It is very clear that the illegal mining, widely known as galamsey, appears to be a reckless gamble. It is evident that it destroys forests, poisons water bodies, and leaves communities vulnerable to health hazards and environmental collapse.
Irrespective of the dire consequences, thousands of people still troop to the pits with shovels, mercury, and sometimes heavy machinery in many parts of Ghana.
The question many are asking is, so why, despite the visible damage and repeated government crackdowns, does galamsey thrive?
An economist has attempted to explain the phenomenon through an economic lens.
Dr. Jabir Mohammed, an economist at the University of Ghana, offers a sharp explanation that “When the marginal benefit of engaging in galamsey is higher than the marginal cost, people will engage in it.”
In simple terms, Dr. Mohammed is pointing to a basic economic principle that people weigh the benefits and costs of an activity. If the benefits feel greater than the risks, the choice becomes obvious.
To break it down and make it practical, take, for instance, a young man in a rural community where formal job opportunities are scarce. Working on a cocoa farm might earn him about GH₵30 to GH₵40 a day.
However, one trip to a galamsey site could fetch him hundreds, or even thousands, if he strikes gold. To him, the “benefit” of galamsey easily outweighs the “cost.” Even if he risks being arrested, or even if he knows the long-term damage to the environment, the immediate reward or the short-term gains feel too good to pass up.
On the side of the government, illegal mining taskforces may destroy equipment or arrest miners. But penalties are often weak, enforcement is patchy, and political interference is rife.
Compared to the huge windfall some miners enjoy, these risks appear minimal. In this case, the calculation is simple. If the punishment is uncertain or easily avoided, then the cost is low.
This economic logic does not only apply to the individual miner. Local chiefs, community leaders, and even some officials may turn a blind eye because they, too, receive a share of the proceeds. The marginal benefit, quick money, becomes much higher than the marginal cost, such as sanctions or fines that are rarely enforced.
This perceived higher benefits against the lower costs create a vicious cycle, where galamsey appears, to those involved, as the most rational economic choice.
However, the tragedy of this “rationality” is that it overlooks the broader and long-term costs, such as contaminated rivers, collapsing farmlands, food insecurity, and a looming public health crisis.
Basic economic principle assumes that individuals are rational beings. Here lies the paradox: individually rational decisions add up to a collectively irrational outcome that threatens the very survival of communities.
Dr. Mohammed’s analysis suggests that unless Ghana can tip the balance by either increasing the cost of galamsey through strict, consistent enforcement or raising the benefits of alternative livelihoods through better jobs, skills training, and community investment, the menace will persist.
