established In Luuka district to transfer resources to the poor. 13:75% were not sure and 2.5% dIsagreed with this whereas 1.25% strongly disagreed, implying that national anti-poverty programs have been estabhshed in Luuka district to transfer resources to the poor.
According to table 4.5, 51.25% and 32.5% of the respondents in this study respectively agreed and strongly agreed that the administrative process of Luuka district for quickiy and focusing on responses to immediate poverty reduction needs takes long to be achieved. 12.5% of respondents were not sure and 3.75% disagreed. None of respondents strongly disagreed. This implies that the administrative process of Luuka district for quickly and focusing on responses to immediate poverty reduction needs takes long to be achieved.
31 4.4 Effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district
Table 4.7: Effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka dIstrict
Response Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly Total Disagree Sure Agree :jscal decentralization of Luuka district helps in generation and redistribution of income to educe poverty. Frequency 3 2 13 33 40 92 Percent 3.75 2.5 13.75 36.25 43.75 100 )ecentralization of Luuka district promotes good governance that improves on redudng )overty Frequency 31 36 12 2 12 92 Percent 33.75 38.75 12.5 2.5 12.5 100 )ecentralization and better governance improve local services and outcomes that are related o the wellbeing of the poor which reduces poverty Frequency 40 28 9 8 7 92 Percent 43.75 30 10 8.75 7.5 100 )ecentralization of Luuka district improves the prioritization of budget allocations of rograms favouring the poor 35 28 13 8 9 92 ~ Percent 37.5 30 13.75 8.75 10 100 conomic instability tends to affect Luuka district due to the lack financial cushions and ersonal assets. Frequency 3 9 18 39 22 92 Percent 3.75 10 20 42.5 23.75 100
Source: Primary Data, 2018
The results displayed in table 4.7 indicate that the majority of the respondents, that is, 36.25% and 43.75%, in this study, respectively agreed or strongly agreed that fiscal decentralization of Luuka district helps in generation and redistribution of
32 income to reduce poverty. 13.75% were not sure and 2.5% disagreed with this whereas 3.75% strongly disagreed, implying that fIscal decentralization of Luuka district helps in generation and redistribution of income to reduce poverty..
According to table 4.7, 38.75% and 33.75% of the respondents in this study respectively disagreed and strongly disagreed that decentralization of Luuka district promotes good governance that improves on reducing poverty. 12.5% of respondents were not sure and 2.5% agreed. 12.5% of respondents strongly agreed. This implies that decentralization of Luuka district does not promote good governance that improves on reducing poverty.
Table 4.7 indicate that 43.75% of respondentr strongly disagreed that the decentralization and better governance Improve local services and outcomes that are related to the wellbeing of the poor which reduces poverty. While 30% of respondents disagreed. Whereas 10%, 8.57% and 7.5% of respondents were not sure, agreed and strongly agreed with this respectively. This implies that decentralization and better governance do not improve local services and outcomes that are related to the wellbeing of the poor which reduces poverty.
As iilustrated In table 4.7, 37.5% of respondents strongly disagreed that decentraiization of Luuka district Improves the prioritization of budget allocations of programs favouring the poor. This was so high as compared to 30%, 13.75%, 8.75% and 10% of respondents who strongly disagreed, not sure, agreed and strongly agreed with this respectively. This implies that decentralization of Luuka district does not improve the prioritlzation of budget allocations of programs favouring the poor.
From table 4.7, it can be seen that 42.5% of respondents agreed that economic instability tends to affect Luuka district due to the lack financial cushions and personal assets. 23.75% of respondents strongly agreed while 20% of respondents were not sure, 10% disagreed and 3.75% of respondents strongly disagreed with this view implying that due to economic instability tends to affect Luuka district due to the lack financial cushIons and personal assets.
33 CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
Under this chapter the researcher discussed and gave conclusion to the major findings of the study, in light of the objectives and research questions. The researcher also presented some recommendations for decentralisation and poverty reduction. The recommendations will suggest some areas that need further study.
