Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix

This Selected Issues paper analyzes the underlying sources of growth in Uganda, suggesting that the contribution to growth from total factor productivity has been minor, while the high population growth poses a significant challenge to sustain a rapid improvement in living standards. The paper takes a closer look at the monetary transmission mechanisms in Uganda, aimed at assessing the appropriate choice of intermediate target and mix of liquidity sterilization instruments. It also focuses on the recent financial sector reforms undertaken by the government.


This Selected Issues paper analyzes the underlying sources of growth in Uganda, suggesting that the contribution to growth from total factor productivity has been minor, while the high population growth poses a significant challenge to sustain a rapid improvement in living standards. The paper takes a closer look at the monetary transmission mechanisms in Uganda, aimed at assessing the appropriate choice of intermediate target and mix of liquidity sterilization instruments. It also focuses on the recent financial sector reforms undertaken by the government.


The selected issues paper include the following chapters:

  • Chapter I analyses the underlying sources of growth in Uganda, which suggests that the contribution to growth from total factor productivity has been minor, while the high population growth poses a significant challenge to sustain a rapid improvement in living standards. This highlights the importance of implementing policies aimed at raising productivity and addressing population growth issues.

  • Chapter II takes a closer look at the monetary transmission mechanisms in Uganda, aimed at assessing the appropriate choice of intermediate target and mix of liquidity sterilization instruments. The results support a continuation of the monetary targeting framework, and a judicious mix of net treasury bill issuance and foreign exchange sales for sterilization purposes, in order to enhance private sector growth prospects.

  • Chapter III focuses on the recent financial sector reforms undertaken by the government. It notes the remarkable progress made in establishing the basis for a sound and profitable financial system through a strengthened supervisory and regulatory regime, and consolidation and privatization within the banking sector. Challenges remain, however, to foster a more efficient and deeper financial system.

I. Sources of Growth and Sustainability1

A. Introduction

1. Since the National Resistance Movement, under the leadership of President Museveni, assumed control of the government in 1986, the Ugandan economy has undergone an impressive post-conflict recovery. After more than a decade of erratic and negative growth, annual real GDP growth averaged a 6.2 percent between 1986/87 and 2003/04, with real investment rising by 6–7 percentage points of GDP (Appendix Table 1 and Figure 1). Largely as a result of strong economic growth, the incidence of poverty in Uganda was reduced from 56 percent of the population in 1992 to 34–38 percent in 2000–03. Notwithstanding, Uganda’s rapid population growth, real GDP per capita has almost doubled since the mid–1980s, and is now about 15 percent above the level in 1970, the year before the military coup (Figure 2).2

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Uganda: Real GDP Growth and Investments In percent, 1960–2003

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 172; 10.5089/9781451838749.002.A001

Sources: World Tables, World Bank; and Uganda Bureau of Statistics.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Uganda: GDP per Capita (1960–2003) Index 1960=1

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 172; 10.5089/9781451838749.002.A001

Sources: World Tables, World Bank; and Uganda Bureau of Statistics.

2. This chapter reviews the Ugandan economic recovery and assesses its sustainability through an analysis of the sources of long-term growth. The following section briefly reviews the key developments of the Ugandan recovery. In Section C, the neoclassical model of the sources of growth is discussed, emphasizing the importance of productivity growth for sustainability, and the model is estimated for Uganda. Finally, Section D discusses the prospects and policies for promoting growth and productivity.

B. The Ugandan Recovery3

3. Initially, the steady improvement in security in most of the country provided the impetus for a greater work effort and better land utilization. Although investment remained low, it had picked up substantially since the end of civil strife. The second phase of the recovery (1992/93–1995/96) was marked by strong macroeconomic stabilization, liberalization of key markets and sectors—including the foreign exchange market and the coffee and banking sectors—and a fortuitous boom in world coffee prices. The return of many members of the Asian community and other Ugandans, who had fled the country during previous regimes, also contributed to the high growth rates during this period, with much needed human capital, entrepreneurship, and physical investment.

