Page 743
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
From Microcredit to Productive Capability: Reframing Microfinance
for Structural Transformation and Competitiveness in Uganda
Alex Oboth
1
, Wasike David
2
1
Head of Department Microfinance Faculty of Business & Management (BAM) Uganda Martyrs
University (UMU)-Kampala-Uganda
2
Doctoral Student Faculty of Business & Management (BAM) Uganda Martyrs University (UMU)-
Kampala-Uganda
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.15020000064
Received: 25 February 2026; Accepted: 03 March 2026; Published: 16 March 2026
ABSTRACT
Despite the rapid growth of microfinance as a key development effort, Uganda’s production structure still relies
on low-productivity activities and traditional production factors. This article argues that current microfinance
practices mainly support consumption smoothing and survival entrepreneurship instead of fostering productive
transformation and competitiveness. The study draws from political economy, institutional theory, and
innovation-focused development views to redefine microfinance as a possible strategic tool for building
productive capabilities, improving technology, and promoting organizational learning. Through qualitative
analysis of national policy frameworks, development reports, and academic literature on Uganda, the article
presents a combined conceptual, contextual, and theoretical framework that connects microfinance to economic
transformation by building capabilities at both the firm and system levels. The findings show that the
transformative effect of microfinance relies not just on access to finance but also on its connection to innovation
systems, institutional incentives, and strategies for upgrading value chains. This study enriches development
finance research by shifting the focus of microfinance from merely a poverty-reduction tool to a
productionfocused instrument for structural transformation.
Keywords: microfinance; productive capability; economic transformation; political economy; competitiveness;
Uganda.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past thirty years, microfinance has become a key tool for development in low-income countries. It is
seen as a way to reduce poverty, include more people in the financial system, and support business growth. In
Uganda, microfinance institutions, village savings and loan groups, and digital credit platforms have quickly
grown alongside national efforts to create jobs and boost the private sector. However, even with this financial
progress, Uganda's production system remains focused on land-based, low-tech, and informal economic
activities. Productivity growth has been slow, industrial development is limited, and most micro and small
businesses operate at a basic subsistence level. This raises a crucial question about whether microfinance can
really drive structural change or only support short-term survival. This article argues that Uganda's microfinance
system is part of a larger political and economic model. This model values market inclusion and managing
consumption over building productive capabilities. While microfinance has improved access to cash for
households and informal businesses, it hasn't changed the production structure or enabled long-term
competitiveness. The main idea here is that microfinance should be viewed as part of a production and innovation
system, rather than just a separate social finance effort. For microfinance to truly contribute to structural change,
it needs to be connected strategically with technology upgrades, organizational learning, and value-chain
development.
Despite its widespread use, the impact of microfinance on development is still debated among scholars.
Largescale studies show that although microcredit helps with short-term cash flow and risk management, its
Page 744
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
effects on business productivity, growth, and long-term income are usually modest and vary widely (Banerjee,
Karlan & Zinman, 2015; Duvendack & Mader, 2020). In low-income areas like Uganda, where many micro and
small businesses face intense competition, credit often gets invested in low-return trading or temporary
consumption support. Thus, access to finance alone does not solve deeper issues related to technological abilities,
organizational practices, and learning systems. Recent assessments by the World Bank also show that Uganda's
business sector suffers from low labor productivity, limited innovation, and weak links to higher-value markets
(World Bank, 2023). The main obstacles to business growth are not just financial but also related to institutions
and capabilities. This includes poor management practices, limited access to technical help, slow adoption of
new production methods, and inadequate compliance with standards. In this environment, the quick expansion
of microfinance has generally increased the number of market players without greatly improving their efficiency
or competitive position within changing value chains.
Evidence from the International Labour Organization underscores this structural view, revealing that most new
jobs in Uganda come from informal, low-productivity work, where capital returns are small, unstable, and often
hit hard by market and climate changes (ILO, 2022). As a result, microfinance has become part of a broader
employment model focused on necessity-driven entrepreneurship rather than opportunity-driven business
growth. Without intentional integration into skill development systems, technology transfer approaches, and
business improvement programs, microfinance risks maintaining a low-productivity situation where market
involvement does not lead to sustainable income growth or economic change.
