Growth of districts needs to be checked
IN a motion to Parliament a few days ago, the minister of Local Government proposed a list of districts from 14 to 22. <br>In his paper; <i>District Creation and Decentralisation in Uganda</i>, Prof Elliott Green (2008) of London School of Economics, not
Frank Mukunya
IN a motion to Parliament a few days ago, the minister of Local Government proposed a list of districts from 14 to 22.
In his paper; District Creation and Decentralisation in Uganda, Prof Elliott Green (2008) of London School of Economics, notes that Uganda has the third largest number of sub-national administrative units.
Uganda came after Russia (83 federal subjects), the Philippines (82 provinces) and Turkey (81 provinces), but this was when Uganda had 79 districts.
The current development of over 100 districts will catapult Uganda to the first position as a state with the largest number of sub-national administrative units.
Too many districts overload the economy. The factors currently considered for the creation of new districts include economic viability, population, geography, cultural identity, people’s request and the quest for proximity of services. Unfortunately, the way these parametres are operationalised lacks clear-cut benchmarks.
People have invented their own unorthodox means to pursue their interest for a district. This accounts for the drama with which some of these districts have been demanded. The solution lies in making the process less attractive and tagging a price to getting one.
The Government can make the demand for new districts unpopular, by stopping university entry and army recruitment based on district quotas.
Regional governments should only be set up to plan and distribute resources where some programmes need massive resources.
The major argument put forward by proponents of new districts, is that they bring services nearer to the people. To ascertain this claim, there is need to carry out a study on whether new districts really result into effective and efficient service delivery.
Genuine like the creation of jobs, should be maintained without necessarily creating new districts.
By creating new districts haphazardly, our economic gains are compromised. Therefore, the Government should curb the practice immediately.
The writer is a development economist
IN a motion to Parliament a few days ago, the minister of Local Government proposed a list of districts from 14 to 22.
In his paper; District Creation and Decentralisation in Uganda, Prof Elliott Green (2008) of London School of Economics, notes that Uganda has the third largest number of sub-national administrative units.
Uganda came after Russia (83 federal subjects), the Philippines (82 provinces) and Turkey (81 provinces), but this was when Uganda had 79 districts.
The current development of over 100 districts will catapult Uganda to the first position as a state with the largest number of sub-national administrative units.
Too many districts overload the economy. The factors currently considered for the creation of new districts include economic viability, population, geography, cultural identity, people’s request and the quest for proximity of services. Unfortunately, the way these parametres are operationalised lacks clear-cut benchmarks.
People have invented their own unorthodox means to pursue their interest for a district. This accounts for the drama with which some of these districts have been demanded. The solution lies in making the process less attractive and tagging a price to getting one.
The Government can make the demand for new districts unpopular, by stopping university entry and army recruitment based on district quotas.
Regional governments should only be set up to plan and distribute resources where some programmes need massive resources.
The major argument put forward by proponents of new districts, is that they bring services nearer to the people. To ascertain this claim, there is need to carry out a study on whether new districts really result into effective and efficient service delivery.
Genuine like the creation of jobs, should be maintained without necessarily creating new districts.
By creating new districts haphazardly, our economic gains are compromised. Therefore, the Government should curb the practice immediately.
The writer is a development economist