Institutionalising local economic development practice in Ghana

Abstract

In recent times, the term ‘local economic development’ has been conceptualised and introduced as a bottom-up participatory development strategy in Ghana. It is intended to be implemented at the district level to facilitate the revitalisation of the local economy and create jobs for local residents. Using in-depth interviews and the analysis of relevant policy documents, this paper evaluates efforts aimed at institutionalising the practice in local institutional frameworks and development planning practice in the country. The paper found out that processes aimed at institutionalising contemporary local economic development practice in Ghana are not making any meaningful impact. Institutional frameworks such as the structuring of development policymaking and planning in the country are still rigid and promote bureaucratic top-down development decision-making processes. Similarly, the promotion of a meaningful bottom-up decentralised planning system is only a well-packaged talk by policymakers in the country. Evidence shows that there is a clear lack of political will to implement reforms, particularly the new decentralisation policy that seeks to make District Assemblies in Ghana responsive to local economic development promotion. There is the need for a conscious effort towards making local economic development practice matter in national and local development endeavour in Ghana.

Keywords

decentralisation government institutionalisation local economic development planning

Introduction

Ghana has been always been a willing recipient of development aid and continues to open her doors for it despite the attainment of a lower middle income status. Development aid to Ghana has taken different forms, including grants, some sort of technical know-how and capacity building programmes, as well as the introduction of so-called development strategies. For instance, following the recommendation by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the mid-1980s, the Government of Ghana implemented the Economic Recovery/Structural Adjustment Programme. This programme was aimed at removing what was termed the ‘structural rigidities’ in the economy and opening up the economy to the global market (Adedeji, 1996; Harvey, 1996; Heidhues and Obare, 2011; Lopes, 1999). This programme brought about the privatisation of state-owned enterprises and the removal of government subsidies on agricultural inputs and social services like health and education. Although the programme opened up the economy to the international market and encouraged private sector participation in the economic life of the nation, it also generated so much social problems, including the mass retrenchment of public sector workers. Thus, by the mid-1990s, the general view was that the economic reform programmes did not bring the expected results (Lopes, 1999). As Hutchful (2002: 116) notes, it was clear that the economic growth which occurred under the Economic Recovery Programme had not generated the expected improvements in incomes required to improve consumption, and in particular to compensate for reductions in government services and subsidies. This necessitated the introduction of the Programme of Actions to Mitigate the Social Costs of Adjustment as part of efforts to minimise the effects of job retrenchments, shortfalls in agricultural production, and further depreciation of the exchange rate that were expected to exacerbate the problems of vulnerable groups (Hutchful, 2002: 116).

Aside these economic reforms, Ghana also became one of the implementing countries of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. Ghana’s version of the World Bank and the IMF’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers was implemented in two phases – the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS I: 2003–2005), and the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II: 2006–2009). The Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers were seen as the first step by the World Bank and the IMF towards promoting country ownership of development strategies (Mold, 2009; Woll, 2008). But over the years, externally introduced development programmes hardly made any meaningful impact on promoting meaningful local ownership of such interventions. Nonetheless, donor agencies continue to introduce development strategies or interventions in developing countries like Ghana, perhaps as a perceived moral obligation on their part.

In recent times for instance, a number of international development agencies such as the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have introduced local economic development (LED) as a new development strategy. LED is viewed as a bottom-up development strategy where the joint action of multiple actors results in the design and implementation of initiatives to revitalise the local economy and create jobs and economic prosperity for local residents. The LED strategy is intended to be implemented and owned by the District Assemblies. This paper explores the concept of LED as an emerging development strategy and evaluates steps taken to institutionalise this bottom-up development strategy in Ghana.

The setting

Ghana is prided as one of the stable democracies in Africa. Following the promulgation of the 1992 Constitution, the people of Ghana have successfully organised peaceful elections and ensured a smooth transfer of power from one political party to another. In 1988, government implemented a comprehensive decentralisation policy that saw the transfer of power and authority from the central government to local government authorities. This brought about the division of the country into administrative units known as Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies. These Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies are tasked with the responsibility of promoting development at the local level. As part of efforts to give meaning to Ghana’s decentralisation policy, the District Assemblies’ Common Fund was established to provide some funding scheme for the administration and development activities of the Assemblies. In addition, the Assemblies were empowered to mobilise revenue from local sources to augment central government transfers.

Agriculture remains the leading source of employment for the country’s 28 million people. But the service sector has since 2000 being the main driver of economic growth in the country. Although Ghana commenced commercial oil production in 2011, the oil sector is yet to make a significant impact on economic growth and employment generation. Employment levels in Ghana have not being impressive in recent times. There is growing youth unemployment in the country that requires attention by relevant actors. Despite efforts aimed at reducing extreme poverty, there are still incidences of poverty in both rural and urban communities in the country.

