GREAT EXPECTATIONS Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. Francis Kibirige, Dr. Frederick Golooba-Mutebi Fred Male, Pius Tibaingana, and Stevenson Ssevume 2020/ 2021

ISBN No: 978- 9913- 9927- 1- 8 Published by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Kampala, Uganda 5B Acacia Avenue P.O Box 3860 www.fes-uganda.org Copy Editor: Will Boase Design: Ivan Barigye Images: Zahara Abdul(Page 3 and 50), Arnold Peter Mugasha(Page 47) and Watsemba Miriam Elizabeth(page 1, 11, 19 and 33) General Editing: Geraldine Kabami and John Bosco Mubiru The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this volume are attributed to individual author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung(FES). FES does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. FES bears no responsibility for oversights, mistakes or omissions. The sale or commercial use of all media published by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung is prohibited without the written consent of FES.

FOREWORD Africa’s citizens are moving into the cities at ever larger numbers. By 2040 a majority of Africans will be living in urban areas. They are moving with the expectation of new economic opportunities and better service delivery. Yet arriving in the city they often find out that they just moved from rural poverty into urban inequality. The infrastructure of the city they have chosen might indeed be better than in the village they come from, but it is increasingly failing to accommodate the rising numbers of new arrivals. Public services might be better, too, but often stay out of reach of the newcomers in their transient urban settlements. So what happens when rural residents become city dwellers? There is little knowledge and research about the motivations, expectations and experiences of citizens who choose this path. Why exactly do they move in the first place? And what kind of“new opportunities” do they expect? And once in the city: What do they find? And how do they react? In what ways do they see themselves better or worse off in the urban sphere? And how do they connect to their new surroundings culturally, socially and politically? In short, what happens to their“Great Expectations”? These are the questions our survey set out to address. Not all could be answered through the 25-page questionnaire handed out to a carefully selected sample of about a thousand rural and a thousand urban residents. Yet, the Survey Report, compiled and written by our partner Hatchile Consult LTD gives us many fascinating insights into the dynamics of rural to urban migration in Uganda, mainly to Greater Kampala. It took all the expertise of the Afrobarometer-experienced researchers at Hatchile under the capable leadership of Francis Kibirige to undertake this ambitious exercise in the middle of a pandemic. Thus, all the credit for this excellent Survey Report goes to them- and to the editing staff at FES mentioned in the credits. FES-Uganda has commissioned this survey as part of the“Just City”-Project which has undertaken similar surveys in Kenya, Tanzania, Senegal, South Africa and Namibia. A synopsis of the findings for the three East African Countries will be published in the spring of 2022. Under the“Just City”-Project the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung(FES) together with its local partners promotes a people-centred urban transformation which favours social inclusion and ecological sustainability over purely technocratic solutions for turning African cities of the 21st century into liveable and socially just places. The management of urbanisation will be a decisive factor in shaping the future of the African continent. And only a socially and gender-equitable provision of public goods will provide the democratic and political legitimacy to govern African cities successfully. Asking its current and future citizens about their expectations and experiences in planning or making their move to the city is the first precondition for such an efficient and democratic governance. And that is what we did. Rolf Paasch Resident Representative Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung(FES), Uganda Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. I

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES IV LIST OF FIGURES IV LIST OF ACRONYMS V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 1.0 SUMMARY 4 1.1 Survey Methodology 5 1.2 Key findings at a glance 6 1.3 Migration, public services provision and democracy context in Uganda 7 1.3.1 National urbanisation context 7 1.3.2 Internal migration context 7 1.3.3 Public service delivery context 8 1.3.4 Views on demand and supply of democracy 9 2.0 SURVEY FINDINGS 12 2.1 Survey demographics and livelihoods 12 2.1.1 Survey demographics 12 2.1.2 Survival status and livelihoods 13 2.2 Likelihood of migration, causes and experiences 14 2.2.1 Ancestry, family ties and migration 14 2.2.2 Reasons for migration and demographics 15 2.2.3 Extent of rural-urban migration and demographics 17 2.2.4 Those who are most likely to migrate 18 3.0 SOCIAL SERVICE DELIVERY GAPS AND MIGRATION 20 3.1 Infrastructure, facilities and services in urban and rural areas 20 3.1.1 Presence of public service infrastructure 20 3.1.1.1 Presence national electricity grid 21 3.1.1.2 Presence of national piped water supply and borehole infrastructure 22 3.1.1.3 Presence of national sewerage management infrastructure 22 3.1.1.4 Presence of mobile cell-phone service network 23 3.1.1.5 Aggregated presence of services and infrastructure at village level 24 3.1.2 Presence of private and public service facilities 24 3.1.2.1 Postal facilities 25 3.1.2.2 Education facilities 25 3.1.2.3 Police services 25 II GREAT EXPECTATIONS

3.1.2.4 Health facilities 26 3.1.2.5 Market facilities 27 3.1.2.6 Financial services 27 3.1.2.7 Local transport 28 3.1.2.8 Formal low-cost housing 28 3.1.2.8 Formal courts of law 29 3.1.2.9 Aggregated presence of services 30 3.1.3 Presence of built road infrastructure 30 3.2 Views on basis for service delivery demands 31 4.0 SERVICE DELIVERY AND CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS 34 4.1 Elected leadership and service delivery expectations 34 4.1.1 Engagement in governance processes 36 4.1.1.1 Associational membership in urban and rural areas 36 4.1.1.2 Issues of concern to membership associations 37 4.1.1.3 Contacting elected leaders in urban and rural areas 40 4.1.1.4 Attitudes towards political participation 42 4.1.1.5 Views on citizen action 43 4.1.1.6 Citizen satisfaction with public services 45 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48 5.1 What we have learned 48 5.2 Implications for policy and programming interventions 48 REFERENCES 52 ANNEX 1: 54 Detailed Survey methodology ANNEX 2: 66 List of selected EAs in sample Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. III

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Number of groups associated with by gender, urban and rural residence 37 Table 2. Issues membership associations are most concerned with 38 Table 3. Other issues group associations are concerned with 39 Table 4. Views on governance and leadership efficacy by location type 42 Table 5a. Rating of government service provision in urban areas by location type and gender 45 Table 5b. Rating of government service provision in rural areas by location type and gender 46 Table 5c. Support for taxes and user-fees for improved health, education and transportation 46 services by location type and gender Table 6. Allocation of the sample across urban and rural subsamples 56 Table 7. Breakdown of Kampala sample by income-level 57 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Views on demand and supply of democracy| FES-Uganda| 2020 9 Figure 2. Views on demand and supply of democracy| Afrobarometer| Uganda| 2000- 2021 10 Figure 3. Age and education attainment by location 12 Figure 4. Incomes and dominant economic activity by location 13 Figure 5. Gender differences in reporting household incomes 14 Figure 6. Rural to urban migration experiences 15 Figure 7. Experience of rural to urban migration 15 Figure 8. Reasons for migration 16 Figure 9. Most important reason for migrating by gender 17 Figure 10. Likelihood for migration at household level 18 Figure 11. Observed public service infrastructure at village level 20 Figure 12. Presence of public services infrastructure at village by location 22 Figure 13. Access to communications infrastructure in 2019 23 Figure 14. Observed public and private facilities at village level 24 Figure 15. Quality of road surface by location 30 Figure 16. Feeling close to home and views on reasons for demanding government services 31 Figure 17. Rating of public service delivery by location 32 Figure 18. Views on determinants of service delivery at national and local government level 35 Figure 19. Associational membership by gender and location 36 Figure 20. Mentions of other issues group associations are concerned with 40 Figure 21. Leaders contact first when dissatisfied with public services by gender and residence 41 Figure 22. Views on civic spaces by location 43 Figure 23. Experiences with citizen action by location 44 IV GREAT EXPECTATIONS

LIST OF ACRONYMS AfDB African Development Bank AIC Aids Information Centre ASC Annual School Census BTVET Business Technical Vocational Education Training CAFU Children’s AIDS Fund Uganda CSOs Civil Society Organisations EA Enumeration Area ECP Electricity Connections Policy ERA Electricity Regulatory Authority JLOS Justice Law and Order sector KCCA Kampala Capital City Authority LC V Local Council Five MATIP Markets and Agricultural Trade Improvement Project MEMD Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development MOH Ministry of Health MWE Ministry of Water and Environment NDP National Development Plan NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NPA National Planning Authority NWSC National Water and Sewerage Cooperation OAG Office of the Auditor General ODPP Office of the Director of Public Prosecution PFP Private-for-Profit PNFP Private and Not-For-Profit POMA Public Order Management Act RDC Resident District Commissioner REA Rural Electrification Agency SACCOs Savings and Credit Cooperatives SDGs Sustainable Development Goals TASO The AIDS Support Organisation TVET Technical Vocational Education Training UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UEB Uganda Electricity Board UETCL Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited UPL Uganda Posta Limited USE Universal Secondary Education WHO World Health Organisation Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. V

Moving out of the village: Homesteads in Gulu district.

MUTUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would not have been successful without the generous support and effort of a number of people. To this end, Hatchile Consult Limited appreciates the time, expertise and ideas of the individuals who facilitated this research. Firstly, the authors who enthusiastically accepted to lead us in the study. In particular, Mr. Kibirige Francis the lead researcher, Dr. Frederick Golooba-Mutebi, Mr. Ssevume Stevenson, Mr. Tibaingana Pius and Mr. Male Fred for the valuable inputs and writing of this report. Secondly the FES-Uganda team, Rolf Paasch, the Resident Representative Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Uganda, Geraldine Kabami, and John Bosco Mubiru, the Senior Programme Managers for providing the overall leadership, intellectual input, comments and insights right from conception to completion of the study. Thirdly, the FES teams in Kenya and Tanzania, for sharing lessons, experiences and insights that gave guidance for the study concept and for future collaborations on utilising results from this study. From the side of FES, we appreciate the competence diligence and persistence of the whole research team at Hatchile under the able leadership of Francis Kibirige, who never gave up when another obstacle to the project arrived during the pandemic. It showed us that Hatchile Consult is not just a very competent commercial consultancy but also a team of engaged social scientists driven by their own curiosity to understand the dynamics of Ugandan society. Meeting many times under the tent at the FES-office we learned more about the social, economic and political fabric of Uganda than we could ever have hoped for when commissioning this survey. And finally, both Hatchile and FES are immensely grateful to the entire team of research assistants for the data collection and interviews- and to all the 2000 household respondents drawn from Kampala and four rural district of Bushenyi, Masaka, Kamuli and Gulu who took the time to patiently answer all the 98 questions of a demanding questionnaire with honesty and engagement under the often adverse conditions of the pandemic. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 2

Moving into the city: Stuck in traffic jam on Entebbe Road.

1.0 SUMMARY A majority of Ugandans in rural areas are considering or have considered migrating to urban areas, mostly for economic and service delivery reasons, while those in urban areas are less satisfied with public services and less engaged in the democratic governance process than their rural counterparts. Recent data shows a marked difference in the status of social services between urban and rural areas, with rural areas lagging far behind urban areas on quality of services and presence of physical service delivery infrastructure. Urban areas not only have more schools, health facilities, police stations, market places or better road surfaces, but these are also concentrated in a much smaller area, and thus are more accessible. Not only are health, education or communications services reported to be of better quality in urban areas, but the service is more reliable and there appears to be a window of economic opportunity for everyone. In rural areas, it is common knowledge that urban areas have better public service provision, and provide better economic opportunities. There is a greater perceived potential for paid work and(formal) employment in urban areas than in rural areas, with many in rural areas convinced they only need to step into the urban to find better work. Data also shows that urban dwellers report higher and more regular incomes than their rural counterparts. But are these services and economic opportunities indeed better in urban than in rural areas? The recent United Nations World Social report shows that all is not gloom in rural areas, that“despite persistent rural disadvantage, poverty is declining faster in rural than in urban areas”(Yern et al, 2021). Many Ugandans have built successful careers, families and livelihoods in rural areas through hard work and dedication, while many in urban centres have failed to meet their goals. While it is proportionately easier to succeed in urban areas, the real difference has been equitable access to the limited opportunities, and the skills to harness these resources((Anderson et al, 2013, p. 9-11)). It is this non-equitable access to scarce resources that appears to drive rural-urban migration in Uganda, especially among marginalised population groups such as poorly- or un-educated women, young people and persons with disabilities. However, urban life presents far different challenges for effective engagement with leaders and the community, and these differences have the potential to fuel dissatisfaction. Indeed, data shows that urban residents are less engaged with the governance process than their rural counterparts, contact their leaders less, and feel they have less civic space to participate in governance. For the purposes of this report, we adopt as a definition for civic space“the core civil society freedoms of association, assembly and expression(Kode, 2017, p.1)” as enshrined in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(OHCHR, 1966), and“a set of conditions that allow civil society and individuals to organise, participate and communicate freely and without discrimination, and in doing so, influence the political and social structures around them(Keutgen, 2020, p.7)”. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 4