4. The period since the mid-1990s was characterized by a greater focus on poverty reduction programs and increased donor assistance. Under the Ugandan Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), initially published in 1997 and revised in 2000 and 2004, donor inflows, net of debt-service payments, increased by 5 percentage points of GDP, reaching about 12 percent of GDP in 2003/04; flows of direct budget support rose from about 1 percent of GDP to nearly 6 percent of GDP. At the same time, government spending increased by nearly 8 percentage points of GDP to about 23 percent of GDP. The PEAP was complemented by further structural adjustment, including the privatization and restructuring of key industries (telecommunications and electricity), tax reform, and the liberalization of international capital account transactions, and a strengthening of the banking system through stepped-up supervision. However, during this period, until 2001/02, Uganda’s terms of trade deteriorated substantially, as world coffee prices fell by over 70 percent, causing a sharp decline in export earnings. Since then, the terms of trade have partially recovered, reflecting a reversal in coffee prices.

5. The structure of the economy has gradually changed since the mid–1980s, with the industrial and service sectors accounting for a growing share of GDP at the expense of the agriculture sector, whose share in GDP declined from about 55 percent to just below 40 percent in 2002/03. In contrast, the share of industry and services increased from about 12 and 33 percent to nearly 20 and 42 percent, respectively (Appendix Table 1). The relatively strong growth in the service sector is striking, and, despite some expansion in commerce, tourism-related services, and telecommunications, can be attributed primarily to a surge in the provision of public services, particularly health and education. As a result, the services sector contributed more than any other sector to the economic recovery (Figure 3). On average during 1985-2002/03, the services sector contributed to the growth in GDP by 2.8 percent a year, while agriculture and industry contributed by only 1.8 and 1.4 percent, respectively. Notwithstanding the structural changes, the economy is still largely based on agriculture, and a significant share of manufacturing enterprises process agriculture products. The growth in agricultural output during the previous 15 years was primarily due to an expansion of the amount of land under cultivation, while productivity gains were limited.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Uganda: Contribution to Real GDP Growth (Factor Cost) 1986/87-2003/04

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 172; 10.5089/9781451838749.002.A001

Sources: Uganda Bureau of Statistics; and Fund staff estimates.

6. In recent years, growth has slowed, particularly in per capita terms (Appendix Table 1). With annual per capita growth rates falling below 2 percent, concerns are being raised about the sustainability of the needed high economic growth to further reduce poverty. In the following section, the sustainability of growth is assessed by analyzing the underlying sources of growth during the Ugandan economic recovery.

C. Productivity and Sources of Growth

The model

7. Productivity gains during economic recovery play an important role for sustainability and future growth prospects. Their importance can be demonstrated in a simple neoclassical growth model in which long-term output growth is broken into two parts: one that can be explained by the growth in inputs (labor, capital, etc.), and one that can be explained by improvements in the efficiency with which these inputs are used. The latter part is normally referred to as total factor productivity (TFP) growth. The production process is represented by the following constant-returns-to-scale production function with two factor inputs for period t:



qt is real output in logs;

kt is real capital stock in logs (equal to logKt);

lt is employment in logs;

it is real gross investments in logs (equal to logIt); and

et is a residual term.

8. The production function (1) includes a trend term, t, which represents long-term productivity gains, with the coefficients a1, representing the marginal product of capital, and a2, representing long-term TFP growth. The capital stock is determined by (2), with a constant rate of depreciation, δ. This model captures economic growth in the long term, with the residual term reflecting short-term effects, including normal business cycles and variations in capacity utilization. Consequently, in contrast to the traditional growth accounting exercise, TFP is here treated as a long-term concept.4 Clearly, robust estimates of TFP growth should be based on information for a sufficiently long period of time, because TFP reflects inherent advancements of knowledge about the production process, as well as reallocation of resources from low-productivity sectors (such as agriculture) to high-productivity sectors (such as manufacturing). These are processes that gradually unfold over a longer period of time. By estimating the coefficients of (1) and (2), three sources of output growth can be identified: (i) growth in the two factors, capital and labor; (ii) TFP growth; and (iii) short-term factors fluctuating around long-term output.