From a political economy viewpoint, the ongoing focus on microfinance as a tool for poverty reduction and
financial inclusion highlights a larger policy tendency. This tendency prioritizes quick outreach and targeting
rather than long-term productive change. Research on late industrialization and institutional development shows
that financial systems can foster structural change only when aligned with industrial policy, innovation strategies,
and coordinated learning (Chang, 2002; Mazzucato, 2018). This study argues that rethinking microfinance within
Uganda's production and innovation framework is not just a technical tweak in financial models but a major shift
in development policy. This shift should move focus from poverty management and informality to actively
supporting business improvements, technology adoption, and the development of organizational capabilities.
Contextual Framework
Uganda’s current microfinance scene should be seen in the context of financial sector liberalization and donorled
market changes that began in the late 1990s. These changes focused on making institutions sustainable, getting
private businesses involved, and reaching people who had not previously used banking services. This led to a
quick rise in microfinance institutions and community-based financial organizations. However, even with
broader access to financial services, reports from the World Bank show that this financial growth has not resulted
in a corresponding increase in productivity or improvement in small enterprises (World Bank, 2020; World Bank,
2023). Most enterprises that benefit from microfinance still work in low-value areas like agriculture, small trade,
and informal services.
This shows that production methods are still focused on basic factors, and there is limited use of new technology.
Evidence from the job market shows that the growth of microfinance has happened in a work environment largely
dominated by informal jobs with low productivity. According to reviews by the International Labour
Organization, most new jobs in Uganda in the past ten years have been in self-employment and small home
businesses. These often have low investment levels and few opportunities for learning (ILO, 2022). Studies on
how small businesses perform in low-income areas show that access to small loans mainly helps keep household
incomes stable and manage spending. However, it rarely helps businesses adopt new technologies, improve
production methods, or enter higher-value markets (Banerjee et al., 2015; Grimm et al., 2016). As a result,
microfinance has become part of a job structure that absorbs labor but limits productivity instead of helping
businesses grow.
At the regional level, Ugandan enterprises supported by microfinance operate in a competitive production and
regulatory landscape within the East African Community. While regional market integration has created more
trade and cross-border opportunities, it has also increased competitive pressure from firms with more advanced
technology and established production systems. The World Bank (2020) indicates that participating in regional
Page 745
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
and global value chains is linked to higher productivity, meeting standards, and effective management. However,
most microfinance clients in Uganda lack the systems, certification, and production scale needed to meet these
requirements. As a result, enterprises financed by microfinance mostly serve local markets where competition is
intense and revolves around pricing, with little incentive for adopting new technology.
On a global scale, Uganda’s small and micro enterprises are not well-connected to international production
networks run by lead firms, multinational buyers, and standards organizations. Research on global value chains
shows that meaningful improvement relies not just on access to funds but also on structured learning, technology
transfer, and institutional support for meeting quality and safety standards (Gereffi, 2018; World Bank, 2020).
Without these supportive systems, microfinance in Uganda is mainly used for short-term needs, like buying
inventory and seasonal trading, rather than for long-term investments in equipment, innovation, and
organizational changes. This setup promotes a pattern where microfinance helps businesses survive but remains
mostly separate from the institutional and technological support necessary for boosting productivity and
competitiveness in the economy.
Research Objective
The main goal of this study is to explore how microfinance can be redefined as a key tool for building productive
capability and enhancing economic competitiveness in Uganda.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework views microfinance structure as a distinct financial system. Its developmental effects
rely more on the design and purpose of financial tools than just access. Evidence from enterprise finance
literature shows that microcredit systems aimed at short repayment periods and working-capital loans tend to
focus on portfolio stability and smoothing consumption. In contrast, investment-oriented financial products are
more likely to aid in fixed asset formation, technology acquisition, and business improvement (Banerjee &
Duflo, 2011; Beck & Demirgüç-Kunt, 2006). Development diagnostics from the World Bank indicate that the
structure of finance, especially the availability of long-term and risk-tolerant credit, is more important for
productivity growth than the total amount of lending. Therefore, this framework treats microfinance as a variable
supply of credit, highlighting how its design influences whether financial resources support productive
investment or remain limited to short-term liquidity management.
