AJIBM  Vol.8 No.3 , March 2018
Uganda’s Fiscal Policy (2000-2016): Implications for Public Investment Management (PIM)
Abstract: Uganda has recently pursued expansionary fiscal policies, driven by the desire to improve the country’s infrastructure, increase the production of assets, and facilitate accelerated growth. Nevertheless, providing more resources for capital development in line with the country development aspirations alone will not necessarily translate in optimal infrastructure investments. A question that arises is, what comes first: Is it to invest in the effort to establish effective systems for managing public investment in order to yield high returns or should financing these investments precede capacity challenges. Using a rich dataset of public sector projects defined by project, financing mix, sector etc; the paper carries out project absorptive capacity and overall fiscal trend analysis to ascertain whether budgeted projects translated to intended outturns. It is found that weak Public Investment capacity has led to less than budgeted public investment outturn which has reduced intended fiscal policy impact. As such, for Uganda to achieve its fiscal objectives there is need to balance its expansionary fiscal policies with the ability to absorb fiscal resources.
Cite this paper: Guloba, A. (2018) Uganda’s Fiscal Policy (2000-2016): Implications for Public Investment Management (PIM). American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 8, 514-536. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2018.83034.

[1]   Rajaran, A., Kaiser, K., Le, T.M., Kim, J.-H. and Frank, J. (2014) The Power of Public Investment: Transforming Resources into Assets for Growth. World Bank, Washington DC.

[2]   Smith, A. (1776) An Inquiry into the Nature of the Wealth of Nations. [trans.] Random House, Inc., Oxford.

[3]   World Bank (2016) From Smart Budgets to Smart Returns: Unleashing the Power of Public Investment Management. World Bank, Washington DC.

[4]   Summers, L. (2017) Two Harvard Economists Debate Increased Infrastructure Investments. 18 January 2017, pp. 1-4.

[5]   Mawejje, J. and Munyambonera, E. (2017) Financing Infrastructural Development in Uganda: Issues and Options. Economic Policy Research Centre, Kampala.

[6]   Mawejje, J. (2013) The Business Climate in Uganda: Implications for Job Creation. Economic Policy Research Centre, Kampala.

[7]   Calderon, C. and Serven, L. (2010) Infrastructure and Economic Development in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of African Economies, 19, i13–i87.

[8]   National Planning Authority, NPA (2015) Second National Development Plan. Government of Uganda, Kampala.

[9]   Glaeser, E. (2018) Two Harvard Economists Debate. 18 January 2017, pp. 1-4.

[10]   Keynes, J.M. (1936) The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Harcourt, Bracer, New York.

[11]   Arrow, K.J. and Kurz, M. (1970) Public Investment, the Rate of Return and Optimal Fiscal Policy. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

[12]   Aschauer, D.A. (1989) Is Public Expenditure Productive? Journal of Monetary Economics, 23, 177-200.

[13]   Glomm, G. and Ravikumar, D. (1997) Productive Government Expenditures and Long-Run Growth. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21, 183-204.

[14]   Rodrigue, J.P. (2009) Geography of Transport Systems. 2nd Edition. Routledge, London.

[15]   Easterly, W., Irwin, T. and Serven, L. (2008) Walking up the Down Escalator: Public Investment and Fiscal Stability. World Bank Research Observer, 23, 37-56.

[16]   Hutton, E., Thackray, M.W. and Kapoor, K. (2014) Revenue Administration Gap Analysis Program—The Value-Added Tax Gap. International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.

[17]   Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (n.d.) Background to the Budget. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Kampala.