This detachment and apathy remains a key area for intervention in efforts to improve service delivery in urban areas. Efforts to slow the process of rural to urban migration, especially by building sustainable rural service delivery systems, promoting new digital technologies and boosting inclusive non-farm rural economies(UN DESA, 2021 p. 18), can create space for urban centres to re-adjust and match service delivery to the demand. In addition, efforts to promote democratic engagement in governance (especially at the local level) among urban dwellers could help improve overall satisfaction with socialeconomic service delivery. This report will look in greater detail at these findings, and will recommend that perhaps practical steps need to be taken to achieve manageable rural-urban migration, improved social services and democratic governance. 1.1 SURVEY METHODOLOGY The FES urbanisation survey in Uganda followed the same design adopted for similar FES surveys in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Namibia and Senegal. The survey worked with a random, stratified, clustered sample of adult Ugandans residing in low- or medium-income areas, drawn from the capital city of Kampala and four rural districts Bushenyi in the West, Masaka in Central, Kamuli in the East and Gulu in the North of Uganda. The purpose of the survey was to map and analyse differences between urban and rural areas in Uganda with regards to expectations and experiences of public service delivery and demand for democracy. To ensure rural vs urban comparisons, all towns and trading centres in the rural district samples that were located within 8–13 km of the sample district’s headquarters were excluded. Similarly, the urban sample in Kampala district excluded all high-income areas, and only considered low- and mediumincome parts of the city, based on the Uganda Bureau of Statistics’s(UBOS) population mapping data and Google Earth satellite imagery. The rural sample was selected to capture tribal/ethnic and political variation, with the four rural districts selected from 4 different ethnic subregions. To represent political variation in the sample, the districts of Kitgum and Masaka were selected from areas where the political opposition performed strongly in both 2011 and 2016 general elections, while Kamuli and Bushenyi districts were selected from areas where the ruling party performed strongly in the same elections. A sample of 1,000 respondents were interviewed in Kampala, while 250 respondents were interviewed from each of the four rural districts for a total of 1,000 interviews in the rural. Both subsamples worked with equal gender, targeting citizens aged 18 years or older at the household. Fieldwork was conducted between 23rd September and 4th October 2020 in 166 villages across the five districts. A more detailed discussion of the survey methodology, including how the sample was identified, mapped, selected and implemented, is presented in Annex 1. 5 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

1.2 KEY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE LIVELIHOODS: slightly over one-third of all survey respondents(35%) live in households that earn UGX 100,000 or less per month, while nearly 40% live in households that earn UGX 100,000 to 500,000. Nearly two-thirds in rural areas(59% vs 12% in urban), women(38% vs 33% for men) and those older than 50 years(54% vs 30% for those aged 18 – 30 year) live in households that earn UGX100,000 or less per month. Only one-quarter describe their present living conditions as“fairly good or very good”, down from 56% before COVID-19 struck. This data shows the economic disparity between urban and rural areas, especially as the survey targeted low- and medium-income areas, and the impact COVID-19 has had on livelihoods. MIGRATION: nearly one-half of the sample(44%) interviewed were not in the district where they were born, having migrated i n search of better economic opportunities(51%), better services(14%), family reasons(19%) or better education opportunities(7%). One in five(20%) is considering moving to an urban area in the next five years, with Kampala(35%) the most likely destination, while onehalf consider migrating to another district(54%). However almost two thirds(60%) say COVID-19 affected their planned migrations“to a great extent”. The data highlights economic and service delivery demands as the top-ranked pull-factors for migration, and predicts substantial future migration into Kampala despite COVID-19’s impacts. Expectations of migration: eight in 10 of those that ever migrated(83%) did so in the last 20 years. Survey respondents associate migration with better employment opportunities and public services, with a majority(79%) of those who moved to urban areas and 65% of those that have not yet moved expecting“better services” as a result of moving. The expectation for better services upon migration puts undue pressures on urban authorities to plan for service delivery to an ever growing unknown migrant population in a city’s informal settlements. ACCESS TO SERVICE: a majority(65%) feel that access to public services depends on who is in power, while nearly one-half(46%) say communities that do not vote for the ruling party suffer negative consequences. Nearly seven in 10 would strongly oppose the government charging more taxes or user fees for improved public health, education and transportation services. This result suggests that citizens view access to government services as politicised, and disapprove of additional taxes or user fees because of perceived misuse and poor service delivery. SERVICE DELIVERY: Half of those who ever moved(50%) feel the government has handled the main reason why they migrated“badly” or“fairly badly”. In some respects, four in 10 respondents(38%), feel that issues concerning women – such as marginalisation or health care- are“often or always” neglected. Six in 10 respondents(57%) say provision of government services has not improved and one-half(50%) feel that only the rich can benefit from government services due to influence peddling. Nearly seven in 10 respondents(68%) would oppose the decision if the government charged additional taxes or user fees to improve services. Respondents both in urban and rural areas continue to rate government service delivery poorly, indicating that migrating in search of better socio-economic opportunities appear not to have worked. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 6

POLITICAL AND CIVIC SPACE: nearly one-half of survey respondents feel that citizens in urban areas(45% vs 30% in rural) enjoy more civic space to participate. However the urban lags behind on engagement and participation, with rural respondents twice more likely to take part in civic action, twice more likely to join a community association. Meanwhile urban scores about the same(31% vs 34% for rural) on views on efficacy of elected leadership and governance. Coupled with the reported dissatisfaction with public services in urban areas, this result highlights the enormous challenge urban authorities face in improving public service delivery in communities that are less engaged. 1.3 MIGRATION, PUBLIC SERVICES PROVISION AND DEMOCRACY CONTEXT IN UGANDA We briefly look at Uganda’s country context and its plans for urbanisation, public service delivery and quality of democracy. 1.3.1 NATIONAL URBANISATION CONTEXT In trying to superimpose urban planning onto already existing urban centres Uganda, like many other developing countries in Africa, faces challenges, especially related to feasibility, cost and community uptake. For the purposes of this report, we will define urbanisation as the process of a population transitioning from small, dispersed mostly agricultural settlements, towards larger, more densely populated settlements mostly engaged in industrial and non-farm economic activity. With the understanding that urbanisation also refers to the process by which towns or cities grow through demographic and migration factors, this report particularly focuses on rural to urban migration. The UN’s global agenda 2030 for sustainable development(i.e. SDG 11) on cities and human settlements (UN, 2015), and the African Agenda 2063(AU, 2015, p.13) advocate for“well-planned and managed urbanisation as a force for sustainable development, addressing the challenges of rapid urbanisation”. The Uganda Vision 2040(NPA, 2013, p.78), as echoed by the 3rd National Development Plan(NPA, 2020, p.159), also seeks to invest in better urban systems to enhance productivity, liveability, and sustainability. These national planning efforts recognise variously that urbanisation offers considerable opportunities for accelerating socio-economic transformation, stability, growth and development. 1.3.2 INTERNAL MIGRATION CONTEXT Recent estimates indicate that globally, urbanisation is increasing, with more than half of the Earth’s population now living in urban areas(UN HABITAT, 2012), and that 92% of the global rural population is concentrated in developing countries, which is coincidentally where the biggest urban expansion is occurring(Anderson et al, 2013, p. 1). While migration takes on many different modes(Perruchoud et al, 2011), this survey particularly focused on internal rural to urban migration, especially focusing on factors that drive rural to urban migration in Uganda. 7 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Cecilia Tacoli suggests that urbanisation in Africa could account for as high as 40% of urbanisation in the developing countries(Anderson et al, 2013, p 1). Besides the lure of finding work in industrialised urban settings, some studies suggest that land fragmentation and unemployment also force many to depart rural areas(Mulumba et al, 2009). However, rural-urban migration is not entirely a bad thing, especially as migrant workers often remit money back to rural areas, contributing to improved rural livelihoods(UN-DESA, 2011). Nonetheless, many governments in Africa and the developing world, develop unsuccessful policies and programmes to limit rural to urban migration, by considering migration as a problem and not part of the development solution(UN-DESA, 2011, p.111). 1.3.3 PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY CONTEXT The Uganda Vision 2040 and the NDP III acknowledge the linkage between urbanisation and improved social service delivery, and set a target of improved citizen satisfaction. In particular, the National Development Plan covers a total of 18 specialised programmes, two of which focus on governance and public sector transformation(NPA, 2020, p.191-199). These specialised programs seek to improve adherence to the rule of law and public safety/security, and to improve the public sector’s responses to citizens’ needs. These programmes are expected to improve government effectiveness, perception of corruption in public service, democracy ratings, court case performance and public service productivity, leading to increased public satisfaction with public services. The 2020 Uganda SDG gap analysis report acknowledges that while Uganda has registered some progress on key SDG targets, challenges still remain, and require urgent attention if the country is to realise the 2030 agenda.(NPA, 2020a, p.75). Most importantly, Kampala City Council Authority(KCCA) has aligned their strategic development plan to the national development plan. The 2014/2015 – 2018/2019 KCCA Strategic Development Plan sought to“address the need to transform Kampala, rebuild key institutional, infrastructural and social structures that drive the delivery of goods and services, and respond to the challenges of increasing urbanisation influenced by a younger population and an influx of rural-urban migration”(KCCA, 2014). It is hoped that the current 2019/2020 – 2023/2024 development plan will seek to further consolidate the same plans. To avoid measurement error, during final survey preparations we switched the survey focus from “public goods provision” to“public services” since these two terms are used synonymously. We thus excluded public goods as meaning goods that are both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in use, such as street lighting, street signage or national defence,, whose consumption cannot diminish use by others. We instead focused on services rendered in the public interest, such as health, education, road infrastructure or policing, even though their consumption can be excludable or rivalrous. We realised that survey respondents would be most likely to answer questions on“public goods provision” with“delivery of public services” in mind. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 8

1.3.4 VIEWS ON DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF DEMOCRACY Research evidence shows that democracy in Africa, and indeed globally, is in decline(Repucci et al, 2021; IDEA, 2019; Mattes, 2019; Kibirige, 2018), as undemocratic practices that limit civic spaces, rights and freedoms remain prevalent, and global trends in civic action continue to be suppressed. Citizen voices, especially in the lower income bracket, continue to be silenced, even through petitions, elections or referenda. Popular support for democracy in Uganda is on the decline. Data from the 2020 FES Uganda survey indicates that the proportion of respondents from the five sampled districts categorised as “committed democrats” stands at 55% while the proportion of respondents who are satisfied with the way democracy works in Uganda stands at 29%(Figure 1). Further analysis shows that there is a greater preference for democracy among men than women(60% vs 51%) and among urban than rural residents(58% vs 53%). Conversely, data shows that there is more satisfaction with democracy among women than men(28% vs 30%) and among rural than urban residents(38% vs 20%). Figure 1. Views on demand and supply of democracy| FES-Uganda| 2020 A trend analysis of Afrobarometer data shows that demand for democracy has grown from 34% in the year 2000 to 49% in the year 2021, indicating that the demand-side gaps have widened(Figure 2). New trends, especially in Uganda, indicate that the urban citizenry, especially young people affiliated to the political opposition, civil society and the media, have raised concerns over continued infringement on their rights and freedoms of free speech and assembly, and the state’s frustration of citizens’ action. Similarly, Afrobarometer data shows that satisfaction with the way democracy works in Uganda has dropped from 42% in the year 2000 to 36% in the year 2021, indicating that the supply-side gaps have also widened. 9 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Figure 2. Views on demand and supply of democracy| Afrobarometer| Uganda | 2000- 2021 Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 10

Making a living in a rural setting at ugx. 300 per piece of cloth.

2.0 SURVEY FINDINGS This report presents survey findings on the three key study elements; urbanisation, public service and demand for democracy. While comparing urban to rural subsamples, the report first presents respondents’ views and experiences with migration, before considering their reported satisfaction with public services. Views and experiences on engagement in the(democratic) governance process, especially regarding different measures of participation and satisfaction, are then considered, to best understand the relative merits of preferred avenues to address service delivery gaps. 2.1 SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS AND LIVELIHOODS Results indicate that the decision to migrate is not simple, and its complexity varies with demographics and livelihoods. In particular the cost of migration, both in material and non-material forms, presents a challenge to many, and affects different demographics differently. 2.1.1 SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS By design, the survey interviewed an equal number of respondents by gender, as well as by urban vs rural residence, with the rural sample equally stratified across the four rural districts(Annex 1). Figure 3(below) shows that the age profile was evenly spread, with nearly one-third of the sample(30%) aged 18 – 24 years, one-quarter(23%) aged 25 – 30 years and another quarter(25%) aged 31 – 44 years, with 22% aged 45 years or older. Urban respondents are 2.2 times more likely to have attained secondary school or above than their rural counterparts. Data further shows that respondents in the urban areas are 1.5 times more likely to be aged 18 – 30 years compared to rural areas, A little under one-half of the sample (44%) are married, with proportionally more married respondents in the rural sample(67%) than in the urban sample(45%). Figure 3. Age and education attainment by location Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 12