Si. Summary of findings
5.1.1 Effect of political decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda
The study revealed that the political power of the poor in Luuka district does not play an important role in affecting their levels of living. This was found out by the majority of the respondents, 50% who strongly disagreed that.the political power of the poor in Luuka dIstrict plays an important role in affecting their levels of living. This was In disagreement with Agrawal and Awn (1999), who stated that within the political context of decentralization, political power of the poor plays an important role in affecting the levels of livln~.
The poor people in Luuka district are not given opportunity to participation in the election process at all levels of the district. This was revealed by the majority of the• respondents, that Is, 47.50% who disagreed that the poor people in Luuka district are given opportunity to participation in the election process at all levels of the district. This was contrary to Agrawal and Arun (1999) who stressed that the democratic form of government does not allow the state to bypass the poor; therefore, the major power of the poor is participation in the election process.
The study found out that to better serve the needs of the poor in Luuka district, each constituency does not receive the same per capita amount in fiscal transfers. This was revealed by the majority of the respondents, that is, 61.25% who strongly
34 disagreed that to better serve the needs of the poor in Luuka district, each constituency receives the same per capita amount in fiscal transfers. However, this never agreed with Agrawal & Arun (1999) who stressed that in case poverty is a regional phenomenon and applying the median voter model, the needs of the poor are better served in a decentralized setting, at least when each constituency receives the same per capita amount in fiscal transfers.
The study found out that the civil conflicts are associated with the rise in poverty in Luuka district. 5875% of respondents agreed that the civil conflicts are associated with the rise in poverty in Luuka district. This was in line with Spoor (2004) who stressed that civil conflicts are associated with a rise in poverty due to population displacement and destruction of infrastructure. However, potentially decentralization can reduce vulnerability of the poor to such external shocks.
It was found out that people of Luuka district are not well represented which unable the poor to have better access to special needs. It was found out by the ~l.25% of respondents who disagreed that people of Luuka district are well represented which enable the poor to have better access to special needs, This was in disagreement with the view of Jutting et al., (2004) who stressed that improved representation and organization of formerly excluded groups through decentralized governance can enable the poor to have better access to safety needs and social security schemes, reducing their vulnerability and insecurity.
The study found out that decentralization in Luuka district does not prevent violent conflicts and war and does not facilitate in overcoming them to absolutely reduce poverty. This was revealed by 42.5O% who strongly disagreed that decentralization in Luuka district prevents violent conflicts and war and facilitates n overcoming them to absolutely reduce poverty. This was in contrary with the view of Wiesmann et al., (2000) who argued that absolute poverty expressed in terms of hunger normally is concentrated in countries affected by internal wars and violent conflicts.
35 5.1.2 Effect of administrative decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda
The study found out that decentralization in Luuka district does not redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among different levels of government This was revealed by 56.25% of respondents who disagreed that decentralization in Luuka district redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among different levels of government In addition, It was found out that In order to be effective for poverty reduction, decentralization of Luuka district does not establish accountability structures. This was revealed by 43.75% of respondents who disagreed that in order to be effective for poverty reduction; decentralization of Luuka district establishes accountability structures.
The study found out that elected offidals in Luuka district are accountable to its citizens and this was revealed by 41.25% of respondents who agreed that elected officials In Luuka district are accountable to its citizens. This was In agreement with the view of Blair (2000) who contend that public accountability entails at least two different mechanisms which are affected by both, political and administrative decentralization: first, elected offidals’ accountability to the citizenry, and second, bureaucrats’ accountability to elected officials. Through both mechanisms the poor can gain, but the problem of ‘capture’ by local elite still exists.
Further, the study found out that the local government of Luuka district strengthens poor peoples’ organizations within communities and through cross-community networks. Majority 42.5% strongly agreed that the local government of Luuka district strengthens poor peoples’ organizations within communities and through cross-community networks. It was found out that national anti-poverty programs have been established in Luuka district to transfer resources to the poor. This was revealed by 36.25% and 46.25% who respectively agreed or strongly agreed that national anti-poverty programs have been established in Luuka district to transfer resources to the poor. This was in strong agreement with view of Ravalllon (2000) who said that national anti-poverty programs, for Instance, often rely on central governments to transfer resources to the poor, but outcomes then will depend on
36 the behaviour and capacities of central governments of which differ in relevant ways in their targeting performance.