Methods

This study was designed to follow the actors and processes of institutionalising LED practice in Ghana. In view of this, the qualitative research design was considered the most ideal approach for engaging with the actors and analysing the processes and their actions. Sampling was purposive and largely influenced by the roles that people played in the process and their willingness to participate in the interviews. The qualitative data used for this paper were obtained through in-depth interviews and document analysis. One official each from the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC), the LED Desk/Secretariat at the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, the UNDP, and the GIZ were interviewed. The Regional Economic Planning Officers for the Upper East, Northern and Brong Ahafo Regions were also interviewed. In addition, the District Coordinating Directors, Planning Officers, and Budget Officers of the Berekum Municipal Assembly and the Bongo District Assembly were interviewed. In-depth interviews were also conducted with the Planning Officers of the Tamale Metropolitan Assembly and the Kassena Nankani East District Assembly. Relevant documents such as the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA), the New Decentralisation Policy of Ghana (2010), the planning guidelines for District Assemblies (issued by the NDPC), and the Medium-Term Development Plans of the District Assemblies provided useful information for this exercise. A simple approach was adopted to analyse the qualitative data collected. Patterns were formed and themes derived from the data patterns. The themes were then used for discussion.

LED as an emerging development strategy

The term LED has different connotations. In some instances, the term is used to describe the state of development of a particular local economy. In this regard, LED means local economies with vibrant economic activities and employment opportunities. In another breath, LED signifies a process of promoting or securing the economic development of localities. Thus, the latter conceptualises LED as a development strategy used to promote the economic development of localities. This is the contemporary view of LED. In the developed world for instance, LED is a recognised development strategy for local government authorities. In recent times, LED is gaining prominence as an alternative development strategy among development organisations, as well as national and local governments in the South (Marais, 2010; Meyer-Stamer, 2006; Nel, 2001; Rodriguez-Pose and Tijmstra, 2007; Rogerson and Rogerson, 2010).

Nonetheless, there are still issues regarding what LED really stands for. As Bond (2002: 3) rightly put it, LED is a discipline still coming into its own, with competing strands of argumentation still generating conflict. This argumentation basically revolves around the question of whether LED is a development strategy or an outcome of the development process. As part of efforts to resolve this controversy, LED scholars, agencies, and practitioners are beginning to distinguish between LED as a process or strategy, and LED as an output or outcome of a development process. This has resulted in the classification of LED practices as traditional and contemporary approaches. Traditional LED practices, which are still being widely practiced by local government authorities in the developing world refer to a range of practices through which local government authorities directly intervene to attract firms to their localities. These include the use of such initiatives as subsidies, infrastructure, and tax reduction, to attract and also support existing enterprises in their respective jurisdictions (Tassonyi, 2005). From the South African experience, Bond (2002: 8) notes that the traditional approaches focus on attracting manufacturing investment through a combination of actions such as tax breaks, cheap land, reduced rates, as well as direct financial rewards. In most parts of Africa like Ghana, these ‘traditional’ LED strategies are still in vogue. It thus appears that what is considered as traditional LED strategies in one country may be different in another country.

Despite the differences regarding what constitutes traditional or contemporary LED, there is a move towards the conception of LED as a development strategy. As Patterson (2008) points out, a more holistic approach to local and regional economic development has become prevalent. In its distinct form, contemporary LED practice is viewed as a process-oriented activity that seeks to stimulate the economy of a given locality through the joint action(s) of multiple actors. According to Rücker and Trah (2007: 13), the current focus of LED initiatives is on providing a competitive local business environment, encouraging and supporting networking and collaboration between businesses and public/private and community partnerships, facilitating workforce development and education, focusing on inward investment to support cluster growth and supporting quality of life improvements. This contemporary conception of LED reflects the thinking and mission of international development agencies like the GIZ, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the ILO. These agencies are playing active roles in the promotion of LED in Ghana. Working with the central government and local government authorities, they are supporting efforts aimed at making District Assemblies take responsibility for the development and promotion of their local economies. This is intended to make the districts self-sufficient and less dependent on central government and donor agencies. This thinking is reflected in the contemporary definitions of LED by various authors and development agencies.

According to Blakely (1989: 58), LED as is a process by which local governments and/or community-based groups manage their existing resources and enter into new partnership arrangements with the private sector, and/or each other to create new jobs and stimulate economic activity in a well-defined zone. Similarly the World Bank defines LED as a process by which public, business, and non-governmental sector partners work collectively to create better conditions for economic growth and employment generation (Swinburn et al., 2006: 1). In addition, the European Commission (2007: 22) views LED as a process by which a variety of local institutions and actors mobilise and work together to plan and implement sustainable local development strategies in a given territory. On their part, Rodriguez-Pose and Tijmstra (2009: 37) define LED by simply pointing out the key elements that constitute the approach:

LED is a territorial-based approach, locally owned, designed, and implemented by local actors to shape the future of their locality.

LED is an approach to development that creates opportunities for partnership between a wide range of actors including, local private and public sector actors, national governments, and international organisations.

