Abstract
This paper discusses network governance and its contribution to the capacity of local governments (LGs) to deliver local economic development (LED) in Uganda. Although a formal LED policy was only established in Uganda in February 2014, there have been LED-inspired practices in the past decade. Various scholars and practitioners have observed that the autonomy and capacity of LGs to deliver LED is limited, but have been hopeful that new governance strategies like network governance would increase the capacities of LGs. However, neither network governance arrangements among LGs, nor their potential to improve governance capacity, have been documented. In a case study of Kyenjojo District, this paper finds that existing network governance arrangements have been fundamental in improving financial autonomy at this LG, delivering some income to invest in LED activities, although no evidence was found of reduced transaction costs in transforming local economies. The study further reveals that network governance arrangements have not led to the development of specialised skills in regulation or law enforcement, and capacity gaps are evident amongst staff and members in understanding the private sector and how it works. On a positive note, there is clear evidence of attempts by the LG to be innovative. Based on these findings, this study recommends that LGs need to consider a multi-pronged or multi-network governance approach to LED, which in turn will require a refocusing of governance mechanisms to become more dynamic and responsive, and offer incentives to the various actors in the development sector.
Highlights
Within a decentralised governance framework, local economic development (LED) is perceived as the responsibility of local governments (LGs)
This paper focuses on the effect of network governance on the financial, functional and innovative autonomy of local governments
It is important to work with government on the road network in a way that supports us, but we support out-growers to sell their produce. These out-growers support a number of workers and families. (Mabale company official). These findings indicate that LGs initiate infrastructure collaboration with local commercial companies based on clear responsibilities as well as some incentives for local businesses and anticipated local economic benefits
Summary
Within a decentralised governance framework, local economic development (LED) is perceived as the responsibility of local governments (LGs). 485) they have: a political role in democratically determining what is suitable for their localities; social responsibility for ensuring local development is inclusive and fair; and a responsibility to ensure that public, private and community actors in LED are coordinated and their interests are met. In Africa, the persistent challenges facing decentralisation and local governance have necessitated a refocusing of LED efforts. These challenges include: inadequate local revenues and business development support; an unfavourable business environment; inadequate management information systems, and insufficiently business-like approaches to service delivery LED is understood as being generated by the efforts of many actors
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