The study found out that the administrative process of Luuka district for quicidy and focusing on responses to Immediate poverty reduction needs takes long to be achieved. This was revealed by 51.25% and 32.5% of the respondents who respectively agreed and strongly agreed that the administrative process of Luuka district for quickly and focusing on responses to immediate poverty reduction needs takes long to be achieved. The view was in disagreement with Ahluwalia and Uttle (1998) who observed that the short administrative process facilitates quick and focused responses to immediate poverty reduction needs in case of disasters and stable long term planning.
5.1.3 Effect of fiscal decentralization on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda
The study found out that fiscal decentralization of Luuka district helps in generation and redistribution of Income to reduce poverty. Majority of the respondents, that Is, 36.25% and 43.75%, respectively agreed or strongly agreed that fiscal decentralization of Luuka district helps In generation and redistribution of income to reduce poverty.
Further, the study found out that decentralization of Luuka district does not promote good governance that improves on reducing poverty. This was revealed by 38.75% and 33.75% of the respondents who respectively disagreed and strongly disagreed that decentralization of Luuka district promotes good governance that improves on reducing poverty. This view was In disagreement with Kaufmann et al. (2000) who argued that decentralization can bring an improvement at various stages of government by promoting good governance. Kaufmann et al. (2000) further argued that good governance Improves a variety of outcomes, such as school achievement quality of life Indicators, or even GDP growth.
The study found out that decentralization and better governance do not Improve local services and outcomes that are related to the wellbeing of the poor which
37 reduces poverty. This was revealed by 43.75% of respondents who strongly disagreed that the decentralization and better governance Improve local servIces and outcomes that are related to the wellbeing of the poor which reduces poverty.
The study found out that decentralization of Luuka district does not improve the prioritization of budget allocations of programs favouring the poor. This was revealed by 37.5% of respondents who strongly disagreed that decentralization of Luuka district improves the prloritizatlon of budget allocations of programs favouring the poor. This in strong disagreement with view of Arze et al. (2005) who argued that decentralization Improves the prloritizatlon of budget allocations leading to the more effective allocation of programs favouring the poor.
It was found out that economic Instability tends to affect Luuka district due to the lack financial cushions and personal assets. This was revealed by 42.5% of respondents who agreed that economic Instability tends to affect Luuka district due to the lack financial cushions and personal assets. This was in line with Easterly et al. (2001), who contend that poor households mostly rely on Informal Insurance arrangements through their extended family and community, they are Insecure In the face of an economic crisis affecting the entire community.
5.2 Condusions of the study
The main purpose of the research was to examine the effect of decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda and the results showed that decentralisation influences directly on poverty reduction in Luuka district. Even though the study found that decentralization has an impact on poverty reduction, this impact is dependent on certain variables. It is not sufficient just to look at any decentralization type, such as political decentralization, in Isolation, when assessing the impact of decentralization on poverty reduction. Political, administrative and fiscal decentralization need to be considered simultaneously and the sequencing and pace of the different types of decentralization seem to play an important role. The following lessons and implications for poverty reduction can be drawn: (I) Poverty is closely linked to political factors such as access to power and resources and the
38 accountable and transparent management of local affairs. A genuine devolution of resources and authority can create openings for local communities, traditional leaders, private sector operators and Non-governmental Organizations (NGO5) to become more fully involved in local development processes, Thus, democratically controlled local governance system is a precondition for poverty reduction; (ii) an efficient local government can play a useful role as a catalyst and coordinator of bottom-up development initiatives. A process of decentralization that best serves poverty reduction is one that combines the strategies of political empowerment, resource mobilization and enhanced service delivery in a coherent and balanced mix; (iii) The degree of responsiveness to the poor and the extent to which decentralization impacts on poverty are largely dependent on the relationship between central and local governments and the commitment of the central government to poverty reduction; and (iv) Removing social barriers and building social institutions for poverty reduction can only be addressed if government has the political commitment and will to pursue decentralization to its logical conclusion irrespective of its political and technical risks and trade-offs.