Slightly over one third of the entire sample(36%) are educated up to primary school, while nearly onehalf(40%) have up to a secondary level of education. A little under 10% have no formal education at all, and 15% have post-secondary school qualifications, including university. The data further shows that women and rural respondents have less education attainment than their male and urban counterparts. While two thirds of the rural sample(66%) have attained primary school or lower education, three quarters of the urban sample(76%) have attained secondary school or above, with 23% in the urban (compared to 3% in rural) reporting post-secondary qualifications. 2.1.2 SURVIVAL STATUS AND LIVELIHOODS One-third of the sample(34%) are involved in agriculture 1 and 16% in trading 2 , while 15% are described as skilled or unskilled3 labourers. Only 13% of the sample hold office/professional jobs, while 6% have never had a job and 17 percent are either students or housewives. Figure 4(below) shows that the dominant occupation in rural areas is agriculture(65% compared to 23% in urban areas), while in urban areas trading(24% compared to 9% in rural areas), skilled/unskilled labour (24% compared to 7% in rural areas) and office/professional employment(19% compared to 6% in rural areas) are the dominant services. The data further shows that a little over one-third of the sample(35%) reside in households with average monthly income of up to UGX 100,000, while 40% live in households whose monthly average income ranges between UGX 100,000 and UGX 500,000. A little over 10% earn above UGX 500,000 while 15% don’t know the average monthly income of their household, perhaps because they are not in charge. Data further shows that incomes are much lower for women and in rural areas. Finally, while 59% of the sample in rural areas(compared to 12% in the urban) reside in households that earn an average monthly income of up to UGX 100,000, a little over two-thirds of the urban sample (65%) reside in households whose average monthly income is UGX 100,000 or more. Figure 4. Incomes and dominant economic activity by location 1  Involvement in agriculture involves growing crops, rearing animals, fishing and forestry; 2  Trading includes retail/wholesale trade, hawking and vending; 3  Skilled/unskilled labourers includes manual workers(e.g. cleaner, labourer, domestic help, unskilled manufacturing worker) and artisans or skilled manual workers(e.g. trades like electrician, mechanic, machinist or skilled manufacturing worker) 13 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Data also shows that women lag behind men in knowing the average monthly income of their household (61% who“don’t know” compared to 39% for men) probably because they are not in charge of the family income(Figure 5). Figure 5. Gender differences in reporting household incomes Because of the systematically random selection of individual homes into the sample, female and male respondents should have reported about the same level of monthly family income. However, data shows that more women report monthly average income of UGX100,000 or below(53% compared to 47% men) and fewer women report monthly average income of UGX100,000 or above(44% compared to 56% for men), perhaps because they are not in charge or they are not told. 2.2 LIKELIHOOD OF MIGRATION, CAUSES AND EXPERIENCES The decision to migrate is certainly not easy for everyone, and is certainly more difficult for the vulnerable in society. When financial costs are considered, women, the elderly and those living in rural areas are most certainly more challenged in their decisions to migrate than their counterparts. The survey analysis considered selected demographic and contextual push-factors driving decisions to migrate both at the individual, household and community level as presented below. 2.2.1 ANCESTRY, FAMILY TIES AND MIGRATION Analysis first considers respondents’ ties to ancestry as related to migration, exploring the strength of attachment to one’s home in the rural or urban areas, especially for those that have migrated. Data show that 44% of the entire sample were born in a district different from where they were interviewed, with eight in 10(79%) of those who were born“outside of the district where the interview took place” residing in urban areas, and 21% in rural areas(Figure 6). Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 14

Figure 6. Rural to urban migration experiences Data further shows that up to 41% of those that were interviewed in a district where they were not born had moved in the last 1 to 5 years, and a further 42% had moved in the last 5 to 20 years, and that only 15% had moved more than 20 years ago. Nearly one-third of those who ever migrated(32%) say their family had no role in their decision to migrate, while nearly one-half(46%) report that their family had a“somewhat” or“very” important role in their decision to migrate. A majority 73% of the entire sample consider their rural home to be more of their“home”, compared to 21% who consider their home in the urban area, with 5% considering both the home in rural and in urban areas as their“home”. When asked to indicate reasons for selecting which places they consider home, nearly two-thirds of all respondents(61%) indicated“birthplace or childhood” connections. A further 1 in 5 respondents(18%) indicated“networks” with family and friends. Other responses included economic reasons(8%), good living conditions(6%) or networks with other residents(5%). 2.2.2 REASONS FOR MIGRATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS Data also shows that one-third of the entire sample(34%) have migrated to Kampala, with nearly one half of those who migrated to Kampala(46%) now feeling closer to Kampala than the rural home district (Figure 7), 26% feel closer to their home district than Kampala, and 11% feel that they belong to both places equally. Figure 7. Experience of rural to urban migration When asked about the reasons for deciding to migrate, economic reasons accounted for more than one-half(53%) of all reasons mentioned by respondents who ever migrated, making economic considerations such as finding work opportunities, poverty or jobs the biggest reason for migration(Figure 8). 15 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Figure 8. Reasons for migration In addition, one in 5 of all responses(20%) report migrating in search of better social services, including better education and health services, while a further 19% of all responses indicate people have migrated in order to accompany family members or a spouse. Only a small number of the responses(2%) indicate political or security reasons such as seeking more free environments, such as personal freedoms, human rights, freedom from violent conflicts and insecurity. One would wonder why migration in search of better education opportunities features very lowly as a reason for deciding to migrate. Our understanding is that migrating to Kampala in search of better education(or health) services requires a concrete socialsupport plan since most students are also dependants, and could find education and upkeep in urban areas prohibitively expensive. Among urban and rural respondents interviewed in districts where they were not born, 68% of those in the urban and 73% in rural mentioned economic factors as the most important reason they migrated. Other reasons included better services(11% in urban, 12% in rural), accompanying family(4% in urban, 3% in rural) and political reasons(4% in urban, 2% in rural). Results indicate that nearly one-third of all respondents(29%) consider migrating again, with one in 5 of survey respondents(20%) considering migrating again to an urban area, and only 9% indicating they will migrate to a rural area. Considering intention to migrate again among those who ever migrated, one-quarter(26%) of those in urban(compared to 13% of those in rural areas) say they plan to migrate to an urban area, while 4% of the rural sample(compared to 13% of urban) say they will migrate to a rural area. Data also shows that the reasons for migrating again are similar for the reasons for which they migrated in the first place, but are also more pronounced for the rural than urban, Data shows that respondents in urban areas are more open to migrating again, although this could also be referring to urban to urban migration. When disaggregated by gender(Figure 9), results indicate that more men(59%) than women(48%) mention economic reasons for migration, and for seeking social services(23% and 17% women) but more women(27%) than men(9%) report accompanying family or spouse as a reason for migration. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 16

Figure 9. Most important reason for migrating by gender 2.2.3 EXTENT OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS The survey asked respondents in the rural subsample to indicate if they know of any family member who migrated permanently to live and work in Kampala or outside Uganda, and to indicate the number of family members that ever migrated. Results indicate that nearly one in 5(19%) of all rural respondents know of a family member who migrated to live and work in Kampala, 5% know of a family member who migrated outside of Uganda and a further 5% know of a family member who migrated to another district within Uganda. There appears to be no difference in the number of men compared to women who know of family members that migrated to Kampala or elsewhere. However, a greater number of rural residents with primary education or lower (56%) appear to know of a family member who migrated compared to those with secondary school education or more(44%). With respect to age, rural respondents aged 45 years or more appear to know more family members that migrated to Kampala(40%), compared to their young counterparts(i.e. 28% for age range 18 – 24; 23% for age range 31 – 44 years and 9% for 25 – 30 years). This trend is similar for rural respondents who know of someone who migrated to another district within Uganda. However, knowledge of a family member who migrated outside of Uganda appears most common among the younger respondents(i.e. 33% among those aged 18 – 24 years; 16% for 25 – 30 years, 27% for 31 – 44 years and 23% for those aged 45 years or older). The survey also asked about the number of family members that have ever migrated. Data shows that nearly one-half of the number of family members who migrated(42%) reported a single family member, one-quarter(26%) mentioned knowledge of two family members who migrated, a further 14% mentioned 3 family members while 18% mentioned 4 or more family members that migrated. 17 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

2.2.4 THOSE WHO ARE MOST LIKELY TO MIGRATE To build a good understanding of the likelihood to migrate, the analysis identified a number of demographic and household risk factors4 for migration, including family size and socio-economic measures of vulnerability. While a family being large was considered a risk factor, the vulnerability index considered being young, of male gender, having education higher than primary school and earning irregular income as risk factors5 that further increase the likelihood to migrate. Data show that slightly more than one-half of all households in the sample(51%) are larger than the mean of three(3) household members6. Data further show that households in urban areas are 2.2 times more likely to have a mean household size of 3 or less members than in rural areas, with 7 in ten households in urban areas(69%) having 3 or less members, compared to 31% in rural areas. This analysis shows that rural households are larger and thus more likely to have a member migrate. Based on the family size and socio-economic vulnerability, the analysis developed an index of the likelihood for a household family member to migrate. Figure 10. Likelihood for migration at household level Data shows that 40% of all households in the sample are are likely to have a family member consider migrating(Figure 10), with households in rural areas being 2.1 times more likely to have a family member migrate compared to those in urban areas. Based on this assessment, more than one-half of households in rural areas(54%, compared to 26% in urban areas) were rated as being likely to have a family member consider migrating. Similarly, more than one-half(53%) of households where male respondents were interviewed(compared to 44% of households with female respondents) were rated more likely to have a family member consider migrating. This gender difference was due to the fact that male respondents were more critical of service delivery and economic push factors for migration and often emphasised the need to migrate more than female respondents. 4  By risk factors we intend to denote such push-factors that, acting at the individual, household or community level, would make it more likely for a household member to consider migrating. It is not intended to imply that migration, indeed any form of migration, is“bad” or“risky”. 5  Risk factors included(1) family size larger than the sample-mean of 3 members,(2) aged 30 years and below,(3) being male,(4) attaining education above primary level,(5) earning irregular income,(6) engagement in part-time employment or unemployed. 6  The 2020 Uganda National Household Survey(UNHS) reported a national mean household size of 4.6 persons, but the 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health survey(DHS) reported a national mean household size of 4.5 persons, with mean household sizes of 3.9 in urban and 4.8 in rural areas. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 18

Living in the city: An urban alleyway.

3.0 SOCIAL SERVICE DELIVERY GAPS AND MIGRATION The preceding section shows that better public service delivery is the second most considered reason for deciding to migrate after economic considerations. To contextualise respondents’ views more clearly, the analysis looks first at the type, presence and quality of public service infrastructure available at the village level, in both urban and rural areas. Respondent views on service delivery satisfaction gaps are then compared to the level of available infrastructure, to gain context. However, we note that respondent views on the cost of migration, including monetary and non-monetary costs such as family or material opportunity costs, were not enumerated in the survey. In each sampled village, the survey asked interviewers to make a physical inspection of the available public service infrastructure, facilities and services. Field teams observed the condition of the road surface leading up to sampled villages, as well as observing the presence of telephone, health, education, and financial services infrastructure in the sampled village. The analysis therefore compares the reported social services infrastructure between urban and rural areas. 3.1 INFRASTRUCTURE, FACILITIES AND SERVICES IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS In examining urban vs rural differences in public services infrastructure’s availability, facilities and services, it is also important to note the gender and age differences in how the survey’s respondents report access to and frequency of use of these services, facilities or infrastructure. 3.1.1 PRESENCE OF PUBLIC SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE Data collectors observed the presence of five types of public services infrastructure, including the national electricity grid by the Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited(UETCL), the national piped water grid from the National Water and Sewerage Corporation(NWSC), national sewerage system from the National Water and Sewerage Corporation(NWSC), mobile phone service networks from either public or private service providers, and the presence of a publicly accessible borehole. Figure 11 shows a summary of the observations made by interviewers at the village level(Figure 11). Figure 11. Observed public service infrastructure at village level Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 20

3.1.1.1 PRESENCE NATIONAL ELECTRICITY GRID Data shows the national electricity grid(UETCL), being described as“present” if it was publicly available to most households in a given village, was present(or seen by interviewers) in 70% of the 170 villages randomly selected for the survey. However, while all of the villages in the Kampala subsample have access to the national electricity grid, only 41% of villages in the rural subsample had access. Other research, such as the Afrobarometer 2019 survey, shows that rural communities in Uganda mostly depend on non-renewable energy sources such as wood, liquefied petroleum gas, bio gas, charcoal or paraffin for lighting and heating, while a few use solar energy, electricity generators, power banks and batteries for lighting or cooking. During 1997 the Ugandan electricity sector was liberalised, to allow public-private and private players to enter a market that hitherto was solely served by the Uganda Electricity Board(UEB). The Electricity Act 1999 disbanded UEB and created specialised entities under the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development(MEMD) to generate, transmit, distribute and regulate the electricity sector in Uganda7. The World Bank’s 2019 estimates indicate that the proportion of Ugandans with access to electricity reached 41% from 7.3% in the year 2000, with 71% of the urban population(and 32% of rural population) reported to have access in 20198. Recent USAID estimates on the status of the Electricity Connections Policy(ECP) in Uganda shows that about 24% of Ugandans are connected to the national electricity grid9, while the Ugandan Electricity Regulatory Authority(ERA) reports that domestic connections have grown from 734,353 in 2015/2016 to 1,527,269 in 2019/2020.10 The government plans to increase the proportion of Ugandans with access to electricity from 24% in 2019 to 60% by 2040, and to increase the use of clean, reusable energy sources from 15% in 2019 to 50%(ibid). While the Rural Electrification Agency(REA) has increased the reach of the power grid into rural areas, this new proximity of the population to power lines, coupled with the high cost of domestic connection and user tariffs, has resulted in high energy losses through power theft and non-payment. An April 2021 report indicated that during the first quarter of 2021 UMEME- the official distributor of nearly 90% of electricity in Uganda- lost 18% of all the electricity procured from UETCL(amounting to some 97.7 billion Uganda Shillings) due to power theft11. The majority of these losses are reported in poorer urban areas. 7  The Electricity Act 1999 created the Uganda Electricity Generation Company Ltd(UEGCL), Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Ltd(UETCL), and Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Ltd(UEDCL), as well as the Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA), and the Rural Electrification Agency(REA). 8  Access to electricity(% of population) – Uganda, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS?locations=UG 9  Uganda Electricity Accelerator, aimed at fast-tracking and scaling access to electricity. https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/TA-to-REA-study.pdf 10  ERA report on customer growth between 2015 and 2020. https://www.era.go.ug/index.php/stats/distribution-statistics/customergrowth 11  Umeme loses billions to power theft. https://www.umeme.co.ug/stories/1205 21 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

