Abstract
Background: Community participation is increasingly highlighted in policy discussions as essential for the effectiveness and sustainability of government-led socio-economic initiatives. However, in many developing countries, including Uganda, communities are often excluded from key phases such as planning, budgeting and implementation, leading to diminished project ownership and poor outcomes.
Aim: The study aims to evaluate how stakeholder participation influences the success of the Youth Livelihood Programme (YLP), with a specific focus on participatory planning, budgeting and implementation.
Setting: The research was conducted in Luuka District, Uganda, where the YLP has faced various challenges since its launch in 2013.
Methods: A descriptive research design was employed, integrating both qualitative and quantitative data. Data collection included self-administered questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and a review of relevant literature to capture stakeholder perspectives on programme performance.
Results: The findings indicate that stakeholder participation in planning and budgeting had minimal impact on overall programme success. In contrast, active participation during the implementation phase positively influenced project outcomes, highlighting the significance of community involvement in ensuring effective delivery.
Conclusion: The study concludes that while there is a need to improve participatory practices in planning and budgeting, fostering active community involvement in the implementation phase is crucial for achieving better project outcomes and sustainability.
Contribution: This study provides empirical evidence on the role of stakeholder participation in enhancing the performance of development programmes. It underscores the need for policy reforms to strengthen participatory mechanisms in government initiatives, offering practical insights for improving programme sustainability in similar socio-economic contexts.
Keywords: stakeholder participation; targeted development programmes; Youth Livelihood Programme; government-led initiatives; Uganda.
Introduction
Government-initiated community development programmes are vital in addressing socio-economic challenges and promoting sustainable development, particularly in developing nations (Wong & Guggenheim 2018). These initiatives range from social services and capacity building to infrastructure development, often aimed at improving the living conditions of marginalised populations. However, the effectiveness and longevity of such projects largely depend on the involvement of key stakeholders throughout the project’s lifecycle. As Jiménez et al. (2019) highlight, participatory processes involve actively engaging those with vested interests in a given intervention, enabling them to contribute to decisions that directly affect them, thereby enhancing project sustainability. When stakeholders, including local communities, youth and government entities, are involved in key phases such as planning, execution and monitoring, the likelihood of achieving sustainable outcomes significantly increases (Mansuri & Rao 2013). Conversely, projects lacking stakeholder participation often face hurdles such as misallocated resources, reduced community ownership and failure. Stakeholder involvement is thus seen as essential to the sustainability of government-funded initiatives (Aaltonen & Kujala 2016).
Like many developing nations, Uganda faces persistent youth unemployment and poverty challenges. In response, under the Office of the Prime Minister, the Government of the Republic of Uganda has launched various initiatives to enhance youth socio-economic conditions. One flagship initiative is the Youth Livelihood Programme (YLP), established in 2013 by the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD). The YLP aims to empower young people by improving their socio-economic potential, increasing employment opportunities and enhancing their income prospects (MoGLSD 2013). The programme operates on a fund-based model, offering soft loans to youth groups, with the expectation of repayment within 12 months, after which the funds are recycled to new groups.
Effective stakeholder participation is widely recognised as a critical factor in the success of development programmes. Sperry and Jetter (2019) argue that effective stakeholder management can significantly influence the performance of projects, particularly in developing countries. However, in Uganda’s Luuka District, the YLP has faced numerous challenges, including mismanagement of funds, unclear role definitions and poor supervision (Luuka District Local Government Reports 2017). Despite the programme’s noble goals, concerns remain about its efficacy and long-term viability, especially in districts like Luuka, where stakeholder engagement has been inconsistent. Furthermore, while local communities and their stakeholders are essential in local governance processes, their participation in planning, financial management and budgeting remains limited.
Although substantial resources have been invested in the YLP, Mwesigwa and Mubangizi (2019) observe that livelihood and institutional support do not significantly contribute to youth empowerment. They suggest that the YLP should be repackaged through a participatory process that emphasises the role of successful Youth Interest Groups. Essentially, the success of the YLP hinges on effective stakeholder participation. In Luuka District, the lack of a clear strategy for stakeholder involvement has resulted in ineffective project execution, with the programme falling short of expectations. Fund misappropriation and low stakeholder engagement have undermined the YLP’s performance (Luuka District Local Government Reports 2017). These challenges raise important questions about the role of stakeholder participation in the performance of government-funded initiatives like the YLP. Given the limited research on this topic within the Ugandan context, this study aims to fill the gap by investigating the relationship between stakeholder participation and the performance of the YLP in Luuka District. By examining this relationship, the research aims to contribute to the broader body of knowledge on project performance in Uganda and provide insights into how government and donor-funded programmes can be improved.