9. For growth to be sustainable, the capital-output ratio must be either declining or constant in the long term, since an increasing ratio would imply, sooner or later, that the net investments required to maintain sufficient capital growth would exhaust all income. In fact, the highest sustainable growth rate will be obtained at the rate that keeps the capital-output ratio constant; that is, where long-term output growth, gq, equals long-term capital growth, gk. By differentiating (1) with respect to t and using this requirement, we obtain a formulation of maximum sustainable growth:


where gl is long-term growth of employment (or labor supply). For example, assuming a1= 0.5, annual TFP growth of 1 percent, and employment growth of 2 percent, the sustainable growth would be 4 percent. Equation (3) illustrates the importance of TFP for determining sustainable long-term growth. Using the example, if TFP growth increased by 1 percentage point, sustainable growth would increase by 2 percentage points (assuming the appropriate level of investment), while if employment growth is increased by 1 percentage point, sustainable growth would rise by only 1 percentage point. The main point is that a country’s technology, including TFP, determines its long-term growth potential. Essentially, the importance of TFP growth is explained by the neoclassical growth model’s assumption of diminishing returns to capital (see equation (1)), which implies that capital accumulation cannot sustain long-term growth while TFP can.5 Another implication of this finding is that a country may risk overinve sting, particularly if TFP is very low, implying an increasing capital-output ratio over a longer period of time. Although this overinvestment would certainly generate high growth rates for some time, the process eventually collapses in either a financial crisis, a depression, or both.

10. Finally, TFP growth is crucial for output per capita growth. According (3), positive growth in output per capita could not be sustained, unless TFP growth is positive. Higher TFP growth allows for higher levels of sustainable investments, which in turn generates higher long-term growth in output per capita exceeding the initial increase in TFP growth.6


11. The estimation of equations (1) and (2) poses a few problems. First, the initial capital stock is unknown, and the capital stock itself is a function of the rate of depreciation, which is unknown as well. Second, the estimation must be carried out over a sufficiently long period to identify the long-term coefficients. To solve these problems, the initial capital stock and the coefficients of the model are estimated through “optimization” of the long-term relationship over the period 1960-2003.7 To accommodate structural factors, the coefficient for TFP growth is estimated separately for the crisis years 1971-85. Finally, with limited availability of labor market data, employment is approximated by total population.

Table 1.

Estimation of Long-Term Production Function

Dependent variable: qt

article image

12. The estimation results are summarized in Table 1. The output elasticity with respect to capital and employment are estimated to be 0.68 and 0.32, respectively.9 The estimates of TFP growth are very small, though still statistical significant, contributing only 0.13 percent to annual growth in the recovery years.10 The average rate of depreciation for the whole period is estimated at about 15 percent, somewhat higher than the 5-10 percent traditionally used in other studies.11 Finally, the test for cointegration indicates that the estimated equation is accepted as a valid long-term relationship.

13. The estimated coefficients allow for output growth to be disaggregated into its main sources (Table 2). For the full period (1961-2003), average annual GDP grew by 3.9 percent, of which, the growth of capital and labor input explained 2.5 and 1 percent, respectively, while the contribution from TFP growth was only 0.3 percent. As expected, the short-term effects were virtually zero. For the economic recovery years, 1986-2003, during which annual growth averaged 6.4 percent, the accumulation of capital explained about 85 percent of the increase in output.

Table 2.

Sources of Growth

(Average annual growth rates in percent)

article image

14. The characteristics of Uganda’s growth since the mid-1980s raise two major concerns. First, the strong reliance on capital accumulation and near absence of TFP growth raise doubts about the sustainability of growth. The accumulation of capital was supported by healthy national saving rates of 12-14 percent of GDP in the 1990s; these rates reflect, in turn, substantial inflows of external transfers, amounting to 5-10 percent of GDP (Figure 4), and an increase in external savings. Without a significant contribution from TFP growth, more investment will increasingly be required to sustain GDP growth rates of 6-7 percent, which, in turn, would require even higher national or external saving. The importance of TFP growth in Uganda can be illustrated using the estimated coefficients in Table 1. From equation (3), they imply sustainable growth of about 3.5 percent, whereas an increase in TFP growth by only 1 percentage point raises sustainable growth to nearly 6.5 percent.12

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Uganda: National and Domestic Saving (in Percent of GDP)


Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 172; 10.5089/9781451838749.002.A001

Sources: Uganda Bureau of Statistics; and Fund staff estimates.

