Title: The Proposal-Reality Chasm: Unrealistic Expectations, Governmental Realism, and the Need for Epistemic Sensitization in Ugandan Development
Authors: Dr. Arinaitwe Julius, Musiimenta Nancy
Volume: 10
Issue: 1
Pages: 313-323
Publication Date: 2026/01/28
Abstract:
This study examined the proposal-reality chasm in Ugandan development by investigating the disconnect between development proposals and implementation outcomes, the role of unrealistic expectations and governmental realism, and the potential of epistemic sensitization to bridge this gap. Despite decades of development planning and substantial financial investments, Uganda continues to experience significant gaps between proposed interventions and achieved results, suggesting fundamental problems in how development initiatives are conceived, designed, and implemented. Using a mixed-methods research design, the study collected quantitative data through structured questionnaires administered to 384 respondents across five sectors (health, education, infrastructure, agriculture, and local governance) in six districts, alongside qualitative data from 45 key informant interviews, 12 focus group discussions, document analysis of 60 development proposals and implementation reports, and observation of 15 planning meetings. Univariate analysis revealed critically low proposal realism scores (M=38.8, SD=14.6) contrasted against high governmental realism scores (M=70.2, SD=13.8), demonstrating a 31.4-point gap between what implementing actors knew to be feasible and what formal proposals promised. Implementation success averaged only 53.4% (SD=19.8), with particularly low outcome realization scores (M=47.2, SD=23.1), confirming the existence of a substantial proposal-reality chasm. Epistemic sensitization levels were moderate (M=52.9, SD=17.2), with significant variation across stakeholder groups. Bivariate analysis using Pearson correlations demonstrated strong positive relationships between proposal realism and implementation success (r=.627, p<.01) and between epistemic sensitization and implementation success (r=.682, p<.01), while the correlation between governmental realism and proposal realism was weak (r=.312, p<.01), providing statistical evidence of knowledge marginalization in planning processes. Chi-square tests revealed that implementation success varied significantly by sector type (?²=47.32, p<.001), administrative level (?²=34.58, p<.001), donor type (?²=28.74, p<.001), and stakeholder involvement level (?²=52.67, p<.001). Structural equation modeling with excellent fit indices (CFI=0.941, TLI=0.928, RMSEA=0.069, SRMR=0.054) explained 61.2% of variance in implementation success and validated the hypothesized relationships: unrealistic expectations strongly predicted lower proposal realism (?=-.624, p<.001); epistemic sensitization was the strongest direct predictor of implementation success (?=.398, p<.001), followed by proposal realism (?=.342, p<.001) and governmental realism (?=.187, p<.001); epistemic sensitization mediated the relationship between unrealistic expectations and outcomes (?=-.156, p<.001) and between governmental realism and outcomes (?=.214, p<.001); and governmental realism moderated the proposal-implementation relationship (?=.168, p=.012). The study concluded that bridging this chasm requires institutionalizing epistemic sensitization-cultivating capacities for critical evidence engagement, contextual knowledge incorporation, and reflexive learning-while reforming donor incentive structures that currently reward ambitious projection over realistic planning, and establishing mechanisms that elevate the voices and knowledge of implementation-proximate actors in development planning processes. These findings contribute to theoretical understanding of implementation gaps in development while offering practical pathways toward more grounded, realistic, and effective development practice in Uganda and similar contexts across the Global South.