Literature review
Stakeholder participation is more than just a theoretical concept; it is a practical approach that enhances transparency, inclusivity and accountability in development projects (Ahmad & Islam 2024; Mubangizi & Adekanla 2024). Active stakeholder involvement helps ensure that projects align with local needs, promoting social acceptability, ownership and long-term commitment from beneficiaries (Akhmouch & Clavreul 2016). Stakeholder participation enhances social change (Mwesigwa & Mubangizi 2019) and in this case, empowers the youth to actively participate in projects intended for their own development. In the context of Uganda’s YLP, where youth empowerment is crucial for the country’s socio-economic development, the success and sustainability of the programme depend heavily on the collaboration of various stakeholders, including community leaders, government agencies and the youth themselves (Mohammed, Fuseini & Baba 2023).
Prebanić and Vukomanović (2023) define stakeholder engagement as practices involving stakeholders in organisational activities, highlighting the importance of allowing citizens to participate. Sherman and Ford (2014) argue that deeper stakeholder involvement is necessary to fully understand stakeholder concerns, needs and expectations in a stakeholder-focused management approach. Van Leeuwen et al. (2018) describe participatory planning as a set of strategies that brings together diverse groups to agree on a project’s goals and execution. This inclusive approach strengthens community development by contextualising projects within the community’s political and historical framework (Rabinovitch 2015). Adoption of participatory processes using tools such as the rural appraisal methodologies coined by Robert Chambers, enables stakeholders, especially beneficiaries, to effectively define their needs and envision their journey to solve their livelihood challenges (Chambers 1994). Freeman’s stakeholder theory asserts that organisations must consider internal and external stakeholders to improve performance. Forging partnerships with local governance structures and external stakeholders improves project performance (Mwesigwa & Mubangizi 2019).
Effective communication between parties can help identify common goals and reduce conflict, ultimately improving project outcomes. Studies from Sri Lanka and India show that involving community members in project design and decision-making leads to better project outcomes and improved maintenance (Isham & Kähkönen 2002). Similarly, community-led development initiatives emphasise local management of resources over formal administrative structures (Elekwa & Eme 2013). For instance, Uganda’s 1999 local government development programme failed to address infrastructure decay, environmental degradation and poverty (Muyomba-Tamale et al. 2011).
Resource management is vital to participatory planning. Easterly (2015) argues that effective resource management drives project performance. Ardoin, Castrechini and Hofstedt (2014) emphasise that involving the community in resource management empowers them to solve local issues. Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture involved the community in a soil and water conservation project, resulting in notable success (Walker, Spaling & Sinclair 2016). Narayan (2012) found that participatory approaches to rural water projects in Africa, Latin America and Asia significantly increased target achievement rates.
Participatory budgeting is another critical factor in project success. Al-Kaabi (2021) argues that participatory budgeting enhances financial management by defining performance goals and measuring outcomes. Goldfrank (2012) views participatory budgeting as a democratic approach that increases accountability by allowing citizens to influence public fund allocation. Birachi et al. (2020) note that effective budgeting departmental spending to ensure resource distribution aligns with planned activities. Participatory budgeting can improve service delivery and stakeholder satisfaction (Stortone & Allegretti 2018), though it can be undermined by organisational mismanagement and gender disparity (Mulwa 2012). Research by Andrade, Costa and Marquetti (2014) and Pimpong (2017) confirms a positive correlation between participatory budgeting and project performance.
Participatory implementation involves turning plans into action, with stakeholders playing active roles (Mulwa 2012). Stakeholder participation ensures project relevance and flexibility by leveraging local expertise and resources (Mwesigwa & Mubangizi 2019; Narayan 2012). Although the work of Cooke and Kothari (2001) claim participation is the ‘new tyranny’ because of its failure to cause project efficiency and empowerment of beneficiaries, other schools show that the best outcomes of participation are achieved when stakeholders are involved in the design phase, implementation and evaluation (Narayan 2012). Zambia’s social investment project found that initial success required ongoing involvement from both government and community members (Lungo, Mavole & Martin 2017). Gambe (2013) and Kissi et al. (2019) emphasise that participatory monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strengthen project performance, and Ocharo and Rambo (2020) demonstrate the positive impact of participatory monitoring on public projects in Kenya.
