body-container-line-1
15.01.2009 Feature Article

Is Kwame Agbodza Hubristic or plain ignorant?

Is Kwame Agbodza Hubristic or plain ignorant?
15.01.2009 LISTEN

It is hard to believe when one reads articles by some Ghanaian writers, who through a complex mix of an over-inflated self-worth of being Ghanaian and blind nationalism, seek to display bravado reminiscent of a house mouse issuing threats to a cat. This was typically displayed in the article authored by Kwame Agbodza titled “President Mills must revoke the World Bank Ishac Diwan's Free Market Visa (see www.ghanaweb.com 11.01.2009).

One can hardly help but draw the conclusion that Mr. Kwame Agbodza is either badly informed about Ghana's economic position within the global economic showground or that he has a feeble if any grasp of the stranglehold that donor governments and organisations such as the world bank have on the Ghanaian economy or both. Within this mawkish article, Kwame Agbodza showcases vintage Ghanaian hubris by imploring John Attah Mills to revoke the visa of the World Bank Country Director because he supposedly interfered in the economic autonomy of that country. The following seeks to address some of the many fallacies as well as puncture the overly inflated ego of Kwame Agbodza or at least reduce it to the right size by confronting him with the bare facts. I hope he has the acumen to digest these.

In his opening paragraph Agbodza calls on John Mills to repeal the visa of the Country Director of the World Bank or issue an ultimatum to him because he passed certain comments that clearly hurt the feelings of the writer. For your information, Kwame, even if our new diffident and patently effeminate president wished to carry out your advice or dare I say ill advice, he could not do so at all. Not when Ghana survives on the leftovers from the table of the World Bank, the IMF and the donor countries. It is like asking the Ghanaian government to issue threats to the British or American Embassy for supposedly interfering in Ghanaian internal affairs when the Ghanaian government cannot even put together a budget without leveraging from these two countries. For your information if Ghana wants to prevent interference within its sovereign economic affairs then it better start becoming sovereign in its economic management or rather mismanagement. Without trying to offend Kwame Agbodza, I must say that his emotionally charged ill advise to John Mills is akin to a desperate CEO of a sinking Plc asking a bank- to which it is highly indebted to- as it were, STAY OUT OF MY PRIVATE BUSINESS! What baloney! John Mills or for that matter any other Ghanaian president can under no circumstances, at least in the foreseeable future, sever relations with the World bank so far as the latter organisation is the country's proverbial hand that feeds it.

In his fourth paragraph Agbodza bemoans what he terms as the mortifying reference to Ghana as a “pupil” by the World Bank Country Director. It's hard to appreciate why the writer begrudges the Country Director for rightfully making reference to Ghana's pupilage in the global fight for economic self-dependence. One wonders why Kwame Agbodza begrudges the Director for labelling Ghana a “pupil” but fails to be flummoxed when the dear motherland proudly labels itself a Highly Indebted Poor Country or HIPC for short. Whoever saw a self-confessed beggar get flustered for being called a beggar? Possessing an economy which was larger than those of South Korea and Malaysia at independence in 1957 but having falling way behind these countries in terms of economic progress 50 years later, is it not overly munificent for the Country Director to label Ghana as a pupil? One would have thought that the right adjective with which to describe Ghana's stinted economic progress would be “failure”! For your information, Kwame Agbodza, to describe Ghana's still-born economy as a “boy” as you say the Country Director did is more of an overstatement for which you should be grateful. If anything Ghana's shrinking economy can at best be described as anaemic; a description which may even be excessively generous given that majority of Ghanaians survive on less than $2 a day.

