2001 and UBR2010 and was indeed the main component of the increase in the employment share of the non‐traded sector (of non‐traded services), which was the defining feature of the structural change that the economy underwent over the decade.

UBI surveys also heavily oversampled larger establishments within each industry. Thus although microenterprises accounted for 93 percent of the businesses on UBR2010 and 60 percent of employment in Uganda’s non‐subsistence economy (Table 4), the share of microenterprises among the 4,700 plus businesses covered by UBI 2009 was only 34 percent (top panel of table 10). Moreover, these accounted between them for less than 2% of the combined employment in all covered enterprises. On the other hand, large businesses, as distinct from SMEs, were less than 1 percent of businesses in UBR2010 and accounted for about 9% of the employment in the non‐subsistence economy according to the UBR, while large firms constituted 6% of the total sample size of UBI 2009 and yet accounted for 61 percent aggregate employment of the sample.

===== Tables 11 and 12 here===== This in turn means that the scale and direction of employment shifts across business size group observed between UBR2001 and UBR2010 (table 4) is not necessarily reflected in the contrast between the size distribution of employment in the UBI 2002 sample and that of the UBI 2009 sample (in table 10). Indeed the two sets of employment distributions are so much at variance that the greater informalization of employment that we infer from UBR data is not at all evident in direct comparisons of the UBI sample size distributions of employment.

This refers to the 12 percentage point increase in the employment share of microenterprises between UBR 2001 and UBR 2010 we singled out earlier as a key feature of the structural change that the Uganda economy underwent over the period and shifted employment significantly away from the traded sector to the non‐traded sector (Table 5). And yet informalization of employment would not appear to have occurred to any degree if we relied entirely on comparisons of unweighted sample employment totals by size group of UBI 2002 and UBI2009 of the kind shown in Table 10, where the share of microenterprises in total employment was just about 2 percent for each wave of the survey.

In the last two columns of table 11, we report the sampling weights for single digit ISIC for UBI 2002 and UB2009 that need to be applied to sample values in order to obtain consistent estimates of true (population) totals of enterprise counts and employment for each industry. The weights for UBI 2001 are based on the census listing of UBR 2001 while those of UBI 2009 are based on the census listing of UBR 2010. Sampling weights are provided by enterprise size groups for broad sectors in an annex table (Table A1).

Estimates of sectorial employment aggregates obtained by applying the weights to UBI sample values are reported in table 12 along with the sample values themselves (shown in the first panel of the table). The main thing to take from the table in this context is the fact that what we read from the (weighted) estimates in terms of sectorial shifts in employment between UBI 2002 and UBI 2009 is in agreement with what we read in terms the employment shifts that took place between UBR 2001 and UBR 2010.

26