Governance they say is not a joke for the feeble-hearted. You must have a big enough heart to be able to accommodate and swallow all that the public will say. It is about being foresighted and sticking to the vision.
I remember very well the call by farmers for government to stop the subsidy being put on fertilizers as part of the planting for food programme. That they prefer to buy it at the cost available on the market. This position appeared to be supported by many.
In the past week, the matter of shortage of subsidized fertilisers has come up again. This time around, the fertilizers are available in the various retails shops but farmers are crying for the subsidized fertilizers since the commercially available fertilizers are expensive. And that if the government does not intervene, we risk having famine in the days ahead.
Juxtaposing the two scenarios makes it clear that government needs to be focused and not distracted. The evidence subsidized fertilizer programme presents far outway the contrary. The abstract below speaks to the impact of subsidized fertilizer programme
Abstract on the impact of fertiliser subsidy
We examined the economy-wide impact of a fertilizer-subsidy programme in Ghana with a focus on agricultural-sector productivity, overall economic growth, employment, and welfare. We adopted a modified version of the standard PEP-1-t model. Our results suggest that the fertilizer-subsidy programme improved GDP growth and sector-based productivity—notably, in the main agricultural subsectors and the food industry. Specifically, compared to the business-as-usual scenario, the implementation of the fertilizer-subsidy programme in 2017 improved the productivity of the maize, sorghum, and rice subsectors by about 8.3%, 4.5%, and 3.8%, respectively. These effects were, however, about four-times, three-times, and six-times higher in 2020 than their 2017 levels, respectively. We also observed important positive effects on the value-added of the food industry, indicating the presence of a backward linkage with agriculture. The unemployment rate among skilled labour (except urban skilled labour in agricultural) fell under the programme, and the decline in unemployment was relatively more pronounced for rural skilled labour in non-agricultural activities. In addition, we found evidence of positive effects on household consumption and, subsequently, on welfare. Based on these findings, we recommend that the fertilizer-subsidy programme be implemented and, if possible, extended beyond its planned implementation period.