IMF toughen is going past loans to spice up Ghana’s financial credibility – Kobby Amoah – Life Pulse Daily
Editor-in-chiefDecember 29, 20255 Mins read40
IMF Support Beyond Loans: Strengthening Ghana’s Economic Credibility, According to Kobby Amoah
Introduction
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) program is often viewed through the lens of financial bailouts and loan disbursements. However, recent commentary from Kobby Amoah, a regulation lecturer and aide to Kennedy Agyapong, suggests that the true value of these programs lies far beyond immediate liquidity. Speaking on PleasureNews’ AM Show, Amoah argued that the IMF’s role in Ghana is pivotal in restoring “innovator access,” enforcing policy discipline, and rebuilding international confidence. This article explores the multifaceted impact of IMF engagement, moving past the headlines of loan amounts to understand how such programs serve as a structural bridge for Ghana’s economic stability and long-term credibility.
Key Points
- Restoring Credibility: The primary benefit of IMF support is not the loan itself, but the restoration of economic health and the confidence of international partners.
- Market Access: Participation in an IMF program opens doors to cross-border markets, allowing Ghana to borrow and conduct business globally.
- Enforced Discipline: Technical support and strict benchmarks ensure that governments adhere to fiscal discipline before funds are released.
- Performance Evaluation: True economic management by current officials can only be assessed after the IMF program concludes, likely around August 2026.
- Cyclical Nature: IMF programs usually follow economic downturns, leading to a cycle where new governments inherit the stability and receive undue credit for the subsequent recovery.
Background
International Monetary Fund (IMF) programs are designed to assist countries experiencing severe economic imbalances. For Ghana, these interventions are often necessitated by factors such as high public debt, currency depreciation, and fiscal deficits. The standard mechanism involves a loan facility disbursed in tranches, contingent upon the country meeting specific performance criteria.
Historically, the relationship between Ghana and the IMF has been intermittent, characterized by periods of strict adherence to conditions followed by relaxation. The current context, as highlighted by Kobby Amoah, suggests that the “toughen” or strengthening aspect of the IMF is active. This implies that the country is under a strict regimen intended to correct structural flaws in the economy. The background to the current commentary is a period of relative stabilization, where the Cedi has shown resilience against the US Dollar, prompting public debate on the sustainability of this stability.
Analysis
Kobby Amoah’s perspective shifts the focus from short-term financial relief to long-term structural credibility. The analysis of his statements reveals three critical dimensions of IMF engagement:
The Psychology of Market Confidence
Amoah argues that before a country approaches the IMF, it is often “close to bankruptcy” and lacks credibility. In economic terms, this loss of credibility results in a “risk premium” on sovereign debt, meaning Ghana must pay higher interest rates to borrow. By entering an IMF program, the country signals a commitment to reform. This signal restores confidence, lowering borrowing costs and encouraging foreign direct investment (FDI). The “market access” Amoah refers to is the ability to tap into international capital markets again—a privilege lost during economic crises.
The Trap of Political Cycles
A significant part of Amoah’s analysis addresses the political economy of IMF programs. He notes that voters often punish incumbent governments during economic crises, leading to a change in leadership. The incoming government then inherits the benefits of the IMF program—stabilized currency and improved fiscal metrics—leading to a perception of superior management. Amoah warns that this is a misattribution of success. The stability is often the result of the inherited IMF framework, not necessarily the new administration’s policies. This cycle obscures the true performance of economic managers.
The Definition of True Performance
Amoah posits that the “real efficiency” of the economic environment cannot be judged solely by current indicators. He suggests that the true test comes after the IMF support ends. This aligns with the concept of “sustainability.” If an economy can maintain stability after the IMF’s strict oversight is removed, it indicates that deep-seated structural reforms have taken root. He estimates that a genuine assessment of the current managers’ effectiveness will be possible by August 2026, implying that the current period is one of managed recovery rather than organic growth.
Practical Advice
For policymakers, investors, and citizens trying to understand the economic landscape, Amoah’s insights offer several practical takeaways:
For Policymakers
Government officials must focus on sustaining the discipline enforced by the IMF benchmarks even when the program concludes. The reliance on “technical support” should transition into institutional capacity building. It is crucial to communicate to the public that the current stability is a result of strict adherence to external conditions, managing expectations for when those conditions are inevitably relaxed.
For Investors
Investors should view the IMF program as a de-risking mechanism. However, caution is advised. As Amoah notes, the real strength of the economy is tested post-program. Investment decisions made during the program should be based on the assumption that the “safety net” exists only until the program’s conclusion. Monitoring the “benchmarks” and “technical support” adherence is a better indicator of long-term viability than the immediate loan disbursements.
For the General Public
Voters should understand the cyclical nature of IMF programs. Economic improvement following a crisis is often structural and program-driven rather than solely the result of new political administration. Understanding that the “spice up” in financial credibility is a systemic outcome helps in making informed decisions during elections. Citizens should look for evidence of sustainable growth—such as industrial diversification and export growth—rather than just currency stability provided by market interventions.
FAQ
What does Kobby Amoah mean by “spice up Ghana’s financial credibility”?
Kobby Amoah uses the phrase “spice up” to describe how the IMF program enhances Ghana’s attractiveness to international lenders and business partners. It refers to the restoration of trust, which allows Ghana to access cross-border markets and conduct business more easily than before the program.
Why is the IMF program considered more than just loans?
While the loans provide necessary liquidity, the program is valuable because it imposes “financial discipline” through technical support and strict benchmarks. It acts as a seal of approval that restores the confidence of the global financial community, which is essential for long-term economic health.
When can we truly assess the performance of the current economic managers?
According to Kobby Amoah, the true performance of the current economic managers can only be assessed after the IMF program ends. He specifically mentions a timeline around August 2026, as this will be when the economy must survive without the external support and strict oversight of the IMF.
How does the IMF affect the political landscape in Ghana?
Amoah argues that there is a political cycle where an IMF program follows an economic downturn. The opposition usually wins the subsequent election. The new government then benefits from the stabilization measures implemented by the IMF, often leading to the perception that they are responsible for the economic recovery, while the groundwork was laid by the previous administration’s engagement with the IMF.
What is “market access” in the context of the IMF?
Market access refers to the ability of the Ghanaian government to borrow money from international capital markets (e.g., issuing Eurobonds) and to facilitate trade. When a country lacks credibility, international markets shut it out. An IMF program signals that the country is on a path to reform, reopening these markets.
Conclusion
Kobby Amoah’s commentary provides a nuanced understanding of the International Monetary Fund’s role in Ghana. By moving the conversation past the size of the loans, he highlights the critical importance of “financial credibility” and “market access.” The IMF program serves as a disciplinary framework that stabilizes the Cedi and restores international confidence. However, this stability is conditional and cyclical. The ultimate success of Ghana’s economic management will not be measured by the stability observed during the program, but by the resilience of the economy once the IMF support concludes around 2026. For Ghana to truly “thrive,” the discipline enforced by the program must become an intrinsic part of the nation’s fiscal policy.
Leave a comment