5.3 Recommendations
Having realised the great effect of decentralisation on poverty reduction in Luuka district, Uganda, it is therefore recommended to consider the following;
Political decentralization should give more voice and influence to the poor close to their social environment. Less poverty will be expected in countries with voting at a provincial level (second tier) and a district level (third tier) than in countries voting only for central governments, or not having democratic elections at all,
Central government should devolve different decision-making powers and responsibilities to sub-units of the local government.
Autonomous elected subnational governments capable of taking binding decisions in at least some policy areas should be established and their powers and responsibilities need to be increased.
39 The district should redistribute authority, responsibility and resources among different levels of government
Local government should define authority over raising revenues or access to transfers and making decisions on current and Investment expenditures.
5.4 Areas for future research
This study has proven that decentralisation influence directly on poverty reduction. It is suggested that future research be carried out on the impact of decentralisation and soclo economic growth.
40 REFERENCES
ADB (2002), Poverty Reduction in Nepal: Isues, findings and Approaches,~ Man Development Bank (ADB), Manila.
Adhikari, Damodar (2006), Towards Local Democracy In Nepal: Power and Partlc4,atlon in District Development Planning, Spring Centre, Kathmandu.
Agenor, Pierre-Richard. (2004). Macroeconomic adjustment and the poor: Analytical issues and cross-country evidence. Journal ofEconomic Surveys 18, no. 3: 351.
Agrawal, Arun (1999), The Politics of Decentralization — A Critical Review. In: Welttrends, No.25, p.53-74.
Ahiuwalia, Isher J. and I. M. D. Utile (1998), India’s Economic Reforms and Development Oxford University Press.
Ahmad, Ehtisham (1997), Financing Decentralized Expenditures — An International Comparison of Grants. Edward Elgar Pubi. Cheltenham UK
Arze del Granado, F. Javier, Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, and Robert McNab. (2005). Fiscal decentralization and the functional composition of public expenditures. ISP working paper no. 05-01.
Asante, F.A. (2003) Economic Analysis of Decentralisatlon in Rural Ghana (Germany: Peter Lang).
Asante, F. A., & Ayee, J. R. (2008). Decentralization and poverty reduction. The economy ofGhana: Analyticalperspectives on stablity growth and poverty: Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatlon/265047859_Decentralization_and_Poverty ...Reduction [accessed Jun 14, 2017).
Bardhan, Pranab and Dilip Mookherjee (1998), Expenditure Decentralization and the Delivery of Public Services in Developing Countries. CIDER Paper C98-104, University of California, Berkeley, November, 41 Beck, t (1994) The Experience of fbverty: Fighting for Respect and Resources in Village India, iT Publications, London.
Bird, Richard M. and Francols Vaillancourt. (1998). fiscal decentralization in developing countries Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blair, H. (2000). PartIcipation and Accountability at the Periphery: Democratic Local Governance in Six Countries. World Development Vol. 28. No. 1, pp. 2 1-39
Boex, Jameson; Heredia-Ortiz, Eunice; Martinez-Vazquez, Jorge; Timofev, Andrey and Yao, Guevera (2006), fighting Poverty through Decentralization, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), USA.
ConnIng, 3. and M. Kevane. (2002). CommunIty-based targeting mechanisms for sodal safety nets: A critical review. World Development3o: 375-94.
Crook R, Sverrlsson A. (2001). Decentraiisation and poverty alleviation in developing countries: a comparative anaiysis or is West Bengal unique? IDS Working Paper 130, June 2001.
Easterly, W. and A. Kraay (2000), Small States, Small Problems? Income, Growth, and Volatility In Small States. In: World Development, Vol. 28, No. 11.