3.1.1.2 PRESENCE OF NATIONAL PIPED WATER SUPPLY AND BOREHOLE INFRASTRUCTURE In total a little over half of all sampled villages(56%) had access to public piped water infrastructure that most households could connect to(Figure 12). This rate is starkly different from urban to rural though- 95% of villages in the Kampala subsample have access to piped water, compared to only 4% of villages in the rural subsample. In addition, data shows that 40% of all villages had access to a borehole, with 20% of villages in urban and 61% of villages in rural areas having access to a borehole for a protected water supply. Figure 12. Presence of public services infrastructure at village by location A recent 2020 report from the Ministry of Water and Environment(MWE) shows that 68% of Ugandans in rural areas(down from 69% in 2018) and 70% in urban areas(down from 79% in 2018), have access to a protected water source.12 The reduction in access is attributed to the recent creation of new urban centres, as well as technical maintenance works and a high urban population growth rate, among other factors. 3.1.1.3 PRESENCE OF NATIONAL SEWERAGE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE The proportion of villages that have access to a public sewerage system is even lower, with only 21% of all villages in the sample having access to a public sewerage system- 41% in the urban sample and 1% of those in the rural sample. In some instances it was not easy for our interviewer teams to visually identify a public sewerage system in the village, so they depended on consultation with community members. A 2015 Auditor General’s report on the management of sewage in urban areas indicated that about 6.7% of the Ugandan population is served by the National Sewerage System, with less than 7.5% of the Kampala city population being served(OAG, 2015, p. 2& 16). A more recent 2018/2019 NWSC annual report shows that national sewerage coverage has reached 16 of the 253 targeted towns, and that in the 16 connected towns, 21.5% of the targeted population has been reached(NWSC, 2019, p.83). 12  Ministry of Water and Environment sector performance report for 2020, https://www.mwe.go.ug/library/sector-performancereport-2020, Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 22

While most houses in both urban and rural areas construct their own sewerage management systems,such as domestic septic tanks or ventilated and improved pit(VIP) latrines, only a few have access to the modern sewer connection of the National Water and Sewerage Corporation(NWSC) grid, because of absence of the infrastructure, cost and ignorance. 3.1.1.4 PRESENCE OF MOBILE CELL-PHONE SERVICE NETWORK Survey interview teams reported that they could access mobile phone services in nearly all of the villages sampled(92%). While there was cell phone service in 98% of all of the villages in the Kampala sample, cell phone service was only available in 89% of the rural sample. Figure 13 summarises the availability of access to communications infrastructure and media use from a recent 2019 Afrobarometer Round 8 survey in Uganda. Figure 13. Access to communications infrastructure in 2019 Afrobarometer data in Figure 13 shows that nearly 9 in 10 households(87%) have access to a mobile phone, with access being higher among men than women(96% vs 85%), among urban than rural(96% vs 85%) and that only about one-quarter of all respondents(26%) have access to a cell-phone that can connect to the internet. Further still, reported access also includes via phones that“belong to someone else in the home”, or phones that are currently not operational. This uneven state of affairs applies to the rest of the communications infrastructure. 23 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

3.1.1.5 AGGREGATED PRESENCE OF SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE AT VILLAGE LEVEL When presence of these five service infrastructures is aggregated into the services infrastructure index13, data shows that 69% of villages had access to 1, 2 or 3 services, where access to 3 services is the mean. Data further shows that 87% of villages in the urban Kampala sample(compared to 14% of villages in rural sample) had access to 1, 2 or 3 of the 5 services, indicating that in terms of access to these basic services, the rural villages lagged far behind, and this is thus likely to fuel dissatisfaction and a desire to move to urban areas in search of these services. 3.1.2 PRESENCE OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES Data collectors observed the presence of education, health, security and financial infrastructure irrespective of whether public or private, including presence of schools, health facilities, police, commodity markets, formal courts, paid transport and commercial rental housing infrastructure(Figure 14). Figure 14. Observed public and private facilities at village level To assess the presence of these infrastructure, field teams identified facilities that were located within the village or within a walkable distance. Below is a summary of the findings. 13  The presence of public services infrastructure index is a simple additive index aggregated from data on the five measures of presence of each service infrastructure in the sampled village. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 24

3.1.2.1 POSTAL FACILITIES Data shows that only one in 10 of all sampled villages(10%) had a post office, with 19% of villages in Kampala compared to 1% in rural areas reporting presence of a post office. The low level penetration of postal services could, in part, be blamed on recent advances in digital communications, competition from faster/more efficient private courier companies, and a slow growth in courier services. The use of mobile telephone services, internet and social media, and the lack of growth in business-to-business courier services, has stagnated postal services in Uganda. Despite these setbacks, postal communications remain an important formal mode of communications for individuals and businesses alike, and a postal address is one of the legal requirements when registering a business. Uganda Posta Limited(UPL) currently operates a network of 11 regional head offices, 51 departmental post offices, 255 sub-post offices, over 1623 stamp vendors, and 70,865 installed“private” post boxes. Only a small proportion(less than 5 percent) of UPL mail is delivered to home or office addresses, while the rest of the deliveries are made through private letter boxes located at post offices. 14 3.1.2.2 EDUCATION FACILITIES A majority(89%) of all villages sampled reported having a school within the village or within walking distance, with slightly more schools reported in urban sample(94%) than in rural areas(85%). It should be noted that schools in urban areas are much more numerous, concentrated in a smaller area, and of much higher quality than those in rural areas. The Ministry of Education 2017 Education Abstract reports that Uganda has a total of 20,305 primary schools, with 2,036(59.3%) owned by the government 15 , and the majority(93%, or 18,984) of these are located less than 5km from each other. However there is still room for improvement as many parishes, especially in the newly created districts, do not have any government-owned primary schools. Meanwhile, of the 2,995 secondary schools in Uganda, 1,487 are under the USE Program while 1,508 are non-USE. According to the 2017 Annual School Census(ASC), 55% of all secondary schools are located in rural areas, 26% in peri-urban areas and 19% located in urban. However, as mentioned earlier, the 19% of all secondary schools reported in urban areas are actually located in a much smaller geographical area than the 55% that are spread across the much wider rural areas of the country. This high concentration of schools in a smaller area, closer to better social services, increases the urban attraction for migration. The school census shows that 80% of all secondary schools are located within less than a 1 km radius from a neighbouring secondary school, while only 0.6% were located within a 6 km distance from a neighbouring school. 14  Report on Uganda’s postal finance, Page 7, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/833801468316474754/ pdf/694580ESW0P0850B00PUBLIC00000Uganda.pdf 15  2017 education abstract, page 27, http://www.education.go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Abstract-2017.pdf 25 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

3.1.2.3 POLICE SERVICES A little over one-half of all villages(56%) reported the presence of a police post(or police station in big towns), with 83% of villages in Kampala(compared to 30% in rural areas) reporting the presence of a police post or police station. Similar to schools, it could be stated that police stations and police posts in Kampala are much more numerous, concentrated in a smaller area and offer comparatively better policing services than those in rural areas. This disparity in police presence between urban and rural areas is primarily due to high population density, which is synonymous with public service delivery planning. The 2015 Uganda Police statistical abstract shows that with 112 local government district units at the time, Uganda Police had 27 regional police headquarters organised at the sub-region level, 114 police divisions(equivalent to District Police Headquarters), 339 Police Stations and 1,399 Police Posts. The 2014 Uganda Population and Housing Census reported 79,303 enumeration areas clustered in 56,761 villages in Uganda 16 . This implies that on average, one police installation(both stations and posts combined) serves 32 villages, which leaves many villages, and many Ugandans, poorly served. The proportionately higher number of police installations in urban areas is an attraction as more people migrate to towns. 3.1.2.4 HEALTH FACILITIES Survey interview teams reported the presence of a health clinic, private or public, and regardless of size or service level, in 83% of all villages in the sample. While these were reported in almost all surveyed villages in Kampala(94%), in rural areas the proportion reported drops to 74%. Just like with schools, police and other services, health clinics in Kampala are much more numerous, concentrated in a small area and offer better health services than in rural areas, mainly because of the high population density. The recent 2018 Ministry of Health(MoH) data shows that Uganda has 6,937 health facilities and special clinics distributed across 128 districts, 45%(3,133 facilities) of which are Government owned, 15%(1,008 facilities) are Private and Not For Profit(PNFP), 40%(2,976 facilities) are Private For Profit(PFP) and 0.1%(7 facilities) are community-owned 17 . In addition, Uganda has 2 National Referral Hospitals 18 , 13 Regional Referral Hospitals, 3 Referral Hospitals, 163 General Hospitals, 222 Health Centre IVs, 1,574 Health Centre IIIs, 3,365 Health Centre IIs, 1572 Clinics and 24 Special Clinics run by TASO, the AIDS Information Centre(AIC) and the Children’s AIDS Fund Uganda(CAFU). In principle the National Health Plan allocates each district a health facility at the Hospital level, while each County should have a Health Centre IV and a Health Centre III for each sub-county, but some of the administrative units still lack parts of this planned health infrastructure. 16  2014 Uganda National Population and Housing Census main report, https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/ publications/03_20182014_National_Census_Main_Report.pdf 17  National Health Facilities Master List, 2018. http://library.health.go.ug/download/file/fid/1478 18  These are Mulago and Butabika hospitals Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 26

The 2019/2020 Human Resources for Health audit report indicates that from a total of 87,305 approved staffing positions across 3,602 public health facilities in Uganda, only 64,808 staffing positions(74%) are filled, and 22,497 approved positions(26%) remain vacant(MoH, 2021, p5). Although there is improvement compared to the 56% staffing level reported in the 2010 audit report, the 2020 audit report further indicates that there are urban-rural differences, with urban health facilities far better staffed in positions of care as compared to their rural counterparts(MoH, 2021, p24). To further highlight the urban- rural differences in public health service delivery, the 2019/2020 MoH Annual Health Sector Performance report shows that the ratio of health workers(doctors, nurses and midwives) to population in the public sector stands at 1.92 per 1,000 population(compared to 1.8 in 2012), which is still below the WHO-recommended ratio of 2.28 health workers per 1,000 population. Since public health staffing levels are reported higher in urban areas, it becomes logical that people move to urban areas to better access public health services. 3.1.2.5 MARKET FACILITIES The presence of commodity markets and market stalls were reported in 79% of all of the villages sampled, with almost all of the villages in Kampala(98%) reporting the presence of a commodity market, compared to 61% in rural areas. In addition, interviewers reported the presence of permanent commodity markets(such as built market structures) in 37% of all villages sampled, with these permanent structures reported more in the urban sample(55%) than the rural sample(18%). Rural markets tend to be periodic(e.g. bi-weekly), seasonal and more limited in variety, and are located more distantly from their customers than markets in urban areas. Inadequate access to markets is a major challenge in the agricultural sector, especially as a majority of farmers sell their produce mainly in local markets. The 2008 government review of infrastructure and operational status of markets in Uganda informed the development of the Markets and Agricultural Trade Improvement Project(MATIP), aimed at improving access to quality markets, especially for the low income quartile groups, and improving rural - urban trade in Uganda(AfDB, 2014). Under MATIP, selected markets in Entebbe, Masaka, Mbarara, Kabale, Arua, Moroto, Soroti, Tororo, Kampala, Kasese, Busia, Kitgum and Lugazi were identified for development, and received modern, purpose-built market facilities. The primary beneficiaries constitute the about 20,000 registered vendors across these markets, with over 60% of vendors being women and agro-farmers. However, influence-peddling, corruption and mismanagement remain some of the key challenges that have negatively impacted the performance of the new markets, with many of these multi-million shilling investments still being reported vacant, with traders preferring to trade on the streets and in informal markets rather than in the new improved market facilities. 3.1.2.6 FINANCIAL SERVICES Interviewers also reported the presence of formal banks(not including SACCOS or any other financial service points such as mobile money) in 44% of all villages sampled, with the presence of a bank reported in more urban than rural villages(76% vs 14% in rural). The survey however did not enumerate the presence of other financial institutions such as Microfinance, SACCOS or mobile money points. 27 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

In January of 2016, Parliament passed the Financial Institutions(Amendment) Act, which made provisions for agent banking, expanding financial inclusiveness to more Ugandans, especially low income earners 19 . Recent estimates indicate that as of June 2019, the number of registered Mobile Money agents in Uganda had reached 200,857, from 119,581 recorded in 2016. In the same period, the number of Bank Agents grew from 126 in 2016 to 9,370, although these mobile money and bank agents are mostly located in urban areas. 20 Our understanding is that despite inherent challenges related to exploitation and theft, the proliferation in mobile money and agent banking, alongside the boda-boda industry, represents one of the main attractions of city centres and towns for small capital investments, which contributes to rural-urban migration. 3.1.2.7 LOCAL TRANSPORT Interviewers also reported the presence of paid transport in 86% of all villages sampled, with 95% in urban and 77% in rural areas reporting a presence. While this can mainly be attributed to the rise of motor-cycle taxis, commonly known as boda-bodas , these are most common in the urban than in rural areas. Despite the reported relatively high penetration of paid transport in rural areas(77% compared to 95% in towns), paid transport pays quicker dividends in urban than in rural areas. Although current estimates of the number of boda-bodas deployed in paid transport is not readily available, a recent FES-Uganda commission study on Kampala’s transport sector showed that by 2008 more than onehalf of all vehicles registered in Uganda(including 236,452 motorcycles), were operated in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area,(FES-Uganda, 2020, p.3). Estimates further indicate that in the same year, the number of motorcycle registration grew by 34% per annum, and a significant part of that growth is in 21 urban centres. 3.1.2.8 FORMAL LOW-COST HOUSING Similarly, interviewers reported the presence of formal, low-cost rental housing for commercial purposes in 73% of villages sampled, with almost all villages in Kampala(94) reporting its presence, compared to 53% in the rural sample. We note that urban centres often expand informally from small trading centres that become magnetic, attracting small investors, often around trading and services provision, then mushrooming into bigger towns and commercial centres. One major catalyst to this growth is the presence of formal rental housing that supports settlement. 19  Agent Banking is aimed at bringing formal bank services closer to the people more easily and conveniently through mobile banking https://agentbanking.co.ug/who-we-a 20  Mobile money and bank agents in Uganda, 2016 – 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1187408/number-of-mobile-moneyagents-and-bank-agents-in-uganda/ 21  A report Towards Recovery And Reform: Mitigating The Impact Of Covid-19 On The Public Transport Sector In The Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Uganda Office Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 28

