After Ghana’s economy was almost plunged into a ditch between 2021 and 2022 and all domestic interventions to salvage the economy failed, the IMF became an inevitable option.
This triggered the 18thIMF Programme, aimed at stabilizing the economy. The $3 billion Extended Credit Facility was unlocked after the Executive Board approved the country’s programme. As required, the 3-year programme was expected to go through various reviews to ascertain whether the country was complying with the conditions and frameworks approved by the Fund.
The continuation of the programmes was highly dependent on how the country performed in the various reviews. Every review put the manager of the economy and citizens in a state of anxiety, curious about what the verdict from the Fund will be.
Two years on, after the fifth review, the IMF’s own words tell a more layered and human story of an economy that steadied itself, stumbled at points, and then found balance again.
Here is how the IMF has described the economy throughout the five reviews and what these descriptions and verdicts mean.
The First Review: A “Strong” Performance
Ghana’s journey through the programme, which commenced under the previous administration, started on a high note. In the first review in January 2024, the IMF was unusually upbeat. It described Ghana’s performance as “strong.”
In IMF language, this is high praise. It meant Ghana met all key targets, reforms were working, inflation was easing, growth was holding up, and public finances were improving. For a country emerging from debt distress and high inflation, this was a strong vote of confidence that the painful adjustments were paying off.
The Second Review: A “Generally Strong” Performance
By the second review in mid-2024, the tone softened slightly but remained positive. The IMF described performance as “generally strong.” This signaled continuity rather than decline.
Ghana was still largely on track, but cracks were beginning to show. Progress continued, but the pace of reforms and the pressures of implementation were becoming more visible.
The Third Review: A “Generally Satisfactory” Performance
The third review at the end of 2024 marked a subtle but important shift. The IMF now described Ghana’s performance as “generally satisfactory.” This phrase matters since it signalled that programme targets were broadly met, but momentum was slowing.
Some reforms faced delays, and economic gains were becoming harder to sustain. The economy was still improving, but the easy wins were over.
The Fourth Review: A Deterioration Recorded
After the third review came the most difficult phase. During the fourth review in mid-2025, the IMF avoided neat labels altogether. Instead, it described the economy as deteriorating toward the end of 2024, citing fiscal slippages and rising pressures.
This was the period when election-year spending tested discipline. Even though the economy recorded earlier gains, especially a higher than expected growth, some targets were at risk, and corrective action was needed to keep the programme credible.
The Fifth Review: A “Broadly Satisfactory” Performance
By the fifth review in December 2025, the tone steadied again. The IMF described Ghana’s performance as “broadly satisfactory.” This meant the country had regained balance. Growth improved, inflation was better controlled, and fiscal discipline strengthened, even though some reforms were still unfinished.
The Bottomline
The five reviews are like a progress report of a patient in recovery. Ghana started strong, maintained momentum, slowed under pressure, faced setbacks, and then stabilized again.
None of the descriptions suggests collapse. Equally, none claim victory. Even though these are mere labels, these words translate into real-life signals that Ghanaians are experiencing now. “Strong” and “generally strong” mean stability returning. “Generally satisfactory” and “broadly satisfactory” mean the economy is holding together, but still fragile, requiring careful choices and discipline.
In all, it has been a test of endurance, policy discipline, and political restraint.