15. Second, the combination of low TFP growth and high population growth substantially constrain an increase in output per capita. To illustrate this, the estimated relation may be rewritten as relationship between growth in output per capita and the capital-labor ratio (in percent):


Clearly, with an annual population growth of 3.2 percent (average for 1986-2003) and virtually zero TFP growth, the stock of capital would need to grow by a similar rate to prevent output per capita from declining. Also, with a fairly low marginal product of labor (about one-third), a failure to increase capital sufficiently would have devastating negative effects on output per capita.

16. The short-term deviations around the estimated long-term output fluctuate considerably over the estimation period. In Figure 5, actual and fitted output according to equations (1) and (2) are shown together with short-term deviations, which are represented by the residual, et (in logs). These short-term deviations reflect, among other things, the normal business cycle and changes in capacity utilization. In recent years, the short-term deviations have been minor, indicating that growth has been close to the expected long-term potential as determined by the factor inputs and TFP. In other words, there is no indication of major changes in the estimated parameters, including TFP growth, during this period.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Uganda: Actual and Fitted Values of GDP (1960-2003)

Citation: IMF Staff Country Reports 2005, 172; 10.5089/9781451838749.002.A001

Sources: Uganda Bureau of Statistics; and Fund staff estimates.
Table 3.

Estimation of Short-Term Production Function Dependent variable: Δqt

article image

17. A parsimonious representation of the corresponding short-term model—in which output growth is explained by lagged output deviations from its long-term trend, changes in banking sector credit to the private sector relative to GDP, and changes in the terms of trade—is presented in Table 3. As expected, negative (positive) short-term output deviations from its long-term trend tend to influence output growth positively (negatively) in the following year. The adjustment factor (or the so-called error-correction term) is estimated to about 0.4. Moreover, changes in credit to the private sector are strongly and positively related to output growth, indicating the importance of financial intermediation for output growth.13 The terms of trade is positively related to output as well, but with less significance. The well-behaved short-term model further supports the estimated long-term relationship in Table 1.

Experiences at the micro level

18. The estimates above are based on aggregated variables. This provides advantages in terms of comprehensiveness, but there are of course disadvantages as well. Particularly, a sectoral disaggregation of the analysis could offer further insight into the reasons for low productivity growth and, possibly, identify more recent sectoral changes in the production process. In Uganda, the implementation of market-based reforms since the early 1990s could have started a process whereby new and more profitable enterprises and farmers emerge and slowly take over from former producers. Initially, this process would not necessarily show up in the aggregated figures because the outcompeted producers are performing even worse until they disappear.

19. However, recent studies at the micro level generally confirm that productivity gains across sectors have been very low over the past decade in Uganda. The conditions are particularly worrisome in agriculture, where land degradation, especially soil erosion and soil fertility mining, is widespread, contributing to low or declining productivity.14 Surveys show that most farmers’ yields of several major crops (including maize, matooke, beans, sorghum, millet, coffee) have declined since the early 1990s.15 Only cotton yields seem to have increased significantly. Also, farmers have successfully increased the production of livestock. One important explanation for land degradation in Uganda is the very small proportion of farmers using fertilizers. For example, the use of NPK fertilizer is very low by international standards and compared with its use in Uganda in the early 1970s.16 About 95 percent of the total use of fertilizer is used by a few large-scale farmers (including on the tea and sugar estates).

20. For manufacturing firms, a recent investment climate survey finds evidence of very low labor productivity in Uganda.17 On average, value-added per worker in Uganda is less than half that in other countries in the region. Moreover, capital intensity, measured by the capital-labor ratio, is very small as well, partly as a result of capital deterioration during the conflict years. At the same time, the so-called average technical efficiency is estimated at only 0.5, indicating that on average firms are only half as efficient in their use of its inputs as the most efficient firm. Normally, competitive and unsegmented markets would have technical efficiency rates above 75 percent. This confirms that the disparity in productivity of Uganda’s manufacturing firms is fairly high and suggests that there is scope for improvement, under the right circumstances, among the low productivity firms. Further studies of the manufacturing sector should help establishing whether this growth potential is unutilized.