Easterly, William and Stanley Fischer. (2001). Inflation and the poor. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 33, no. 2: 160-78.
Gabazlra AS, (2015). Effective poverty-eradication In Luuka, Uganda — is the ‘deve preneur’ model the answer? https://gabazira.com/2015/01/14/effective-poverty- eradication-ln-luuka-uganda-is-the-deve-preneur-mqdel-the-answer/
Galasso, Emanuela and Martin Ravalllon. (2005). Decentralized targeting of an antipoverty program. Journal ofPublic Economics89, no. 4: 705-27.
Golooba-Mutebi F. (1999). DecentralIzation, democracy and development administration In Uganda: limits to popular participation. DPhll Thesis, London School of Economics. 42 JUtting,). and C. Kauffmann, I. Mc Donnell, H. Osterrieder, N. Pinaud and L Wegner (2004), “Decentralisation and Poverty In Developing Countries: Exploring the Impact”, Development Centre Working Papei No. 236, OECD Development Centre, ParIs, France.
Kaufmann, Daniel, Aart Kraay and Pablo Zoido-Lobatón (1999), Govemande Matters. Policy Research Working Paper No. 2195, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Kelly, Roy (2010), Decentrelization: Opportunities and Challenges; from the Training Manual of “acal Decentralization and Sub-National Financial Management in a Federal Nepal” (13th-17th December 2010), Centre for Constitutional Dialogue (CCD)/UNDP, Kathmandu.
Koehn, P.H. (2000) Decentralisation for Sustainable Development in Rasheed, S. and Fashole, L. (~ds) Development Management In Afilca. Towards Dynamism, Empowennent and Entrepreneurship, Westview press.
Larson, A. M. (2005). Democratic decentralization in the forestry sector: lessons learned from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The politics ofdecentralization: fi’mstc. people andpowe~ 32-62.
Utvack J, Ahmad J, Bird R. (1998). RethInking Decentralization in Developing Countries. The World Bank: Washington, DC. Utvack J, Seddon 3 (eds). 1999. Decentralization Briefing Notes. World Bank Institute: Washington, DC.
Utvack, Jennie and Jessica Seddon. (1999). Decentralization briefing notes. World Bank Institute Working Papers: The World Bank.
Manor, 3. (1999). The political economy of democratic decentralization. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Martlnez-Vazquez, Jorge and Robert McNab. (2005). Fiscal decentralization, macro stability, and growth: International Studies Program, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, International Studies Program Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU.
43 Moore M, Leavy 3, Houtzager P, White H. (1999). Polity Qualities: How Governance Affects Poverty. IDS WP 99: Brighton.
Moore M, Putzel 3. (1999). Thinking Strategically About Politics and Poverty. IDS Working Papers, 101: Brighton.
Narayan, D. with Pate!, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A. and S. Koch-Schuite (2000), Voices of the Poor, Can anyone hear us? Oxford University Press, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Peterson GE. (1991). Decentralisation Experience in Latin America: An Overview of Lessons and Issues. Tile Urban Institute: Washington, DC. Ragin C. 1996. Political methodology: qualitative meth methods. In A New Handbook of Political Science, Goodin R, Klingemann H (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Pra d han, Raj end ra (2006), Understanding Social Exclusion and SockP Inclusion in the Nepalese context.’ Some Preliminary Remarks7 Paper presented at the workshop Understanding Social Inclusion and Exclusion: Theories, Methodologies and Data, Organized by Social Science Baha and the Social Inclusion Research Fund Secretariat/The Netherlands Cooperation Organization (SNV), 3rd June 2006, Kathmandu,
Rahnema, M. (1996) Poverty. In Wolfgang Sachs (ed) The Development Dictionary.’ A Guide to Knowledge as PoweG Zed Books, London.
Ra kod i, C. (1995). ‘Poverty Lines or Household Strategies’ Habitat Inlarnational, 19, 4: 407-426 (2002) London: Earthscan
Ravallion, Martin (2000) Monitoring Targeting Performance When Decentralized Allocations to the Poor are Unobserved. Policy Research Working Paper No. 2080, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Ribot, J.C. (2001), Local Actors, Powers and Accountability in African Decentrali~ations: A Review of Issues.
