Major Environmental Constraints on Growth of Micro and Small Enterprises in. Uganda: A .... access to and use of computer, email, fax and internet for business ...
International Journal of Cooperative Studies Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013, 26-33 DOI: 10.11634/216826311302348
Major Environmental Constraints on Growth of Micro and Small Enterprises in Uganda: A Survey of Selected Micro and Small Enterprises in Mbarara Municipality Arthur Nuwagaba1* and Hope Nzewi2 1
Uganada Christian University- Mukono, Uganda 2 Nnamdi Azikiwe University –Awka, Nigeria
Micro and Small enterprises (henceforth, MSEs) play a key role in economic growth and industrial development of a country. They make vital contributions in improving economic and social sectors of a country through stimulating large scale employment, investment, development of indigenous skill and technology, promotion of entrepreneurship and innovativeness, enhancing exports, and also building an industrial base at different scales. However, Ugandan micro- and small enterprises (MSEs) still perform poorly as a result of a combination of factors ranging from internal to external factors. The paper relies on data collected from selected MSEs for the period of October 2011 to February 2012 in Mbarara municipality. Using a stratified random sampling, a sample of 60 MSEs were surveyed. These included fabrication industry, Milling industry, carpentry and small roadside shops. The paper examines the extent to which the growth of MSEs is associated with environmental constraints. The results reveal that MSEs’ growth potential is negatively affected by limited access to productive resources (finance and business services), by high taxes, lack of market access, erratic and costly electricity, lack of infrastructure, lack of human resources, and competitive practices that were dysfunctionally imitative rather than innovative. Keywords: credit, micro and small enterprises, cooperative societies
Introduction Micro- and small enterprises (MSEs) in Uganda play a significant role as they employ 90 percent of the active population (UBOS, 2010). Almost ¾ of the Ugandan population are engaged in entrepreneurial activities, particularly MSE’s, and there are only a few medium and large enterprises. Most MSE’s employ less than 20 employees and majority of the employees are family members. MSEs are not growing as evidenced by not expanding, not increasing on the work force, not opening other branches and their scale of operations remaining low. The industrial sector, which is dominated by MSEs, still contributes less than 20 percent to the GDP and has not been performing impressively. Compared to large enterprises, MSE’s are less efficient and incur high costs per unit of revenue. They use labor-intensive technologies to compensate for the lack of technical capacity in order to perform well. The larger firms are more capital-intensive than the smaller ones. Factors contributing to the unimpressive performance of Ugandan MSE’s, as *
Corresponding author.
mentioned in different studies, are limited capital and limited access to finance (Okurut & Bategeka, 2006; Kappel, Lay & Steiner, 2004; Uganda Microfinance Outreach Plan 2001; UCAP, 2001; Mugume & Obwona, 2001). Given MSEs’ lack of access to external finance, their decisions to upgrade their equipment and machinery by making new investments are further constrained by limited internal sources of financing. Several papers indicate additional constraining factors such as inadequate provision of public infrastructure and services that affect private investment (Svensson & Reinikka, 2001), unfavorable taxation systems, and a heavy regulatory burden and administrative bureaucracy (Keefer, 2000). Other authors mention limited access to differentiated markets, which might be related to a lack of forward linkages (Kappel, Lay, & Steiner 2004), the concentration of MSEs in low-quality production (Sengendo et al. 2001), high transport and transaction costs (Rudaheranwa 2000, 2006; Wood & Jordan 2000), corruption (Svensson, 2002), low trust and minimalist entrepreneurial strategies (Kappel, 2004; Sorensen, 2001), education and poor managerial and skills competence (Nalumansi et al. 2002; Nel & Shapiro, 2003), weak support institutions ISSN 2168-2631 Print/ ISSN 2168-264X Online © 2013 World Scholars
27
A. Nuwagaba and H. Nzewi