The role of productive capability formation and organizational capability comes straight from the dynamic
capabilities literature. This literature stresses that a firm's performance depends on its ability to integrate, adjust,
and use resources through learning and management routines, rather than just on financial capital (Teece, 2014).
In contexts dominated by microenterprises, financial input leads to sustainable competitiveness only when paired
with skill development, process innovation, and equipment upgrades. These elements help firms move beyond
low-productivity traps (Lall, 2001). This idea aligns with evidence from employment and enterprise studies by
the International Labour Organization. These studies reveal that informal and small businesses achieve limited
productivity improvements without combining credit with managerial training, technology adoption, and market
support (ILO, 2022). Thus, the framework views productive and organizational capabilities as essential links
through which microfinance can impact business development and job quality.
Institutional effectiveness provides another important mediation pathway in the framework. Based on insights
from institutional political economy, the ability of financial systems to encourage productive change relies on
regulatory incentives, coordination mechanisms, and additional business development services. These elements
shape business behavior and investment outlooks (North, 1990). Microfinance institutions function within
regulatory and supervisory frameworks that often prioritize outreach and repayment rates over developmental
effects.
Conceptual Framework
This focus can reinforce cautious lending practices and discourage funding for innovation and technological
upgrades. The framework assumes that institutional setups, like innovation support agencies, vocational training
Page 746
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
programs, and sector-specific development initiatives, influence how well microfinance aligns with national
production and industrial strategies. Without such institutional coordination, microfinance is likely to stay tied
to low-risk, low-return business activities. Lastly, the framework incorporates contextual factors—like fiscal
limits, infrastructure availability, market access, and labor market pressures—because microfinance initiatives
occur within economic and structural conditions that define business opportunities. Comparative development
studies indicate that quality infrastructure, logistics connectivity, and access to regional markets are crucial for
small businesses to grow, diversify, and integrate into value chains (Rodrik, 2007; World Bank, 2020). In areas
facing competitive pressures and regulatory frameworks such as the East African Community, business
development increasingly relies on compliance with standards, reliable supply chains, and organizational
dependability. Thus, the conceptual framework sees competitiveness as an outcome of the interplay between
microfinance design, capability formation, and institutional strength within specific structural and market
conditions—rather than as a simple or automatic result of financial inclusion.
The conceptual framework views microfinance structure as a distinct financial system. Its developmental effects
rely more on the design and purpose of financial tools than just access. Evidence from enterprise finance
literature shows that microcredit systems aimed at short repayment periods and working-capital loans tend to
focus on portfolio stability and smoothing consumption. In contrast, investment-oriented financial products are
more likely to aid in fixed asset formation, technology acquisition, and business improvement (Banerjee &
Duflo, 2011; Beck & Demirgüç-Kunt, 2006). Development diagnostics from the World Bank indicate that the
structure of finance, especially the availability of long-term and risk-tolerant credit, is more important for
productivity growth than the total amount of lending. Therefore, this framework treats microfinance as a variable
supply of credit, highlighting how its design influences whether financial resources support productive
investment or remain limited to short-term liquidity management.
The role of productive capability formation and organizational capability comes straight from the dynamic
capabilities literature. This literature stresses that a firm's performance depends on its ability to integrate, adjust,
and use resources through learning and management routines, rather than just on financial capital (Teece, 2014).
In contexts dominated by microenterprises, financial input leads to sustainable competitiveness only when paired
with skill development, process innovation, and equipment upgrades. These elements help firms move beyond
low-productivity traps (Lall, 2001). This idea aligns with evidence from employment and enterprise studies by
the International Labour Organization. These studies reveal that informal and small businesses achieve limited
productivity improvements without combining credit with managerial training, technology adoption, and market
support (ILO, 2022). Thus, the framework views productive and organizational capabilities as essential links
through which microfinance can impact business development and job quality.