LED acknowledges globalisation, and thus seeks to take advantage of opportunities in local, national, and international markets by creating competitive advantages.

The ultimate aim of LED is to create sustainable economic development.

Essentially, the contemporary form of LED goes beyond the ad hoc measures to boast economic activities. Contemporary LED embraces partnership building, the use of local resources and local anchorage of the process. Thus, the organisation of LED must be seen as an institutionalised practice for localities seeking to stimulate their economies and create area prosperity.

Mainstreaming LED into the national development planning framework

The institutionalisation of LED requires the identification of appropriate structures and framework that could anchor it. This could be in the form of a policy framework, administrative set-up, or a planning system. In Ghana, the national development planning framework, the District Assemblies set-up, and the decentralised planning system were among the policy and institutional frameworks used to anchor the institutionalisation and promotion of LED. The first effort towards institutionalising LED in Ghana was the attempt made to mainstream the concept into the national development planning framework. In 2010, efforts were initiated to mainstream LED practice into the national development policy framework, known as the GSGDA. The GSGDA served as the framework for national development planning in the country as from 2009. For planning purposes, the GSGDA was the national medium-term development strategy from 2010 to 2013. Thus, the mainstreaming of LED into the GSGDA means that LED initiates were to go through the conventional planning process in the country, leading to implementation. This means that LED promotion in the country was thus routed through planning. Clearly, the experience of the United States of America, Germany, and South Africa demonstrates that planning forms the basis of LED promotion (Blakely and Leigh, 2010; Cunningham and Meyer-Stamer, 2005; Maharaj and Ramballi, 1998; Nel et al., 2009; Rogerson, 2010). Development planning is not new in Ghana. For a long stretch of Ghana’s development history, planning has been seen as a tool of development.

Conventional development planning in the country is a pre-independence phenomenon. During the reign of Sir Gordon Guggisberg (a British Governor for the Gold Coast; now Ghana), a seven-year development plan (1919–1926) was formulated for the Gold Coast (Ghana). This made Ghana one of the early nations to practice conventional development planning in the world. This first development plan of the then Gold Coast was used to guide and/or facilitate the provision of infrastructure that was required for the exploitation and export of the country’s mineral resources to Britain. It also facilitated the provision of social infrastructure like the Korle Bu Hospital to cater for the health needs of the people, particularly the British. From the experience of this seven-year development plan, development planning became an important national assignment in the 1950s. This was the beginning of self-rule in Ghana. At this point in time, the nationalist government saw planning as one of the best tools of local development. Ghana’s first president, Dr Kwame Nkrumah exhibited too much enthusiasm in planning. He formulated the Ten Year Development Plan, which was later redesigned as a five-year development plan (1951–1956). This was followed by the Consolidation Development Plan (1957–1959). Then came the Five Year Development Plan (1959–1964) and the Seven Year Development Plan (1963/64–1969/70) among others.

Planning was largely seen as a tool that could facilitate and deliver coordinated development in this new independent nation. As the application of scientific and technical knowledge to the public domain, planning lent legitimacy to, and fuelled hopes about the development enterprise (Escobar, 2010: 149–151). Thus, planning practices have constituted an important component of development over time. The history of development in the post-Second World War period is in many ways the history of the institutionalisation and ever more pervasive deployment of planning (Escobar, 2010: 151). Planning and development have thus moved hand in hand. Planning has served as the means of delivering development across the world. Ghanaians appear to have strong faith in planning as potent tool of development. This can be seen in efforts to integrate new development strategies like the poverty reduction strategies and LED into the national development planning frameworks. In the 1990s to date, there has been renewed effort aimed at making planning more relevant in the delivery of development in Ghana. For instance, in the mid-1990s, the Vision, 2020 Development Policy Framework was launched. This resulted in the preparation of District Medium-Term Development Plans (with the first on running from 1997 to 2000). The preparation of four-year medium-term development plans has since been institutionalised in the decentralised development planning system. The Vision, 2020 Development Policy Framework was later replaced with another development framework known as the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (2000–2005). The GPRS I was complemented by the GPRS II. Since 2009, the GSGDA has been the development framework of Ghana.

Although planning has been vigorously pursued at the national level as a tool of delivering development, a critical assessment of the above development frameworks reveals that they either lack an orientation towards LED or they failed to promote meaningful LED in the country. The Vision, 2020 Development Policy Framework, for instance, has a vision or goal of transforming Ghana into a middle income country by the year 2020. This vision or goal was broken into a number of development themes, such as human development, economic growth, rural development, urban development, infrastructure development, and an enabling environment. Although economic growth was treated as one of the development themes, the focus was on the maintenance of macroeconomic stability. This was eventually not even realised as the country joined the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries’ (HIPC) ‘club’ in 2001.

