Virtuous, vicious cycles of development in Ghana

Whenever development is discussed — be it in government plans, public debates or academic discourses — it is almost always framed in teleological terms. 

To develop, we are told, is to progress towards a favourable end.

Hence, terms such as economic development imply growth in wealth; political development suggests functional, stable institutions; sociocultural development points to a coherent and resilient society.

In each case, the same assumption holds: that development moves forward, upward and outward.

But surprisingly, the word development has nothing in it that suggests upward or forward progress.

It derives from the Old French développer, which in turn comes from the Latin dis- (to undo) and voloper (to wrap or envelop).

To develop, then, is literally to unwrap, to unfold, or to bring to light that which is veiled or hidden.

Viewed in this sense, development is simply a self-defining process — one that may reveal promise or expose failure, depending on the choices that are made thereto.

When development is virtuous

Virtuous development is the development we know of, write about and teach.

It is the desired development.

It is when free and fair elections lead to a peaceful turnover of power; when prudent financial decisions by the central bank lead to an appreciation of the cedi; when public observance of social, moral and religious norms leads to tolerance, respect and empathy towards one another.

In all these cases, we assume — and quite reasonably — that doing practice A well should translate into a desired outcome B.

Whilst this thinking is not flawed, it can become problematic, particularly when applied to inputs that tend to maturate slowly, or to outputs that are of an intangible nature.

When development becomes vicious

Most people would view “vicious development” as a contradiction, much like Rousseau viewed a “republican Christian.”

But to develop, once again, is to reveal that which is hidden — and sometimes, what is revealed is dysfunction, fragility, or unintended harm.

So, a benign Free SHS programme intended to expand education access ends up stretching infrastructure and lowering instructional quality.

Or an input-heavy farming programme, such as, Planting for Food and jobs raises yields, but leaves farmers with no storage, no markets and no returns.

In vicious development —unlike the virtuous — A may be well executed but still yield a contradictory result B; or A may be poorly conceived or delivered, in which case B turns out disappointing and counterproductive.

In both variants, the promise of progress gives way to pressure, distortion, and decline. 

When development goes both ways

Not all development fits squarely into the virtuous–vicious dichotomy.

Sometimes, the same intervention produces concurrent gains and losses for different segments of people.

Take for instance the recent rebound of the cedi.

While it has offered relief to importers and consumers by reducing freight charges and easing inflation, it has also placed pressure on exporters and local manufacturers, making Ghanaian goods less competitive abroad.

One outcome has delivered stability; the other is quietly chipping away at productive capacity.

Urban renewal schemes across Accra present another example.

While these have cleared walkways and opened green spaces, they have also displaced informal traders, driven up rent prices, and pushed low-income residents to the outskirts — some into areas increasingly prone to flooding.

In one register, the city transforms; in another, livelihoods are disrupted, and work commutes are rendered increasingly expensive.

When development goes both ways, the result is not failure but fragmented progress.

Practice A still produces outcome B, but outcome B is not the same for everyone as its impact is absorbed unevenly by the system.

Some gain, others lose; some benefits are immediate, others are obscured by trade-offs.

In such moments, progress, though not entirely undone, is unevenly contested.

Loops, hoops: Prescriptions for thought

If development is not always linear, and progress can fracture into gains and losses, then our approach to policymaking must be as adaptive as it is ambitious.

First, it is necessary to resist our demand for immediacy.

Some well-intentioned projects, particularly in health, education and housing, may make headway if we develop the patience and political will to see, them through.

It may, thus, behove our governments to commit to development projects that transcend electoral cycles and party tenures.

Equally important is the capacity to listen to what interventions reveal over time. Indeed, some policy aftershocks or ripple effects do not indicate failure in any way, but only present opportunities for adjustment and recalibration.

Our political dialogues therefore must remain honest and open — unhinged by partisan populism or media distortions — to ensure that national proposals and frameworks are anchored on fact and reason, rather than on reflex and rivalry.

Third, institutions remain pivotal: for like lenses, they refract, redirect, and shape the path from practice A to outcome B.

Strengthening bureaucratic agencies, insulating procurement and regulatory bodies from political interference, and restoring a culture of merit and professionalism should not be dismissed as utopistic, but pursued frantically and deliberately in all aspects of public administration.

Finally, development is more likely to follow a virtuous path if policies are well communicated to the people they intend to serve.

Regular townhall meetings, Q&A sessions and open forums in market squares, community centres or university campuses could go a long way to promote public understanding, support, and ownership of key government interventions.

These prescriptions, though by no means exhaustive, serve as reminders that in complex systems, outcomes are bound to be unpredictable, and good intentions may not always condition a forward or upward thrust.

To develop, indeed, is to unfold, and that unfolding process will continue to be shaped by time, by trust, by institutions and by a willingness to adapt to shifting realities and evolving constraints.

The writer is a Research Fellow, Innolead International.
E-mail: darlington.wiredu@innoleadint.com