(Krasemann, 1996; Kyomugisha, 2001), a lack of sectoral competitiveness, and an overall neglect of MSEs in Uganda (Cotton et al. 2003). Given the role played by MSEs in Uganda, a study that specifically addresses the environmental constraints that affects their growth potential is very important. In line with Reinikka and Svensson’s (2001) postulate that the rate of economic growth is positively associated with the rate of investment, factors in the business environment which constrain investment could in turn be the root cause of the poor economic growth of the manufacturing sector in Uganda. The removal of the impediments to entrepreneurship could be a powerful mechanism for growth. Structure of MSEs in Uganda, Contribution of MSE’s Sector The Micro and small scale enterprise sector is a major economic sector in most African countries including Uganda. In Uganda’s case, it is estimated to contribute: - Over 30% of GDP - Over 30% of employment - Over 80% of manufactured output. Therefore the MSE sector is second only to Agriculture in generating employment and contributing to poverty alleviation. There has not been a comprehensive survey of the MSE sector in Uganda for a long time (over 10 years). The above figures are only indicative. State of the MSE’s Sector in Uganda A recent UNESCO funded study had the following major findings on the MSE sector in Uganda: (2005). The majority of MSEs surveyed were sole proprietorships because they are easy to form, are managed by individuals and decisions are easy to make without consultation. The majority of MSE’s started business with own savings and accumulated family funds. Gender involvements, on the average (77%) of the businesses were male owned with women businesses accounting for (23%). This of course varies sector. Most MSE’s had capitalization levels of less than 50 million with the largest percentages in 1 – 5 million. Most MSE’s had machinery valued below UGX. 20 million. The tools, equipment and machinery in use were outdated, inefficient, are low capacity and in some cases inappropriate. Most MSE’s employed 3 – 10 employees who were mostly unskilled. 60% rented their work premises compared with 40% who owned their work
places. Those renting were considering construction of own premises if they were to expand operations but were constrained by lack of investment capital. Although 94% had mobile phones they lacked access to and use of computer, email, fax and internet for business. These were accessed at local internet cafes and secretary bureaus. The largest percentage (64%) borrowed from MFIs. Some MSE’s comprising 16.6% were able to get loans from banks like DFCU, Stanbic and Centenary and SACCO’S (Savings and credit cooperative societies) all for working capital. There was complaint the MFI loans were unsustainable because the interest rates were high and that ranged from 28 – 48%, there was no grace period, had short payback period usually not more than six months. Market Penetration: 93% were producing for a localized market because of lack of capital to expand operations for export. Only 20% of MSEs had good management and organizational set up. These contracted professional to plan their business, audit accounts and taxation advice. The majority operated without clear plans, had poor records and generally poor management. All the firms needed technology and long term investment. They had visions and ideas for new products, or improvement of the exiting. They needed skills, bigger working space, machinery and equipment for increasing production capacity quality, and innovation. Literature Review on Micro and Small There is no generally accepted definition of a small business because the classification of businesses into large-scale or small-scale is a subjective and qualitative judgment. In countries such as the USA, Britain, and Canada, small-scale business is defined in terms of annual turnover and the number of paid employees. In Britain, small-scale business is defined as that industry with an annual turnover of 2 million pounds or less with fewer than 200 paid employees. Definitions often vary from country to country and, in some cases, even within countries depending on the government agency or economic sector in question. Metrics used typically include the number of employees, revenues, or fixed assets. This paper defines MSEs as firms with up to 50 workers that are engaged in non-primary activities and sell at least 50 percent of their output. The MSE category includes microenterprises, which have up to 10 workers, as well as small enterprises, which have between 11 and 50 workers. Characteristics of MSEs
International Journal of Cooperative Studies
In this paper, we use the generic name MSEs, following UNIDO (1997) and Daniels (1999), among other studies, to refer to small-scale enterprises. In general, MSEs are an integral element of the informal sector in most developing countries. In the majority of cases, these enterprises are initially informal but gradually some of them survive and become formal businesses, thereby providing the foundation of modern private companies (Mkandawire, 1999; Cook and Nixson, 2005). Hence, the growth of these enterprises is part and parcel of a dynamic growth process in the corporate sector, as argued by Liedholm and Mead (1994) and Prasad et al. (2005). As noted by Cook and Nixson (2005), although a number of measures have been used to identify and describe MSE’s, there is no consensus on any one measure and it is customary to use several metrics, including the value of fixed assets of the enterprise, enterprise turnover and the number of employees. Ryan (2005) has pointed out that the term may be used to cover a wide range of economic activities for an indicative number of employees; for example survival activities (