D. Prospects and Policies for Growth

21. As demonstrated above, Uganda’s low TFP growth threatens its achievement of sustainable high growth and poverty reduction. To address this problem, the authorities need to implement measures to improve TFP growth. The urgent need for action is further reinforced by the fact that sustained productivity gains typically require structural changes that take time to be effective. More broadly, policies should further strengthen the private sector-led growth through improvements in the business climate and implementing appropriate fiscal policies to ensure that sufficient private sector resources are made available on market terms. Under the right circumstances, the productivity gains should come from two sources: (i) new productive investments in all sectors of the economy; and (ii) a shift from low-to high-productivity activities. The shift in activities would not necessarily involve higher investments, but certain activities would be scaled down or disappear. Although the private sector should bear the main burden for increasing productivity, the public sector, helped by external donors, should provide services, notably good education and health systems and infrastructure, as well as ensure the provisions for adequate energy supply.

22. More specifically, the following policies are key to raising productivity in Uganda:

  • Gradual fiscal consolidation, primarily through higher revenue collection, should over the medium term provide more room for the private sector to expand. A fiscal consolidation will not only free up more financial resources for the private sector, but it will also help reducing interest rates and dampen real appreciation pressure.18 More generally, in low-income countries with high fiscal deficits, there is strong evidence of “expansionary fiscal contractions.”19 The transmission from fiscal consolidation to higher growth goes through higher private sector investments and higher aggregate factor productivity related to improved overall public sector governance.

  • Increasing spending on infrastructure. A range of infrastructural shortcomings adversely affect the business climate, especially the lack of sufficient capacity in the electricity sector and Uganda’s poor roads and railways. With electricity demand already above capacity under normal weather conditions, the system is vulnerable to even small variations in weather, creating major frustrations for private enterprises. Public investment in these areas could significantly increase private sector productivity. Public expenditure will need to be focused on capital accumulation rather than on recurrent spending, which has absorbed the total increase in public spending in recent years. However, the authorities should also make an effort to ensure that some of these investments, particularly in the electricity sector, are made by private investors to promote efficiency and lessen the burden on the budget.

  • Developing the financial sector. With higher domestic resources available, the ability of banks and other financial institutions to channel the savings into good, productive investments is key. The banking system has already undergone restructuring, but banks need more time to take full advantage of the new potential to expand their involvement in the growth process. Agriculture, in particular, lacks good financing options. As agriculture improves, the potential for linkages to agro-processing should be explored as well. The financial sector is playing a dual role as a provider of resources to ensure better use of existing capacity (most short-term lending) and as a provider of resources to finance new productive investments (longer-term lending). The banks need to improve particularly the latter role.

  • Improving the business climate and reducing corruption. Private firms have typically expressed dissatisfaction in their dealings with the Ugandan Revenue Authority (URA), including customs, and other public sector agencies. To support more private sector initiatives, the authorities need streamline the bureaucracy and fight corruption more forcefully.

  • Improving education and training. While Uganda has made good progress in improving its education system in recent years, more investment is needed. For example, the surveys at the micro level cited above conclude that private managers and farmers with better education are generally more productive. The introduction of an agricultural curriculum in primary and secondary education, as proposed in the Plan for the Modernization of Agriculture (PMA), seems to be a step in the right direction. Also, agricultural training and extension programs appear to be contributing to higher productivity.

23. The government is formulating policies to support economic growth in its revised PEAP. While the PEAP addresses most of the elements mentioned above, at least in general terms, there is a need to focus on concrete policies to increase productivity that can be implemented immediately or in the near future. It should focus on education and agriculture, and on dealing with the power shortages. The government’s recent commitment to restructure the URA should at the same time strengthen revenue collection—thereby contributing to the needed fiscal consolidation—and improve public sector governance.

E. Concluding Remarks

24. Since the end of its prolonged civil strife, Uganda has enjoyed a sustained period of strong, broad-based economic growth, owing to the restoration of security, macroeconomic stabilization, and fundamental liberalization policies. This growth experience, combined with the implementation of a comprehensive poverty reduction plan, allowed for an impressive reduction in poverty. However, high economic growth in the future will rely heavily on increasing productivity while gradually increasing investments. In turn, this will require a need to implement a structural adjustment agenda that addresses investors’ concerns, including fighting corruption, lowering transportation costs, increasing the electricity supply, and increasing the availability of financing through sound financial sector policies.


Table 1.

Uganda: Real GDP at Factor Cost (1985/86-2003/04)

article image
Sources: Uganda Bureau of Statistics; and Fund staff estimates.