The debt relief under the HIPC initiative ensured that subsequent development policy frameworks focused more on poverty reduction. This was the case with the GPRS I. For instance, the main aim of GPRS I was to reduce the incidence of poverty in Ghana through macroeconomic stability. This came as a condition by the IMF and the World Bank under the HIPC initiative in 2002 (NDPC, 2010; Woll, 2008). The GPRS I was anchored on the following development themes: human resources and basic services, production and gainful employment, special programmes for the poor and vulnerable, and governance. As an extension of GPRS I, the aim of GPRS II was to reduce the incidence of poverty through economic growth. According to the National Development Planning Commission (2010), the GPRS II placed emphasis on growth as the basis for sustained poverty reduction. Its five thematic areas were continued macroeconomic stability, private sector competitiveness, human resource development, and good governance and civic responsibility. The new thing in GPRS II was the addition of private sector competitiveness. Although this particular thematic area relates to LED promotion, the question remains as to which or what private sector in the localities was to be made competitive?

The GSGDA where LED is said to be formally mainstreamed into also has a thematic area known as ‘enhanced competitiveness of Ghana’s private sector’ to cater for LED initiatives. The GSGDA has seven thematic areas: ensuring and sustaining macroeconomic stability; enhanced competitiveness of Ghana’s private sector; accelerated agricultural modernisation and natural resource management; oil and gas development; infrastructure and human settlements development; human development, productivity, and employment; and transparent and accountable governance (NDPC, 2010). Within this national development framework, LED initiatives were to find expression in the development theme, ‘enhanced competitiveness of Ghana’s private sector’.

Largely, the mainstreaming and promotion of LED through the national development policy/planning framework remain vague. In the first place, the national development policy/planning framework failed to pay attention to LED as an emerging development strategy. For instance, in the GSGDA, oil and gas development has been designated as a thematic planning area; following the recent discovery of oil in the country. This is not the case with LED. Although LED has been adopted, it does not find expression in the current national development policy framework as a thematic area. Second, the classification of LED under the ‘enhanced competitiveness of Ghana’s private sector’ is misleading. LED as a development strategy goes beyond private sector competitiveness.

Although a robust national development planning framework exists in Ghana, it has not made sufficient provision for the promotion of LED. The national development planning frameworks have failed over the years to recognise LED as a key thematic area for the purpose of planning. Until issues of LED are organised in a coherent manner and prioritised as a thematic area in the national development planning framework, less attention would be given to LED promotion in the country.

Decentralisation policy reforms and LED

The devolution of power from the centre to sub-national structures has been seen as the most effective system of promoting meaningful local development. Following Ghana’s decentralisation reforms in the late 1980s, Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies have been created as agents of development in the country, particularly at the District level. This process of devolving power to sub-national structures is based on the idea that local governments can easily identify and solve problems relating to LED promotion (Gravingholt et al., 2006). Devolved governments are also better placed to design and deliver policies that help build and exploit endogenous capabilities for development (OECD, 2001: 9). Local governments often play a significant role in the economic development process at the sub-national level (Sjostrom, 2010). Through decentralisation, the responsibility of organising LED and creating area prosperity has shifted from the central government to local government authorities. In line with Ghana’s Local Government Act of 1993 (ACT 462) outlines the development role of District Assemblies as follows:

executing approved development plans for the district;

guiding, encouraging, and supporting sub-district local government bodies, public agencies and local communities to discharge their roles in the execution of approved development plans;

initiating and encouraging joint participation with any other person or bodies to execute approved development plans;

promoting or encouraging other persons or bodies to undertake projects under approved development plans; and

monitoring the execution of projects under approved development plans and assess and evaluate their impact on the people’s development, the local district and national economy (Government of Ghana, 1993).

Thus, decentralisation has conferred the new role of promoting LED on local government authorities (Alburquerque, 2004). According to Rodriguez-Pose and Tijmstra (2009: 22) decentralisation offers territories real opportunities to shape their future and deal with the challenges of globalisation in a productive way. Clearly, decentralisation provides a good institutional framework for LED promotion. However, the reality on the ground does not suggest that the comprehensive decentralisation policy implemented in Ghana in 1988 has put the right institutional framework in place for effective LED promotion at the district level in the country. Over the years, institutional and capacity issues regarding the assignment of responsibilities and financial resources to District Assemblies have not helped in positioning them as promoters of LED.

This reality has dawn on the Government of Ghana necessitating the formulation of a new decentralisation policy for the country. This new decentralisation policy is intended to clarify the roles of District Assemblies, and reposition them to effectively carry out their mandate, including LED promotion. The new decentralisation policy particularly seeks to mainstream contemporary LED practice into Ghana’s decentralisation policy framework. The new decentralisation policy also seeks to highlight the key role of District Assemblies in the promotion of LED. The explicit nature of the new decentralisation policy is indicated in the following terms:

It is an important component of the decentralisation policy that District Assemblies provide the facilitating environment for local economic development […] In this connection, the classical definition of LED as “the process by which local governments, local businesses and other actors join forces and resources to enter into new partnership arrangements with each other or other stakeholders to create new jobs and stimulate economic activity in municipalities, towns and villages” is endorsed by this policy. (Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, 2010: 30)

In the new decentralisation policy, the Government of Ghana also acknowledged the importance of LED in strengthening the decentralisation process. As captured in the new decentralisation policy document, ‘effective local economic development is critical in achieving the envisioned results of decentralisation, including appreciable levels of internally generated revenues, options in service delivery, employment opportunities, reduced poverty levels and rapid infrastructural development’ (Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, 2010: 40). Being convinced of the importance of LED in strengthening the decentralisation process, the Government of Ghana through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development has outlined the following specific policy measures in its new decentralisation policy to make decentralisation responsive to LED promotion in the country:

Facilitate the formulation of a national LED framework to guide Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs).

