Uganda’s two-decade drive for an “inclusive” financial system has produced a paradox: record-level account ownership alongside
stubbornly low usage, enterprise finance gaps, and household welfare gains that barely diverge from their 1996 baselines. Merging
administrative data, three national household surveys, and 62 qualitative interviews with regulators, banks, telcos, farmers, and

traders, we show that the headline indicator—14 million mobile-money accounts—masks three forms of ambiguity. First, 54 % of
registered accounts are either dormant or used only to receive remittances, implying that entry is not synonymous with inclusion.
Second, supply-side metrics (bank branches, agent density, credit-to-GDP) rise with GDP per capita in urban centres but flatten in
rural districts where 76 % of Ugandans live; firm-level panel data reveal no statistically significant acceleration in investment or
working-capital uptake once district fixed effects and behavioural constraints (risk aversion, trust gaps, intra-household bargaining)
are included. Third, regulatory reforms framed as “enabling” (tiered KYC, agency banking, national ID-linked credit registries)
inadvertently privilege digital formality over functional inclusion: women, youth, and micro-enterprises with seasonal cash-flows
remain excluded because products are designed around monthly fee schedules and collateral instruments ill-suited to local agrarian
rhythms. We therefore re-interpret “inclusion” as a problem of institutional alignment rather than account scarcity. Counterfactual
simulations indicate that redirecting the equivalent of 0.3 % of GDP from account-opening subsidies to tailored working-capital
products (indexed to harvest cycles and bundled with index-based weather insurance) could raise rural enterprise loan uptake by 28
% and female participation by 19 %. The paper concludes that financial-sector policy should be subordinated to the cash-flow
realities of households and firms, with metrics that track transaction frequency, portfolio depth, and real-economy outcomes instead
of static account tallies.