- INSTEPR Questions How 2027 New Economy Will Differ From 24-Hour Economy
The Institute for Energy Policies and Research (INSTEPR) is challenging the government to explain how its proposed $10 billion New Economy programme will differ from the 24-Hour Economy, arguing that the 2027 budget must show how existing commitments will be delivered before introducing another set of ambitious plans.
In a press statement dated November 8, the institute said the 2026 budget had framed the next stage of Ghana’s economic recovery around investment-led growth, job creation and transformation. But it argues that the outcomes so far have not matched those expectations, citing a decline in non-oil growth and a large number of young people said to be outside work, education or training.
The statement puts non-oil growth at 8.2% in the first half of 2025 and 5.9% in the first half of 2026. It also cites an October Ghana Statistical Service report indicating that close to two million young people are not working or participating in education or training. INSTEPR uses those figures to question how the government’s infrastructure and economic programmes are translating into employment.
The institute’s central demand is for clarity about the relationship between the 24-Hour Economy and the New Economy. The government has announced a $10 billion programme for 2027 to 2030, the statement says, but does not describe how it differs from the earlier initiative or how its funding and implementation arrangements will work.
That question is relevant ahead of the 2027 budget because the two programmes share broad ambitions around production, jobs and transformation. INSTEPR argues that repeating these objectives under a new programme name will not establish a new economic direction unless the budget sets out specific projects, responsible institutions, funding sources, timelines and measurable results.
The statement points to the 2026 budget’s allocations as evidence that the government had already committed significant resources and policy attention.
It says the budget provided GH¢302.46 billion in total expenditure, including GH¢57.53 billion in capital expenditure, and committed GH¢30 billion to the Big Push infrastructure programme. It also outlined interventions in agriculture, energy, health, education, transport and housing.
But the institute’s argument is that an allocation or policy announcement does not demonstrate delivery. “A budget is not judged by the size of its allocations or the number of policies announced. It is judged by what it delivers,” the statement says.
Agriculture is a particular focus of its criticism. The 2026 budget identified initiatives including the Feed Ghana programme, Farmer Service Centres, oil-palm development, agricultural enclave roads, mechanisation and a food buffer-stock intervention. The statement also lists a target of 1,000km of agricultural enclave roads and GH¢200 million for food buffer stocks.
INSTEPR says “little or nothing” has been done to implement these agricultural policies and calls for an update from the Finance Minister in the 2027 budget. The claim places pressure on the government to report not only what was allocated, but what was released, which projects began, how many farmers or communities were reached and what results were achieved.
The institute also revisits the 24-Hour Economy, which the government had presented as a mechanism for expanding production and creating jobs. It refers to an assessment by the Institute of Public Policy and Accountability, which questioned whether the 2026 budget’s allocation was adequate for full implementation and whether the programme had sufficiently clear targets and rollout arrangements.
Taken together, the criticism is about the distance between policy ambition and execution capacity. INSTEPR says the problem is not necessarily that no projects have begun, but whether the resources, institutions and implementation arrangements are aligned well enough to turn announced plans into results.
That distinction matters for the New Economy proposal. A $10 billion programme may signal a major investment ambition, but its credibility will depend on how the figure is structured: whether it refers to public spending, private investment or a combination; which sectors and projects it covers; how much funding is secured; and how progress will be reported.
The statement raises the need for such clarity but does not provide its own proposed framework.
There is also a numerical inconsistency in the statement. It first refers to a “$10 billion investment in the Pig Push project”, while later describing a GH¢30 billion allocation to the Big Push in the 2026 budget.
The document does not reconcile those references. The figures appear to relate to different programmes or measures, and the wording should be clarified before they are treated as comparable.
The institute’s wider point is that Ghana does not need a fresh list of programme names if existing commitments remain unexplained or incomplete.
For the 2027 budget, a credible account of implementation would include progress on agricultural support, the Big Push and the 24-Hour Economy, alongside details of the proposed New Economy’s financing and delivery structure.
The employment figures cited in the statement sharpen that test. If the central justification for large investment programmes is job creation, then the budget should make it possible to track how projects translate into employment, including opportunities for young people.
That requires measurable targets and periodic reporting, rather than relying on overall growth figures or announcements alone.
INSTEPR’s statement ends with a call for the government to deliver what it has already promised. Its challenge to the New Economy is therefore not simply about whether the programme is new.
It is whether the 2027 budget can define what changes, show who is responsible, identify the resources available and provide evidence that implementation is moving.
Ahead of the budget, that may be the more consequential distinction. A new strategy can help coordinate investment, but its credibility will rest on whether it resolves the shortcomings identified in existing initiatives.
The test for the Finance Minister will be to explain both the New Economy’s purpose and how its promises will become funded, monitored and completed projects.