Prepared by Jan Mikkelsen.


During the 1970s, real GDP per capita dropped by about 35 percent.


This section partly draws on an internal note “Economic Growth in Uganda: A Summary of the Post-Conflict Experience and Future Prospect” prepared by David Dunn, African Department.


Most other studies of the sources of growth estimate TFP by the residual of output not explained by changes in factor inputs. Thereby, typically very large short-term output fluctuations, which are caused by a host of other circumstances, are attributed to changes in TFP. Amor Tahari, Dhaneshwar Ghura, Bernardin Akitoby, and Emmanuel Brou Aka, 2004, “Sources of Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa,” IMF Working Paper, WP/04/176 provides a good overview of past studies and provides estimates of TFP growth for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Another recent study, Bernardin Akitoby and Matthias Cinyabuguma, 2004, “Sources of Growth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A Cointegrating Approach,” IMF Working Paper 04/114, includes some long-term analysis in addition to the traditional growth accounting exercise.


Similar arguments were used by Krugman, P., 1994, “The Myth of Asia’s Miracle,” Foreign Affairs, 73(6) and Young, A., 1994, “Tyranny of Numbers: Confronting the Statistical Realities of East Asian Growth Experience,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3) in the debate of the sources of growth during the “Asian Miracle.”


For example, an increase in TFP growth from zero to 1 percent per year would increase sustainable long-term output growth by 2 percentage points (for α1= 0.5)


The estimation of all the parameters in equation (1)-(2) is based on the hypothesis that the two equations represent the true long-term relationship. On this basis, by testing for the existence of a cointegrating vector in the production function (1) for all relevant combinations of the initial capital and the rate of depreciation, the parameter estimates are obtained for the combination that optimizes the test statistic. Data are obtained from the World Bank’s World Tables (1960-82) and the Ugandan Bureau of Statistics (1983-2003).


This test is based on the two-step procedure from Robert Engle and C. W. J. Granger, 1987, “Cointegration and Error-Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing,” Econometrica 55. The test value is significant at a 5 percent significance level.


Note that these elasticities assume the exclusion of human capital in the production equation. However, with the increased investments in education, particularly since the mid-1990s, the contribution from human capital accumulation is expected to have been significant. Also, the approximation of employment by total population could bias the coefficient estimates.


Interestingly, TFP growth is estimated to be slightly higher during the crisis years, at about 0.5 percent annually. This basically reflects that the decline in the capital stock during the crisis years (the estimates in Table 1 imply that the real capital stock fell by close to 30 percent) should have caused an even larger drop in output than actually observed. Given the poor data quality, especially during this period, this could also be an indication of an overstatement of either real GDP growth, or the decline in investments.


Note that the rate of depreciation is estimated on the basis of the actual outcome and that sense reflects the “true” economic rate, which may be different from the rate of depreciation normally determined for accounting purposes.


Assumes 3.2 percent population growth, i.e., TFP growth of 1 percent translates into 3.3 percent growth per capita.


Beck, Thorsten et al., 2000, “Finance and the Sources of Growth,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 58, on the basis of an extensive cross-country study, provide similar evidence of the importance of financial intermediation for output growth.


International Food Policy Research Institute, 2004, “Strategies for Sustainable Land Management and Poverty Reduction in Uganda,” Research report 133.


Klaus Deininger and John Okidi, 2001, “Rural households: Incomes, Productivity, and Nonfarm Enterprises,” in Paul Collier and Ritva Reinikka, “Uganda’s Recovery: The Role of Farms, Firms, and Government,” the World Bank.


For comparison, Kenya used about 25 times more NPK fertilizer than Uganda in 2001.


World Bank, 2004, “Investment Climate Assessment: Uganda.”


The large net donor inflow is causing a steady exchange rate appreciation pressure, which could be reduced through fiscal consolidation. While export-oriented firms operating close to break-even may suffer, investment‒ heavy activities, particular those producing for the domestic market, would benefit from the appreciation.


For an overview of the relationship between fiscal policy and growth in low-income countries, see Chapters 2 and 4 in Sanjeev Gupta et al.(eds.), 2004, “Helping Countries Develop: The Role of Fiscal Policy,” International Monetary Fund.

Uganda: Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix
Author: International Monetary Fund