Power and process: The politics of electricity sector reform in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, Uganda had one of the lowest levels of access to electricity in the world. Given the influence of multilateral and bilateral agencies in Uganda; the strong international reputation and domestic influence of its President; the country’s historic achievements in public sector and economic reform; and the intimate connection between economic performance, social well-being and access to electricity, the problems with Uganda’s electricity sector have proven deeply frustrating and, indeed, puzzling. Following increased scholarly attention to the relationship between political change, policymaking, and public sector reform in sub-Saharan Africa and the developing world generally, this thesis examines the multilevel politics of Uganda’s electricity sector reform process. This study contends that explanations for Uganda’s electricity sector reform problems generally, and hydroelectric dam construction efforts specifically, must move beyond technical and financial factors. Problems in this sector have also been the result of a model of reform (promoted by the World Bank) that failed adequately to account for the character of political change. Indeed, the model of reform that was promoted and implemented was risky and it was deeply antagonistic to domestic and international civil society organizations. In addition, it was presented as a linear, technical, apolitical exercise. Finally the model was inconsistent with key principles the Bank itself, and public policy literature generally, suggest are needed for success. Based on this analysis, the thesis contends that policymaking and reform must be understood as deeply political processes, which not only define access to services, but also participation in, and exclusion from, national debates. Future approaches to reform and policymaking must anticipate the complex, multilevel, non-linear character of ‘second-generation’ policy issues like electricity, and the political and institutional capacity needed to increase the potential for success. At the heart of this approach is a need to carefully consider how the character of state-society relations in the country – “governance” – will influence reform processes and outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".