Whenever the notion of development is raised – and indeed wherever it has been discussed, be it in government plans, public debates, or academic discourses – it is almost always framed in teleological terms. To develop, we are told, is to progress towards a favourable end. Hence terms like economic development imply growth in wealth; political development suggests functional, stable institutions; sociocultural development points to a coherent and resilient society. In each case, the assumption is the same: that development moves forward, upward, and outward.
But surprisingly, the word development has nothing in it that suggests upward or forward progress. It derives from the Old French développer, which in turn comes from the Latin dis- (to undo) and voloper (to wrap or envelop). To develop, then, is literally to unwrap, to unfold, or to bring to light that which is veiled or hidden. Viewed in this sense, development is simply a self-defining process – one that may reveal promise or expose failure, depending on the choices that are made thereto.
In this article, I explore two contrasting but interconnected expressions of development in Ghana: one that builds steadily on itself, and another that unravels under its own contradictions.
When Development Is Virtuous
Virtuous development is the development we know of, and write about, and teach. It is the desired development. It is when free and fair elections lead to a peaceful turnover of power; it is when prudent financial decisions by the central bank leads to an appreciation of the cedi; it is when public observance of social, moral, and religious norms leads to tolerance, respect, and empathy towards one another.
In all these cases, we assume, and quite rightly because of our teleological inclinations, that doing practice A well should naturally translate into a desired outcome B. Whilst this thinking is not flawed in itself, we are likely to conclude that there is no development in cases where practice A is well executed, but outcome B is not immediately visible or perceived. We tend to overlook in such moments the gradual maturation period of certain inputs, as well as those outputs that are intangible and cannot be quantified in fiscal or material terms.
When Development Becomes Vicious
To most people, vicious development is a tautology, much like a ‘republican Christian’ was to Rousseau. And we understand all too well now why this is the case. But as earlier mentioned, to develop is simply to unfold, to reveal that which is hidden – and sometimes, what is revealed is dysfunction, fragility, or unintended harm.
So a benign Free SHS programme intended to expand access to education ends up stretching infrastructure, lowering instructional quality, or diminishing student welfare. A rural electrification drive meant to empower off-grid communities delivers unstable power and inconsistent supply. An input-heavy farming programme like Planting for Food and Jobs raises yields but leaves farmers with no storage, no markets, and no returns.
In virtuous development, all things being equal, a well-intentioned practice A leads to a desired outcome B. But vicious development diverges from this logic in two principal ways. Either A is well executed but still produces a damaging or contradictory result B (in this case, an unexpected outcome), or A is poorly conceived or delivered, which then makes outcome B not only disappointing but counterproductive (in this case, self-defeating). In both variants, the promise of progress gives way to pressure, distortion, and decline.
When Development Goes Both Ways
Not all development is clearly virtuous or plainly vicious. Sometimes, the same intervention produces concurrent gains and losses for different segments of people.
Take for instance the recent rebound of the cedi. While it has offered relief to importers and consumers by reducing freight charges, stabilising prices, and easing inflation, it has also placed pressure on exporters and local manufacturers, making Ghanaian goods less competitive abroad. One outcome has delivered stability; the other is quietly chipping away at productive capacity.
Urban renewal schemes across Accra present another example. While these have cleared walkways, opened green spaces, and given the capital a modern gloss, they have also displaced informal traders, driven up rent prices, and pushed low-income residents to the outskirts – some into areas increasingly prone to flooding. In one register, the city transforms; in another, livelihoods are disrupted, and work commutes are rendered increasingly expensive.
Even road upgrades and newly tarred inter-regional highways illustrate this dual motion. While they have reduced travel times, improved access to markets, and eased the movement of people and goods, they have also contributed to a surge in road fatalities – by over 20 percent in the first quarter of 2025, according to a recent report – as smoother surfaces encourage speeding in the absence of road safety enforcements. A policy intended to enhance connectivity is leaving behind a trail of fatalities.
When development goes both ways, the result is not failure but fragmented progress. Practice A still produces outcome B, but outcome B is not the same for everyone as its impact is absorbed unevenly by the system. Some gain, others lose; some benefits are immediate, others are obscured by trade-offs and unintended consequences. In such moments, progress, though not entirely undone, is unevenly contested.
The Mechanics of Development Loops
Development, whether virtuous or vicious, does not unfold in isolation. It emerges from the interplay of intentions, institutions, resources, and reactions – each shaping and reshaping the other through a web of feedback loops and systemic effects.
First, there is the question of time. Not all desired outcomes manifest immediately. A well-designed infrastructure project or education reform may take years before its full benefits are realised. But in the absence of visible results, public confidence wanes, political will fades, and financial commitment ebbs. A virtuous cycle then may falter not because A was flawed, but because B took too long to arrive, and the system lost faith.
