How distance from local administrators affects public service delivery in Uganda

In many developing countries, providing essential public services – such as electricity, roads, education, and healthcare – remains a major challenge, especially in rural areas. 

To bridge this gap, governments have started decentralisation efforts, including the creation of new administrative units, aiming to bring governance closer to the people. 

How many districts does Uganda have?

Uganda has been at the forefront of this strategy, increasing the number of districts – the country’s largest administrative unit – from 38 in 1991 to over 130 by 2020. The rationale: smaller districts bring government closer to citizens, helping reduce spatial inequalities. 

However, this form of decentralisation has its trade-offs. While smaller districts may improve local governance, they can also lead to inefficiencies if they lack economies of scale or become prone to political capture. 

So, does reducing the distance between citizens and administrators actually improve public service delivery?

This study explores this question, focusing on whether living near district headquarters created between 1991 and 2020 improves access to public goods and services in Uganda.

A natural experiment using Uganda’s redistricting policy

Measuring the impact of distance between citizens and administrators on service delivery is challenging. Government headquarters are not placed randomly; instead, they are usually located in towns or near major roads – areas that already have better services. 

To address this, I use a rule from Uganda’s redistricting policy: new district headquarters must be located near the geographical centre of the district to ensure equal access. As the geographical centre of a new district is an arbitrary location, it does not directly influence the provision of goods and services, allowing for causal estimates. 

Key findings: Proximity matters for public service delivery

The study finds that households closer to district headquarters have better access to public goods and services provided by both district and central governments. The results reveal that greater distance reduces access to district-provided education and water services, as well as education, electricity, and roads provided by the central government. 

In other words, bringing households closer to district headquarters significantly improves their access to these services.

Figure 1 illustrates how distance to headquarters impacts key service areas, such as education and health, using index variables that combine multiple indicators.

Figure 1: Effects of distance on service delivery indexes

While the indexes provide a general overview of the effects of distance, it is important to identify which specific components drive these results.

For district-provided services, proximity to headquarters improves access to primary education, health centres, water for consumption, and agricultural services. A 10% reduction in distance (1.59 kilometres) lowers travel time to primary schools by 4.2% and to health centres by 5.7%. Households closer to headquarters also have better access to improved water sources. While we find no significant effects for district roads, proximity improves access to agricultural extension agents.

For central government-provided services, proximity to district headquarters mainly improves access to infrastructure-based services such as electricity, roads, and secondary education. A 1.59-kilometre reduction in distance increases household electricity access by 5.5 percentage points (11% of average access). 

Additionally, households closer to headquarters are more likely to have access to tarmac roads, and their travel time to secondary schools is shorter. These gains reflect the government’s efforts to link new district headquarters to the national electricity grid and road network.

How proximity drives improvements in governance

We analyse three possible explanations behind the results: state capacity, citizen engagement, and accountability. 

First, areas near headquarters have stronger government presence, potentially allowing them to provide better-tailored goods and services. Households close to headquarters are more aware of public offices such as land offices and magistrate courts. This suggests improved state capacity in areas that previously had limited access to district offices due to their remoteness.

Second, proximity boosts citizen engagement with the government. People near headquarters are more involved in local decision-making, report higher satisfaction with local leaders, and are more likely to have family members in government jobs. This connection seems to amplify their voice, as there is some evidence that district investments respond to the most critical needs raised by households living nearby.

Third, people closer to district headquarters seem to be more involved in monitoring. Households near headquarters are more likely to have heard of bribery and nepotism, yet they do not report being disproportionately affected by such corruption. This suggests that proximity may facilitate greater government oversight, potentially enhancing accountability over time.

What can policymakers learn from Uganda’s experience?

Uganda’s experience with decentralisation provides a few valuable lessons for policymakers:

1. Proximity can improve service delivery: Bringing citizens and administrators closer can enhance the delivery of essential services, particularly when it encourages meaningful local participation.
2. Try to foster citizen participation in local governance: Policymakers should strive to establish effective channels for local communities to engage in decision-making processes, ensuring policies reflect local needs.
3. Enhance accountability in governance: Proximity to administrative centres can facilitate oversight of public officials, reducing inefficiencies and promoting better governance. Strengthening monitoring mechanisms can help ensure that services reach intended beneficiaries.
4. Assess the costs and benefits of district creation: While redistricting can bring services closer to citizens in rural areas, careful planning is needed to ensure long-term sustainability and prevent potential downsides of administrative unit creation.