Political decentralization and social welfare of households in Ndaiga sub-county, Kagadi District, Uganda. A cross-sectional study.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64792/6r196a20Keywords:
Political decentralization, household social welfare, community participation, accountability, Kagadi DistrictAbstract
Background:
Political decentralization is designed to enhance household social welfare through improved citizen participation, accountability, and local service delivery. This study assessed he relationship between Political decentralization and the social welfare of households in Ndaiga sub-county, Kagadi District, Uganda.
Method:
The study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey design within an embedded mixed-methods approach. Data were collected from 306 respondents (295 household heads and 11 key informants) using questionnaires, interviews, and documentary review. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS (V24) through descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analysis, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically.
Results:
Findings indicated a generally positive perception of political decentralization (overall mean = 3.57, SD = 1.05). Household social welfare was moderately improved (overall mean = 3.54, SD = 1.05), particularly in access to health services (mean = 3.71, SD = 1.00) and education (mean = 3.68, SD = 1.01), whereas income-generating opportunities remained weak (mean = 3.39, SD = 1.07). Correlation analysis revealed a strong positive and statistically significant relationship between political decentralization and household social welfare (r = 0.671, p < 0.01). Regression results showed that decentralization variables explain 61.0% of the variation in household social welfare (R² = 0.610, Adjusted R² = 0.604), with political decentralization significantly predicting welfare outcomes (β = 0.238, p < 0.001, F = 89.34, p < 0.001).
Conclusion:
Political decentralization has a significant but moderate positive effect on household social welfare in Ndaiga Sub- County. While it has improved access to basic services and community participation, its impact is constrained by weak accountability mechanisms and limited economic opportunities.
Recommendations:
Local governments should strengthen accountability and feedback systems, the central government should increase resource allocation, and community members should enhance participation in governance processes.
References
1. Bashaasha, B., Mangheni, M. N., & Nkonya, E. (2013). Decentralization and rural service
2. Delivery in Uganda: The role of local governments. African Journal of Public Administration and Management, 24(2), 45–60.
3. Christopher, J., Smith, L., & Adebayo, T. (2022). Household welfare and development indicators in rural Africa. Journal of Development Studies, 58(4), 612–629.
4. Faguet, J. P. (2014). Decentralization and governance. World Development, 53, 2–13.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.002
5. Harris, J., & Posner, D. (2022). Decentralization and local governance outcomes in Kenya. African Affairs, 121(485), 310–329.
6. Kagadi District Local Government. (2020). District development report. Kagadi District Local Government.
7. Kagadi District Local Government. (2025). District assessment report. Kagadi District Local Government.
8. Kagadi District Statistical Abstract. (2025/2026). Kagadi District Local Government Statistics Office.
9. Mensah, I., Boateng, K., & Osei, R. (2024). Local governance and service delivery in Ghana: The role of decentralization. Governance and Policy Review, 16(1), 77–95.
10. Ribot, J. C. (2002). Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. World Resources Institute.https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403981288_6
11. Smoke, P. (2015). Rethinking decentralization: Assessing challenges to a popular public sector reform. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 97–112.https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2010
Ht ps://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1703
12. Ssenkumba, J. (2014). Local government performance and decentralization challenges in Uganda. Makerere University Press.
13. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). (2024). Statistical abstract. UBOS.
14. Uganda’s Parish Development Model. (2024). Policy implementation report. Government of Uganda.
15. Village Care Development Foundation. (2021). Water access and health report in rural Uganda. VCDF Publications.
16. White, P., Johnson, M., & Kato, R. (2025). Energy access and rural livelihoods in East Africa. Energy and Development Journal, 9(3), 201–218.a
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Stephen Banakora, Dr. Muhamad Sendagi (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is the most open of the Creative Commons licenses. It allows others to copy, share, remix, adapt, and build upon the material — even for commercial purposes — provided that proper credit is given to the original author(s).
You are free to:
-
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
-
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in a way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
-
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
-
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all the permissions necessary for your intended use. Other rights, such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights, may limit how you use the material.
