Uganda’s eco­no­mic growth rein­forces gen­der ine­qua­li­ties, lea­ving women in pre­ca­rious con­di­ti­ons. How can policy and tra­di­tion evolve to bridge this wealth gap?

Uganda is among the deve­lo­ping count­ries or low-income count­ries in the glo­bal eco­no­mic ran­kings. Cur­rent efforts aim to improve the over­all eco­no­mic con­di­ti­ons by means of libe­ra­liza­tion and pri­va­tiza­tion. These inter­act with tra­di­tio­nal stra­ti­fi­ca­tion pat­terns in such a way that they are likely to con­tri­bute to the con­ti­nua­tion and rein­force­ment of exis­ting social ine­qua­li­ties, espe­ci­ally bet­ween men and women.

Uganda’s eco­no­mic struc­ture is mostly capi­ta­li­stic with a strong ten­dency towards increased libe­ra­liza­tion, pri­va­tiza­tion, and eco­no­mic open­ness. This trend towards a free mar­ket is rein­forced by struc­tu­ral adjus­t­ment pro­grams. These are eco­no­mic policy reforms adopted by eco­no­mic­ally strugg­ling nati­ons under the gui­dance of inter­na­tio­nal eco­no­mic bodies (Mohan 2009). In Uganda, they were imple­men­ted in the late 1980s and early 1990s under the auspi­ces of the Inter­na­tio­nal Mone­tary Fund and World Bank (IMF 2000). They included trade libe­ra­liza­ti­ons with redu­ced tariffs, quo­tas, and trade bar­riers; fis­cal reforms like redu­ced govern­ment expen­dit­ure and increased taxa­tion; invest­ment and pri­va­tiza­tion with more for­eign invest­ments, and pri­vate-public part­ner­ships. Alt­hough its eco­nomy thri­ves mostly on agri­cul­ture and women con­tri­bute appro­xi­m­ately 70% of agri­cul­tu­ral pro­duc­tion, women still suf­fer from an under­pri­vi­le­ged posi­tion in the Ugan­dan society and eco­nomy (ODI 2021). While women’s access to finan­cial ser­vices has impro­ved over the last years, they are more likely to be excluded from finan­cial ser­vices, espe­ci­ally in rural areas where the majo­rity of women live. Hence, it comes as no sur­prise that women more often have to use alter­na­tive means of finan­cing by dra­wing on tem­po­rary and infor­mal sources for exam­ple ope­ra­ting small restau­rants and food points in city out­skirts, working as house helps and ope­ra­ting saloons in slummy areas.

Like any other capi­ta­li­stic state, Uganda’s socioe­co­no­mic and poli­ti­cal con­text exhi­bits seve­ral dimen­si­ons of stra­ti­fi­ca­tion that feed into wealth ine­qua­lity as the lat­ter depends on distinct pre­fe­ren­tial tre­at­ment and posi­tio­na­lity based on dif­fe­ren­ces in gen­der, race, reli­gion, sexua­lity, class, and cul­tu­ral iden­ti­ties. Espe­ci­ally from a gen­der per­spec­tive, wealth dis­pa­rity is one of the key issues cha­rac­te­ri­zing Uganda’s eco­no­mic perspective/terrain (Wodon 2023). This pat­tern indi­ca­tes that deve­lo­p­ment sup­port should include gen­der-sen­si­tive busi­ness deve­lo­p­ment to ensure broad access for women to mar­kets and technology.

To bet­ter sub­stan­tiate this assess­ment, this article aims to inves­ti­gate gen­der-based wealth dis­pa­ri­ties among men and women in Uganda. The inten­tion is to inform key stake­hol­ders like govern­ment struc­tures, com­mu­ni­ties, rese­ar­chers and NGOs, of the often-over­loo­ked gen­de­red rea­li­ties in wealth dis­tri­bu­tion among Ugan­d­ans and how this per­pe­tua­tes dis­pa­ri­ties ther­eby put­ting socio-eco­no­mic and poli­ti­cal well-being into precarity.