3.1.2.8 FORMAL COURTS OF LAW The presence of formal courts of law stood at 13% of all villages sampled, but these are located more in the urban sample(22%) than in the rural sample(3%). The 2018 Auditor General’s report shows that 59% of the staffing positions in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions(ODPP) are vacant, and that only 28% of all positions in the Uganda Human Rights Commission(UHRC) are filled( ISER, 2019, p.6) . Like is the experience in other sectors, Uganda’s justice sector has over the years suffered from high staffing gaps, further constraining access to justice, especially through case backlog. The 2019 – 2020 Justice, Law and Order Sector(JLOS) report shows that of the 73,508 approved staffing positions, only 47,615(64.8%) are filled and 35.2% remain vacant. The judiciary alone is facing a staffing gap of 53.4%, with 1,801(46.6%) filled positions out of the 3,863 approved positions(JLOS, 2020). In addition, the 2016/17 – 2019/20 judiciary strategic plan planned for a total of 876 judicial officers, of which 395 were filled at the time, and 481 were vacant(Judiciary, 2016, p. 9–10) Despite a 35% staffing gap(JLOS, 2019, p.33), access to judicial services is much higher and easier in urban areas since formal courts are predominantly located in cities, towns or trading centres. Table 1a. Current Human Resource Status Indicating Staffing Gaps JUSTICES& JUDGES REGISTRARS MAGISTRATES RESEARCHERS SUB TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TOTAL APPROVED FILLED 80 89 598 109 876 3,860 4,736 69 46 280 0 395 1,386 1,781 VACANT 11 43 318 109 481 2,474 2,955 Source: Judiciary Strategic plan 2016 – 2020. 29 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

3.1.2.9 AGGREGATED PRESENCE OF SERVICES In summary, when the presence of these ten services is aggregated into a presence of facilities index 22 , the data shows that 43% of all villages had a presence of between six to ten facilities, with the presence of 6 services being the mean. Data further shows that 87% of villages in the urban Kampala sample(compared to 23% of villages in the rural sample) had a presence of between 6 to 10 facilities, indicating that in terms of access to these facilities, the rural villages lagged behind, which was likely to fuel dissatisfaction and a desire by citizens to seek these services in urban areas. 3.1.3 PRESENCE OF BUILT ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE Interviewers were instructed to observe the quality of the road surface for the most part of their journey leading up to and within the sampled village. Interviewers observed if the road surface at the start point in the village or in the last 5 km distance leading to the sampled village was unprotected bare earth/murram, or if it was protected with an all-weather surface like gravel, concrete or tar. They also observed if the condition of the road in the last 5 km distance to the sampled village was impassable, poor, fairly good or very good. Data shows that in only 11% of all villages sampled was the road at the start of the sampled village described as protected, with 18% reported for Kampala and 5% reported for rural subsample. The proportion of protected road surface for Kampala in the sample looks surprisingly low, but perhaps the fact that we excluded high-income parts of the city and concentrated the sample in the low- and medium-income areas could have meant that we went to places with bad roads. Data also shows that in 44% of the villages sampled, the road surface for the last 5 km before reaching the sampled village was protected, with 80% reported for the Kampala sample and 9% reported for the rural sample. In addition, enumerators also reported that in 62% of all sampled villages, the road condition 5 km before reaching the sampled village was fairly good or very good, with 80% reported in the Kampala sample and 45% reported in the rural sample. When the reported condition of the road surface is aggregated according to these three measures(Figure 15), data shows that 41% of villages had road surface conditions that could be described as“fairly good” or “very good”, with 73% reported in the Kampala sample compared to 9% in the rural sample. Figure 15. Quality of road surface by location 22  The presence of facilities index is a simple additive index aggregated from data on the five measures of presence of each service infrastructure in the sampled village. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 30

3.2 VIEWS ON BASIS FOR SERVICE DELIVERY DEMANDS The survey asked respondents to indicate if, in general and regardless of where they reside, they consider themselves belonging more to the urban or to the rural area. Data in Figure 16 shows that 39% of all respondents feel belonging to the urban, 49% to the rural with 7% feeling they belong to both urban and rural area. Data further shows that 65% of those who feel they belong to urban were interviewed in the urban sample, while 80% of those who feel a belonging to the rural were in the rural sample. As a follow-up question on whether they identify with urban or rural areas, respondents were asked a direct question;“how often, if ever, are urban or rural areas neglected by the central government?” Data shows that nearly one-half of all respondents(45%) feel that the central government often or always neglects urban or rural areas. This sentiment is strongest in the rural(51%) than in urban(38%) areas. Figure 16. Feeling close to home and views on reasons for demanding government services Respondents were also asked to indicate why they feel that the government should provide them with services. A 55% majority(55% in urban, 54% in rural) feel that government should provide them with services because they are Ugandan citizens, while 21% mention that they pay taxes(23% in urban, 20% in rural) and 14% say because it is their constitutional right(17% in urban, 11% in rural). An 82% majority feel that providing services is the main responsibility of the government to all its citizens regardless of other factors, although a small number(8%) feel government should provide services in the respondent’s own community. When asked to compare the provision of services in urban and rural areas, 70% of all respondents rate provision of services in urban areas better than in rural areas(Figure 17), with just 11% feeling that service provision is better in rural areas and a further 14% feeling it is about equal. Respondents in the rural sample(78%) were more likely than those in the urban sample(63%) to feel that service provision is better in urban than in rural areas. Results are very similar when respondents are asked to rate the delivery of specific services, including health, education, water and sanitation, security or transport by government in both rural and urban areas. 31 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Figure 17. Rating of public service delivery by location The survey asked respondents a direct question;“overall, do you think government services have improved?” in reference to general improvements in the status of public service delivery in the area. Results indicate that a 58% majority of all respondents(60% in urban, 55% in rural) feel that government services have not improved, with only about 40% feeling that government services have improved. A little over one in 10 of all respondents(14%) feel that government services have improved due to quality leadership(8% in urban, 20% in rural), while 7% feel that any improvement is due to pressure from CSOs(7% in urban, 7% in rural), 9% feel improvement is due to improved government support(7% urban, 11% rural) and 10% feel improvement is due to citizen activism(14% urban, 6% rural). There appear to be no gender differences in the reasons for improvement in the provision of government services. Lastly, the survey asked respondents who had migrated to urban Kampala if migrating had changed their expectation of public service delivery. Results indicate that a majority(79%) of those who migrated to Kampala expect more and better public services. There appears to be no gender difference in this expectation, with 78% of women expecting more, better services after migrating to Kampala, compared to 80% of men. Similarly, the survey asked respondents in the rural area to indicate if, in the event that they migrated to Kampala, their expectation of public service delivery would change or not. Data shows that twothirds of the rural sample(65%) would expect more, better services if they ever migrated to Kampala, a view that both male(66%) and female(65%) respondents in the rural sample shared equally. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 32

Citizens’ engagement: Local leaders at Nakawa market discussing urban transport issues.

4.0 SERVICE DELIVERY AND CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS The foregoing section points to a disparity in the provision of public services between urban and rural areas, and as expected, describes a strong expectation that public service delivery is better in urban than in rural areas. This differential expectation, coupled with the observed individual, family and community level push-factors for migration, fuel the rural to urban migration trend that we have so far observed in this analysis. We also understand from this same analysis that residents in urban areas are generally dissatisfied with public service delivery, yet better service delivery is the second ranked reason in decisions to migrate. The analysis thus now shifts to how citizens, both in urban and in rural areas, engage(formally or informally) in the(democratic) governance process, and the relationship between that engagement and service delivery satisfaction. It is thus important to understand citizens’ views, attitudes and preferences with respect to engagement and participation in the process, and to establish how this could be improved in ways that can strengthen service delivery and satisfaction with public services. 4.1 ELECTED LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE DELIVERY EXPECTATIONS Do citizens feel that changes in local government leadership are necessary to improve service delivery? How about changes in the central government leadership? 23 Data shows that respondents are divided on this issue. Nearly one-half(49%) of all respondents(41% in urban, 58% in rural) feel that changing leaders at the local government level can lead to changes in how citizens access government services. Four in 10 respondents(41%), with 46% in urban and 36% in rural, disagree with this narrative. With regards to a change of government at the national level, 43% of all respondents(39% in urban, 47% in rural) agree that changing the national government can improve how citizens access public services, but a slight (47%) majority(48% in urban, 47% in rural) disagree with this narrative(Figure 18). 23  Changes in local government leadership refers to changing elected leaders at the village, parish, sub-county and district levels; while changing leaders at national levels refers to changing leaders at a parliamentary or presidential level. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 34

Figure 18. Views on determinants of service delivery at national and local government level However, a 65% majority of all respondents(64% in urban, 66% in rural) feel that access to public services in Uganda depends on who is in power, while about one-third(30%) of all respondents(29% in urban, 31% in rural) feel it is not“necessarily the case”. In addition, considering how public services are provided in the community, one-half(49%) of all respondents(52% in urban, 46% in rural) feel that, some community members could be excluded from access based on their ethnicity or political affiliation (61% overall, 61% in urban, 61% in rural). Public opinion appears to suggest that this exclusion occurs at a community, household and individual level, where access to government interventions can be withheld or delayed. A little over one-third(37%) of all respondents(38% in urban, 36% in rural) feel that the ethnicity of the political leadership determines the distribution of public services in districts. However, one-half(51%) of all respondents(52% in urban and 50% in rural) feel that ethnicity of the political leadership determines the distribution of public services in the entire country. Nearly one-half(49%) of all respondents(55% in urban and 42% in rural) feel that communities that do not vote for the ruling party suffer negative consequences. It would be interesting through further research to understand whether these views are based on personal experiences, popular media narratives or a true reflection of how indeed national politics works in Uganda. This would therefore imply that citizens would very much want to carefully consider who occupies positions of power and leadership, and would thus be eager to engage, make contact, and participate in the governance process. 35 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

4.1.1 ENGAGEMENT IN GOVERNANCE PROCESSES Engagement is assessed through a number of ways, including how often citizens contact elected leaders, and the kind of issues over which they make contact. Engagement is also assessed through associational membership, especially as many citizens are unable to act on their own, but find it easier to participate in group action. 4.1.1.1 ASSOCIATIONAL MEMBERSHIP IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS Respondents were asked to indicate if they are active(or inactive) members of any of a range of associations, ranging from religious communities and self-help investment groups to trade/labor unions, political groupings or social-media discussion and networking groups. Membership to a total of eight such groups 24 was assessed for all respondents, both in urban and rural areas. Figure 19. ssociational membership by gender and location Results indicate that nearly one-half of all respondents(47%) are not actively engaged members in any form of association, with the majority belonging to one(26%) or two(13%) associations while a further 14% belong to three or more associations. Data further shows that respondents in urban areas(55%, compared to 38% in rural areas) are not involved in any association, while only 19%(compared to 35% in the rural areas) are involved in 2 or more associations(Table 1). Data also shows that overall, more women(50% compared to 43% men) are not affiliated to any group, with less women being involved in 2 or more associations(23% compared to 31% for men). Our understanding is that social-cultural norms, as well as economic disparity, negatively affect women’s participation. 24  Membership groups included:(1) A religious group that meets outside of regular worship services,(2) Neighbourhood group for residents,(3) Voluntary grouping of co-ethnics,(4) Investment club or SACCO,(5) Political grouping,(6) Trade Union,(7) Social media group like WhatsApp, Facebook etc,(9) Political social media group like WhatsApp, Facebook etc Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 36