Promote the development and implementation of local strategies for local-level economic development.

Encourage Assemblies to deepen consultations and publicise fee-fixing resolutions on a timely basis including revising provisions within the Ministry’s performance measures.

Develop guidelines for conducting consultations based on the experiences of successful Assemblies and to encourage Assemblies to budget or make appropriate provision for consultations.

Facilitate the development of guidelines for public–private partnerships at the local level.

Encourage Assemblies to proactively collaborate with key local level agencies including identifying and providing visible support to relevant decentralised agencies such as the Department of Community Development and Cooperatives and the Business Advisory Centres of the National Board of Small Scale Industries.

Promote inter-district trade and harmonise/resolve multiple taxes on goods/services.

Provide platforms for sharing information among Assemblies on good practices and lessons learned in LED, and small and medium enterprise support (Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, 2010: 41).

In 2013, the president of the Republic of Ghana gave meaning to these policies (at least in words) in his 2013 State of the Nation Address delivered in the Parliament of Ghana. In the words of the President, ‘We will mainstream the concept of Local Economic Development (LED) to facilitate, develop and implement employment creation programmes based on the natural resource endowments and the comparative advantages of every district’ (Mahama, 2013: 19). Similarly, one of the policy objectives of the GSGDA is to promote ‘effective decentralisation for enhanced local economic development’ (NDPC, 2010: 5). On the face value, government attitude towards the institutionalisation of LED in Ghana through the decentralisation process appears positive. Clearly, the Government of Ghana has acknowledged the importance of decentralisation in LED promotion. The 2013 State of the Nation address of the president, the new decentralisation policy, and the GSGDA all attest to this fact.

Though important steps, much have not been achieved from these documents or speeches. After almost 10 years, the new decentralisation policy and the GSGDA documents remain artefacts or reading materials as far their effect on LED promotion is concerned. There is no evidence on the ground to show that these documents have made decentralisation more responsive to LED promotion in Ghana. District Assemblies continue with ‘business as usual’. For instance, as of now, there is no dedicated fund for LED promotion in the districts. All the available revenues like the District Assembly Common Fund, the District Development Facility, and donor funds remain earmarked for specific interventions, other than LED promotion. Thus, the piecemeal approach to decentralisation reforms in Ghana does not make it responsive to LED promotion.

Decentralised development planning and LED promotion

Decentralised development planning or District development planning provides one of the avenues for institutionalising LED practice in Ghana. This option of using decentralised or District development planning to promote or institutionalise LED is being explored in Ghana. For instance, aside the decentralisation reforms that seeks to make decentralisation responsive to LED promotion, one of the policy objectives of the GSGDA is to ‘mainstream the concept of local economic development into planning at the district level’ (NDPC, 2010: 195). As indicated earlier, the GSGDA provides the framework for the formulation of District development plans, including LED plans within the medium-term development planning framework of District Assemblies in Ghana. Since it has become a ‘ritual’ for District Assemblies in Ghana to formulate District medium-term development plans every four years, District development planning can serve as a useful tool for LED promotion or institutionalisation.

In practice, decentralised development planning has become an integral part of Ghana’s decentralisation programme. According to Diaw (1997: 6) one key feature of Ghana’s local government reforms is decentralisation by devolution of administration, development planning, implementation, and budgeting decision-making in which local-level authorities will be actively involved. District development planning in Ghana is carried out within the framework of Ghana’s new decentralised planning system. The new national development planning system (Act 480 of 1994) provides for the establishment of a four-tier primary planning authorities, namely: (1) District Planning Authorities; (2) Regional Coordinating Councils; (3) Ministries, Departments and Agencies at the national sectoral level; and (4) a NDPC, the apex authority at the national level (Kokor, 2001: 32). Under the new national development planning system, District Assemblies on the other hand have been constituted as planning authorities at the sub-national level (Kokor, 2001: 32). The specific planning responsibilities of District Assemblies as outlined in the new national development planning system, Act 480 of 1994 include:

To initiate and prepare District development plans as well as settlement structure plans.

To undertake studies on development planning issues such as economic, social, environmental, and spatial issues.

To initiate and coordinate the processes of planning, programming, budgeting, and implementation of District development plans, programmes, and projects.