Institutional effectiveness provides another important mediation pathway in the framework. Based on insights
from institutional political economy, the ability of financial systems to encourage productive change relies on
regulatory incentives, coordination mechanisms, and additional business development services. These elements
shape business behavior and investment outlooks (North, 1990). Microfinance institutions function within
regulatory and supervisory frameworks that often prioritize outreach and repayment rates over developmental
effects. This focus can reinforce cautious lending practices and discourage funding for innovation and
technological upgrades. The framework assumes that institutional setups, like innovation support agencies,
vocational training programs, and sector-specific development initiatives, influence how well microfinance
aligns with national production and industrial strategies. Without such institutional coordination, microfinance
is likely to stay tied to low-risk, low-return business activities. Lastly, the framework incorporates contextual
factors—like fiscal limits, infrastructure availability, market access, and labor market pressures—because
microfinance initiatives occur within economic and structural conditions that define business opportunities.
Comparative development studies indicate that quality infrastructure, logistics connectivity, and access to
regional markets are crucial for small businesses to grow, diversify, and integrate into value chains (Rodrik,
2007; World Bank, 2020). In areas facing competitive pressures and regulatory frameworks such as the East
African Community, business development increasingly relies on compliance with standards, reliable supply
chains, and organizational dependability. Thus, the conceptual framework sees competitiveness as an outcome
of the interplay between microfinance design, capability formation, and institutional strength within specific
structural and market conditions—rather than as a simple or automatic result of financial inclusion.
Page 747
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Diagram: Microfinance-Led Economic Transformation Theoretical
Framework
The study brings together four complementary theoretical traditions.
First, the knowledge-based production perspective linked to Peter Drucker sees knowledge, management ability,
and organizational learning as the main resources of modern production. From this angle, microfinance can only
create developmental benefits when it helps businesses gain and use productive knowledge.
Second, Joseph Schumpeter's innovation-focused political economy views transformation as a process of
creative destruction. This means that outdated production methods and business models get replaced by new
combinations of technologies, products, and organizational structures. Microfinance that only sustains
lowproductivity businesses cannot fulfill this transformative role.
Third, the study's explanatory logic is based on critical realism developed by Roy Bhaskar. It interprets
microfinance outcomes as the visible results of deeper institutional, organizational, and incentive structures, not
as automatic results of access to credit.
Fourth, the institutional political economy associated with Douglass North explains how rules, norms, and
enforcement methods influence learning, investment behavior, and technology adoption. Microfinance
institutions work within environments that may either encourage productive improvement or maintain low-risk,
short-term lending models.
These views contrast with demand-centered macroeconomic theories linked to John Maynard Keynes, which
stress spending and consumption multipliers. While these theories are helpful for stability, they do not adequately
explain long-term competitiveness at the business level.
Page 748
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Philosophical Assumptions
This study takes a critical realist stance. It argues that the limited effects of microfinance in Uganda stem from
deeper production structures, institutional routines, and power dynamics that influence how financial resources
are used. The study approaches knowledge from an interpretive and explanatory political-economy perspective.
It acknowledges that business performance and financial behavior are shaped by historical and social contexts
rather than by universal rules. The analysis is based on a human-centered development approach linked to
Amartya Sen. This view sees development as the growth of productive and learning capabilities. Thus,
microfinance is assessed not just by its outreach or repayment rates but also by its ability to increase technological
participation, provide learning opportunities, and support decent jobs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Microfinance and Enterprise Transformation
Early microfinance research focused on reducing poverty, empowering women, and improving household
welfare. More recent studies show that microcredit has limited effects on firm growth, productivity, and longterm
income paths in low-income areas.
An increasing number of political economy studies suggest that microfinance often supports small-scale
entrepreneurship instead of fostering innovation-driven business development. Many businesses use loans for
working capital and managing consumption. Cautious lending models restrict funding for technological upgrades
and organizational changes. Improvements in enterprise productivity depend more on additional inputs like skills
development, managerial training, technology adoption, and market access than on financial capital alone.
