Institutional Reforms Matter Now or Never for Uganda: Lessons from the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences 

By Sebaggala Richard

The recent Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences (2024), awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson, has brought to light a crucial truth: Institutions are why some nations prosper while others stagnate. Nobel Prizes are not awarded lightly — they reflect seminal contributions to understanding complex issues, and this particular award speaks volumes about Africa’s long-standing problem of institutional dysfunction. The laureates highlighted an important explanation for the world's wealth disparities: the political and economic systems introduced or retained by colonizers from the sixteenth century onwards. Their research has shown that these systems have led to a "reversal of fortune" in which regions that were relatively prosperous at the time of colonization are now among the poorest.

This realization is directly linked to a recent speech by President Museveni at the African Heads of State Summit. In it, he affirmed that Africa’s development problems are due to philosophical, ideological, and strategic economic mistakes made by colonial rulers in the past. According to Museveni, these mistakes, rooted in exploitative systems, continue to undermine the continent's growth.

The laureates’ research on how inclusive institutions promote economic growth while extractive institutions hinder it relates directly to the Ugandan context. Their findings underscore the urgent need for Uganda to focus on institutional reform as a foundation for long-term development. However, despite numerous attempts at reform across Africa, progress has been slow and uneven. This raises a crucial question: Why have institutional reforms in Uganda and other African countries failed to produce the desired results?

To answer this question, we need to look deeper into the historical context, particularly the lingering effects of colonialism and the narratives that continue to shape our understanding of institutions. Here, Edward Said’s Orientalism is a useful lens through which we can examine how external narratives and colonial legacies still influence our perceptions of governance and reform. Drawing on Said’s critique, it becomes clear that the lessons from this Nobel Prize breakthrough become relevant for Uganda as we rethink our approach to institutional reform, leaving behind the vestiges of colonial models and considering African-centered, context-specific solutions.

Colonial Legacy and the Limits of Past Reforms
Said's Orientalism offers valuable insights into how Africa’s institutional problems have been viewed through a distorted lens that often portrays African governance structures as inherently weak and dependent on Western models. This legacy of colonialism has resulted in Africa operating within an institutional framework designed not for inclusive governance but for the benefit of colonial powers and elites. After independence, many African states inherited these extractive institutions, and efforts to reform them were often superficial and missed the root causes of dysfunction.

This failure of reform is further complicated by what Peter P. Ekeh describes in his seminal work "Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa" Ekeh argues that colonialism created two distinct publics in African societies: the "civic public", which is linked to the state and colonial institutions, and the "primordial public", which is rooted in traditional kinship, family and ethnic networks. The civic public sphere, inherited from the colonial administration, is often seen as a space for personal enrichment without the moral and ethical obligations that apply to the primordial public sphere. This duality has perpetuated the gap between formal government structures and the social norms that continue to shape political and economic behavior in Uganda.

Ekeh’s theory is critical to understanding why many institutional reforms in Uganda fail: they often focus only on the civil public and ignore the deep-rooted influence of the primordial public. The result is systems of government that are technically sound but lack the moral legitimacy needed to gain the trust and support of the population.

Beyond external narratives

To chart a new course, we must reject the Orientalist narrative that Africa is forever bound to its colonial past or destined to follow Western models to succeed. As the work of Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson shows, the success of institutional reform depends on the nature of the institutions themselves — whether they are extractive or inclusive. However, inclusivity cannot be achieved through imported solutions alone. Uganda must look to its own context, culture, and historical circumstances to reshape its institutions to be relevant and responsive to the needs of its people.

Ekeh’s idea of two publics can help us to ensure that institutional reforms reflect both the formal civic public and the informal primordial public. Reforms must bridge the gap between the state and the social fabric of Ugandan society by integrating local customs, values, and governance structures into modern institutions.

Contextualizing Institutional Reforms for Uganda
An important lesson from Why Nations Fail is that reforms must be context-specific. In Uganda, this means recognizing the diversity of governance systems in different regions, the importance of traditional leadership structures, and the influence of social norms on political and economic behavior. Rather than imposing top-down and externally-driven models, Uganda should favor reforms that are rooted in local governance practices and informed by the lived experiences of its citizens. By way of illustration, let us examine two policy reforms that need to be rethought: Decentralization and the sidelining of traditional leadership.

