With a
continuing budget deficit year after year and one of 12%
for 2012, it is becoming clearer that we don’t have the
funds to repair this bridge.
This story is one of a
wealthy, but
hapless resourceful nation that is being brought to its
knees by our impractical actions.
In 2004, Ghana
gained debt relief through the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries, (HIPC) program and the economy has since been
enjoying the benefits of the windfall.
But in 2012, it
looks like Ghana is back on the hock.
We closed 2012 with almost double the deficit we
had in 2008, even though nothing tangible has been
committed from the coffers for our pressing
developmental needs and Adomi Bridge still stands
crumbling.
Not only the
Adomi Bridge, but many of our infrastructures are
overaged and falling apart, the streets are potholed,
sanitation collections have become critical and
sporadic, and power and water distribution systems are
in a state of collapse. Even the little that is left
holding together other crucial areas of our society,
like the health and educational systems, is slowly being
washed out because of ad hoc planning.
Our problems
are immense, but where does it say that they cannot be
resolved internally, by smart and creative policies, one
project at a time by priority, instead of this crying
constantly for outside help and funds?
However, come
time for the national budget reading in Parliament, and
you will not know we are in trouble. Great ceremonies
are made of each reading, to a lot of hurrahs. Lots of
smoke but no substance.
But our parliamentarians remain happy.
Ironically at
each reading, a portion of our revenue expectations in
the budget is casually revealed as coming from foreign
governments amidst the hurrahs!
In this budget
for 2013, there is news that help for Adomi Bridge
rehabilitation is coming. Funding and the skill set to restore the Adomi
Bridge this time is coming from the Austrians and not
the British.
Of course, we
begged for help. So, we must not begrudge it coming from
the Austrians. But
shouldn’t we wonder why they are not asking why we
couldn’t do this job ourselves after 50-plus years of
nationhood?
Some fifty
years ago, we provided all the funds, and the British
built it for us.
This time the Austrians are going to do it for
us; both provide the funds and the expertise to
rehabilitate the bridge.
The Adomi
Bridge has been critical in connecting the major regions
of the country. It has served us well, thus the
breakdown.
And yet, we had developed all this time neither the
skill nor the imagination to keep it functional, the
indicators that point to progress.
So now, incredibly, we find ourselves without the
funds nor the expertise to repair the already built
bridge.
This bridge
event is indicative of the failings in our society.
Past national budgets should have flagged the
need for the continuance of maintenance and restoration.
And these budgets should have done so without
anticipating foreign help.
Instead, the
2013 budget reading has a theme.
The Finance Minister said it is that of
"Sustaining confidence in the future of the Ghanaian
economy."
Overlooked in the theme are questions about our
dependence on “donor partners”.
Paragraph 21 of
the budget statement reads, "Thus, over the past three
years the Government has strenuously sought and secured
considerable foreign grants and loans, to rebuild
worn-out roads and construct new ones….."
As strenuously
as we “sought and secured” the foreign loans and grants,
we still came up 12% short in 2012.
Something is not
working.
Reading further
on in paragraph 24, the Minister defines the "sources of
the excess deficit" as “Shortfall in grants from our
development partners – of 389.4 million”, stated as 0.5
percent of GDP. And you ask if only 0.5 why then the 12%
deficit?
Moreover, to
describe a grant account as a shortfall is to say more
was expected from the donors but less was received.
And to state this
in a national budget is to court dependency.
Not only does this compromise our sovereignty,
but the implied patronage also undermines the integrity
of our whole budget process as an instrument and means
for true development.
The stark truth
is no valid budget can depend on the whims of donors!
Again, in
paragraph 25, the Minister promises corrective measures.
But, he regrets later that the “downside of our
transition to a Lower Middle Income Country (LMIC)
status is that we shall gradually lose a substantial
amount of grants and concessional loans ...”
The truly
charitable way to respond to this theme of a national
budget for “sustaining confidence,” that has a matching
phrase of “development partners” is to laugh at the
entire screed!
Rather, we
should relish the prospect of losing the “development
partners” and all the "concessional" loan status.
This will bring confidence in our developmental
growth which ultimately will translate to arriving at a
full independence status as a nation.
There is one
thing, though, to be happy about this 2012 budget
statement.
It reads that there is an increase in GDP output; from
30 billion in 2008 to 71.8 billion.
This is fabulous news.
But where did the difference go and why did it
not help to hold down the 12% deficit?
Missing also in
the budget reading is an assessment of the contribution
from the Diaspora, though grants for “donor partners”
are proudly stated. Whereas
the minister bemoans the shortfalls in grants, he fails
to mention that these foreign grants are collectively a
pittance when compared with remittances from the
Diaspora; a whopping US 1. 5 billion dollars, even in
2005 World Bank figures.
The absence of
a plan to tap into Diaspora remittances by using them as
investments, even to repair or build a bridge like
Adomi, in 2013, is a woeful sign of deficiency in policy
planning and a statement of lack of confidence in our
ability to grow our own resources.
E.
Ablorh-Odjidja, publisher, www.ghanadot.com, Washington,
DC, July 15, 2013
Permission to
publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with
credits, unedited. If posted on a website, email a copy
of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't
publish at all.
