The recent article by Dr. Theophilus Acheampong and Dr. Stephen Lartey titled “BoG losses and public gains: Understanding the accounting cost of Ghana’s monetary stabilisation and the benefit to citizens” attempts to justify the significant losses recorded by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) by arguing that these losses are the necessary price of macroeconomic recovery. The article presents falling inflation, exchange rate stability, reserve accumulation, and GDP growth as evidence that the Bank’s policies have produced broad public benefits.While the article presents strong macroeconomic statistics, it fails to adequately address the most important question in economic policy: Have the lives of ordinary Ghanaians meaningfully improved?Economic management should ultimately be judged not only by statistical indicators but by the daily realities of citizens. A stable cedi, lower inflation figures, and improved reserve levels are valuable achievements only when they translate into affordable living conditions, employment opportunities, lower borrowing costs, stronger purchasing power, and improved welfare for households and businesses. Macroeconomic improvements do not automatically guarantee improvements in living standards. In Ghana today, many citizens continue to struggle with: High food prices despite lower headline inflation, rising transportation and utility costs, Persistent unemployment and underemployment, High lending rates that continue to suppress business expansion, reduced disposable income, Weak salary growth relative to the cost of living; Increasing migration of young professionals in search of opportunities abroad. These realities raise an important concern: if the economy has recovered so strongly, why do citizens still feel economically constrained?One of the strongest arguments made in defense of the Bank of Ghana is the reduction of inflation from over 54 percent to single digits. While this achievement deserves recognition, this creates the impression that lower inflation automatically means lower prices. This is economically misleading. Lower inflation does not mean prices have fallen; it only means prices are increasing more slowly. The damage caused during the inflation crisis remains deeply embedded in household budgets. Food prices, rent, transportation fares, school fees, electricity tariffs, and healthcare costs remain significantly higher than they were before the crisis. Therefore, many households continue to experience economic hardship despite the improved inflation figures.The article acknowledges that commercial bank lending rates remain elevated despite reductions in the monetary policy rate. This point alone weakens the claim that the benefits of the BoG’s policies have significantly reached the real economy. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which form the backbone of Ghana’s economy, continue to face: Expensive borrowing costs, Restricted access to credit, Weak consumer demand, Reduced profitability, High operational costs.A policy environment cannot be described as broadly successful when businesses still struggle to access affordable financing. If banks continue lending at rates around 18 to 30 percent, how can entrepreneurs expand production, employ more workers, or reduce prices for consumers? The reality is that many businesses remain in survival mode.Bank of Ghana argue GDP growth as proof of economic recovery. However, GDP growth without corresponding employment growth creates what economists describe as “jobless growth. “Many young graduates in Ghana remain unemployed or underemployed. Informal sector workers continue to face unstable incomes. Professionals increasingly seek opportunities outside Ghana due to limited domestic prospects. An economy cannot be considered fully recovered when: Youth unemployment remains a national concern, Graduate employment opportunities remain limited, Real wages remain weak; Household income growth remains insufficient. The true test of economic recovery is not simply whether GDP expands but whether citizens experience improved economic security.The Government describe the Domestic Debt Exchange Programme (DDEP) as an unavoidable adjustment and frames the resulting losses as a necessary policy cost. However, the article gives insufficient attention to the severe social and financial consequences suffered by ordinary citizens, pensioners, investors, and institutions. Many individuals who invested in government securities experienced: Loss of investment income, Reduced retirement security, financial uncertainty, Declining confidence in government financial instruments. The restructuring may have helped stabilize government finances, but the burden was disproportionately transferred onto citizens and domestic institutions. A balanced analysis should acknowledge both the macroeconomic necessity and the human cost of the programme.The article argues that cedi appreciation reduced import costs and fuel prices. While this may be theoretically correct, the practical benefits to consumers have been limited. In reality, Market prices remain elevated, many imported goods remain expensive, Transportation fares have not significantly declined, Utility costs remain high, Businesses continue to pass accumulated costs onto consumers. This demonstrates an important structural weakness within Ghana’s economy: exchange rate gains do not quickly transmit into lower consumer prices. As a result, ordinary citizens often do not feel the supposed benefits of currency appreciation.In conclusion, The Bank of Ghana may indeed have contributed to macroeconomic stabilization, and some of the policies implemented may have prevented a deeper economic crisis. However, the attempt to frame the Bank’s accounting losses as fully justified by widespread public gains is incomplete and overly optimistic. The core issue is not whether inflation declined or reserves improved. The real issue is whether the average Ghanaian feels safer economically today than before. For many households and businesses, the answer remains uncertain.Economic recovery should not only exist in policy reports, balance sheets, and statistical tables. It must be reflected in employment opportunities, affordable living conditions, business growth, stronger purchasing power, and improved quality of life. Until these realities become visible to ordinary citizens, claims of broad public benefit from the Bank of Ghana’s losses will remain open to legitimate debate. I have prepared a publication-style article that critically examines the arguments used to justify the Bank of Ghana’s losses and focuses on the current economic realities facing ordinary Ghanaians. The article challenges the assumption that macroeconomic improvements automatically translate into better living conditions for citizens.
Isaac Ansahisaacansahkofi@gmail.comMSc Economics (University of Aberdeen Scotland -UK)MSc Project Management (Northeastern University Boston-USA)
Source:Mybrytfmonline.com