Theoretical review
Freeman’s stakeholder engagement theory, introduced in 1984, stresses the importance of including diverse stakeholder groups in an organisation’s decision-making processes to enhance performance (Freeman 1984). The theory posits that organisations are not solely responsible to shareholders, but must also consider the interests of all those affected by their actions. Freeman suggests that an organisation’s success depends on how well it manages relationships with these stakeholders and encourages their participation in crucial areas like planning, budgeting and implementation (Freeman 1984, 2010). Engaging diverse stakeholder groups creates a more transparent and inclusive environment, leading to better decision-making, improved performance and greater sustainability (Freeman 1984, 2010, 2016).
In this study, Freeman’s stakeholder engagement theory provides a framework for analysing the involvement of various stakeholders – local leaders, community members, government officials and youth beneficiaries – in the planning, budgeting and implementation phases of the YLP. Freeman’s theory (1984) suggests that the more engaged these stakeholders are, the greater the likelihood of achieving the programme’s goals of youth empowerment and improved socio-economic outcomes. Community ownership, institutional stability and collaboration are essential for the long-term success of government-funded initiatives like the YLP.
Research methods and design
This study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative techniques within a cross-sectional survey design. A cross-sectional design collects data at a specific point in time, making it suitable for examining the relationships between variables and providing a snapshot of stakeholder experiences and programme performance. The research aims to investigate the impact of stakeholder participation on the performance of the YLP in Luuka District, Uganda.
Data were gathered from a diverse group of stakeholders drawn from the Luuka District stakeholder database, which includes individuals directly or indirectly engaged in the YLP. This database comprises members from various entities such as the Community Development Office (CDO), Local Council Chairpersons, Youth Interest Groups, Youth Procurement Committees, Sub-County Financial Officers and the Project Management Committee. The database serves as a planning and engagement tool for identifying relevant actors in the implementation and oversight of youth programmes.
A sample size of 97 respondents was determined using Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) sample size table, a widely used statistical method for defining sample sizes based on known population sizes, ensuring a representative and statistically valid selection.
Data collection utilised both self-administered questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaires were emailed to respondents, allowing for efficient, flexible participation and broader reach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain in-depth insights, guided by a flexible set of open-ended questions to allow exploration of emerging themes.
To ensure the accuracy and quality of the research instruments, the Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed, resulting in a CVI score of 0.95, which indicates excellent agreement among expert reviewers regarding the relevance and clarity of questionnaire items. Reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha, with a value of 0.843, indicating a high level of internal consistency among the scale items.
Quantitative data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Both descriptive statistics (e.g. frequencies, percentages, means etc.) and inferential statistics (e.g. correlations, regressions etc.) were applied to identify trends and test relationships among variables. For the qualitative data, thematic analysis was employed, guided by Braun & Clarke’s (2006) framework, which involves systematic steps such as data familiarisation, coding, theme identification and interpretation to ensure meaningful categorisation of qualitative responses.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Uganda Management Institute, Research and Innovation Centre (reference no: UMI/DPSA/IRIC/2022/012).
Results
The demographic characteristics of the study’s respondents are shown in Table 1.
| TABLE 1: Demographic dispositions of participants. |
Demographic dispositions of participants
An analysis of the respondent demographics (Table 1) shows that most participants (69%) were male, while 31% were female. Regarding education, 23% of respondents were school dropouts, but a significant proportion held qualifications: 33% had certificates, 27% had diplomas and 17% had degrees. The participants’ involvement in various departments, including the Youth Interest Groups, Procurement Committee and Project Management Committee, suggests that the study captured various insights from stakeholders with diverse experiences. Notably, 47% of respondents were project beneficiaries, implying that key stakeholders directly impacted by the YLP provided input. This diversity in participation enhances the credibility of the findings regarding stakeholder involvement in the YLP.
The influence of participatory planning on the Youth Livelihood Programme performance
The following section examines the role of participatory planning in the performance of the YLP. Stakeholder involvement in the planning phase is crucial for ensuring that projects are relevant and well-aligned with the community’s needs. The data in Table 2 provides a detailed overview of respondents’ perceptions regarding the extent of youth participation in planning activities.
| TABLE 2: The influence of participatory planning on the Youth Livelihood Programme performance. |
The study found that 78% of respondents agreed that youth were involved in developing project proposals and frameworks (Table 2), with only 20% disagreeing and 2% uncertain. This generally positive perception indicates substantial youth engagement in the planning phase, which is essential for ensuring that project outcomes address the youth’s specific needs, interests and aspirations.
One participant commented:
‘Our participation in the development of project work plans has been transformative. It’s not just about having a voice but about creating ideas that reflect our needs. Being involved from the beginning makes us more committed to the project’s success.’ (Female, diploma holder, project beneficiary)
The study highlights that youth involvement in project work plan development and site selection has led to a more relevant and engaging project design. This involvement ensures the youth feel a sense of ownership over the project, contributing to its success. However, only 44% of respondents agreed that youth were designing the project’s rules and regulations, and 47% said they were designing capacity development plans. This suggests that although youth participation in planning is generally high, there are gaps in specific areas, particularly in regulatory and capacity-building processes.