To integrate and ensure that sector and spatial policies, plans, programmes, and projects of the district are compatible with national development objectives.

To synthesise policy proposals on development planning in the district into a comprehensive framework for the economic, social, and spatial development of the district and ensure that it conforms to the principles of sound environmental management.

To monitor and evaluate development policies, programmes, and projects in the districts; and,

To provide the NDPC with such data and information as it may require (Ahwoi, 2010: 160–162).

Decentralised development planning became an integral part of the decentralisation process in Ghana since the mid-1990s. Since 1997, District Assemblies in Ghana have been presenting their development visions, together with corresponding strategies in what has become known as District medium-term development plan. These medium-term development plans are formulated to run a four-year cycle. As a bottom-up process, the preparation of District medium-term development plans starts with the preparation of community action plans and sector plans. The community action plans are expected to adequately capture the development aspirations of the communities. When properly done, an aggregation of the sector and community action plans presents a realistic District development plan.

In 2010, the Government of Ghana together with its development partners, particularly the UNDP decided to institutionalise LED practice through the decentralised development planning system. As a start, seven District Assemblies were selected to pilot LED practice. The pilot District Assemblies were required to design LED action plans, together with their ‘normal’ development interventions in the medium-term development plans for the 2010–2013 plan period. The pilot District Assemblies were the Amansie West District Assembly, Central Gonja District Assembly, Tamale Metropolitan Assembly, Kassena-Nankana East District Assembly, Bongo District Assembly, Wa Municipal Assembly, and Sissala West District Assembly. The pilot Districts, particularly the Berekum Municipal Assembly, the Kassena-Nankana East District Assembly, and the Bongo District Assembly were able to set up District Local Economic Development Platforms to design and mainstream LED initiatives/interventions into their District medium-term development plans.

Unfortunately, the attempt to institutionalise LED practice through decentralised or District development planning process also hit a snag. The process did not travel beyond the design, and mainstreaming of LED interventions into the District medium-term development plans. The pilot Districts failed to implement their LED action plans. For the pilot districts, their hope was that the involvement of the UNDP would translate into a special funding scheme for them to implement their LED initiatives. LED for them was a special project of the UNDP that was coming with a special funding scheme. Since this was the case, they set aside their LED action plans. In other words, they denounced their LED initiatives, arguing that it was going to affect their implementation performance; which is critical in accessing the District Development Facility. The District Development Facility is a special fund meant to induce the performance of District Assemblies in Ghana, including the implementation of their action plans (Akudugu, 2013). Essentially, the actors at the district level did not see LED as a new bottom-up development strategy to be anchored by them. Rather, the introduction of LED was seen as a donor project that should come with an external funding scheme. This thinking or mindset made them to set aside the action plans of ‘someone’s’ project until the perceived owner of the project provide funding for their implementation. Thus, the apparent misunderstanding regarding what LED is, or who owns it meant that institutionalising LED practice in Ghana through the decentralised planning system in Ghana is a failure, at least for now.

Aside the disappointment of not getting funding from the UNDP, there are also inherent problems in the decentralised planning system in Ghana that makes it difficult for the incorporation of contemporary LED practices. The discourse on decentralised or District development planning often hinges on the notion of a bottom-up participatory process anchored by local actors. As it is believed to create a platform for local participation in the development planning process, it is often said to be responsiveness to local community needs/aspirations. For decentralisation or local government experts, a decentralised planning system corrects the weaknesses of the traditional planning system. Unlike the new decentralised planning system, the traditional planning system in Ghana is accused of failing to create room for local-level development initiatives (Ahwoi, 2010: 156). This so-called traditional planning system in Ghana has been described as bureaucratic, centralised, and non-participatory (Ahwoi, 2010; Diaw, 1997; Kokor, 2001). Conversely, the new decentralised planning system is participatory and integrative, and is designed to ensure the active involvement of the community and service providers in the provision of services, and the planning and implementation of development programmes (Ahwoi, 2010: 156). Confident of the efficacy of the new decentralised planning system in Ghana, Kokor (2001: 32) posits that the promotion of a bottom-up participatory planning process by the new national development planning system is based on the notion of empowering the people, not as consumers or customers, but as citizens who must act directly in the process of governing their locality.

