Excessive bureaucracy, commonly known as red tape, and the tendency of government institutions to operate in a constant state of firefighting have been identified as major obstacles undermining the performance and effectiveness of ministries and public institutions in Ghana.
This is the observation of Professor Michael Danquah, the Head of Development Policy Studies at the Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA).
According to him, the lack of clear institutional direction, weak coordination and the absence of a well-defined plan for achieving development objectives have left many public institutions responding to immediate challenges rather than working towards clearly defined long-term goals.
Prof. Danquah made these observations on the sidelines of the Government Institutions Performance Dialogue, where he shared his thoughts on the findings of the latest edition of the Index of Government Institutions Performance Towards Economic Prosperity (IGIPTEP) report, periodically released by ACEYE.
He argued that the persistent practice of firefighting, coupled with bureaucratic bottlenecks, prevents ministries from operating efficiently and delivering the results expected of them.
In his view, government institutions must move away from fragmented approaches to governance and adopt a more coordinated system in which every institution understands its mandate, knows the results it is expected to achieve and has a clear strategy for getting there.
“It’s the big issue of red tape, firefighting. We don’t have a very clear agenda that intersects with the other things as to what we want to do,” he stated.
Caution Against Misinterpreting ACEYE’s Performance Rankings
Meanwhile, Prof. Danquah has urged ministers, heads of government institutions and other stakeholders not to rush to conclusions or become discouraged by their respective positions in the latest ACEYE IGIPTEP performance rankings.
His comments follow concerns that some ministries may feel disappointed or unfairly treated by their positions in the ranking of the government ministries.
For instance, the placement of the Ministry of Trade and Agribusiness at the bottom of the ranking, while the Ministry of Finance occupies appears in the middle of the ranking, could generate questions and objections among stakeholders who believe their institutions deserve better recognition.
However, Prof. Danquah believes that the rankings should be treated as an opportunity for constructive discussion rather than a final judgment on the performance of the ministries involved.
He emphasised that transparency must be the foundation of the entire assessment process, insisting that the indicators and measurements used in arriving at the rankings should be made accessible for public scrutiny.
In his view, stakeholders must be able to understand how the rankings were determined, what criteria were applied and how individual institutions performed against the various indicators.
“I think my first thing would be that we need to be super transparent. So whatever indicators, whatever measurements, everybody should be able to look into it. That’s the first thing,” he said.
He explained that transparency would help build confidence in the findings and allow ministries and other stakeholders to engage meaningfully with the results.
More importantly, Prof. Danquah cautioned against treating the rankings as the final word on the performance of government institutions.
He described the report as a “first cut”, explaining that its primary value lies in providing a starting point for further examination, debate and institutional improvement.
According to him, a ministry’s position at the bottom of the ranking should not simply lead to criticism or condemnation. Rather, it should prompt stakeholders to investigate the reasons behind that performance and identify the specific challenges responsible for the outcome.
Using the Ministry of Trade and Agribusiness as an example, he suggested that its position should encourage a closer examination of the issues affecting its performance and the factors that may have contributed to its ranking.
“If the Ministry of Trade is at the bottom, what are the issues there? We can now get into it and begin to unpack, and then we could now move forward from there,” he explained.
He therefore encouraged institutional heads and ministers to obtain the full ACEYE report and study its contents carefully instead of relying solely on the rankings being discussed in the media.
He noted that the report contains several indicators that provide a more detailed picture of institutional performance beyond the overall positions assigned to the ministries.
Prof. Danquah believes that reading the full report would enable institutional leaders to identify areas where their ministries have performed well and those requiring urgent attention.
“It is only when you have read, then you can be able to appreciate it and all that. So they should get this report, read it. It’s a good first cut,” he advised.
He added that the findings should serve as a basis for internal discussions within ministries, allowing management teams to reflect on their strengths, acknowledge their weaknesses and develop practical measures to improve their performance.