Moreover, 49% of respondents disagreed that local government actors were involved in the project design, indicating a disconnect between local government participation and project success. Involving local actors is crucial for identifying development priorities and ensuring smooth implementation. Some respondents also noted limited NGO involvement, particularly in resource mobilisation, which could further weaken project outcomes.
The influence of participatory budgeting on the Youth Livelihood Programme performance
The effectiveness of participatory budgeting is another essential factor in the performance of development programmes such as the YLP. Involving stakeholders in budget-related decisions can enhance transparency and ensure resources are allocated efficiently. Table 3 highlights respondents’ views on their involvement in the budgeting process and its impact on the programme’s overall performance.
| TABLE 3: The influence of participatory budgeting on the Youth Livelihood Programme performance. |
Table 3 reveals that 51% of respondents were not directly involved in the YLP’s budgetary process, while only 39% confirmed their participation. This lack of involvement points to a possible exclusion of key stakeholders from financial decision-making, leading to limited perspectives and potential oversights in budget allocations.
One participant noted:
‘I don’t know how the project budget is planned or managed. It feels like decisions are made behind closed doors when it comes to money matters, and we are left in the dark. More transparency would be helpful.’ (Male, school dropout, beneficiary)
As expressed by participants, the lack of transparency in budgeting erodes stakeholder trust and negatively affects cooperation. Moreover, 44% of respondents indicated that youth were not part of the budget approval process, reinforcing the perception that financial decisions are centralised. Some respondents highlighted that youths often contribute financially to livelihood projects (e.g. poultry and pig farming) to cover costs such as feed and veterinary services. While this suggests youth commitment, it also signals a need for more inclusion in financial decision-making.
Furthermore, 71% of respondents indicated that youth were not part of the project’s finance and budget committee, and 51% noted that local government staff were involved in resource management. Despite some collaboration with project planners, the lack of youth involvement in critical financial decisions undermines accountability and ownership, which could lead to poor financial outcomes for the project. Transparent budgeting processes and better stakeholder collaboration are vital for improving financial outcomes.
The influence of participatory implementation on the Youth Livelihood Programme performance
The study revealed that 60% of participants agreed that youth were involved in M&E activities, suggesting their active role in assessing community challenges and ensuring project accountability (Table 4).
| TABLE 4: The influence of participatory implementation on the Youth Livelihood Programme performance. |
One participant stated:
‘We take part in implementation to keep the project on course. We share feedback and offer suggestions to ensure the project achieves its goals. It’s about promoting accountability and ensuring the project benefits the community.’ (Male, community-based services, Luuka district)
Youth involvement in project implementation demonstrates that they are both beneficiaries and active contributors. However, 52% of respondents felt that their participation in decision-making processes was inadequate, suggesting that more opportunities for meaningful input are needed. However, only a portion felt fully included when examining their decision-making role. Specifically, 29.9% of respondents (2.1% strongly disagreed and 27.8% disagreed) did not agree that all group members participated in decision-making processes. Additionally, 22.7% remained neutral. Including neutral responses in this context is important as it reflects a significant share of respondents who may have been uncertain about the inclusivity of the decision-making process or felt their involvement was neither positive nor negative. This suggests a potential lack of clarity or meaningful engagement, reinforcing the need for more deliberate efforts to ensure youth are genuinely involved in decision-making.
Collaboration within youth groups was also strong, with 70% agreeing that teamwork was key to achieving project objectives. This indicates that the youth can contribute valuable insights and assess project progress by leveraging teamwork. Local leaders and security forces, including the Uganda Police Force, were perceived by some respondents to play a role in ensuring financial accountability by identifying defaulters. However, this perception was not unanimous – while 50% of participants agreed with this view, 25% expressed disagreement and another 25% indicated they did not know. These varied responses suggest that while local authorities recognise efforts, the consistency and visibility of such accountability mechanisms may vary across different contexts or communities. Furthermore, 83% of respondents agreed that the YLP used a multisectoral approach to implementation, emphasising the need for continuous evaluation to maintain project effectiveness.
Impact of stakeholder participation on Youth Livelihood Programme performance
A multiple regression analysis (Table 5) shows a statistically significant relationship between stakeholder participation and YLP performance, with an f-statistic of 21.823 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating strong evidence that stakeholder participation affects project performance.
