In chapter one of my book titled “Uganda’s Development Agenda in the 21st Century and Related Regional Issues (2008)” I wrote about the challenges connected with land tenure and land use. One of the issues I addressed is land fragmentation which is not abating. Although many Ugandans are aware of the problems connected with tiny and scattered pieces of land, they are unwilling to address them. There are many reasons for this behavior.
First, culturally and sentimentally when the head of the family passes on every son and increasingly every daughter and widow (s) wants a piece of the land. The more members in the family the smaller the piece each member gets. And given low agricultural productivity (low yielding traditional seeds and absence of organic and inorganic fertilizers and irrigation technology), the tiny pieces of land do not produce enough to maintain a family for food and cash, pushing that family into deeper poverty if there are no alternative sources of income. This problem may be overcome in the short to medium term by changing the cultural and sentimental value of land so that inheritance goes to one member or inherited land is used collectively. In the long term poverty reduction may help reduce the size of the family because poor couples produce more children than rich ones.
As people move from rural to urban areas one hopes that cultural attachment to father’s or ancestral land will decline and eliminate land fragmentation. The colonial administration began industries in Uganda in the 1950s in part to reduce pressure on land as a result of population growth. Government may wish to give more attention to industrialization than has been the case so far. Uganda’s agricultural comparative advantage and export of raw materials seems to have worked against industrialization, a policy orientation that needs to be recast. The service industry which has received much government attention has not created sufficient jobs because it is largely capital-intensive and concentrated in the nation’s capital city of Kampala. Uganda cannot and should not be developed like Singapore, a city state.
Second, some Ugandans are acquiring different pieces of land in different places because each produces a different product. I know someone in Rukungiri district (southwest Uganda) who has different pieces of land in different locations. He told me that on each land he gets a different product. Because there is growing demand for building materials in Rukungiri town, this entrepreneur has been buying pieces of land that contain sand in one area, clay in another, stones in another and timber in yet another area. He confirmed that he is benefiting from his scattered pieces of land and is not interested in land consolidation.
While in Kabale district, I had a conversation with women vendors who were selling vegetables along the Kabale-Mbarara road. They told me that families have different plots in different places and were not interested in land consolidation. One vendor explained that in her family they own three pieces of land in three different places. One is good for growing peas, another for sorghum and the third for potatoes. She told me they were looking for a fourth piece where to grow vegetables whose demand and profitability had risen. They did not like the suggestion to specialize in one or two produce and exchange. They objected because the risks are too high: they are not risk takers but risk averse. Extension workers may help to ease the fear and encourage them to specialize and trade surplus over and above family needs.
There are two other policy considerations. First, government should facilitate establishment of micro, small and medium-size enterprises that create jobs and promote economic growth. For a long time interest rates have been very high discouraging borrowing and investing in labor intensive activities. Devaluation of the Uganda shilling has also meant that imports that are used as inputs in Uganda industries have become very expensive. Thus a combination of high interest rates in part to keep money out of circulation and control inflation and expensive imports due to excessive devaluation of Uganda currency have worked against diversifying and transforming Uganda’s economy from agriculture to manufacturing thus keeping surplus labor trapped in the rural economy on small, uneconomic pieces of land. This policy needs to be modified to address massive unemployment and under-employment which market forces and laissez faire capitalism have been unable to address. Second, education of girls and empowerment of women will in the end help them to manage their reproductive behavior and have fewer children and reduce pressure on the land. In France land fragmentation was addressed through inter alia birth control. Uganda policy makers need to refocus development priorities in the wake of a shift from neo-liberal economics to public and private partnership. This will require modification in institutions and staffing at policy and expert levels as was done in 1987 at the start of structural adjustment program. There is an urgent need to have economists in the top government level as policy makers or experts/advisers with a neo-Keynesian bias.