44 Skoufias, E. (2003). Economic crises and natural disasters: Coping strategies and policy implications. World Development3l, no. 7: 1087-102.
Smith, B.C. (1996), Sustainable Local Democracy. In: Public Administration and Development, No.16, p.164-78.
Spoor, Max (ed.). (2004). GlobalIzation, poverty and conflict: A •ciltical “Development” Reader Dordrecht; Boston and London: Kluwer Academic.
Steiner, Susan (2005), “Decentralization and Poverty: Conceptual Framework and Application to Uganda”, Public Administmtion and Developmen4 Vol. 27, pp. 175— 185.
Stem, N., J.-J. Dethier, and H. Rogers. (2005). Growth and empowerment Making development happen. Cambridge: The MiT Press.
Tendler J. (1997). Good Govemment in the Tropics. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Treisman, Daniel (1998), After the Deluge: Regional Crisis and Political consolidation in Russia. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
UN (2003), Indicators for Monitoring the Millennluri~ Development Goatc: Definitions, Rationale, Concepts and Source4 United Nations (UN), New York, USA.
UNDP (2005), fiscal Decentmllzatlon and Poverty Reduction, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, USA.
White, H. (1998) Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Poverty Analysis: ConflIct, Complementary or Synergy? A paper presented at DSA Conference University of Bradford.
Wiesmann, Doris, von Braun, Joachim and Torsten Feldbrugge (2000), An Intemational Nutrition Index. Successes and Failures In Addressing Hunger and Malnutrition. ZEF-Discussion Papers on Development Policy No.26, Bonn.
45 World Bank (2001), World Development Report 2000/2001: AttackIng Poverty Oxford University Press, New York.
World Bank. (2001). World Development Report: The State in a Changing World. Oxford University Press: New York. World Bank. 2000. The World Development Report 2000. The World Bank: Washington, DC.
World Bank. (2004). World development report 2004: MakIng seriices work for poor peopla Washington, DC: World Bank.
46 APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
SELF ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Respondents;
I Kyozira Martha, a student of Kampala international University of College of Humanities and Social Sciences finalizing my Degree In Bachelors of Development Studies. As part of my requirement for the Degree award, I have to present a research report. The study is Decentralisation and Poverty Reduction in Luuka District, Uganda.
I am now on my field part of collecting Information for my research report and you are being requested to respond to the various questions in the questionnaire attached. This interview will be treated with the strictest confidentiality. It would therefore be greatiy appreciated if you would answer all questions In a fair and open manner. The Information gathered from this questionnaire will be used purely for research purposes. Thank you for taking the time and effort to complete this questionnaire. Your cooperation Is greatly appreciated. Your participation Is voluntary and you may withdraw from the survey at any stage. I shall be grateful for your cooperation in this regard.
Thank you.
Kyozira Martha (Candidate)
SECrION A: BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
Please place a cross CX) in the block that applies to you.
LAGE Under2o I I 21-30 I I 31-40 I 41-50 I I 51-60 I I 61 and Abovel I
47 2. GENDER
Male ______Female L 3. MARITAL STATUS
Single L~1 Married _____ Divorced L 4. HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVEL ATTAINED Below Certificate L1 Certificate Diploma L ~ Degree Post-Graduate Qualification~____ Other (Specify)
Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements. Please indicate your preference by marking with a cross (X) in the appropriate block provided.