Clearly, the experts have successfully presented decentralised planning as an empowering mechanism that will make local actors in the districts take full charge of local development decision-making, including project design and implementation. This image of decentralised development planning fits perfectly with the ideals of contemporary LED practice. However, the image of decentralised planning as presented by the experts in Ghana is far from the reality on the ground. The reality is that decentralised planning in Ghana is structured as a process that starts and ends at the national level, instead of a bottom-up process. The so-called decentralised planning in Ghana starts with the issuance of planning guidelines by the NDPC, as a means of guiding and directing the preparation of District Medium Development Plans. All District Assemblies are required to strictly adhere to these planning guidelines. In addition, the final plan of each District Assembly in Ghana must be presented in a manner that is acceptable to the NDPC. This practise does not demonstrate local ownership of the planning process. As Kunbuor (2009: 236) notes, at every turn in the planning process, the state is directing, defining, and manipulating the authorship of the District Development Plan. According to Evers and Gerke (1992: 149), integrated regional development planning, in particular, and development planning, in general, is the outcome of bureaucratic procedures and an expression of bureaucratic thinking. But this notion of development planning does not make it an empowering tool. It does not promote community initiatives and local ownership of the development process. The strict adherence to the guidelines issued by the NDPC meant that the District Assemblies would end up formulating identical plans. This does not make the so-called decentralised planning system suitable for LED practice, which seeks to promote local ownership and drive the competitiveness of localities. Thus, a truly decentralised planning system is needed for effective LED promotion at the District level in Ghana.

Summary of challenges

The challenges affecting the institutionalisation of LED practice in Ghana are enormous. This section highlights three of such challenges. The first challenge affecting the institutionalisation of LED practice in Ghana is the failure of central government and planning authorities in the country to recognise LED as a critical development theme and strategy. Article 36 (S. 5) of Ghana’s Constitution requires that the President of the Republic, upon assumption of office presents government’s coordinated programme of economic and social development to parliament within two years. Although all presidents in the Fourth Republic have tried to satisfy this constitutional requirement, none of these development frameworks or programmes has sufficiently recognised LED as a development strategy. In all the development frameworks presented since the inception of the Fourth Republic in 1992, one can only see a piecemeal approach to LED. All failed to recognise LED as a key thematic area. The effect is the concentration on creating and maintaining macroeconomic stability at the expense of LED.

The second challenge affecting the institutionalisation of LED practice in Ghana is the lack of a dedicated fund for LED, particularly at the district level. The analysis of a local economy, as well as the design and implementation of LED interventions require money. Without a dedicated funding scheme, local government authorities would not be able to prioritise LED in the districts.

The third challenge is the strict adherence to planning guidelines. The requirement that all District Assemblies in the country use guidelines prepared by the NDPC for the preparation of their development plans cannot be a best practice for LED. Since localities differ in terms of local resource endowments, level of competitiveness, and so on, it is prudent that each District Assembly is allowed to embark on its own LED planning and promotion instead of being compelled to follow national planning guidelines. The preparation of identical District development plans would not result in a meaningful LED in the districts.

Conclusion

The institutionalisation of LED as a development strategy in Ghana is characterised by long and unyielding processes. From the setting of national development agenda, through planning to implementation, it is clear that there are no meaningful efforts to institutionalise LED practice in Ghana. First, LED is not given the needed attention in national development policy frameworks. For instance, the GSGDA, and the preceding national development policy frameworks failed to prioritise it as one of the thematic areas for planning. Second, the subtle control of decentralised planning by the NDPC also negatively affects LED promotion at the District level. The use of planning guidelines makes it difficult for the District Assemblies to prioritise LED in their medium-term development plans. Third, despite the good speeches or promises, there is no clear commitment shown so far by the relevant actors, including the Presidency, the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, the NDPC, as well as the District Assemblies towards effective LED promotion. To this end, meaningful reforms are needed in the planning system, national development agenda setting, and the decentralisation framework to reorient them towards LED promotion.

Recommendations

On the basis of the above finding, the following recommendations are made for improved LED promotion in Ghana. First, there is the need for the NDPC to recognise and capture LED as a thematic area in subsequent national development frameworks. This will make it possible for attention and prominence to be given to the various components of LED such as locality development, business development, community economic development, as well as the use of joint action.

Second, both central government and local government authorities should ensure that there is a dedicated funding scheme for LED promotion in the country. One of the best ways of doing this is to ensure that a reasonable percentage of the District Assemblies’ Common Fund is earmarked for LED. Alternatively, government could negotiate with its development partners to allow for the use of the District Development Facility to finance LED promotion in the districts.

On the third challenge, it is recommended that District Assemblies are allowed to formulate their own development plans without recourse to the planning guidelines issued by the NDPC. This will allow each district to focus on what is important and the specific area(s) the Assembly wants to promote. In terms of LED promotion, it will allow each district to pursue and promote its economic base and the competitiveness of its locality and economic ventures. It will also allow each district to use planning as a tool of promoting its local economy on a sustained manner.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adedeji

(1996) Technical cooperation in Africa: Factors influencing the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of consultancy services, especially debt and democratisation. Asien, Afrika Lateinamerika 24: 659–671.

Ahwoi

(2010) Local Government and Decentralisation in Ghana. Accra: Unimax MacMillan.

Akudugu

(2013) Inducing local government performance in Ghana: The case of the district development facility. Journal of Public Administration and Governance 3(6): 1402–1417.

Alburquerque

(2004) Local economic development and decentralisation in Latin America. CEPAL Review 82: 155–169.

Blakely

(1989) Planning Local Economic Development. Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.

