NPP-Canada Asks: 40-Year Development Plan or 40-Year Development Target?

Ordinarily, one has to know where one is going in order to know the most optimal route to take to get there. Even though the destination may not be in doubt, the route may be less certain because of competing options. Circumstances and exigencies in the course of the journey might influence the choice of route along portions of the journey. In other words, while focus on a target is crucial, flexibility is no less crucial in the planning and execution.

It is against the above backdrop that NPP-Canada wishes to make a case for a focus on a 40-Year Development TARGET with quantifiable and measurable progress benchmarks while leaving governments with the flexibility to implement workable and pragmatic solutions consistent not only with their (government’s) vision but also with the prevailing trends and challenges. This position is markedly different from what is currently being championed by the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) under the aegis of the NDC government which focuses on a drawn out development PLAN over 40 years that will be inflexible as it is envisaged to be binding on all governments.

Ghana’s 40-Year Development Target might include improving doctor to patient ratio from 0.1 per 1000 people (World Bank 2010 data on Ghana) to 3 per 1000 by 2057 (Australia’s is 3.9 per the same data as at 2010). On a 40-year projection line, we should be able to have a target or benchmark for doctor to patient ratio for each year between the base year (2017) and the target year (2057). Governments should have the flexibility to implement their plans within the framework of a target line. The yearly Target could then be compared against the Actual to gauge the effectiveness or otherwise of a government’s plans, programs or policies. Governments can be graded by how well or how poorly they are on course, and be sanctioned or commended accordingly. This way, a government, 20 years from now, will be alert and sharp to their responsibilities and not blame their ineptness and lack of ingenuity on what they may describe as the constraints of a development plan that was established 20 years prior.

Yet another example of a quantified target might be to have university education per capita of “X” by 2057. One government may see the construction of more public universities with ever increasing loans as the solution. Another government may place greater emphasis on supporting, involving, promoting and regulating private Universities towards the attainment of the targeted per capita number. This is a flexibility that a government must have. A government should not be constrained by a development plan that it may be ideologically and fundamentally opposed to. A government should also not be given the excuse to be less ingenious than it otherwise would.

Not inconsistent with the targeted approach are some of the highlights of the 2057 Budget that was launched in August 2007 by Vice President Aliu Mahama. Some of the targets in the 2057 Budget were:

1. The establishment of at least 10 Airports (at least one Airport in each Region).

2. An overall budget surplus of 3%.

3. Per capita Income of US$ 60,000.

4. An Inflation of 2%

5. Interest Rate of 3%.

Currently, and consistent with constitutional requirements, there is a medium term development plan in place. This plan is officially known as the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA). The GSGDA is informed in part by the Better Ghana Agenda manifesto of the ruling NDC, and rightly so in our opinion as that was the manifesto the People endorsed at the polls.

It may be instructive for the NDPC, under its current leadership, to let Ghanaians know:

1. What it thinks of the development targets contained in the 2057 Budget.

2. If it thinks the targets need modification? And if yes, why?

3. If the GSGDA, as currently being implemented, puts Ghana on course towards the attainment of the desired targets.

Too many cooks, it is said, can spoil the broth. While it may be relatively easier for different interest groups such as political parties, religious institutions, and civil society groups to agree on a set of desirable Development Targets, the same cannot be said of these different groups working out a common and workable Development Plan. Arguably, political parties in a democracy owe their very existence to the notion of having competing or alternate development plans yet all (or almost all) agreeing as to the common end goal, that is the twin objective of prosperity and security for citizens.

The Millenium Development Goals (MDG’s) are the World’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions-income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. Countries have committed themselves to the attainment of these targets yet retaining the flexibility to adopt their own home-grown plans as to how to achieve the targets.

If the World can do it, why can’t Ghana? Will Ghana’s resources not be better spent on establishing 40-year development targets (as opposed to 40-year development plans) that most can agree on and governments can work towards?

----signed---

Gilbert Adu Gyimah

Director of Communications, NPP/Canada

NPPCanada@outlook.com

Tel: 587-708-9915 / 647-800-3585