Uganda's 1997 decentralization policy was meant to improve service delivery and local participation, but it has often failed. Local governments have struggled with underfunding, political interference and corruption. While decentralization aimed to strengthen local governments, top-down control and resource constraints limited its effectiveness.

Traditional leadership structures, such as those in Buganda and Toro, play a crucial role in governance and social cohesion. Previous attempts to sideline these structures, such as their abolition under Milton Obote, led to instability. Even though they were reintroduced under President Museveni, their role remains largely symbolic. Recognizing the importance of traditional leadership and integrating it meaningfully into modern governance could strengthen Uganda's institutions. This approach is in line with Ekeh’s argument that reforms can only be successful if they involve the primordial public and not just the civilian public.

Breaking the Cycle of Extractive Institutions
Uganda’s extractive institutions continue to benefit a small elite at the expense of the wider population, a problem that is echoed in many post-colonial African states. The Nobel Prize in Economics awarded to Acemoglu and his colleagues underscores the urgent need to replace extractive institutions with inclusive institutions. Their research emphasizes that inclusive institutions — those that distribute power and resources equitably — are essential for promoting sustainable economic growth. Breaking the cycle of extractive institutions in Uganda requires not only formal legal changes but also tackling entrenched power dynamics. Political will and the active participation of marginalized groups in governance processes are needed.

Corruption and capture by the elite, two characteristic features of Uganda's extractive institutions, persist despite several anti-corruption reforms. The implementation of these reforms has been weak due to the concentration of power among the political and economic elites. For example, although Uganda has a legal framework, reports repeatedly show that corruption especially among high-ranking officials often goes unpunished. This points to a larger problem: The failure of anti-corruption measures is not just a matter of enforcement but is deeply rooted in social norms and cultural ties that influence behavior. In Uganda, as in many other parts of Africa, social and familial networks — rooted in ethnicity, tribe, and kinship — are embedded in governance structures, making it difficult to hold individuals accountable when they are part of one’s close social circle.

Ekeh's theory offers a valuable lens for understanding the pervasive influence of elite capture and corruption in Uganda. The dual public spheres—the civic public, tied to formal state institutions, and the primordial public, rooted in kinship, ethnicity, and community—create a complex dynamic. While the civic public is often seen as a domain for personal gain, loyalty to the primordial public can shield individuals from accountability for their actions in the civic sphere. This duality undermines efforts to promote transparency and accountability within Ugandan institutions.

To break this cycle, Uganda needs to reform its institutions in a way that aligns the moral imperatives of the primordial public with the expectations of the civic public. Structural reforms must aim to weaken the influence of "identity politics and economics" that permeate Ugandan institutions. One approach is to adopt policies that prevent nepotism and conflicts of interest. This can reduce the power of the primordial public in state affairs and ensure that civil institutions serve all citizens and not just the elites.

Conclusion
The awarding of the Nobel Prize to Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson underscores the crucial role of institutions in Uganda's development. Their research underscores the need for inclusive institutions that distribute power and resources equitably to promote sustainable economic growth. However, reforming these institutions presents Uganda with unique challenges that are deeply rooted in its historical, social, and cultural context.

Edward Said's Orientalism is an important warning against adopting Western models of governance without taking into account local realities. Uganda must resist the temptation to adopt one-size-fits-all reforms. Instead, a contextualized approach rooted in local governance practices, social norms, and the aspirations of the people is essential.

Ekeh's concept of "Two Publics" provides a valuable framework for understanding the complexities of institutional reform in Uganda. The persistence of corruption and capture by the elites is due to the tension between the civic and the primordial public. To break out of this cycle, Uganda needs to integrate the moral obligations of the primordial public into the civic public and foster a sense of collective responsibility that transcends personal networks and power dynamics.

In summary, the lessons from the Nobel Prize-winning research, combined with Said's critique of external narratives and Ekeh's insights into dual public systems, point to a clear path for institutional reform in Uganda. With a contextually grounded, culturally sensitive, and locally focused approach, Uganda can build the inclusive institutions necessary to realize its full potential and promote long-term, equitable growth.