KAMPALA — In recent weeks, the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) has been the subject of considerable public and parliamentary attention. The proposed UCDA Rationalization Bill has sparked intense discussions, with citizens closely monitoring their Members of Parliament and the bill’s progress.
This move has placed Parliament in a high-stakes debate, particularly in light of President Museveni’s support for the rationalization of UCDA.
The President has argued that UCDA’s current structure leads to significant government spending, suggesting that merging UCDA with the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries (MAAIF) could streamline processes, reduce redundancies, and enhance efficiency. Rationalization, he argues, could align UCDA’s role more closely with MAAIF’s objectives, potentially reducing waste and improving accountability.
From a New Public Management (NPM) perspective—a framework introduced by public administration scholar Christopher Hood—streamlining government agencies and enhancing performance can indeed create a more efficient government. Hood’s seminal work, “A Public Management for All Seasons?”, outlines principles such as decentralization, privatization, and performance-based measures, which can be applied to public administration for efficiency and accountability. The application of NPM principles could bring about meaningful improvements in how Uganda’s government manages its resources and delivers services.
However, the rationale behind the UCDA merger raises questions that go beyond efficiency alone.
While enhancing efficiency is essential, the deeper issue appears to be a fiscal tug-of-war within the government. There are persistent concerns about the broader inefficiencies that drain the nation’s resources—issues that, if left unaddressed, undermine the government’s commitment to true reform.
Consider, for instance, the millions lost to corruption without comprehensive investigations, the oversized salaries awarded to certain officials, and lavish contracts that never materialize, such as the Lubowa Hospital project. Additionally, the bloated size of Parliament and an inflated cabinet continue to siphon taxpayer money, raising concerns about government accountability and the prioritization of resources. If the government seeks true efficiency, addressing these systemic issues would serve as a more robust starting point than merely targeting UCDA.
Thus, before moving forward with the rationalization of entities like UCDA, a comprehensive approach to address these broader challenges is warranted.
Tackling corruption, downsizing Parliament and the cabinet, and imposing rigorous checks on expenditure could set the stage for a more meaningful rationalization process. This would allow Uganda to achieve real governmental efficiency and integrity, addressing both structural redundancies and broader fiscal inefficiencies.
In conclusion, I urge the government to critically evaluate the areas that significantly strain the economy and to prioritize addressing these issues. Only then, after genuine fiscal reforms have been enacted, should we consider merging entities that may be redundant.
This balanced approach is essential to build a government that serves its citizens effectively, transparently, and sustainably.
The writer, Brian Ochieng, is a Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences student at Makerere University.