Research also indicates that microfinance institutions face regulatory requirements and pressures for
sustainability; these often prioritize short-term portfolio performance over long-term development outcomes.
Research Gap
Most studies mainly examine microfinance from the perspectives of welfare, empowerment, and financial
inclusion. There is limited empirical and conceptual work that looks at microfinance as part of a national
production and innovation system. This study tackles that gap by placing microfinance within a broader
framework of structural transformation and competitiveness.
Research Design
This study adopts a qualitative documentary research design based on political economy and institutional
analysis to examine how microfinance interventions influence enterprise change and economic competitiveness
in Uganda. Documentary analysis is especially suitable for this inquiry as it enables tracing historical patterns,
policy directions, and structural constraints that shape microfinance outcomes beyond short-term transactional
observations (Bowen, 2009; Yin, 2018). The qualitative approach helps provide an in-depth understanding of
how financial instruments interact with enterprises, institutions, and innovation systems, capturing systemic
processes that quantitative surveys might miss.
Data sources were carefully chosen to provide a layered perspective. These included:
• Peer-reviewed journal articles on microfinance, enterprise development, and institutional dynamics.
• National development strategies and financial sector policy documents to identify official frameworks and
reform initiatives.
• Budget speeches and fiscal reports to understand macroeconomic and sector priorities.
• Development reports from the World Bank, International Labour Organization, and regional entities like the
East African Community, offering cross-country benchmarks and context.
Page 749
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
By integrating diverse sources, the study ensures that findings reflect both policy intentions and real-life
situations within Uganda’s production and microfinance landscape.
Thematic Analysis and Methodological Approach
The core analytical procedure is thematic content analysis, which systematically codes documents around four
related themes critical for enterprise transformation:
1) Microfinance design and lending practices assess how financial interventions are structured, including credit,
savings, insurance, and group-based lending mechanisms.
2) Enterprise behaviour and upgrading paths examine how firms utilize financial inputs, manage resources,
pursue technological adoption, and participate in productivity-enhancing activities.
3) Institutional support mechanisms investigate the availability and effectiveness of formal and informal
institutions, including regulations, innovation facilitation, and business development services.
4) Innovation and value-chain integration explore links between enterprises, technology systems, research
institutions, and domestic and regional value chains.
5) The analysis shows how each theme contributes to developing productive capabilities within enterprises,
highlighting pathways from financial inputs to organizational upgrading and broader economic
competitiveness.
Triangulation and Credibility
To strengthen the analysis's credibility and reliability, findings were triangulated using:
• National statistical publications, including data from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics, to validate observations
at the enterprise and sector levels.
• Regional policy documents, including East African Community frameworks, to place microfinance
interventions in the context of cross-border trade and integration.
Triangulation reduces biases from using a single source and ensures that conclusions are solid across
institutional, enterprise, and policy levels.
Figure 2: Methodological framework linking microfinance thematic areas to enterprise transformation
and economic competitiveness Linking Methodology to Enterprise Transformation and Competitivenes
Page 750
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
The methodological design connects microfinance, institutional support, innovation, and enterprise behavior to
the broader goal of economic competitiveness. In this framework:
• Microfinance provides financial resources.
• Institutional support shapes how resources are allocated and used.
• Enterprise behavior shows the adoption of productive practices and organizational upgrading.
• Innovation and value-chain integration secure long-term competitive positioning in regional and global
markets.
Together, these four themes outline a pathway from financial access to enterprise transformation and economic
competitiveness, allowing the study to trace both direct and mediated effects.
Empirical discussion and findings
Microfinance and persistence of traditional production structures
The analysis shows that most microfinance lending in Uganda supports enterprises working within traditional
production structures. These structures have low mechanisation, limited product differentiation, and weak quality
systems. Loans primarily go to inventory purchases, petty trading, and seasonal agricultural activities. As a result,
microfinance reinforces land- and labour-based production instead of enabling technological improvement.