Second is the role of feedback – how gains in one domain trigger pressures in another. Rising disposable incomes and the spread of ride-sharing apps, for example, have put thousands of additional vehicles on our roads, yet the highway network has barely expanded. A ten-kilometre commute on the Madina-Accra corridor or the Tema-Accra Motorway now takes twice as long at peak hours, driving up fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions – at a time when car ownership is increasingly celebrated as a marker of prosperity. What begins as greater personal mobility loops back as congestion, lost work hours, and higher transport costs – prompting a need for innovative transit systems such as tram lines in our cities.
Third is the influence of institutional filters. The same policy implemented in two different districts may yield starkly different outcomes depending on the capacity of local authorities, the clarity of implementation guidelines, and the strength of civic oversight. Institutions, in this sense, function like lenses: they refract, redirect, and shape the path from practice A to outcome B. And if the lens is cracked – through corruption, politicization, or administrative incoherence – then B arrives distorted or delayed, and in some cases, not at all.
Fourth is public interpretation. Development is not only experienced; it is narrated, trusted, and internalized by the people it intends to serve. Take for example the recent advisory by the NIA against photocopying the Ghana Card, or the mounting concerns over illegal co-payments under the NHIS. While these are grave issues, the manner and way they are explained to the public may determine whether they sow confusion and doubt or foster continued trust and cooperation. Without clear, effective communication, particularly at the subregional level, well-intended reforms can stall or see their uptake severely hindered.
Thus we see that development loops are shaped by sequencing, connection, belief, and adjustment. Virtuous cycles depend not just on sound design but on timing, coordination, and trust. Vicious cycles persist not because original ideas were bad, but because the system responded to them less favourably than expected. And when development goes both ways, it is usually because one part of the loop surged ahead over the other, or both were pulled in opposite directions.
Some Prescriptions for Thought
If development is not always linear, and progress can fracture into gains and losses, then our approach to policymaking must be as adaptive as it is ambitious.
Foremost, we must resist the demand for immediacy. And herein lies the Sisyphean boulder: for how can we hope to be oriented towards long-term dividends when our political system is designed to reward the exact opposite? The very science of our nation’s politics tends to favour quick-fix actions over long-term solutions. As a result, policies that require sustained investments are often sidelined or abandoned midstream for lack of immediate or perceived electoral payoff. Campaigns may indeed be partisan, but governments must remain anchored to national goals and commit to development policies that transcend election cycles and party tenures, particularly in critical areas such as education, health, and housing.
Equally important is the capacity to listen to what interventions reveal over time. No policy operates in a vacuum. A cash transfer may reduce poverty but inadvertently suppress informal labour; an infrastructure project may increase access but inflate rents in adjoining areas. Policies must be implemented with their aftershocks in mind, and said ripple effects should not be construed as failures but as avenues for adjustment and recalibration. To do so however would require a culture of honest and open dialogue: where the opposition does not oppose for the sake of opposing, and the governing party does not support for the sake of supporting. National debates, rather than characterized by reflex or rivalry, must be guided by evidence, humility, technical expertise, and above all, shared accountability.
Third, institutions remain pivotal. A reform is only as effective as the institutions that carry it through. Strengthening bureaucratic agencies, insulating procurement and regulatory bodies from political interference, and restoring a culture of merit and professionalism are not optional extras but prerequisites for durable progress. Without this, even the best-designed interventions risk faltering under the weight of clientelism, nepotism, and selective justice, as has been the case with GYEEDA, STX, SADA, Saglemi, the National Cathedral, and the list goes on.
Finally, there is the need to bring policy closer to the local people. I tend to be drawn very much to events such as PM Questions in the UK, Question Time in Canada, and several of President Trump’s direct question and answer sessions with the media. And this may be because they seem so fascinating and rare to me as a Ghanaian. In my experience, our presidents speak to us more than they speak with us. And when questions are entertained, these are likely to be held behind closed doors than on a live YouTube broadcast. The only time I appear to have an informal feel of the presidency is during campaign seasons when speeches are usually unscripted, humour is less restrained, and the local dialect is frequently employed. Whilst a Presidential Question Time in Parliament may seem afar off for now, holding regular townhall meetings in community centres and university campuses to discuss pertinent policy issues and interventions could go a long way to promote public acceptance, support, and ownership of the same.
These prescriptions, though by no means exhaustive, serve as reminders that in complex systems, outcomes are not always predictable, and good intentions do not always condition a forward or upward thrust. To develop, indeed, is to unfold, and that unfolding process will continue to be shaped by time, by trust, by institutions, and by a willingness to adapt to shifting realities and evolving constraints.
Dr. Darlington K. Wiredu
Research Fellow, Innolead International
Tel. No.: +233541017962
Email: [email protected]
