It is emerging that Ghana is facing a profound economic dilemma between free market economic principles and an unfree economy.
According to IMANI-Africa, a nation that secured a crucial $3 billion lifeline from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to stabilize its economy and restore investor confidence, is now introducing a set of interventionist policies that “signal a shift toward greater regulatory control in key sectors”.
This move, detailed in the document IMANI Africa and ATLAS Network’s recent research document titled “Promoting Economic Freedom: Addressing the Impact of Government Interventionism on Free Market Principles in Ghana,” creates an identity crisis.
This, the experts say, is an affront to Ghana’s decades-long commitment to a free market economy. They further warn that these policies could undermine the macroeconomic stability promised by the IMF program and threaten the country’s global competitiveness.
The Great Policy Contradiction
Tracing Ghana’s history with free market principles, the analysis indicated that since the 1980s, Ghana’s economic trajectory has been defined by the Economic Recovery Programme (ERP), which transitioned the nation “from a state-controlled economy to one embracing market liberalization”.
The 2023 IMF Extended Credit Facility was intended to further this path through “fiscal consolidation, debt sustainability, and structural reforms” to revitalize the business environment.
Yet, amid these pro-market reforms, the government enacted new policies that directly contradict the spirit of liberalization.
These two major policies;
Cement Price Regulation (L.I. 2491): This legislation mandates that cement manufacturers submit monthly ex-factory price build-ups for approval by a state-appointed body, effectively giving a government committee quasi-price-setting authority.
LPG Cylinder Recirculation Model (CRM): Although aimed at safety, this policy centralized gas distribution, creating fears of monopolization and the exclusion of thousands of traditional local players.
IMANI observes that stakeholders view the Cement Pricing Regulation in particular as a measure that “contradicts market liberalisation”. As the research report states, the move from price control to “price reporting was widely regarded as semantics, reinforcing scepticism about the government’s intentions.
A Warning from Global Rankings
The think tank observes that the interventions come at a precarious time for Ghana’s reputation on the world stage. The Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Index of Economic Freedom already places Ghana in the “Mostly Unfree” category, ranking 112 out of 184 countries.
Perhaps more critically, the World Bank’s 2025 Business Ready (B-Ready) Report highlights that Ghana scored lowest in Market Competition among all business environment indicators, with a score of only 32.19 out of 100.
This weak score is directly linked to interventionist policies. For instance, the B-Ready report noted that 22% of firms surveyed reported their prices to be regulated.
Also, the regulatory framework for competition scored only 37 out of 100, reflecting gaps in laws intended to foster open, free, and competitive markets.
These interventionist measures risk exacerbating this core weakness, potentially solidifying Ghana’s “mostly unfree” status and deterring much-needed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).
The Peril of Policy Discretion
The underlying issue, according to industry bodies, is the failure of the government to address macroeconomic root causes while focusing instead on micromanaging market outcomes.
For cement, roughly 77 percent of a cement plant’s variable costs are denominated in U.S. dollars. Cement manufacturers argue that regulating the Cedi price cannot mitigate cost instability driven by currency volatility. The document concludes that the high concern that government price regulation is anti-competitive means the cement regulation has Low Alignment with free market principles.
The policies lack credibility because they are based on “a weak or zero evidence base”, driven instead by a perceived “ministerial agenda”. This exclusion of industry stakeholders like the Chamber of Cement Manufacturers (COCMAG) and the Ghana Real Estate Developers Association (GREDA) from meaningful consultation “undermines the legitimacy of the regulation” and creates a deep “trust deficit”.
A Return to the Past?
The current trend toward centralized control starkly mirrors the economic policies Ghana embraced before the 1983 ERP, which relied heavily on “state-administered price controls” that were ultimately “economically counterproductive”.
IMANI says that by prioritizing regulatory control over competitive dynamics, these interventions risk “undermining the autonomy of private enterprises” and introducing the very inefficiencies the IMF stabilization program is meant to eliminate.
The question remains whether Ghana can successfully navigate its current economic crisis by embracing market reforms while simultaneously placing heavy controls on critical domestic industries. As the experts caution, regulatory legitimacy is strongest when rooted in clear evidence, transparent process, and proportional design. elements critics argue are missing from Ghana’s latest economic pivot.