Table 1. Number of groups associated with by gender, urban and rural residence URBAN URBAN- RURAL RESIDENCE RURAL TOTAL Not affiliated 62% 39% 50% Female Member in one group Member in 2 or more groups 24% 14% 29% 32% 27% 23% Male Not affiliated Member in one group Member in 2 or more groups 48% 29% 23% 37% 24% 39% 43% 26% 31% Total Not affiliated Member in one group Member in 2 or more groups Total 55% 26% 19% 100% 38% 27% 35% 100% 47% 26% 27% 100% 4.1.1.2 ISSUES OF CONCERN TO MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS The survey asked respondents with membership in group associations a direct question;“What would you say are the three main issues for which your group/association advocates?” A combined analysis of the three main issues mentioned by respondents indicates that improved services, such as health, education and water/sanitation, is the most dominant issue(20%) that group associations try to address(Table 2). Improved service provision is most frequently mentioned by women(22%, compared to 18% for men) and by rural residents(24% compared to 13% for urban residents). Other issues mentioned include addressing working environments(14%), infrastructure improvements including roads and transportation(8%) and more political freedom and inclusiveness(8%). 37 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Table 2. Issues membership associations are most concerned with OVERALL URBAN RURAL FEMALE MALE Some other issue(e.g. networking, enterprising) Improved services(health, education, water) Better working environments Infrastructure improvement(roads, transport) More political freedom/inclusion Safety and security Housing, construction guidelines Don’t know Total 41% 20% 14% 8% 8% 5% 3% 1% 100% 54% 13% 15% 4% 7% 5% 1% 1% 100% 33% 24% 14% 11% 9% 5% 4% 0% 100% 42% 22% 13% 8% 6% 4% 4% 1% 100% 40% 18% 15% 8% 10% 6% 3% 0% 100% A majority 41% of all respondents(54% in urban, 33% in rural) mentioned a host of other issues that the group associations are also concerned with(Table 3 and Figure 20). Data in Table 3 show that the four topranked additional issues mentioned included encouraging savings(mentioned 161 times), social support which concerns with addressing community hardships(mentioned 150 times), financial support which concerns with financial literacy(mentioned 112 times), as well as development, which concerned with personal and community development(mentioned 88 times). Figure 20 shows a visual representation of these mentions with the more frequently mentioned words being shown in larger font. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 38

Table 3. Other issues group associations are concerned with. NO. OTHER ISSUES 1 Savings 2 Social Support 3 Financial Support 4 Development 5 Social Life 6 Religious Fellowship 7 Loans 8 Networking 9 Togetherness 10 Charity 11 Evangelism 12 Agricultural Support 13 Empowerment 14 Employment 15 Fighting Poverty 16 Friendship 17 Human Rights 18 Business 19 Counselling NUMBER OF MENTIONS NO. OTHER ISSUES 161 20 Awareness 150 21 Discipline 112 22 Livelihoods 88 23 Politics 72 24 Education 43 25 Health Support 36 26 Markets 25 27 Talent Growth 23 28 Fame 18 29 Leadership 18 30 Learning 12 31 Peace 13 32 Security 9 33 Communication 9 34 Fighting Drug Abuse 9 35 Food Security 9 36 Reduced Crime 7 37 Sports 6 38 Work Conditions NUMBER OF MENTIONS 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 39 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Figure 20. Mentions of other issues group associations are concerned with 4.1.1.3 CONTACTING ELECTED LEADERS IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS Citizen contact with a range of elected leaders was assessed, including the frequency of contacting Members of Parliament, elected district officials(chairperson, councillors), and elected leaders at subcounty, parish and village levels. Contacting political party representatives, civil society and official representatives of government agencies was also assessed. The survey asked respondents a direct question;“When dissatisfied with the provision of a public service, whom would you contact first?” Data shows that contacting leaders that serve in higher leadership positions is low(Figure 21). Examples included contacting Members of Parliament(10%), contacting LC V Chairperson and District Councillor(15%) and RDC(6%). However, contacting leaders that serve at the sub-county level or below is higher. For instance, contacting the LCIII Chairperson stands at 38%, and contacting the LC I Chairperson/village elder at 27%. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 40

Figure 21. Leaders contact first when dissatisfied with public services by gender and residence When disaggregated by urban and rural residence, this data further suggests that residents in urban areas make more contact with their leaders than in rural areas, except with regards to contacting the LC I Chairperson. Data in Figure 21 shows that in the urban sample contact is higher with RDCs(7% vs 5% in rural), LC V Chairpeople or district councillors(17% v 13% in rural), Members of Parliament (12% v 6% in rural areas) and LC III Chairpeople(47% vs 29% in rural). However contact with LC I Chairpeople is higher in rural areas(43% compared to 12% in urban) perhaps because rural villages are more homogenous, with closer community/family relations, and dealings with the local LC I Chairperson are less monetised. When disaggregated by gender, this data further suggests that women make the most contact with lowerlevel local government leaders than men, with 41% reporting contact with their LC III Chairperson(36% men) and 28% contacting their LC I Chairperson(26% for men). Men appear to make the most contact with their leaders at the district and parliamentary level, with 8%(compared to 5% for women) reporting contact with the RDC, 16%(compared to 14% of women) making contact with the LCV Chairperson/ district councillors and 10%(compared to 9% for women) contacting Members of Parliament. When contact with all the seventeen enumerated leaders 25 is aggregated, data shows that about 13% of all respondents did not contact any of the mentioned leaders over the past year, while nearly one-half (45%) have often or always contacted 1 to 4 leaders, and 42% have contacted more than 4 leaders in the past year. 25  The 17 leaders rated in the survey include:(1) RDC,(2) LC V Chairperson,(3) Area MP,(4) District woman MP,(5) District Councillor, (6) Member of District Council,(7) LC III Chairperson,(8) official of government agency,(9) LC I Chairperson/Village Elder,(10) Political party official,(11) NGO,(12) Member of traditional leadership,(13) Trade Union,(14) voluntary organisation,(15) Religious leader,(16) others affected by the problem,(17) Social media group where you have influence 41 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Data also shows that respondents in urban areas more frequently contact 1 to 4 leaders(50% compared to 41% in rural) but those in rural areas more frequently contact 4 or more leaders(49% compared to 35% in urban). Like rural respondents, data shows that women mostly contact 1 to 4 leaders(52% compared to 39% for men) while men mostly contact 4 or more leaders(51% compared to 32% women). The low level of contact with leaders seen in urban areas is to an extent synonymous with urban life, in that despite their families and households being geographically close together, most people live independent of others and only interact with their family, friends or workmates. The fact that often none or little action is taken when problems are reported to leaders also discourages others from taking similar action. That said, public offices in urban areas are also often overcrowded by people waiting to see public officials, which also discourages others from joining those waiting in long queues. 4.1.1.4 ATTITUDES TOWARDS POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Readiness to take part in politics was assessed by asking respondents to indicate how much they agreed(or disagreed) with a range of attitudinal statements about politics, group action, trust, and associational membership. A total of eight attitudinal statements were tested. Data suggests that respondents have very low and negative attitudes towards their engagement in politics, perhaps due to“low” or“non-responsive” government officials. For instance, a majority 72% of all respondents(73% of those in urban, 71% of those in rural) feel that“politics is too complicated for a person like me to understand what is really going on”, with 77% of women and 68% of men harbouring this sentiment. Data in Table 4 further shows that nearly 8 in 10 respondents(78%) with 81% in urban, 74% in rural, feel that“politicians don’t really care much about what ordinary people think”. Table 4. Views on governance and leadership efficacy by location type OVERALL URBAN RURAL FEMALE MALE To protect my rights, I have to organize with others 83% I have to organize with others to achieve what I want 81% Politicians don’t care much about what people like me think 78% Generally, politics seems so complicated 72% Affiliating to a ruling party improves access to services 63% I do not trust leaders to represent my interests 57% In my area, politicians assist citizens to access services 45% I trust leaders to make the right decisions 44% 81% 82% 81% 73% 58% 60% 43% 39% 85% 80% 74% 71% 69% 54% 48% 49% 82% 82% 77% 77% 63% 55% 46% 47% 83% 80% 79% 68% 63% 59% 45% 41% Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 42

Data in Table 4 also shows that rural populations trust leaders more, see more benefits in affiliating with the ruling party, and generally rate better(71% compared to 73%) in positive sentiment towards politics. When data is aggregated across all of the eight attitudinal questions, results indicate that the respondents’ own attitudes about their role in politics is low or poor. Slightly over two-thirds(68%) of all respondents are rated below the mean(the mean being feeling positive about 6 of the 8 attitudinal questions), and only about one-third(32%) are rated above the mean score. Looked at across urban and rural, respondents in urban(34% compared to 31% for rural) feel more positive about the attitudinal measures, but women(31% compared to men’s 34%) lag behind. Survey respondents were asked a direct question:“Looking at political participation in urban and rural areas, where do you think citizens have more political space to participate?” The results(Figure 22) indicate that most(45%) of the respondents(46% in urban, 44% in rural) feel that urban areas enjoy more political space than rural areas. About one-third(30%) of all respondents(23% in urban, 37% in rural) feel that urban and rural areas have about the same level of political space. The irony is that urban residents, who are believed to have more open civic spaces, are also the least engaged, perhaps because of recent arrests of political activists in urban areas. Figure 22. Views on civic spaces by location 4.1.1.5 VIEWS ON CITIZEN ACTION The survey measured the frequency of citizen actions in respect of specific dissatisfactions with service delivery. Actions taken were measured in a total of eight scenarios, including joining with others in the community to demand government action, contacting the media or CSOs, or contacting government officials to lodge a complaint. Other forms of citizen action listed in the survey included protest(such as refusal to pay a tax), demonstration, filing a petition, or refusing to vote for the government. 43 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Data shows that few citizens are interested in taking action in situations where they are dissatisfied with government services. For instance, seven in 10 respondents(70%) say they would never join with others in their community to demand government action, with more of these respondents residing in urban areas(80%) than in rural areas(59%). Only about one-third(30% overall, 20% in urban, 41% in rural) report that they have once or twice, several times or often joined with others in their community to raise an issue. Data shows that as low as 12% of all respondents(11% in urban, 13% in rural) report having previously contacted the media, such as calling a radio station or writing a letter to a newspaper, to raise an issue. When responses to all the eight different forms of citizen action are aggregated, data shows that nearly one half of all respondents(47% of all, 56% in urban and 38% in rural) have never taken part in any citizen action(Figure 23). Those that have done so have taken part in only one(26% overall, 24% in urban, 28% in rural) or taken part in two or more citizen actions(27% overall, 20% in urban, 34% in rural). When disaggregated by gender, data shows that 55% of all female respondents(compared with 39% of all male respondents) have never taken part in any citizen action. However, data shows that there are no gender differences between those who have taken part in one citizen action(26% men, 26% women), but more men(35%) than women(19%) have taken part in two or more citizen actions. Perhaps as a consequence of the recent government crack-down on all kinds of public demonstrations and protests, especially in urban centres, rural residents are twice as likely as urban residents to engage in citizen action. In terms of gender, men are twice more likely than women to engage in public protest. Figure 23. Experiences with citizen action by location The political developments of the past decade have seen the government taking steps to limit civic space and to silence citizen voices and actions, by enacting legislations, such as the Public Order Management Act(POMA) and the NGO Act(2016), that allowed the police greater discretion over citizen actions. These developments may have further driven citizens, especially in urban areas, to desist from taking action. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 44

4.1.1.6 CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH PUBLIC SERVICES The foregoing sections show the stack difference between urban and rural populations in Uganda, and highlight the urban pull factors that drive rural-urban migration. In particular, rural residents are dissatisfied with service delivery and mainly associate the migration to urban areas with improved public services, jobs and better livelihoods. Upon migrating to the urban, this survey has also shown that urban communities are less engaged in the governance process, contact their leaders less, score low on associational membership, and still show frustrations with service delivery. Table 5a shows that nearly one-half of all survey respondents(49%, 71% in rural and 28% in urban) rate government service provision in urban areas as“good” or“excellent”. Table 5b, on the other hand, shows that only 12% of survey respondents rate government service provision in rural areas as“good” or“excellent”, with 9% in urban and 15% in rural holding that view. Table 5a. Rating of government service provision in urban areas by location type and gender OVERALL URBAN Good, excellent 49% Average 33% Poor, 14% very poor Don’t know 4% 28% 49% 21% 2% Total 100% 100% RURAL 71% 15% 8% 6% 100% FEMALE MALE 49% 33% 14% 4% 100% 49% 32% 16% 3% 100% 45 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

Table 5b. Rating of government service provision in rural areas by location type and gender Good, excellent Average Poor, very poor Don’t know OVERALL 12% 21% 64% 3% URBAN 9% 23% 63% 5% RURAL 15% 19% 65% 1% FEMALE 12% 21% 63% 4% MALE 11% 21% 65% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% The data also shows that there is no gender difference in the view that government service provision in rural areas lags behind service provision in urban areas. To further understand public opinion on public service provision, the survey asked respondents a direct question:“If the government decided to make you pay taxes or user fees in order to increase spending on public health care, education and public transportation benefitting you, would you support this decision or oppose it?” Table 5c shows that the majority(67%) of the entire sample(62% in urban, 74% in rural) would oppose or strongly oppose the proposal. Data also shows that more women than men(70% vs 66% men) would oppose the proposal. Table 5c. Support for taxes and user-fees for improved health, education and transportation services by location type and gender Support, strongly Oppose, strongly Don’t know OVERALL URBAN 23% 26% 67% 62% 10% 12% RURAL 19% 74% 7% FEMALE MALE 21% 24% 70% 66% 9% 10% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 46