Sum­mer School „Wealth Ine­qua­lity Stu­dies in Africa“

This article was writ­ten as part of the Sum­mer School „Wealth Ine­qua­lity Stu­dies in Africa“ at Makre­rere Uni­ver­sity in Kam­pala, Uganda in Sep­tem­ber 2024. It was made pos­si­ble by the joint orga­niza­tion of Resty Naiga (Make­rere Uni­ver­sity), Jakob Kapel­ler (Uni­ver­sity of Duis­burg-Essen) and Howard Stein (Uni­ver­sity of Michi­gan) as well as fun­ding from Volks­wa­gen Stif­tung.

Wealth dis­tri­bu­tion has evol­ved in Uganda from pre-colo­nial, and colo­nial, up to con­tem­po­rary eco­no­mic struc­tures in dif­fe­rent ways. In pre-colo­nial Uganda, men and women had com­ple­men­tary roles with mild ine­qua­li­ties. They co-exis­ted and signi­fi­cantly con­tri­bu­ted to socioe­co­no­mic deve­lo­p­ment through par­ti­ci­pa­tion in trade and agri­cul­ture. Colo­nia­lism came with new sys­tems of eco­no­mic res­truc­tu­ring, gover­nance, and social orga­niza­tion. Colo­nia­lists intro­du­ced a cash crop eco­nomy, for­mal edu­ca­tion, and indus­tria­liza­tion that drew distinct roles and posi­ti­ons for men and women with une­qual pro­s­pects and bene­fits. These chan­ges in a way, dis­sol­ved the com­ple­men­ta­rity that once exis­ted (Boyd 1989; Buck­ley 1995). These com­plex rela­ti­ons of power ine­qua­lity cha­rac­te­ri­zed by a male hegem­ony and sub­ju­ga­tion of women in eco­no­mic resour­ces like land, capi­tal, busi­ness enter­pri­ses and entre­pre­neu­rial oppor­tu­ni­ties, have evol­ved and wor­sened with increased glo­bal chan­ges cha­rac­te­ri­zed by shifts from com­mu­nism to socia­lism and then capi­ta­lism (Black­den and Mor­ris-Hug­hes 1993).

Wealth ine­qua­li­ties distort fami­lial-social, eco­no­mic, and poli­ti­cal arran­ge­ments. The indi­ge­nous values around mar­riage in a family set­ting empha­size love, humi­lity, and com­pa­n­ion­ship. This view includes among others the aspect of equal role-play in family affairs as well as a shared respon­si­bi­lity among spou­ses. Howe­ver, this has not been the case, espe­ci­ally with incre­asing cases of gen­de­red ine­qua­li­ties in family assets and pro­duc­tive resour­ces. These gen­de­red ine­qua­li­ties are rein­forced by patri­li­nea­lity where child­ren only trace their des­cent from their fathers (Lowes 2020), and patri­lo­ca­lity where in situa­tions of mar­riage, it is women sup­po­sed to shift from their fathers’ homes to their hus­bands’ homes (Sen 2019). These have exa­cer­ba­ted the levels of socio-eco­no­mic and poli­ti­cal vul­nerabi­lity and pre­ca­rity. The patri­li­neal des­cent aspect legi­ti­mi­zes sons as heirs who have auto­ma­tic access to, con­trol over, and bene­fit from socie­tal resour­ces like land, housing, etc. Daugh­ters are denied this right on the grounds that they will take the family’s wealth to their hus­bands’ fami­lies once they get mar­ried (Ben­nett et al. 2006). This pat­tern cau­ses a deep gen­der asym­me­try in the Ugan­dan society that is fur­ther rein­forced under con­di­ti­ons of increased mar­ke­tiza­tion, where espe­ci­ally land owner­ship is often a cru­cial asset for house­hold and fami­lies to sus­tain under con­di­ti­ons of increased com­pe­ti­tive pressures.

