From years of experience in Parliament and government, one lesson stands out clearly: budgets reveal priorities. They may not speak loudly, but they rarely mislead.

Recent fiscal patterns suggest a consistent tilt toward large-scale infrastructure spending, sometimes at the expense of direct social interventions. Reports from institutions such as Transparency International, the International Monetary Fund, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have long warned that heavy concentration on complex infrastructure projects can increase the risk of inefficiencies, mismanagement, and corruption. In some cases, rent-seeking behaviours in such projects are estimated to range between 30% and 50% of total costs.

Applying these observations to Ghana’s current “Big Push” infrastructure agenda raises troubling questions about potential financial leakages. If such risks materialise, the implications could be significant:
• Between US$3 billion and US$5 billion from a projected US$10 billion infrastructure envelope
• Between GH¢9 billion and GH¢15 billion from the GH¢30 billion 2026 allocation
• Between GH¢19.5 billion and GH¢32.5 billion from the GH¢65 billion earmarked for road projects

While these figures are illustrative, they highlight the scale of concern around governance and accountability in large public investments.

At the same time, social spending—particularly programmes that directly affect households—appears to be under increasing strain. Areas such as wages and conditions of service for public sector workers remain constrained, while social interventions meant to cushion households are not expanding at the pace seen in previous years. In some instances, payments that support livelihoods have been delayed or limited.

This raises a fundamental question: Are we prioritising infrastructure development at the expense of the welfare of ordinary Ghanaians?

This is not merely a political question but a policy concern grounded in observed budgetary trends. Infrastructure development is essential and remains a key driver of long-term economic growth. However, development must also be measured by its impact on people’s daily lives.

Another area of concern is job creation. Commitments such as the “1-3-3” policy under the proposed 24-hour economy framework were presented as bold solutions to youth unemployment. Yet, current budget allocations appear to give limited emphasis to large-scale employment programmes that directly place income in the hands of young people.

Globally, governance experts have cautioned that public expenditure can gradually shift toward sectors that are less transparent and more difficult to monitor. This makes it even more important to maintain a balance between infrastructure investment and social protection.

It is important to emphasise that infrastructure itself is not the problem. Roads, schools, hospitals, and energy projects are all critical to national development. The challenge lies in ensuring that such investments do not overshadow the immediate needs of citizens, particularly in areas such as income support, employment, healthcare, and education.

A balanced approach to development—one that gives equal attention to both infrastructure and people—remains essential. Economic management is not only about macroeconomic indicators or capital expenditure; it is fundamentally about improving lives.

Ghana’s development path must therefore strive to combine physical infrastructure with strong social investment, ensuring that growth is inclusive and that its benefits are widely shared.