Urban inequality around Mulago, Kampala.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We look closely at the lessons learned from the survey, as well as the implications for policy and programming interventions in Uganda. 5.1 WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED While comparing urban to rural subsamples, the survey shows marked differences in both experiences and expectations of urbanisation, public service delivery and engagement in the governance process. We have learned that in Uganda, rural to urban migration is mostly a function of economic and public service delivery considerations, and that the decision to migrate is dependent on individual, household or community level factors. The survey shows that the push factors for rural-urban migration in Uganda include lack of economic opportunities(such as paid jobs, strong markets and equitable access to financial services), poor public services infrastructure and low quality of public services. The survey revealed that Kampala does not only have more schools, better health facilities, more police installations, better market places and better road surfaces, but these are concentrated in a much smaller geographical area, and thus are more accessible. Not only are health, education and communications services reported to be of better quality in urban areas, but the service is more reliable and there appears to be a window of economic opportunity open for everyone. Indeed the survey revealed that the expectation for better quality of public services greatly increases upon migration to urban areas, and that this is true for both men and women. Despite the expectation(mostly in the rural sample) that urban residents enjoy more political space, the survey also revealed that urban residents are far less engaged in governance affairs than their rural counterparts, and are equally dissatisfied with public services delivery, including the delivery of economic and political goods. Urban residents and women(including in rural areas) lag behind on measures of citizen voice and accountability, including contacting local officials, joining with others, and expression of views. 5.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PROGRAMMING INTERVENTIONS The study also revealed that nearly one half of the sample(44%) have ever migrated, 42% migrated in the last 5–20 years, and one in 5(20%) are considering migrating to an urban area in the next five years, with Kampala(35% of those intending to migrate) the likely destination. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 48

To help local governments to better deal with the challenges presented by rural-urban migration, this study proposes four policy and programming interventions. The rationale of the proposed interventions is to slow down the rate of rural-urban migration while giving urban local governments ample time to adopt programmes to address the challenges of the already high numbers of migrants. The report proposes to adopt policies and programmes that: Promote more inclusive non-farm rural economies, particularly targeting the youth and women in rural and urban areas, in sustainable and practical skills development and paid employment. Synergies should be built alongside government programmes such as TVET, BTVET, Skilling Uganda, and the recently launched parish development model, amongst others. Deliberate efforts should be made to support local government councils and planning committees in addressing the pull and push factors for migration in Uganda. Adopt policies, laws, and ordinances to make informal sector employment and opportunities more equitable to the vulnerable and low-income earners, especially the youth and women. The existing legal and policy framework 26 regulating informal sector employment should be appropriately reviewed especially to amplify the voices and aspirations of the most vulnerable women, youth and persons with disabilities. Deliberate efforts should be made to support associations, networks and individual players in informal sector employment to gain capacity for meaningful participation, Augment government service delivery efforts through the strengthening of public-private partnerships, and accountable and participatory governance. Support partnerships to encourage citizen-led advocacy and participation in design, implementation and evaluation of public service delivery and infrastructure development, particularly to spur local ownership and satisfaction. Greatly improve on promotion and safeguards for civic spaces, human rights and freedoms, to spur citizen engagement in accountable governance processes both in urban and rural areas. 26  Some of the legal and policy instruments referred to include the Markets Act of 1942, KCCA Markets Ordinance 2018, KCCA Regulation of Street Trade Ordinance 2019; as well as KCCA’s policy on“Kampala Sunday Open Market”, the KCCA“Online Market App” and GoU’s project interventions like the 2009 Markets and Agricultural Trade Improvement Project(MATIP). 49 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

A woman using a machine to weave a mattress in a factory at Namanve Industrial Park Commuting as a way of urban life: Preacher in the train from Namanve, Wakiso district.

REFERENCES Kode D., Vlamings, L., 2017: Addressing Civic Space Restrictions in Uganda: What Role for the Universal Periodic Review? CIVICUS, London, UK and the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative(FHRI), Kampala Uganda.{Available] h t t p: //w w w.civic us.o r g/ images/Add ressing_Civic_ Space_ Res t r ic tio ns_ in_Ug a n da_ Polic y B r ie f_ Feb2017r f. pd f [Accessed] 27 June 2021. Kuetgen, J., Dodsworth, S., 2020: Addressing the global emergency of shrinking civic space and how to reclaim it: a programming guide. Westminster Foundation for Democracy(WFD).[Available] https://www.wfd.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/01/Civic-space-v1-1.pdf[Accessed] 27 June 2021. OHCHR, 1966: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Geneva, Switzerland.[Available] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf [Accessed] 21 June 2021. Yern F. L., Martijn K., 2021: Reducing poverty and inequality in rural areas: key to inclusive development. Policy Brief No. 106. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York City.[Available] https://digitallibrary. un.org/record/3926772/files/PB_106.pdf[Accessed] 16 July 2021]. UN DESA, 2021. Reconsidering rural development. World social report 2021. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York City.[Available] https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/ uploads/sites/22/2021/05/World-Social-Report-2021_web_FINAL.pdf[Accessed] 16 July 2021. KCCA, 2014. Strategic plan 2014/15 – 2018/19. Laying the foundation for Kampala city transformation. Kampala Capital City Authority(KCCA). Kampala Uganda.[Available] https://www.kcca.go.ug/uDocs/KCCA-STRATEGICPLAN-2014-19.pdf[Accessed] 20 June 2021. OAG, 2015: Management of Sewage in Urban Areas by National Water and Sewerage Corporation. Value for money audit report. Office of the Auditor General(OAG). Kampala, Uganda.[Available] http://www.oag.go.ug/wp-content/ uploads/2016/07/Sewerage-managment-in-urban-areas-by-NWSC.final-print.pdf[Accessed][14 July 2021]. NWSC, 2020: National Water and Sewerage Corporation Integrated Annual Report 2018/19. National Water and Sewerage Corporation, NWSC, Kampala – Uganda.[Available] https://drive.google.com/drive/ folders/1WkpZvOCgCsU7Pf0QERDABfwloyfmTJf7[Accessed] 15 July 2021. UN, 2015: Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. The United Nations, New York, USA. Available] https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20 Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf[Accessed] 15 June 2021. AU, 2015: Africa Agenda 2063. Framework Document. The Africa we want. African Union Commission. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ISBN:978-92-95104-83-5.[Available] https://www.nepad.org/file-download/download/public/116333 [Accessed] 15 June 2021. NPA, 2020: Third National Development Plan(NDP III) 2020/21 – 2024/25. National Planning Authority(NPA). Kampala – Uganda.[Available] http://www.npa.go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NDPIII-Finale_Compressed.pdf [Accessed 15 June 2021]. NPA, 2013: Uganda Vision 2040. National Planning Authority(NPA). Kampala – Uganda.[Available] http://www.npa. go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/VISION-2040.pdf[Accessed 15 June 2021]. NPA, 2020a: Uganda SDG Gap Analysis for Selected Policies and Institutions. National Planning Authority(NPA), with support from UNDP. Kampala – Uganda.[Available] https://www.ug.undp.org/content/uganda/en/home/library/ uganda-sdg-gap-analysis-for-selected-policies-and-institutions-.html[Accessed] 15 June 2021. Repucci, S., Slipowitz, A. 2021: Democracy under Siege. Freedom in the World 2021. Freedom House. Washington D.C.[Available]. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/FIW2021_World_02252021_FINAL-webupload.pdf[Accessed] 20 July 2021. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 52

IDEA, 2019: The Global State of Democracy 2019 Addressing the Ills, Reviving the Promise International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance(International IDEA), Stockholm, Sweden.[Available] https://www.idea.int/ sites/default/files/publications/the-global-state-of-democracy-2019.pdf [20 July 2021]. Mattes, R. 2019: Democracy in Africa: Demand, supply, and the‘dissatisfied democrat’. Afrobarometer Policy Paper No. 54.[Available] https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/Policy%20papers/ab_r7_ policypaperno54_africans_views_of_democracy1.pdf[20 July 2021]. Kibirige, F., 2018: Slowly growing or stunted? How delivery of electoral, political, and economic goods impacts support for democracy in Uganda. Afrobarometer Policy Paper No. 44,[Available] https://afrobarometer.org/sites/ default/files/publications/Documents%20de%20politiques/ab_r7_policypaperno44_democratic_satisfaction_gap_ in_uganda_0.pdf[Accessed] 20 July 2021. UN-HABITAT, 2012: STATE OF THE WORLD’S CITIES 2012/2013. Prosperity of Cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme(UN-HABITAT), Nairobi – Kenya.[Available] https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/745habitat.pdf[Accessed] 20 July 2021. Perruchoud, R. Redpath-Cross, J. 2011: Glossary on Migration. International Migration Law. 2nd Edition, No 25 International Organization for Migration(IOM), Geneva, Switzerland.[Available] https://publications.iom.int/system/ files/pdf/iml25_1.pdf [20 June 2021]. UN DESA, 2012. Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and Development: An International Perspective. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs(UN DESA). New York City.[Available] https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/ Jan/un_2011_distribution urbanisation.pdf[Accessed] 16 July 2021. Mulumba, D., Olema, W. 2009: Policy Analysis Report: Mapping Migration in Uganda. ACP-EU Cooperation Programme in Higher Education EDULINK.[Available] http://ir.must.ac.ug/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/454/Deborah. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y[Accessed] 15 June 2020. Anderson, M., Johansson, I. 2013: Rural-urban migration in southwestern rural Uganda: The perceptions and strategies of the left-behind. Department of Economy and Society, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.[Available] https://gupea. ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/34268/1/gupea_2077_34268_1.pdf[Accessed] 20 July 2021] UPF, 2015: Uganda Police Statistical Abstract, 2015. Uganda Police Headquarters, Naguru – Kampala.[Available]. h t t ps: //w w w.u pf.go.ug /d ow nload/2015- u pf- s ta ti s tical-a bs t r ac t-f inal/?in d= 0& f ilena m e=2015%20U P F%20 ABSTRACT%20Final.pdf&wpdmdl=3589&refresh=60f2a32f7b9081626514223[Accessed] 15 July 2021. MOH, 2021: Human Resources for Health Audit Report 2019/2020. Uganda Ministry of Health(MoH), Kampala-Uganda. [Available] https://www.health.go.ug/cause/human-resources-for-health-audit-report-2019-2020/[Accessed] 16 July 2021] AfDB, 2014: The Environmental and Social Management Plan. Summary Document. Markets and Agricultural Trade Improvement Project(MATIP-2).[Available] https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/ Environmental-and-Social-Assessments/Uganda-_Markets_and_Agricultural_Trade_Improvement_Project__ MATIP-2__-_ESMP_Summary.pdf[Accessed] 20 July 2021. ISER, 2019: Meaningful Access to Justice for Economic and Social Rights.. The Initiative for Social and Economic Rights. Kampala – Uganda.[Available] https://www.iser-uganda.org/images/downloads/meaningful_access_to_ justice_for_ESRs.pdf[Accessed] 15 July 2021. JLOS, 2019: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2018/19. Justice Law and Order Sector(JLOS). Kampala–Uganda. [Available] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y7chvPyKJukgB1Azrw4ysIjLqaVOo1EX/view[Accessed] 15 July 2019. JLOS, 2020: ANNUAL REPORT 2019/20. Justice Law and Order Sector(JLOS). Kampala–Uganda.[Available] https:// drive.google.com/file/d/1O0fCm-VVrFtk0FT5guvkgPU1ZObMQiKu/view[Accessed] 15 October 2021. Judiciary, 2016: 2016/2017 – 2019/20 strategic plan. The Judiciary Headquarters, Kampala–Uganda.[Available] https://judiciary.go.ug/files/downloads/The%20Judiciary%20-%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf[Accessed] 15 October 2021. 53 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

ANNEX 1: DETAILED SURVEY METHODOLOGY The survey adopted the same design as was employed for the 2019 FES surveys in Kenya, and as was replicated in similar FES surveys in Tanzania and other countries. The survey worked with a random, stratified, clustered sample of adult Ugandans residing in low- or medium-income areas from the capital city of Kampala and four rural districts in Uganda. The purpose of the survey was to map and analyse differences between urban and rural areas in Uganda with regards to expectations and experiences of public service delivery and demand for democracy. By excluding high-income areas from the sample, it is hoped that the survey targeted Ugandans with the highest possibility of ever migrating to Kampala, or having migrated to Kampala. SAMPLE SIZE AND SAMPLE STRATIFICATION SAMPLE SIZE The study adopted a clustered, stratified probability sample design, with urban and rural subsamples clustered according to income levels. Similar to the Kenyan survey, the sample size was given as 2,000 interviews with Ugandan citizens aged 18 years or older, with 1,000 interviews conducted in the urban (Kampala) subsample and 1,000 conducted in the rural subsample. SELECTION OF DISTRICT CLUSTERS The Kenyan sample worked with three counties; one urban(Nairobi) and two rural counties(Tharaka Nithi and Migori). To cater for potential political party support in assessing satisfaction with democracy, the two rural counties were also selected such that one tended to vote for the opposition, and the other tending to vote for the ruling party. The closest match to a Kenyan county would be a Ugandan district, since both county and district are the respective first-order sub-national administrative levels for local government. But since a Kenyan county is roughly about the(numerical population size of) three Ugandan districts 27 , the rural subsample in Uganda focused on four districts, two of these opposition-leaning and the other two leaning towards the ruling party(See Figure 20). Given the small geographical size of districts in Uganda, selecting two districts would also amount to interviewing two ethnic tribes, and the survey would boil down to a comparison of these two tribes. But by selecting four rural districts from four different subregions, we increased variation somewhat in the sample. To determine which four rural districts to include in the sample, we considered the subregion(i.e. we selected one district each from North, East, West and Central Uganda) and political party performance in the last two general elections of 2016 and 2011. 27  The 2010 Kenyan Constitution devolved executive and legislative powers of government to County government level, creating a total of 47 Counties, with an estimated population of 54,000 in 2020(http://kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=3979). Uganda, on the other hand, has to date 146 district local governments for an estimated population of 46,000,000 in 2020. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 54

