The Case for Social Policy as a Strategic Investment in Ghana
Social policy should be viewed as a critical investment rather than an afterthought in Ghana’s development agenda. Across Africa, including Ghana, social policy has often been narrowed down to social protection, characterized by targeted interventions typically driven and funded by external donors. This reduction reflects a deeper conflict between economic and social policy priorities.
Economic policy is consistently prioritized, centrally planned, and well-funded, guided by principles of market liberalism and fiscal discipline. In contrast, social policy, which focuses on redistribution, protection, and collective welfare, tends to be fragmented, reactive, and treated as supplementary. While social protection—encompassing social insurance, social assistance, and public works—is essential, it represents only a part of the broader social policy landscape.
The question arises: why not invest in universal policies that address the root causes of inequality, unfairness, and exclusion, instead of relying on short-term fixes? A universal approach to social policy can tackle the five giants of society: want, squalor, idleness, ignorance, and disease. It provides a national framework for basic services, housing, employment, education, and healthcare—areas requiring sustained public investment.
However, what we currently see are scattered initiatives spread across various ministries and agencies, lacking coherence and long-term commitment. This article argues that Ghana must elevate social policy to the same level of attention as economic policy.
The Influence of Transnational Institutions
Transnational institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, and ILO have a significant impact on Africa’s social policy landscape. Their support often takes the form of safety nets and cash transfers, even if not explicitly labeled as “social protection.” For instance, in Ghana, the IMF-supported Livelihood Empowerment Against Poverty (LEAP) program has seen increased benefits indexed to inflation, a move the IMF considers vital for maintaining the purchasing power of the poorest households.
Despite this, Ghana’s projected public spending on social protection in 2025 is only 1.5 per cent of GDP, far below the 3.3 per cent benchmark recommended by the ILO for lower-middle-income countries. Meanwhile, international platforms like the World Economic Forum, G20, ECOWAS, G7, BRICS, and the African Union emphasize economic integration and stability, yet there is no comparable political momentum or alignment regarding comprehensive social policy.
While the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to fill this gap, they remain aspirational without binding commitments. As Adesina points out, social policy is about solidarity and collective responsibility, while economic policy increasingly promotes individualism and market logic.
Scattered Initiatives and Institutional Challenges
In Ghana, the imbalance between social and economic policy is evident. Governments frequently launch social programs with catchy names, such as Obaatampa, Adwumawura, and Ghana CARES, but many of these are short-lived, poorly coordinated, and not part of a broader institutional plan.
A 2024 UNICEF social protection budget brief highlights the challenges. The Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Protection, tasked with leading and coordinating the government’s social policy agenda, was allocated GHS 2.2 billion in the 2024 national budget. However, 99.5 per cent of that went to LEAP and the School Feeding Programme, leaving less than 0.5 per cent for all other ministry operations. The entire ministry’s budget represents about one per cent of the national budget.
The recent passage of the Social Protection Bill offers some institutional backing, aiming to secure more predictable funding for key programs. However, without better coordination across ministries and stronger long-term financing, social policy will continue to take a backseat to economic initiatives.
The Erosion of Informal Support Systems
Urbanization, migration, and rapid population growth, especially among youth, have weakened traditional support systems, family networks, and communal reciprocity that once provided safety nets. With Ghana’s population growing at 2.1 per cent, well above the global average, the burden on families and communities has become unsustainable. The state can no longer rely on these overstretched informal systems.
Social development must be proactively planned, with infrastructure, education, healthcare, and job creation aligned with demographic realities. Otherwise, the country risks building its economy on a foundation of unmet needs and rising social pressures.
Conclusion
Social policy is not charity, a burden on the budget, or a favor to the poor. It is an investment in the country’s most valuable asset: its people. When spending on healthcare, housing, education, and welfare is treated purely as a cost, governments miss the opportunity to build a healthier, more productive, and more stable society.
Economic and social policies are not in competition; they are interconnected. Ghana needs a clear, coordinated national approach that gives social policy the same weight as economic planning. This means institutional leadership, stable domestic funding, and a shift away from scattered or donor-driven programs. A stronger social contract begins with the recognition that social challenges are not inevitable; they result from policy decisions. Choosing to prioritize social development is not just the right thing to do. It is necessary for lasting national progress.