The results in Table 6 indicate that at a 5% significance level, participatory planning and budgeting did not significantly impact project performance (Sig. = 0.548 and Sig. = 0.514, respectively). This suggests that increasing participatory planning or budgeting does not directly enhance project outcomes. While stakeholder perceptions highlighted participatory planning and budgeting as ‘essential’, ‘transformative’ and ‘vital’ to YLP project performance, regression analysis revealed that these forms of participation did not show a statistically significant effect on project performance at the conventional threshold. This does not imply that participatory approaches lack value; instead, it suggests that while widely perceived as beneficial, their measurable impact on performance outcomes may be mediated by other variables or not directly detectable in the current model. These findings underscore the importance of complementing perception-based insights with statistical evidence while also acknowledging the limitations of quantitative models in capturing the full value of participatory processes.
| TABLE 6: Regression analysis of coefficient. |
By contrast, participatory implementation demonstrated a highly statistically significant relationship with project performance (p = 0.000), reinforcing the finding that active stakeholder involvement during the implementation phase is a critical factor in the success of YLP initiatives. This suggests that while planning and budgeting participation are perceived as necessary, it is during implementation that stakeholder engagement has the most measurable impact on outcomes.
Discussion
The results of this study challenge several previous findings (Gopalakrishnan et al. 2012; Jiménez et al. 2019; Mansuri & Rao 2013), but highlight an essential aspect of project management literature: stakeholder involvement does not always lead to improved performance outcomes. The impact on stakeholder involvement can vary depending on project-specific factors and engagement quality. According to Freeman’s stakeholder theory, the participation of stakeholders is crucial for project success as it contributes to creating shared value. However, in the case of Uganda’s YLP, the effectiveness of participatory planning seems to depend on factors beyond mere inclusion. Jiménez et al. (2019) and Gopalakrishnan et al. (2012) emphasise the significance of external stakeholders in government projects, but their influence is not consistent. Additionally, O’Donovan et al. (2020) suggests that Uganda’s resource and cultural barriers may hinder effective engagement, making it necessary for participatory planning to adapt to local realities. Participatory processes often become symbolic rather than substantive, which could explain the disparities between these findings and those of Walker (2015, 2016) and Musa (2012). Given these challenges, it is crucial for future participatory planning efforts to focus on meaningful stakeholder engagement that addresses local contexts and avoids merely symbolic inclusion.
The absence of a statistically significant correlation between participatory budgeting and project performance in Uganda’s YLP is in contrast to the substantial body of literature supporting a positive link, as demonstrated by the research of Grillos (2017) and Marquette, Schonerwald da Silva and Campbell (2012). Freeman’s stakeholder theory underscores the critical role of budgeting as a process through which various stakeholders can influence resource allocation. However, discrepancies between stakeholder expectations and actual budgetary processes within the YLP may explain these differing findings. Both Stortone and De Cindio (2015), Grillos (2017), and Stortone and Allegretti (2018) emphasise the positive impact of participatory budgeting on service delivery. Still, institutional and cultural barriers, especially in engaging youth in budgeting decisions, may impede meaningful participation. Freeman emphasises the context-specific nature of stakeholder engagement, with transparency and capacity limitations further complicating youth involvement. Pimpong (2017) similarly underscores transparency and inclusivity as crucial for participatory budgeting to enhance project outcomes.
The strong correlation between participatory implementation and project performance aligns with Freeman’s stakeholder theory, underscoring the importance of engaging stakeholders throughout all project stages. Research by Ocharo, Rambo and Ojwang (2020) and Kissi et al. (2019) highlights that involving stakeholders in implementation enhances accountability and improves outcomes. Freeman’s theory suggests that active stakeholder participation in implementation fosters a sense of ownership, thus driving better performance. This is further supported by Barron and Barron (2013), who argue that direct stakeholder involvement promotes a more significant commitment to project success, particularly in resource-constrained settings such as Uganda, where effective stakeholder engagement ensures efficient resource utilisation. Musa (2012) also stresses the critical role of external actors in maintaining project performance through participatory implementation. Freeman’s framework supports this perspective by recognising that different stakeholders contribute unique resources and perspectives essential for project success. Therefore, the active involvement of both local communities and external actors creates a more sustainable and accountable implementation process.
Conclusion and recommendations
The study concludes that participatory planning did not significantly impact the YLP performance in Luuka District. This suggests that increasing levels of participatory planning alone may not directly improve project outcomes. However, despite the lack of statistical significance, participatory planning remains valuable for fostering inclusivity and promoting a sense of ownership, which can contribute to long-term project success. In contrast, participatory implementation was found to significantly and positively influence the performance of the YLP. This highlights the need to focus more resources and efforts on engaging stakeholders during the implementation phase, as it emerged as the most influential factor in ensuring the programme’s success.