We used results from the 2016 and 2011 general elections to identify districts in which either the ruling party or opposition political parties consistently won a majority in the presidential and parliamentary seat elections. The districts of Bushenyi in Western Uganda, and Kamuli in Eastern Uganda were selected as ruling party strongholds, while the districts of Masaka and Gulu were selected as opposition political party strongholds(Figure 20). SELECTING INCOME CLUSTERS The absence of a clear income level demarcation of villages or parishes complicated the process of identifying low- and medium-income areas in both the rural and urban subsamples. Two strategies were adopted to estimate the low- and medium-income areas. In the urban sample, the sample worked with population census frames from UBOS, and compared these boundaries with Google Earth images to identify areas within the city that were more developed than others. Working with census frames and census cartographers, and basing on local knowledge of Kampala’s suburbs, the sample was able to exclude high-income areas, and narrowed down to low- and mediumincome areas across the five divisions of the city. Overlaying Google Earth images onto Kampala Division shape files was sufficient to identify low- and medium-income villages nested within larger administrative Parishes that are known to be high-income neighbourhoods. A good example is the delineation of six low- and medium-income villages from 15 villages that make up Bukasa Parish, Makindye Division, which encloses Muyenga hill, a known high-income area(See Figure 21). SELECTING RURAL CLUSTERS Like the urban sample, the rural sample targeted low- and medium-income areas, and attempted to exclude all upcountry towns, trading centres and“well-to-do” households or neighbourhoods. In practice, the sample excluded all administrative parishes within 13 km of the district headquarters (Figure 23). The purpose was to create a buffer zone between the urban district headquarters and the rural villages, to avoid interviewing citizens who could have already migrated to an urban part of the district, or those in the high-income bracket. In some cases, the 13km radius buffer from the district headquarters extended almost to the district periphery. In those cases, the buffer was adjusted to 8 – 18 km radius, and included all administrative parishes that shared a border with the district municipality. However, the elevation of Masaka and Gulu Municipality to city status happened at a time when the survey areas had already been finalised. This potentially meant that areas outside of the Gulu buffer could have fallen under the category of‘new district urban’ as the new borders often included several rural administrative parishes. While COVID-19 made it impossible to return to UBOS to have the sample in Masaka and Gulu re-drawn 28 , we were encouraged by the fact that the new city status could not have had such an immediate impact on the local population. 28  UBOS had at the time, like many government offices, scaled down on staff that physically reported to work, as a few of their staff had been diagnosed with COVID-19. 55 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

We concluded that we could safely interview respondents from the Gulu and Masaka rural samples as they did not yet“feel they belong to urban”. ALLOCATION OF SAMPLE BY CLUSTER In addition to working with urban and rural district clusters, the Kenyan sample also worked with clusters of 12 interviews per enumeration area selected into the sample. Working this way, the n=1,000 rural subsample was clustered into 83.3(i.e.= 1000/12) Primary Sampling Units(PSUs). To improve comparability across the rural sample, we decided against an allocation based on probability proportional to population size(PPPS), but instead went for equal allocation across the four rural districts. Table 20 below summarises this allocation. Table 6. Allocation of the sample across urban and rural subsamples REGION SUBREGION SELECTED DISTRICT 2019 PROJECTED TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL URBAN RURAL PPS ADJUSTED ALLOCATION ALLOCATION SAMPLE CENTRAL BUGANDA MASAKA 5,783,400 36 21 252 EAST BUSOGA KAMULI 3,577,000 23 21 252 NORTH ACHOLI/ Lango GULU WEST ANKOLE/ Kigezi BUSHENYi 1,415,400 9 21 252 2,464,100 16 21 252 KAMPALA KAMPALA 1,650,800 1,650,800 83 86 1,032 Total sample 1,650,800 1,650,800 13,239,900 167 170 2,040 Allocating the rural sample was done in two steps. In the first a total n=1000 interviews were clustered into 83.3(i.e.=1000/12) Primary Sampling Units(PSUs). A small adjustment was necessary for the Kampala sample. In the Kenyan sample we understood that about 70% of the urban sample was conducted in the low-income bracket, and this approach was adopted into the Uganda sample. Table 21 shows that 72% of the urban sample was conducted in low- and medium-income areas, while 28% was conducted in medium income areas. Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 56

Table 7. Breakdown of Kampala sample by income-level INCOME LEVEL ALLOCATED PSU% OF URBAN LOW 32 37.2% MIDDLE-LOW 30 34.9% UPPER 24 27.9% Urban sample 86 100.0% We also realised that many“internal migrants” who wish to migrate and settle or work in Kampala city inadvertently migrate to suburbs peripheral to Kampala city, outside of its formal boundaries. In general, since the technical borders of Kampala district are obscure, many residents in the suburbs of Zana along Entebbe Road, Kyengera along Masaka road, Kireka along Jinja road, or Nansana along Hoima road regard themselves as residents of Kampala district, and not the districts of Wakiso or Mukono. Instead of focusing on the technical borders of Kampala city, we therefore extended the urban sample to include all administrative parishes that share a meaningful borderline with Kampala city. The urban sample thus covered parts of the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Areas(GKMA) as shown in Figure 22. The urban sampling frame was thus arranged by administrative Division and by income level(in Table 21) in order to complete the PPPS selection of individual enumerator areas into the sample. The sample was then systematically selected following probability proportionate to population size, both in rural and urban areas, as per the allocation. Table 22 summarises the 170 enumeration areas which comprised the sample. 57 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

ANNEX 2: LIST OF SELECTED EAS IN SAMPLE REGION DISTRICT CONSTITUENCY SUB-COUNTY LOCATION EA NUMBER West West West West West West West West West West West West West West West West West West West West West Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Bushenyi Igara County West Igara County West Igara County East Igara County East Igara County East Igara County West Igara County East Igara County East Igara County West Igara County West Igara County West Igara County East Igara County East Igara County East Igara County West Igara County West Igara County West Igara County West Igara County West Igara County East Igara County East Bitooma Bitooma Bumbaire Ibaare Ibaare Kakanju Kyabugimbi Kyabugimbi Kyamuhunga Kyamuhunga Kyamuhunga Kyeizooba Kyeizooba Kyeizooba Nyabubare Nyabubare Nyabubare Nyabubare Nyabubare Ruhumuro Ruhumuro Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural 402201020203 402201060203 402202030713 402203010701 402203030303 402204040107 402205010304 402205050504 402206040711 402206071008 402206080603 402207010910 402207041307 402207080412 402208011315 402208020802 402208041711 402208051613 402208060710 402209010906 402209040304 Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 66

REGION DISTRICT CONSTITUENCY SUB-COUNTY LOCATION EA NUMBER North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu North Gulu Kampala Kampala Aswa County Awach Aswa County Awach Aswa County Awach Aswa County Awach Aswa County Bungatira Aswa County Bungatira Aswa County Paicho Aswa County Paicho Aswa County Paicho Aswa County Paicho Aswa County Paicho Aswa County Paicho Aswa County Palaro Aswa County Palaro Aswa County Palaro Aswa County Patiko Aswa County Patiko Aswa County Patiko Aswa County Patiko Aswa County Unyama Aswa County Unyama Kampala Central Division Central Division Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Urban 304101010605 304101020307 304101030205 304101040203 304102020203 304102070203 304103010408 304103020405 304103020206 304103030103 304103030207 304103040202 304104010309 304104020212 304104030306 304105010205 304105020202 304105020410 304105030210 304106010107 304106020102 102101040311 67 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

REGION DISTRICT CONSTITUENCY SUB-COUNTY LOCATION EA NUMBER Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Central Division Central Division Urban Kampala Central Division Central Division Urban Kampala Central Division Central Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division South Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division South Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division North Kawempe Division Urban Kawempe Division South Kawempe Division Urban Makindye Division East Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division West Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division East Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division East Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division East Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division West Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division East Makindye Division Urban 102101050544 102101090112 102101141113 102102010426 102102020514 102102050415 102102050183 102102070217 102102080248 102102080515 102102100420 102102100183 102102120210 102102150214 102102170618 102104010345 102104020423 102104030516 102104040615 102104050919 102104060805 102104080113 Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 68

REGION DISTRICT CONSTITUENCY SUB-COUNTY LOCATION EA NUMBER Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Makindye Division East Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division West Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division East Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division West Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division West Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division West Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division West Makindye Division Urban Makindye Division East Makindye Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Nakawa Division Nakawa Division Urban Rubaga Division South Rubaga Division Urban Rubaga Division South Rubaga Division Urban 102104081462 102104100202 102104111343 102104120826 102104130131 102104140117 102104160130 102104200639 102105010134 102105020407 102105030839 102105050501 102105080104 102105100116 102105111603 102105130523 102105140624 102105150273 102105180313 102105211917 102103010609 102103020216 69 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

REGION DISTRICT CONSTITUENCY SUB-COUNTY LOCATION EA NUMBER Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala Kampala East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli East Kamuli Rubaga Division North Rubaga Division Rubaga Division South Rubaga Division Rubaga Division North Rubaga Division Rubaga Division North Rubaga Division Rubaga Division South Rubaga Division Rubaga Division South Rubaga Division Rubaga Division North Rubaga Division Rubaga Division North Rubaga Division Rubaga Division South Rubaga Division Rubaga Division South Rubaga Division Bugabula County North Balawoli Bugabula County North Balawoli Buzaaya County Bugulumbya Buzaaya County Bugulumbya Buzaaya County Bugulumbya Bugabula County South Bulopa Bugabula County South Bulopa Bugabula County South Butansi Buzaaya County Kisozi Buzaaya County Kisozi Buzaaya County Kisozi Bugabula County South Kitayunjwa Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Urban Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural 102103030167 102103041256 102103050327 102103060316 102103070948 102103090208 102103101514 102103110642 102103120438 102103130709 205101060304 205101080904 205201011502 205201030415 205201040608 205102010509 205102030304 205103010316 205202050713 205202070402 205202090707 205104060210 Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 70

REGION DISTRICT CONSTITUENCY SUB-COUNTY LOCATION EA NUMBER East East East East East East East East East Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Kamuli Kamuli Kamuli Kamuli Kamuli Kamuli Kamuli Kamuli Kamuli Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Bugabula County North Namasagali Bugabula County North Namasagali Bugabula County South Namwendwa Bugabula County South Namwendwa Bugabula County South Namwendwa Bugabula County South Namwendwa Buzaaya County Nawanyago Buzaaya County Nawanyago Buzaaya County Wankole Bukoto County East Bukakata Bukoto County East Bukakata Bukoto County East Bukakata Bukoto County East Buwunga Bukoto County East Buwunga Bukoto County East Buwunga Bukoto County Central Kabonera Bukoto County Central Kabonera Bukoto County Central Kabonera Bukoto County Central Kyanamukaaka Bukoto County Central Kyanamukaaka Bukoto County Central Kyanamukaaka Bukoto County Central Kyanamukaaka Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural Rural 205106030120 205106031122 205107020104 205107060104 205107090407 205107100609 205204020701 205204031307 205205020514 105101010712 105101011215 105101020405 105102051414 105102050516 105102060703 105103030309 105103050807 105103070111 105104010115 105104010916 105104030511 105104040511 71 GREAT EXPECTATIONS

REGION DISTRICT CONSTITUENCY SUB-COUNTY LOCATION EA NUMBER Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Masaka Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Bukoto County Central Kyanamukaaka Rural Bukoto County Central Kyanamukaaka Rural Bukoto County Central Kyesiiga Rural Bukoto County Central Kyesiiga Rural Bukoto County Central Kyesiiga Rural Bukoto County Central Kyesiiga Rural Bukoto County Central Kyesiiga Rural Bukoto County Central Makindye-Ssabagabo Mun Makindye-Ssabagabo Mun Kira Municipality Kyesiiga Bunamwaya Div Bunamwaya Div Bweyogerere Div Rural Urban Urban Urban Kira Municipality Bweyogerere Div Urban Kira Municipality Bweyogerere Div Urban Kira Municipality Bweyogerere Div Urban Kyadondo County East Kasangati Tc Urban Kyadondo County East Kasangati Tc Urban Kyadondo County East Kasangati Tc Urban Kira Municipality Kira Division Urban Kira Municipality Kira Division Urban Kira Municipality Makindye-Ssabagabo Mun Makindye-Ssabagabo Mun Kira Division Masajja Division Masajja Division Urban Urban Urban 105104041512 105104051113 105105010507 105105010413 105105020610 105105030309 105105030815 105105041104 113501010507 113501020144 113301010481 113301010959 113301050153 113301050641 113406050319 113406060410 113406080526 113302030322 113302030754 113302030754 113502010207 113502020184 Why Ugandans leave their villages and how they settle in Greater Kampala. 72

REGION DISTRICT CONSTITUENCY SUB-COUNTY LOCATION EA NUMBER Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Wakiso Nansana Municipality Nansana Municipality Kira Municipality Kira Municipality Kira Municipality Kira Municipality Kira Municipality Nansana Municipality Nansana Municipality Nansana Municipality Nansana Municipality Makindye-Ssabagabo Mun Makindye-Ssabagabo Mun Busiro County East Busiro County East Busiro County East Nabweru Division Urban Nabweru Division Urban Namugongo Div Urban Namugongo Div Urban Namugongo Div Urban Namugongo Div Urban Namugongo Div Urban Nansana Division Urban Nansana Division Urban Nansana Division Urban Nansana Division Urban Ndejje Division Urban Ndejje Division Urban Wakiso Urban Wakiso Urban Wakiso Urban 113603020167 113603040137 113303010123 113303010353 1133030105121 113303020367 113303020634 113604020124 113604040201 113604050203 113604060117 113503020431 113503030511 113113030280 113113050412 113113060105 73 GREAT EXPECTATIONS