In Paragraph six of this rather sophomoric and excessively nihilistic article, Agbodza blames Ghana's economic woes on the free market policies supposedly imposed by the World Bank since 1983. He also makes reference to the intervention by Western free market economies in their domestic economies as result of the credit crunch as a case against free market economics. Fact is history has clearly shown that the command economy, as was pursued in the erstwhile USSR does not work. Why does, Kwame Agbodza think that even China, arguably the last country which still cleaves to the vestiges of communism or what is left of it, operates a hybrid economy with more free market leanings than a planned one? If Agbodza knows anything about capitalism or the free market which he so jejunely tinkers with then he would know that the state, rather than getting involved in the market, plays the role of a facilitator or a referee, setting the broad guidelines within which market forces of demand and supply can interact and thereby spawn wealth. The preceding does not preclude the state from intervening in the event of national or international crisis where mass employment and economic apocalypse has become a real possibility. To the contrary where economic meltdown is threatened, as is the case in the current credit crisis, it indeed behoves a responsible government to momentarily intervene, restore confidence and then eventually return to its role as facilitator. For your information privatisation works and is still the only way forward for the rather malnourished economy of Ghana. Take the privatisation of Ghana Telecom as a case in point. This was a company which was clearly on the brink of collapse, owed a whopping $400 million, was cash strapped and was still haemorrhaging cash. Being government owned meant that the typical lackadaisical Ghanaian attitude of “it belongs to the government; who cares” was the company-wide mantra. The preceding withstanding certain elements both in Ghana and in the dispersion could not see why this staggering company which was clearly going down the proverbial doldrums should be divested. Their argument (one which I am sure Kwame Agbodza shares) was that Ghana was allowing too much foreign ownership of its strategic assets. What nonsense! In the era of globalisation is it not only the foolhardy that will cling to a company because “it is a matter of national pride”. Does it matter which country a parent company is from as long as it pays its taxes, employs local citizens and plays its role as a good corporate citizen?

In paragraph eight, Agbodza, is of the view that the country director interfered in what he calls “our Sovereignty” by issuing a gloomy economic outlook for the country in the coming years. He fatuously posits the following fallacious edict: “Let us be clear that The Bank of Ghana and the Ministry of Finance of Ghana are not answerable to Ishac Diwan”. Clearly Mr. Agbodza is bereft of Ghanaian financial goings- on. Off course the BOG and the Ministry of Finance are answerable to the World Bank and other donor agencies! For your information donations and loans from the World Bank have been a bonafide part of Ghana's economic forecasts throughout the last three decades. This article is either calculated misinformation concocted by Kwame Agbodza to whip up blind nationalistic sentiments in Ghanaians both within the motherland and the dispersion or a classic case of an overly sentimental economic commentator wannabe whose niggling with writing about the Ghanaian economy is so plain to see. How can a Highly Indebted Poor Country not be answerable to its debtors? Fact is Ghana is not the only country whose economy has been forecasted to face difficulties in 2009 and 2010. In fact G7 countries such as the UK, the US and Germany have all received bleak economic forecasts from such organisations as the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank. Ghana's aid dependent economy is more prone to the shocks of the global credit crunch as there is little credit to go round. In the light of the above is it wrong for the World Bank to paint a rather pessimistic forecast of Ghana's perennially wobbling economy?

In some such paragraph in this fallacy-ridden article Kwame Agbodza calls on John Mills to “reject the World Bank's pledge to support the new Government of Ghana (2008-2009)”. He also calls on the Mills Administration to “reject the World Bank goals of among others, address the macro-economic imbalances, attain macro stability and protect the poor and vulnerable in Ghana”. He further vacuously reckons that “when it comes to choosing between macro-stability and the vulnerable and poor Ghanaian Majority, the World Bank will choose as they have always chosen macro-stability”. What exactly is this man talking about? Elementary economic theory establishes a direct link between macro- economic stability and micro economic well being. The two are inextricably linked. To encourage John Mills to relegate macro economic factors such inflation, interest rate, taxation et al to second place behind what Kwame Agbodaza sophomorically dubs “protecting the poor and vulnerable” is to suggest that the government ignore the link between macro and micro economics. How else does one influence household demand (micro-economics) without influencing inflation, interest rates and taxation (aspects of macro-economics)? For your information micro or household economic stability rides on the back of a sound and robust macro economic regime which is why the World Bank and the NPP government emphasized the attainment of macro-economic stability as a prerequisite to the creation of wealth at the micro level.

Paradoxically, Kwame Agbodza calls on the president yet again to “note that the level of dependency of the Ghanaian economy on donors and the transnational institutions of the World Bank and the IMF is too high for the sustenance of national sovereignty”. It is risible that Agbodza, after touting Ghana's so-called “economic sovereignty” which he reckons had been infringed upon by the World bank in this misleading article turns round to admit that the self-same is unattainable due to the country's over-dependence on donor agency leveraging. The question is “if you knew that economic sovereignty is unattainable then why do you even make references to it in the first place?

At this juncture I wish to let Ghanaweb and the other Ghanaian websites, on which some of us who consider ourselves serious writers post articles, know that sophomoric and pointless articles that are just written for lack of a plausible pass time and whose thrust is towards misinforming the reading public should not be published as they seriously lower both the intellectual and moral tone of the myriad of arguments that take place on the network.

Bernard Asher is a lecturer in Business Management and Economics @ Guildford College of Higher Education, England, Surrey & an External Tutor with the University of Reading. Contact:[email protected]

body-container-line