These findings align with Freeman’s stakeholder theory, which emphasises that organisations are accountable to all parties affected by their actions. Freeman argues that an organisation’s success depends on how well it manages its relationships with stakeholders, particularly in key areas such as planning, budgeting and implementation. By fostering a more inclusive and transparent environment, organisations can make better decisions, improve performance and enhance the sustainability of projects. In the context of the YLP in Luuka District, it is essential to raise public awareness, especially among the youth, regarding their roles in the programme’s design and planning phases. Strengthening local structures, such as youth councils and local government bodies, and fostering public-private partnerships can improve participatory planning and capacity-building efforts. According to stakeholder theory, such an approach would lead to better resource allocation, enhanced accountability and greater trust, ultimately improving the programme’s outcomes. Additionally, engaging various stakeholders, including NGOs and civil society organisations, throughout the project lifecycle is critical. Public education campaigns and capacity-building efforts, particularly in financial management and sustainability planning, would further reinforce the participatory approaches advocated by Freeman’s theory, ensuring the long-term success of the YLP.
These findings also contribute to the broader literature on public project management and participatory governance, particularly regarding stakeholder engagement. The result that participatory planning did not significantly impact performance aligns with critiques in public management literature, which suggest that the benefits of participatory approaches are not always immediately measurable. Scholars such as Arnstein (1969) and Gaventa (2004) argue that participatory processes often require long-term investment and capacity-building to yield quantifiable results. The study’s emphasis on the importance of participatory implementation echoes findings from other sectors where stakeholder engagement is crucial to project success. Ultimately, this research highlights the need for well-targeted and effectively managed stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecycle, offering valuable insights for future youth programmes and development initiatives. Future research should examine the quality of stakeholder engagement and how deeply stakeholders are involved as a mediating factor in the relationship between participatory planning and project performance. Finally, researchers should also examine how local cultural, institutional and resource-related factors influence the success of participatory planning, particularly in resource-constrained settings such as Uganda.
Acknowledgements
This manuscript is based on a Master’s dissertation submitted to the Uganda Management Institute (UMI) by Hamis Bikadho. This article is partially based on the author’s thesis titled ‘Stakeholders’ Participation and the Performance of the Youth Livelihood Program in Uganda: A Case of Luuka District’ towards the degree of Master’s in Management Studies Public Administration and Management in the Department of Public Administration and Management, Uganda Management Institute (UMI), Kampala on March 2024, with supervisors Ivan K. Twinomuhwezi, Robert Agwot Komakech and Mentors Betty C. Mubangizi and Rose B. Namara.
Competing interests
The authors reported that they received funding from the National Research Foundation (RSA) through the SARChI Chair in Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, appreciated and acknowledged which may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The authors have disclosed those interests fully and have implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.
Authors’ contributions
H.B., as part of a Master’s thesis, was responsible for conducting the study, data collection and analysis. I.K.T. supervised and offered guidance throughout the research process, and B.C.M, R.B.N. and R.A.K. contributed to the interpretation of findings. B.C.M. edited the manuscript and provided funding support. All authors read the final version of the manuscript.
Funding information
The support of the National Research Foundation (RSA) through the SARChI Chair in Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, is appreciated and acknowledged.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the author, R.B.M. of UMI’s Research Innovation Centre, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Aaltonen, K. & Kujala, J., 2016, ‘Towards an improved understanding of project stakeholder landscapes’, International Journal of Project Management 34(8), 1537–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.009
Ahmad, I. & Islam, M.R., 2024, ‘Empowerment and participation: Key strategies for inclusive development’, in I. Ahmad & M.R. Islam (eds.), Building strong communities: Ethical approaches to inclusive development, pp. 47–68, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds.
Akhmouch, A. & Clavreul, D., 2016, ‘Stakeholder engagement for inclusive water governance: “Practicing what we preach” with the OECD water governance initiative’, Water 8(5), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8050204
Al-Kaabi, N., 2021, ‘An analysis of how accountability is implemented in the school system in Qatar’, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Bath.
Andrade, L.P., Costa, S.L.D. & Marquetti, F.C., 2014, ‘The street has a magnet; I think it is freedom: Power, suffering, and life strategies among homeless persons in the city of Santos, São Paulo, Brazil’, Saúde e Sociedade 23(4), 1248–1261. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902014000400011
Ardoin, N.M., Castrechini, S. & Hofstedt, M.K., 2014, ‘Youth-community-university partnerships and sense of place: Two case studies of youth participatory action research’, Children’s Geographies 12(4), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2013.827872
Arnstein, S.R., 1969, ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Barron, A. & Barron, M., 2013, Project management, connexions, Rice University, BCCampus Victoria, British Columbia.
