The Cost of Stability: When Economic Management Becomes Political Theatre

It is becoming increasingly evident that economic management under the current government is drifting toward a narrow fixation on inflation and exchange rate figures, not as instruments of policy calibration, but increasingly as tools for political point scoring. In doing so, governance risks being replaced by optics, and sound economic management by statistical performance.

At the heart of this concern is the staggering reported loss of nearly GHS 40 billion (2.8 billion USD) by the Bank of Ghana, justified as the cost of “stabilizing the economy.” We are told this sacrifice was necessary to tame inflation and steady the cedi. But stabilize for whom? At what cost? And more importantly, how sustainable is this strategy?

If inflation is truly under control at nearly 3%, why are student hostel fees rising by over 20%? Why has electricity surged by nearly 30%, and water tariffs by about 20%? Why are government road construction costs escalating significantly beyond previous benchmarks? Why are government agencies themselves adjusting fees upward at rates that contradict the official narrative of price stability and an inflation of 3.2%?

These are not abstract indicators. These are the lived experiences of ordinary Ghanaians. And they expose a widening gap between headline macroeconomic figures and household economic experience.

The government would have us believe that this is the inevitable “cost of stabilization.” But that argument is a difficult one to accept. What we are witnessing is not the disciplined economic management we were promised; it is the prioritization of optics over substance. What is unfolding is not disciplined macroeconomic management; it is a prioritization of optics over substance, an obsession with numbers that satisfy reports and headlines, but fail to deliver relief, dignity, or opportunity to citizens.

Mr President, stability that is purchased at such an unsustainable cost is not stability; it is deferred crisis.

Consider what GHS 40 billion (2.8 billion USD) represents in a country grappling with mass unemployment. By conservative estimates, that amount could have financed the employment of nearly 70,000 unemployed health workers and teachers for at least five years, injecting life into our overstretched systems while putting money into households. Young people queue for nonexistent jobs. Some have tragically queued to their death in their hunt for employment. Yet the national focus appears skewed toward maintaining statistical narratives rather than addressing structural realities. Instead, we have chosen to “burn” these resources in pursuit of macroeconomic figures that remain largely invisible in daily life.

What is the value of 3.2% inflation to a young graduate who cannot find a job? What does a “strong cedi” mean to a family struggling to pay rent, school fees, and utility bills that continue to rise in a manner that is disproportionate to reported inflation figures?

Even more troubling is the distortion this policy direction is creating in the real economy. The aggressive defense of the currency, reportedly involving billions in interventions, has effectively made imports artificially attractive while undermining local production.

Take agriculture. A young Ghanaian farmer ventures into maize farming. His input costs remain high. Labour costs have surged, partly driven by distortions like illegal mining drawing workers away. Yet, at harvest, he faces a glut and no buyers. Why? Because the market is saturated with cheaper imports. In 2025 alone, Ghana reportedly imported about $3 billion worth of maize, around 500,000 metric tonnes, a 67% increase over the previous year.

This is not just an economic misstep or merely a policy imbalance; it is a structural failure.

We are, in effect, exporting jobs while importing dependency.

Ghanaian farmers are being displaced. Local industries are under pressure. And the so-called “stability” is increasingly being financed through the erosion of the productive base that should sustain long-term growth.

Even more concerning is the erosion of principle and consistency in leadership. Individuals who once decried far smaller financial losses as evidence of incompetence now preside over significantly larger ones, rebranded as strategic necessity. What has changed? Certainly not the expectations of accountability.

There must be consistency. There must be candor. And above all, there must be principle.

No serious economy can be built on numbers divorced from reality. Inflation and exchange rate stability are important, but they do not end in themselves. They must reflect, and be supported by, real improvements in productivity, employment, and cost of living. Otherwise, they are illusions at best.

Ghana does not need a government that wins arguments on paper while losing the country in practice. It needs leadership that understands that true economic management goes beyond chasing figures.

Until that shift happens, and the right balance found, the GHS 44 billion loss will not just be a financial statistic; it will stand as a symbol of misplaced priorities and a warning of a deeper crisis yet to unfold.

By:
Kwesi Attafo3
[email protected]