5 Strongly Agree SA 4 Agree A 3 Not Sure N 2 Disagree D 1 Strongly Disagree SD
SECTION B: Political decentralization and poverty reduction
N2 QUESTION SA A NS~D SD T The political power of the poor in Luuka district plays an important role in affecting their levels of living. 2 The poor peop~ in Luuka district are given opportunity to ~ participation in the election process at all levels of the district. 3 To better serve the needs of the poor in Luuka district, each constituency receives the same per capita amount in fiscal trans~ers 4 The civil conflicts are associated with the rise in poverty in Luuka district
48 5 People of Luuka district are well represented which enable the poor to have better access to special needs. 6 Decentralization in Luuka district prevents violent conflicts and war and facilitates in overcoming them to absolutely reduce poverty
SECTION C: Administrative decentralization and poverty reduction
~9 QUESTION
- 1 Decentralization in Luuka district redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among different levels of government 2 In order to be effective for poverty reduction, decentralization of Luuka district establishes accountability structures 3 E~cted officials in Luuka d~trict are iccountableto its citizens 4 The local government of Luuka district strengthens poor peoples’ organizations within communities and through cross-community networks 5 National anti-poverty programs have been established in Luuka district to transfer resources to the poor.
6 The administrative process of LuukacHstrict for quickly and — focusing on responses to immediate poverty reduction needs takes long to be achieved,
SECTION D: Fiscal decentralization and poverty reduction
i~9 QUESTIOiJ SJ~ ~ NS D SD
1 Fiscal decentralization of Luuka district he~s in generabon~ — and redistribution of income to reduce poverty. Decentralization of Luuka district promotes good governance that improves on reducing_po~~~~~~____
19 3 Decentralization and better governance improve local services and outcomes that are related to the wellbeing of the poor which reduces poverty 4 Decentralization of Luuka district improves the prioritization of budget allocations of programs favouring the poor 5 Economic instability tends to affect Luuka district due to the lack financial cushions and personal assets.
“Thank you for taking the time and effort to complete this questionnaire”
50 APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Dear Respondents;
I Kyozira Martha, a student of Kampala international University of College of Humanities and Social Sciences finalizing my Degree in Bachelors of Development Studies. As part of my requirement for the Degree award, I have to present a research report. The study is Decentralisation and Poverty Reduction in Luuka District, Uganda.
I am now on my field part of collecting information for my research report and you are being requested to respond to the various questions in the questionnaire attached. This interview will be treated with the strictest confidentiality, It would therefore be greatly appreciated if you would answer all questions in a fair and open manner. The information gathered from this questionnaire will be used purely for research purposes. Thank you for taking the time and effort to complete this questionnaire. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the survey at any stage. I shall be grateful for your cooperation in this regard.
Thank you.
Kyozira Martha (Candidate)
1) Does political power of the poor in Luuka district play an important role 2) Does Luuka district give opportunity to participation in the election process at all levels of the district 3) How does Luuka district better serve the needs of the poor in its constituencies 4) Does Luuka district redistributes authority and responsibility for resources among different levels of government 5) Does decentralization of Luuka district establish accountability structures
51 6) How does elected ofticials in Luuka district get accountable to its citizens 7) How does Luuka district generate and redistribute income to reduce poverty 8) Does decentralization of Luuka district promote good governance
~Thank you for taking the time and effort to complete this questionnaire”
52 APPENDIX C
TIME FRAME
Item/Time March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 Proposal writing
Data collection and analysis
Data Presentation
flnal eport submission
53 APPENDIX D
ACTUAL STUDY BUDGET
Item Quality/Quantity Unit Total Cost Cost Pens 1 box 3,000 3,000 Box Ole 2 Oles 5,000 10,000
CHp board - 2cflp boards 5,000 7,000 Ruled paper 2 reams 10,000 20,000 Note book 2 books 5,000 10,000 Photocopying 58 pages 100 5,800 Typing 40 pages 500 20,000 Printing 4Q*3 pages 100 12,000 Spiral binding 3 copies 1,500 4,500 Sub Total 92,300 ~ Transport 5 days 20,000 100,000
[ Lunch 5 days 20,000 100,000 Sub Total 200,000 ~~~ Data entry 8 days 5,000 40,000 Sub Total 65,000 Typing 64 pages 500 32,000 Printing 3*64 pages 100 19,200 Photocopying 35 pages 100 3,500 7~J~g 9,000~ 27,000 Sub Total 8~7OO~ Grand Total 439,000
54