Birachi, E., Hansen, J., Radeny, M., Mutua, M., Mbugua, M.W., Munyangeri, Y. et al., 2020, Rwanda Climate Services for Agriculture: Evaluation of farmers’ awareness, use and impact’, CCAFS Working Paper no. 304, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Wageningen, The Netherlands, viewed 21 October 2021, from https://hdl.handle.net/10568/108052
Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006, ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Chambers, R., 1994, ‘The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal’, World Development 22(7), 953–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4
Cooke, B. & Kothari, U., 2001, ‘The case for participation as tyranny’, in B. Cooke & U. Kothari (eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? pp. 13–15, Zed Books, London.
Easterly, W., 2015, ‘The SDGs should stand for senseless, dreamy, garbled’, Foreign Policy 28, 1–5.
Elekwa, N.N. & Eme, O.I., 2013, ‘Community driven development in the local government system: A new strategy’, Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Kuwait Chapter) 3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.12816/0001276
Freeman, R.E., 1984, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Pittman, Marshfield, MA.
Freeman, R.E., 2010, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, M., 2016, ‘Capitalism and freedom’, in Democracy: A reader, pp. 344–349, Columbia University Press.
Gambe, T.R., 2013, ‘Stakeholder involvement in water service provision: Lessons from Msasa Park, Harare, Zimbabwe’, International Journal of Politics and Good Governance 4(4.2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.9790/2380-0432135
Gaventa, J., 2004, ‘Participatory development or participatory democracy? Linking participatory approaches to policy and governance (PLA50)’, Participatory Learning and Action 50: Critical Reflections, Future Directions 50, 150–159.
Goldfrank, B., 2012, ‘The World Bank and the globalisation of participatory budgeting’, Journal of Deliberative Democracy 8(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.143
Gopalakrishnan, K., Yusuf, Y.Y., Musa, A., Abubakar, T. & Ambursa, H.M., 2012, ‘Sustainable supply chain management: A case study of British Aerospace (BAe) systems’, International Journal of Production Economics 140(1), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.003
Grillos, T., 2017, ‘Participatory budgeting and the poor: Tracing bias in a multi-staged process in Solo, Indonesia’, World Development 96, 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.019
Isham, J. & Kähkönen, S., 2002, ‘Institutional determinants of the impact of community-based water services: Evidence from Sri Lanka and India’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 50(3), 667–691. https://doi.org/10.1086/342357
Jiménez, A., LeDeunff, H., Giné, R., Sjödin, J., Cronk, R., Murad, S. et al., 2019, ‘The enabling environment for participation in water and sanitation: A conceptual framework’, Water 11(2), 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020308
Kissi, E., Agyekum, K., Baiden, B.K., Tannor, R.A., Asamoah, G.E. & Andam, E.T., 2019, ‘Impact of project monitoring and evaluation practices on construction project success criteria in Ghana’, Built Environment Project and Asset Management 9(3), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-11-2018-0135
Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W., 1970, ‘Determining sample size for research activities’, Educational and Psychological Measurement 30, 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Lungo, M.P., Mavole, J. & Martin, O., 2017, ‘Determinants of project sustainability beyond donor support: Case of caritas Norway supported governance project in Mansa diocese, Zambia’, Arts and Social Sciences Journal 8(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6200.1000278
Luuka District Local Government, 2017, Annual health and administrative report: Emergency obstetric care at Kiyunga Health Centre IV, Ministry of Health, Uganda, viewed 22 October 2021, from https://www.mnh.musph.ac.ug/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Emergency-Obstetric-Care-at-Kiyunga.pdf.
Mansuri, G. & Rao, V., 2013, Localising development: Does participation work?, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Marquette, A., Schonerwald da Silva, C.E. & Campbell, A., 2012, ‘Participatory economic democracy in action: Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, 1989–2004’, Review of Radical Political Economics 44(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613411418055
MoGLSD, 2013, Youth Livelihood Program (YLP) document, Government of Uganda, Kampala, Uganda.
Mohammed, A.S., Fuseini, M.N. & Baba, K.C., 2023, ‘Grassroots stakeholders’ perception of participation in the medium-term development plan of district assemblies in Ghana: The case of Sawla-Tuna-Kalba District’, Heliyon 9(8), e19178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19178
Mubangizi, B.C. & Adekanla, N., 2024, ‘Sustainable livelihoods in rural Uganda – Programmes, projects, and participants in the face of pandemics’, Lex Localis: Journal of Local Self-Government 22(4), 124–149. https://doi.org/10.52152/22.4.124-149(2024)
Mulwa, F.W., 2012, ‘The practice of community development in Kenya: Challenges and issues for professionalisation’, Africanus 42(2), 67–80.