Con­ver­sely, mar­riage invol­ves men pay­ing the bride wealth as a token of app­re­cia­tion to the girl’s family for the lost love, human resour­ces, and posi­tio­na­lity of their daugh­ter, to the husband’s family. This aspect, howe­ver, has over time been abu­sed and eco­no­mi­zed by patri­archs. Men tend to per­ceive bride price as an exch­ange of sorts and they con­se­quently expose their mar­ried wives to mate­rial tre­at­ment. They are trea­ted as part of their wealth but not as part­ners. This explains why most women get locked in the pri­vate sphere and are hardly allo­wed to access oppor­tu­ni­ties in the public sphere to open up their chan­ces to social wel­fare and eco­no­mic well-being. While the Ugan­dan pri­vate sphere is mostly con­sti­tu­ted by women with full-time respon­si­bi­li­ties, they typi­cally receive little or no eco­no­mic reward in the form of pay (Plan Inter­na­tio­nal 2022). As a con­se­quence, most women ope­rate in pre­ca­rious con­di­ti­ons as they par­ti­ci­pate in three dif­fe­rent roles in society – namely, pro­duc­tive, repro­duc­tive, and com­mu­nity roles –, but yet they con­ti­nue to lan­gu­ish in poverty, depri­va­tion, desti­tu­tion, and resent­ment. These con­di­ti­ons also imply that women’s eco­no­mic acti­vi­ties are con­cen­tra­ted in the infor­mal sec­tor, where inco­mes are smal­ler and pro­s­pects for endu­ring pro­spe­rity or upward social mobi­lity are much lower.

Gen­de­red wealth dis­pa­ri­ties are a human rights issue. They limit women’s enjoy­ment and exer­cise of their fun­da­men­tal human rights, free­doms, and entit­le­ments to access and bene­fit from basic needs like qua­lity edu­ca­tion, bet­ter health and well­be­ing as well as sus­tainable liveli­hoods (United Nati­ons 2024). Land is a social, eco­no­mic, and poli­ti­cal resource in the Ugan­dan com­mu­nity. Dis­pro­por­tio­nate owner­ship and con­trol levels the­r­e­fore deny some groups the rela­ted bene­fits the­r­ein. For ins­tance, land is the pri­mary form of col­la­te­ral to attain cre­dit as well as sup­port­ing mas­sive deve­lo­p­ment initia­ti­ves like far­ming, housing, etc. It is a key source of iden­tity, respect, and pres­tige. Thus, land owner­ship and con­trol ine­qua­li­ties exa­cer­bate exclu­sion and dis­cri­mi­na­tion in eco­no­mic ven­tures to sup­port ones­elf with basic needs of life which are quite cos­tly in a capi­ta­li­stic society of Uganda. Gen­de­red ine­qua­li­ties in wealth dis­tri­bu­tion the­r­e­fore directly affect the rights of mar­gi­na­li­zed groups to access edu­ca­tion oppor­tu­ni­ties, mar­kets, and health ser­vices and actively par­ti­ci­pate in key issues around poli­tics, gover­nance, and decision-making.

In con­clu­sion, wealth is a key and pri­mary resource for gene­ral socio-eco­no­mic and poli­ti­cal deve­lo­p­ment. Ine­qua­li­ties in its dis­tri­bu­tion pro­pel the excluded at the mar­gins of social pro­ces­ses impac­ting their total enjoy­ment of fun­da­men­tal human rights and free­doms as dis­cus­sed above. There is a need to streng­then the exis­ting struc­tures in Uganda through capa­city buil­ding, increased awa­re­ness, and buil­ding stra­te­gic alli­ances and part­ner­ships for resource mobi­liza­tion and advo­cacy. There is a need to con­duct stu­dies that will inform and influence decis­i­ons around resource allo­ca­tion, and pro­gramme inter­ven­ti­ons and create oppor­tu­ni­ties for mar­gi­na­li­zed groups in the com­mu­nity. Finally, there is an even more fun­da­men­tal need to shift away from or reflect those tra­di­tio­nal prac­ti­ces, like patri­li­nea­lity, that fur­ther fos­ter and amplify exis­ting ine­qua­li­ties under chan­ging con­di­ti­ons of increased libe­ra­liza­tion and mar­ke­tiza­tion in Uganda.

Uganda’s eco­no­mic libe­ra­liza­tion has rein­forced exis­ting gen­der ine­qua­li­ties, limi­ting women’s finan­cial oppor­tu­ni­ties despite their key role in agri­cul­ture. Struc­tu­ral bar­riers, such as patri­li­neal inhe­ri­tance and rest­ric­ted land owner­ship, deepen dis­pa­ri­ties, kee­ping women in pre­ca­rious con­di­ti­ons. Addres­sing these issues requi­res gen­der-sen­si­tive eco­no­mic poli­cies, impro­ved access to resour­ces, and a shift in tra­di­tio­nal prac­ti­ces to pro­mote equal oppor­tu­ni­ties for all.