Organisational capability constraints
Most micro and small enterprises lack structured management systems for cost control, quality assurance,
logistics, and supply coordination. Microfinance programs rarely include systematic management training or
organisational learning components. Consequently, increased access to finance often leads to the duplication of
enterprises rather than improvements in productivity.
Institutional misalignment and innovation exclusion
The study finds weak links between microfinance providers and innovation agencies, vocational training
systems, and institutions that support exports. Financial services operate mostly independently from technology
extension services and research and training institutions. This separation limits enterprises’ chances to engage in
learning networks, technology transfer initiatives, and standards certification systems.
Repositioning microfinance for productive transformation
Microfinance can help improve competitiveness when it is explicitly seen as a tool for building productive
capabilities. This requires connecting finance to enterprise improvement plans, incorporating business
development and technical services into microfinance delivery, providing longer-term financing for equipment
purchases, and aligning microfinance with specific sector value-chain strategies.
Policy implications for Uganda
First, microfinance regulation should include development performance indicators along with financial
sustainability measures. These indicators should monitor the share of lending that goes to productive
investments, technology adoption, and enterprise improvements. Second, a national microenterprise upgrading
program should officially connect microfinance institutions with vocational training providers, technology
extension services, and sector-specific business development organisations.
Third, targeted refinancing and partial guarantee programs should be set up to encourage longer-term and
risktolerant lending for equipment purchases, standards certification, and process improvements.
Page 751
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
Fourth, regulatory changes should enable digital and group-based lenders to test hybrid financing models that
combine asset finance, supplier credit, and technical assistance.
Fifth, regional integration strategies under the East African Community should clearly include microfinance
institutions as partners for upgrading small firms, ensuring standards compliance, and participating in
crossborder value chains.
Together, these reforms reframe microfinance as part of Uganda’s productive and innovation infrastructure rather
than merely a means to address poverty and inclusion.
CONCLUSION
This study shows that the limited developmental impact of microfinance in Uganda mainly comes from its
institutional and structural placement within a low-productivity system. Current microfinance practices support
survival-oriented entrepreneurship and traditional production factors. Reframing microfinance as a strategic tool
for building productive capabilities offers a way to align financial inclusion with structural change and enterprise
competitiveness. For Uganda, this means integrating microfinance into national innovation systems, business
improvement strategies, and regional value-chain frameworks. Only through such institutional and policy
adjustments can microfinance significantly contribute to productivity growth, decent work, and sustainable
economic competitiveness.
REFERENCES
1. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global
poverty. New York: PublicAffairs.
2. Banerjee, A. V., Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2015). Six randomized evaluations of microcredit:
Introduction and further steps. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 1–21.
3. Beck, T., & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. (2006). Small and medium-size enterprises: Access to finance as a growth
constraint. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(11), 2931–2943.
4. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40.
5. Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. London:
Anthem Press.
6. Duvendack, M., & Mader, P. (2020). Impact of financial inclusion in low- and middle-income countries:
A systematic review of reviews. Journal of Economic Surveys, 34(3), 594–629.
7. Gereffi, G. (2018). Global value chains and development: Redefining the contours of 21st century
capitalism. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 61–79.
8. Grimm, M., Paffhausen, A. L., & Stöver, J. (2016). Do small businesses create more and better jobs?
Experimental evidence from Uganda. World Development, 84, 331–347.
9. International Labour Organization (ILO). (2022). Global employment trends and social outlook 2022.
10. Geneva: ILO.
11. Lall, S. (2001). Competitiveness, technology and skills. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
12. Mazzucato, M. (2018). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (2nd ed.).
London: Penguin.
13. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
14. Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15. Teece, D. J. (2014). The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an
economic theory of firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352.
16. Top of Form
17. World Bank. (2020). Global value chain development report 2020: Technological innovation, supply
chain trade, and workers. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Page 752
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue II, February 2026
18. World Bank. (2023). Uganda Economic Update: Investing in productivity and structural transformation.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
19. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