Musa, M., 2012, ‘The influence of institutional shareholder activism as a corporate governance monitoring mechanism in Malaysia’, Waset.org 71, 1328–1332.
Muyomba-Tamale, L., Tumushabe, G.W. & Ssemakula, E., 2011, Local Government Councils’ Performance and Public Service Delivery in Uganda: Mpigi District Council score-card report 2009/10 (Policy Research Series No. 42), Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE), Kampala, viewed 22 October 2021, from https://acode-u.org/uploadedFiles/PRS42.pdf.
Mwesigwa, D. & Mubangizi, B.C., 2019, ‘Contributions of the Youth Livelihood Programme (YLP) to youth empowerment in Hoima District, Uganda’, International Journal of Business and Management Studies 11(1), 54–73.
Narayan, V., 2012, ‘Business performance and maintenance: How are safety, quality, reliability, productivity and maintenance related?’, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 18(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511211244210
O’Donovan, J., Thompson, A., Stiles, C., Opintan, J.A., Kabali, K., Wills, I. et al., 2020. ‘Participatory approaches, local stakeholders and cultural relevance facilitate an impactful community-based project in Uganda’, Health Promotion International 35(6), 1353–1368. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz127
Ocharo, D.R. & Rambo, C., 2020, ‘Influence of monitoring and evaluation frameworks on performance of public agricultural projects in Galana Kilifi County, Kenya’, European Journal of Physical and Agricultural Sciences 8(1), 1–10.
Ocharo, D.R., Rambo, C. & Ojwang, B., 2020, ‘Influence of routine programme monitoring on performance of public agricultural projects in Galana Kilifi County, Kenya’, International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS) 7(2), 62–68.
Pimpong, S., 2017, ‘Public financial accountability: The case of the financial administration courts in Ghana’, The International Journal on Governmental Financial Management 17(2), 19.
Prebanić, K.R. & Vukomanović, M., 2023, ‘Exploring stakeholder engagement process as the success factor for infrastructure projects’, Buildings 13(7), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071785
Rabinovitch, H.R., 2015, ‘Snapshot of an object in motion: Quantifying homelessness’, Unpublished dissertation, Simon Fraser University.
Sherman, M.H. & Ford, J., 2014, ‘Stakeholder engagement in adaptation interventions: An evaluation of projects in developing nations’, Climate Policy 14(3), 417–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.859501
Sperry, R.C. & Jetter, A.J., 2019, ‘A systems approach to project stakeholder management: Fuzzy cognitive map modeling’, Project Management Journal 50(6), 699–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819847870
Stortone, S. & Allegretti, G., 2018, ‘Participatory budgeting in Italy. Towards a renaissance?’, in N. Dias (ed.), Hope for democracy: 30 Years of participatory budgeting worldwide, pp. 288–309, Nelson Dias Org, viewed 09 October 2021, from https://npms.cfh.ufsc.br/files/2018/09/hope_for_democracy_-_digital.pdf.
Stortone, S. & De Cindio, F., 2015, ‘Hybrid participatory budgeting: Local democratic practices in the digital era’, in M. Foth, M. Brynskov & T. Ojala (eds.), Citizen’s right to the digital city: Urban interfaces, activism, and placemaking, pp. 177–197, Springer, Singapore.
Van Leeuwen, J.P., Hermans, K., Jylhä, A., Quanjer, A.J. & Nijman, H., 2018, ‘Effectiveness of virtual reality in participatory urban planning: A case study’, in Proceedings of the 4th Media Architecture Biennale Conference, Beijing, November, pp. 128–136.
Walker, A.P.P., 2015, ‘The conflation of participatory budgeting and public-private partnerships in Porto Alegre, Brazil: The construction of a working-class mall for street hawkers’, Economic Anthropology 2(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/sea2.12023
Walker, A.P.P., 2016, ‘Self-help or public housing? Lessons from co-managed slum upgrading via participatory budget’, Habitat International 55, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2016.02.005
Walker, H., Spaling, H. & Sinclair, A.J., 2016, ‘Towards a home-grown approach to strategic environmental assessment: Adapting practice and participation in Kenya’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 34(3), 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1176409
Wong, S. & Guggenheim, S., 2018, ‘Community-driven development: Myths and realities’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8435), World Bank, Washington DC, viewed 10 May 2024, from http://www.worldbank.org/research.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
