On 26th February 2022, the president launched the parish development model (PDM) in Kibuku district. According to the government, the program aims to eradicate poverty at the grassroots level, and a whopping 490 billion shillings have been earmarked for the program, with every parish receiving seventeen million shillings out of the fund. The modus operandi of the program will include households saving and borrowing funds from the parish SACCOs which funds will then be used by the household to start up their preferred businesses or boost one that it already has. The program replaces the Emyooga program, which was rolled out in October 2020 as a poverty eradication program. In 2013, the government rolled out the Youth Livelihood Programme, in which it injected a staggering 265 billion to help the youth start-up businesses as a poverty alleviation strategy. The lofty sums of taxpayers’ money that are continuously dedicated towards poverty eradication behove us to look closer into the picture painted by the protagonists of these programs. It is noteworthy that Uganda is still among the world’s poorest countries, and all evidence shows that we still have a long way to go, but the fundamental question is, are we on the right track?

Attractive as the idea of distributing money to people seems, it is ineffective in alleviating poverty simply because the money is given to people who have no wealth-generating literacy and this money usually ends up being inappropriately invested or even outrightly squandered. The recipients of the funds typically perceive the funds as their share of the national cake, and such programs are usually welcomed with considerable excitement by the public. The fact that these very people continue to languish in poverty after the money has been spent confirms the ineffectiveness of the money distribution schemes. To understand this irony, we need to comprehend what poverty is. Poverty is a multi-dimensional condition of inability to afford the minimum standards of living, which are often coupled with the incapacity to exploit available resources usually caused by ignorance. It is not uncommon to find households in Uganda with substantial chunks of arable land in a place with a favourable climate enveloped by acute poverty, living on far less than a dollar a day. One may be quick to conclude that indolent people inhabit such households, yet it is quite the opposite. Such households work hard using rudimentary farming methods. They only manage to get what to eat, remaining with a little more to sell within their equally poor neighbourhoods. The Uganda Bureau of Statistics’ Statistical Abstract of 2020 confirmed this when it highlighted that out of a workforce of 15 million people in Uganda, only 9 million were gainfully employed. The remaining 6 million were engaging in unpaid work in subsistence activities, especially agriculture. In a country of forty million people, the current official workforce is considerably too small to support the unemployed population. A significant proportion of that unemployed workforce is wasted in the subsistence economy hence the biting poverty.

In such a situation, a prudent poverty alleviation program must entail thorough sensitization and skills development to bridge the knowledge gap, technological support to boost the capacity of those already in business and provision of essential social services like education, transport and health services. The government must then incentivize the population to enter into production and commerce through tax cuts, supporting small and medium enterprises with advanced technology, and offering tax holidays to local investors who have reached a certain level of entrepreneurship success. Cash packages can also be used to further attract more people to enter into commercial activity. Still, these packages should target communities who have been trained in various vocational and commercial skills. Further, the impact of any poverty alleviation program must be trackable to understand the number of people who have accessed the funds, how far their businesses have grown, what additional support the government can offer if necessary, and above all, the impact of the program on the economy.

In Uganda’s case, the number of people who have accessed money out of government poverty eradication programs is regularly obfuscated by the callous spectre of corruption. The programs are usually tainted by political prejudice, especially against those who do not support the government. In September 2021, members of parliament presented reports on the floor of parliament about their findings on the implementation of the Emyooga program and a bipartisan consensus was reached that the program was poorly implemented. Parliamentarians reported that the SACCOs used for the program were hurriedly made with no shared vision except that of receiving money. Political interference turned out to be a challenge, with opposition supporters being denied access to the funds. And great difficulty ensued involving the access of funds by women. Lastly, the funds were embezzled along the distribution chain. The same fate befell the Youth Livelihood Program in which billions of shillings were put to waste.

In contrast with the political façade in Uganda, Brazil has one of the world’s most successful poverty eradication programs. Meticulously planned to have an enduring impact on the population, the Bolsa Familia program was designed to achieve both short-term and long-term progress in the area of poverty eradication while addressing social bottlenecks. Under the program, families receive periodic direct cash transfers from the government upon fulfilment of specific conditions set by the government. Some of the conditions to be fulfilled include; sending children to school, having them vaccinated, mandatory attendance of prenatal check-ups for pregnant women among others. The beneficiaries of this program are well documented and are issued with a subscription card on which their performance under the program can be tracked. By 2015, the Bolsa Familia program accounted for more than 14% poverty reduction in Brazil. Further, the program is strategically implemented to target female-headed households, which are usually most affected by poverty. This would reduce domestic violence levels since women would be more capable of leaving abusive relationships. This program exemplifies a government’s resolve to genuinely tackle the poverty problem in a systematic approach that incentives the public to engage in activities they would have otherwise not taken upon. The success of the program is solely based on the central principle that the government alone cannot attempt to eradicate poverty without ensuring that public efforts are geared in the right direction. The cash transfer acts as a motivating factor to get the population to direct efforts in nationally prioritised activities or sectors. This can be contrasted to Uganda where the government gives people money, and they choose whether to use it for the intended purpose or to misappropriate it.

Before the country can comprehend the post-mortem report of the Emyooga program, which according to members of parliament from both sides of the aisle, died from chronic corruption, miscalculation and political gerrymandering, the government is already rolling out a replica of the dead program. While it may seem logical that government pauses to reflect on a better program and perhaps assess the impact of the previous programs, a new program is already generating debate. A substantial number of Ugandans are eager to know the details of the program so that they can strategically position themselves to partake from the government handout. From a political perspective, the government is right to give its people paucity of their revenue (Entadikwa) which the people can use as they see fit. This way, the government gives people a taste of “government money”, and maybe some may even look favourably upon them when the opportune time comes. Economic pundits can write a thesis about it if they disagree, but this way, everyone wins.