The Problem With The Debate On The Creation Of New Regions

As the public hearing and the presentation of petitions for the creation of new regions gather moment, the debate on the decision by the Akufo Addo-led government support the creation of the new regions has also gathered moment. I am an ardent supporter of this political decision to give Ghanaians the opportunity to decide whether or not they want the new regions to be created. In a democracy, dissent is an inseparable part of such a discourse and the swashbuckling criticism of the ongoing public hearing and the thoroughness of such a political decision should be welcome. While such is welcome, the dissent should not be disillusioned by an attack on their position by some of us; the supporters of the decision. For such amounts to wanting what you wouldn't give. The essence of this epistle is to state that the dissents’ case is appealing but not valid. This verdict is grounded on few observations:

1. The dissents are diagnostic with no prescription at all. Arguing that the creation of the new regions would create problems is to state the obvious. A superior argument is demonstrating how the benefit wouldn't suffice for the cost. I would in a moment state few of the benefits. But let me quickly note that for every policy, there is some degree of adverse consequence. The most important thing is to have what the economist would term ‘Pareto optimality’. If a policy decision (say, the creation of new regions) will make just a person better-off without making some other person (s) worse-off, it is a good policy. I am yet to see how the creation of the new regions will retrogress, on average, Ghana’s development or affect some other person’s welfare.

2. The attack on the proponents’ case that the creation of new region will improve welfare and reduce poverty [with some surreal suggestion that it could even increase poverty incidence] is the weakest link in the case by the dissents. The Foster-Greer-Thorbecke poverty indices would have been worse in the Upper East, Upper West and the Northern Region but for the split of the then Northern Region into Northern and Upper Regions and the subsequent split of the latter into the Upper East and Upper West region. Unless, the dissents are saying that such a decision in the 1960s and 1980s hasn't paid off.

3. Whereas there is no evidence [by way of empirical cause-effect inference] on the impact of the creation of new regions on development, we can always use the impact of decentralization on development as a proxy. The creation of new regions is a form of decentralization. The socio-economic and political benefits of decentralization are immutable. Aside from this, Political Scientists [Guy Grosman and Janet Lewis of the University of Pennsylvania and the U.S Naval Academy respectively] have also observed that the creation of new provinces [regions] improves citizens’ day-to-day interaction with government officials and institutions by virtue of their physical proximity to these stakeholders. Not only does this ‘proximity catalyst’ promote civic awareness and engagement, it makes national politics competitive. Other benefits include the creation of new jobs in both the public sector and the private sectors. The coefficient of employment has a multiplier effect not only to the new region but to the country as a whole. Just imagine the effect of a job created on investment in education and health, payment of taxes and the boost to local businesses. These benefits will far outweigh the cost of setting up institutions that accompany the creation of new regions. Simply, the creation of the new region would improve public service delivery and provide enormous benefits to the majority of the excluded groups in the country.

4. To appreciate the need for the creation of the new regions, we have to ask ourselves the contribution of the various regions to our GDP as against their potentials. Let me use the proposed North-East Region as an example. Agricultural potentials of this area are vast with huge industrial prospects for Ghana. The sheanut industry, the cereal crop and the animal husbandry prospects of this area alone can provide self-sufficiency for Ghana if harnessed. This would consequently improve the contribution of regions to Ghana’s GDP. Yet, the dissents chief assumption is that, these proposed regions would only depend on the central government. Any cost incurred to set up new regions, vibrant and functional, for me, is an investment that has huge returns for the country.

5. Lastly [this would serve as entry point for noting the problems with the debate], the creation of one regions is not something new to democracies and countries’ effort to ensure effect administrative and economic governance. Canada in 1905 divided a proposed province comprising of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Assiniboia and Athabasca into the Alberta and Saskatchewan provinces. Uganda also created the Kasai Central and Kasai Oriental provinces. There is no evidence that the creation of these ‘regions’ have worsened the development of these countries if not improved. Here, I conjecture that the decisions have benefits for both Canada and Uganda.

The problem with the debate on the creation of new regions is that there is no evidence of the impact of the creation of new regions on development. The extant literature is limited, particularly, the impact of the creation/establishment of new regions on economic development. It is understandable, as a student of development economist, why this is so. Such a study would require having a ‘control’ region and a ‘treatment’ region or a case for a natural experiment to make such a causal inference. Regrettably, we hear economists who dissent to the creation of the new regions to be basing their argument on political science literature.

The underlying theories of political scientists and their patronage postulations can only form a part of behavioural economics but not mainstream economics. For instance, political scientists will argue that the creation of new regions is to serve a political motive with a complete disregard for what I would call a ‘benevolent’ politician. They would argue that the creation of new region is for the purposes of gerrymandering and patronage. But if we flip this same argument, it is precisely another reason why the creation of the regions is necessary. For instance, resources allocated to the Volta Region will go to where political appointees are inclined based on the patronage hypothesis. A new region carved out of the Volta Region will ameliorate this problem. Thus, a political problem is used to solve an economic problem.

I have also heard the argument that the proposed regions are based on ethnic considerations. But this has been the case of the past as well. The 10 administrative regions are anchored on this same fear, to start with. Even though I believe in the unitary state system, regional units based on ethnicity, culture and other social groups is not necessarily bad. It provides an opportunity for all groups to have input into the national development agenda. Regions are not a substitute for traditional authorities. This is why the Asantehene does not determine who becomes the Ashanti Regional Minister, albeit, he is the king of the whole of that region and beyond.

As a country, we have limited resources and it is understandable, again, why the cost of initiatives often beclouds our judgement and appreciation of actual and potential benefits. Also, the fact that it is difficult to quantify the benefit while its counterpart, cost, is quantifiable makes the case of the dissents appealing. But this difficulty does not suggest a validity of their argument. You can’t be a proponent of decentralization and at the same time an opponent to the creation of the new regions. No matter how remote regions are from the citizens, the citizens move a step closer to the regions when we create one out of the existing. I have read persons like Prof. Azar [one of the dissent] raising constitutional questions. Addressing this questions in a way that would support the creation of the new regions is the only alteration I can make in my stance for the creation of the new regions.

God Bless Our Homeland Ghana!
KB Mahama
Hiroshima University, Japan.
kabirstic@yahoo.com

   Comments1