Economy to Blame for Graduate Unemployment in Uganda

University training is under attack for producing job seekers rather than creators. Beyond the rhetoric, however, an important question is one of whether university training, rather than the economy, is to blame for the graduate unemployment problem. This is what motivated a recent study, by the author, ‘Factors influencing graduate employability in Uganda’, which undertook to respond to the following, among other, questions: what is the incidence of graduate unemployment in Uganda? Is graduate unemployment in Uganda, if existent, consequent upon mismatch between university training and labour market demands? What are the factors influencing graduate self-employment in Uganda? The findings of the study exonerate university training whilst implicating the economy.

High Levels of Graduate Employment

Firstly, 85% of the graduates were employed and 88% of these had achieved employment within one year of graduation. This disputes a high incidence of graduate unemployment here and is corroborated by evidence from other scholarly efforts like Kirumira (2003) (Where has all the education gone in Uganda?)

Sociology; not university training

An interesting finding, however, was that 50% of these had achieved their first employment placement through a personal contact or were working in a family owned company. This suggests that 50% of the available employment opportunities are rationed ‘sociologically’, meaning that, on account of lack of ‘well-placed’ labour market contacts, some graduates will find it particularly difficult to get into formal employment irrespective of the university training they received.

Jobs Not Enough

Under the auspices of higher education liberalisation, and as a spontaneous response to contemporary demographic trends, the number of graduates turned out in Uganda has expanded exponentially over the last twenty years. The high level of graduate employment noted above not withstanding, it was the opinion of the respondents that employment opportunities have not expanded proportionately. Since, according to the strategic plan for higher education, the vision of higher education here rests not only in the provision of quality higher education but also in making it accessible to all qualifying Ugandans, the desirable condition is that universities enrol all qualifying applicants and the onus is on the economy to absorb the graduates, by way of employment, which it has not done.

Question of Science Education

That science based higher education is of higher employability value in Uganda is a famed, and of late, popular policy position. Nonetheless, the study found no significant discrepancies between the employment situation of humanities and science graduates. Evidence was generated, however, that some science graduates are in placements that are supposedly humanities based, meaning that the economy has not evolved an incentive system that encourages students to specialise in the sciences, despite a much heralded commitment to science education.

Rural-Urban Discrepancies

Critics argue that, owing to their elitist training, graduates decline rural employment openings. Nonetheless, none of the graduates had ever declined rural employment. Several of the graduates in the urban areas, however, explained that these areas offer more hopes of employment and many rural stationed jobs are, all the same, offered at organisational headquarters in Kampala. In the sobering words of Bishop, however, as long as we tax rural enterprises to build social infrastructure, not in rural areas but in towns, a young man who leaves school and goes to a rural area ought to have his head [sic] examined, which exonerates university training whilst implicating development planning.

Lack of capital; not training

Graduate self-employment was generally non-existent--94% of the graduates were not engaged in any form of self-employment. However, all the graduates refuted the claim that they are not self-employed because they lack training in the necessary entrepreneurial skills. Instead, 90% of them cited lack of capital. Prioritisation of formal sector employment was also found to underlie the absence of graduate self-employment, albeit superficially. Sociological factors have tended to restrict jobs to the more affluent graduates that would normally have or access the capital necessitated to be self-employed, leaving those who are least capable of self-employment unemployed yet they are blamed for failing to take up self-employment. Paid employment, on the other hand, is the choice destination for graduates because available options for self-employment, and the ones most employment policy persons and commentators point to, are mostly ‘survivalist’ and don’t keep up with paid employment--in terms of returns, work environment and professional and social development. This is why most of the few graduates who were self-employed looked at their self-employment as stopgap.

Policy Implications

More than anything else, efforts to alleviate graduate unemployment must focus on formal sector employment opportunity creation; not calling university training names. Attention must also be put on increasing the practicability and profitability of graduate self-employment. Graduates should neither be encouraged nor expected to take up ‘survivalist’ self-employment because returns to it characteristically fail to be within range with those to formal sector employment for which they supposedly qualify. It may be important to realise that where graduate self-employment has been significant, the Newly Industrialised Countries for example, this has arisen more out of an enabling macro-economic environment than out of university training. Rather than ask what university training has not done, therefore, policy discussions should focus on why loans, mortgage and leasing have not worked for recent graduates. Lastly, there is no point in being quiet about the absence of subsidies in favour of graduate self-employment if policy makers are genuinely concerned to enhance graduate self-employment.