Blakely

Leigh

(2010) Planning Local Economic Development. Theory and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publication Inc.

Bond

(2002) Local Economic Debates in South Africa. Occasional Papers Series No. 6. Western Cape. Municipal Services Project.

Cunningham

Meyer-Stamer

(2005) Planning or doing local economic development? Problems with the orthodox approach to LED. Africa Insight 35(4): 4–14.

Diaw

(1997) The challenges of decentralisation: The experiences of Ghana. In: WJ

Kombe

Kreibich

(eds) Decentralised Development and Prospects of Planning in Africa. Dortmund: SPRING Research Series 20, pp. 5–14.

10.

Escobar

(2010) Planning. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books.

11.

European Commission (2007): Supporting Decentralisation and Local Governance in Third Countries. Tools and Methods Series Document No. 2. Brussels. European Commission.

12.

Evers

H-D

Gerke

(1992) The culture of planning: Transmigration area development in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. International Sociology 7(2): 141–151.

13.

Government of Ghana (1993): Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462). Accra. Government of Ghana.

14.

Gravingholt

Doerr

Meissner

et al . (2006) Strengthening Participation Through Decentralisation. Findings on Local Economic Development in Kyrgyzstan. Bonn: German Development Institute.

15.

Harvey

(1996) Constraints on Sustained Recovery from Economic Disaster in Africa. Constraints on the Success of Structural Adjustment Programmes in Africa. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.

16.

Heidhues

Obare

(2011) Lessons from structural adjustment programmes and their effects in Africa. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 50(1): 55–64.

17.

Hutchful

(2002) Ghana’s Adjustment Experience: The Paradox of Reform. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

18.

Kokor

(2001) Local Governance of Development in Ghana. SPRING Research Series 30. Dortmund: University of Dortmund.

19.

Kunbuor

(2009) Law and Decentralised Development in Northern Ghana. Accra: Agape Printing Press.

20.

Lopes

(1999) Are structural adjustment programmes an adequate response to globalisation? International Social Science Journal 51(162): 511–519.

21.

Mahama

(2013) State of the Nation Address: Opportunities for All. Accra: Parliament of Ghana.

22.

Maharaj

Ramballi

(1998) Local economic development strategies in an emerging democracy. The case of Durban in South Africa. Urban Studies 35(1): 131–148.

23.

Marais

(2010) Donor-driven local economic development in peripheral areas of KwaZulu-Natal: the Gijima programme. Development Southern Africa 27(4): 517–530.

24.

Meyer-Stamer

(2006) The Hexagon of Local Economic Development and LED in South Africa. Mesopartner Working Paper. Revised Version (5). Duisburg: Mesopartner.

25.

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (2010) Decentralisation Policy Framework: Accelerating Decentralisation and Local Governance for National Development. Accra: Government of Ghana.

26.

Mold

(2009) Policy Ownership and Aid Conditionality in the Light of the Financial Crisis – A Critical Review. Paris: OECD.

27.

National Development Planning Commission (2010) Medium-Term Development Policy Framework: Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (2010–2013). Accra: Government of Ghana.

28.

Nel

(2001) Local economic development: A review and assessment of its current status in South Africa. Urban Studies 38(7): 1003–1024.

29.

Nel

Binns

Bek

(2009) Misplaced expectation? The experience of applied local economic development in post-apartheid. Local Economy 24(3): 224–237.

30.

OECD (2001) Devolution and Globalisation. Implications for Local Decision-Makers. Paris: OECD.

31.

Patterson

(2008) Country Report: Local Economic Development in South Africa. Eschborn: GTZ.

32.

Rodriguez-Pose

Tijmstra

(2007) Local economic development as an alternative approach to economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa. A report for the World Bank. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

33.

Rodriguez-Pose

Tijmstra

(2009) On the Emergence and Significance of Local Economic Development Strategies. CAF Working Paper 7. Caracas: CAF.

34.

Rogerson

(2010) Local economic development in South Africa: Strategic challenges. Development Southern Africa 27(4): 481–495.

35.

Rogerson

(2010) Local economic development in Africa. Global context and research directions. Development Southern Africa 27(4): 465–480.

36.

Rücker

Trah

(2007) Local and Regional Economic Development. Towards a Common Framework for GTZ’s LRED Interventions in South Africa. Eschborn: GTZ.

37.

Sjostrom

(2010) Evaluating the economic role of BC local governments. A snapshot of community effort and opportunity. Victoria: Union of British Colombia Municipalities.

38.

Swinburn

Goga

Murphy (2006) Local Economic Development: A Primer Developing and Implementing Local Economic Development Strategies and Action Plans. Washington, DC: World Bank.

39.

Tassonyi

(2005) Local Economic Development. Strengthening Responsive and Accountable Local Governance in China. Dali: China Ministry of Finance.

40.

Woll

(2008) Donor harmonisation and government ownership: Multi-donor budget support in Ghana. The European Journal of Development Research 20(1): 74–87.