There are growing concerns over how Ghana launches its purported development initiatives amid fiscal constraints, threatening public debt, and competing development priorities.
Some concerned analysts are bemoaning the country’s tendency to launch ambitious national programmes at full scale without first testing their effectiveness.
The latest to raise issues is Policy and Data Analyst Alfred Appiah, who believes this approach has become one of the recurring weaknesses in public policy implementation, often resulting in costly projects that fail to deliver their intended impact.
Big Ambitions, Limited Fiscal Space
According to Alfred Appiah, it is difficult to understand why a country with limited fiscal resources consistently opts for nationwide implementation of major initiatives from the outset rather than adopting a phased approach.
In his argument, large-scale programmes often require significant upfront investment, exposing the state to substantial financial risks if the interventions fail to achieve expected outcomes.
“One of the things that has always puzzled me about policymaking in a country with such limited fiscal space is our tendency to launch initiatives at full scale from the outset,” he remarked.
The Cost of Going Big Too Soon
The policy analyst recounts that over the years, Ghana has rolled out several high-profile initiatives on a national scale, including Agenda 111, the 24-hour model markets project, and the District Road Improvement Programme (DRIP).
He admits that while these programmes were designed to address critical developmental challenges, concerns have emerged over delays, cost overruns, incomplete infrastructure, and questions about long-term sustainability.
The challenge, for him, is not necessarily the ambition behind such projects but the absence of a structured process for testing, evaluating, and refining them before large-scale deployment.
Such hasty full-scale implementation has proven to be ineffective and lacks value for money.
“There is often little emphasis on piloting programs, evaluating effectiveness, learning lessons, and then scaling up what works,” he remarked.
He added, “As a result, we end up with large nationwide initiatives such as Agenda 111, the 24-hour model markets, DRIP, and others. Yet in many cases, the state does not appear to realize significant cost savings from deploying these interventions at scale. Instead, we often see cost overruns, incomplete projects, and programs that struggle to achieve their intended objectives.”
Why Pilots Matter
Alfred Appiah is advocating for a shift towards a more gradual and evidence-based policy framework where new initiatives are first introduced on a smaller scale.
Under such an approach, policymakers can assess performance, identify operational challenges, measure outcomes and make necessary adjustments before expanding nationwide. This, he argues, would significantly reduce waste, improve project design and increase the likelihood of achieving intended objectives.
He maintains that a successful pilot programme not only provides valuable data but also helps government avoid committing scarce resources to interventions that may require major redesigns.
“A more gradual, evidence-based approach would reduce risk and improve outcomes. Pilot the intervention, measure the results, refine the model, and then scale,” he indicated.
From Procurement-Led to Evidence-Led Policy
Rather than allowing large-scale procurement and political urgency to drive implementation, he believes decisions should be guided by evidence, measurable results, and continuous learning.
Such a model has become standard practice in many countries where pilot projects serve as testing grounds before substantial public funds are committed.
As Ghana works to restore fiscal stability and improve the efficiency of public expenditure, Alfred Appiah believes the country can no longer afford costly policy experiments at scale. He is therefore telling governments to start small, measure results, learn lessons, and scale what works.
