By Sangu DELLE (Dr)
Ghana’s public financial management (PFM) is at a breaking point. Year after year, fiscal indiscipline, opaque budgeting, and policy misalignment stall national progress. The recent proposal to adopt a stewardship model, championed by my good brother Franklin Cudjoe and other thought leaders, is a great contribution to the conversation on governance and accountability. IMANI has long played a leading role in challenging us to think critically about policy choices, pushing for deeper reflection on how we manage public finances. Their work is invaluable in provoking necessary debate, and in that spirit, it is important to scrutinize and refine this latest proposal.
The stewardship model is based on the premise that public officials, when entrusted with autonomy, will act as self-motivated custodians of the public good. This model has merit, particularly in moving away from rigid bureaucratic constraints that often slow down decision-making. However, trust alone is not a governance strategy. A shift toward stewardship must be reinforced with structural reforms that balance autonomy with accountability, ensuring that public officials are empowered to deliver results while remaining subject to oversight.
Trust Alone is Not a Strategy—We Need Smart Accountability
The idea of removing rigid controls to encourage public officials to act in good faith assumes a culture of integrity that, unfortunately, does not yet exist at scale. Countries that have successfully reformed public finance systems—such as New Zealand and Estonia—did not simply rely on the goodwill of bureaucrats. They created frameworks that rewarded responsible management while penalizing waste and corruption.
New Zealand’s Fiscal Responsibility Act provides a useful model. By enforcing strict debt and deficit controls while linking incentives to performance outcomes, New Zealand has achieved remarkable fiscal discipline without stifling innovation in governance. Ghana should adopt a similar approach, where high-performing public officials are given greater autonomy, but this autonomy is tied to clear, measurable results. Digital tracking systems should be introduced to monitor government transactions in real time, preventing misuse of funds. A national public finance performance index, ranking ministries and agencies based on their fiscal responsibility, could introduce a culture of competition and excellence within government institutions.
Making Budgeting Democratic
One of Ghana’s greatest financial governance failures is the closed-door nature of budgeting decisions. While the stewardship model emphasizes values-driven leadership, it does not address who determines these values. If stewardship is to work, it must extend beyond bureaucrats to include the citizens whose lives are shaped by budgetary choices.
A practical way to achieve this is through participatory budgeting (PB), an approach that allows citizens to directly influence how public funds are spent. This model has been successfully implemented in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where a portion of the municipal budget is allocated based on public voting. The result has been greater transparency, more efficient allocation of resources, and increased public trust.
Ghana should pilot participatory budgeting at the district level, allocating at least five to ten percent of development funds for direct citizen input. Digital platforms could be used to facilitate this process, allowing citizens to vote on projects ranging from education and healthcare improvements to infrastructure development. By embedding public engagement into financial decision-making, Ghana can move beyond rhetoric and give citizens a real stake in governance.
Linking Public Funds to Tangible Outcomes
One of the fundamental flaws in Ghana’s financial system is the way funds are disbursed with little regard for performance. Too often, projects receive funding before they deliver results, creating an environment where inefficiency is tolerated and, in some cases, rewarded. A shift to an output-based aid (OBA) model could change this dynamic.
In Kenya and the UK, OBA programs have improved service delivery by tying funding to performance benchmarks. In Ghana, this could mean that payments for public projects are released only upon verification of completed milestones. For example, rather than disbursing full funds to contractors upfront, payments could be staggered based on independent assessments of progress. This approach would create financial discipline while ensuring that public resources generate tangible benefits.
Fixing Ghana’s Sovereign Wealth Management—Beyond the MIIF and Petroleum Funds
Ghana already has several public investment funds, including the Mineral Income
Investment Fund (MIIF) and the Petroleum Holding Fund (PHF). In theory, these institutions should serve as financial cushions for the country, ensuring that revenues from natural resources are strategically reinvested for national development. However, in practice, they have become synonymous with political interference, mismanagement, and scandalous financial decisions.
Recent reports of shady loans, politically connected deals, and questionable investments at MIIF expose the fundamental governance failures in Ghana’s sovereign wealth management. Instead of securing national wealth, these funds have often functioned as slush funds for the politically connected. The stewardship model assumes that public officials will act as responsible custodians of national resources, but the MIIF saga demonstrates why oversight and transparency must take precedence over blind trust.
Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, worth over $1.8 trillion, provides a stark contrast. Its success is rooted in strict governance structures, complete insulation from political influence, and an investment strategy that prioritizes longterm national growth over short-term political gains. Ghana must take similar steps to reform its sovereign wealth management.
A new approach would require:
-
Establishing a fully independent Sovereign Wealth Authority, with a board comprising financial professionals rather than political appointees.
-
Banning politically motivated loans and deals—investment decisions should be based on economic viability, not connections.
-
Requiring full public disclosure of all transactions, with an open-access digital platform where citizens can track where funds are invested.
