The index, which captures four main areas including Economic Management, Structural Policies, Policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, as well as Public Sector Management and Institution, scored Ghana 3.6 on scale of one to six.
The CPIA is a diagnostic tool that is intended to capture the quality of a country’s policies and institutional arrangement.
It focuses on the key elements that are within the country’s control, rather than outcomes that are influenced by elements outside a country’s control.
The performance of countries in the CPIA is a major factor for granting concessionary loans to poor country.
The report looked at countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
On Economic Management, Ghana scored 3.3, marginally above the average 3.2 scored by the Sub Saharan African region.
Under this, Ghana scored 3.5 for Monetary and Exchange Rate Policy, 3.0 for Fiscal Policy and 3.5 for Debt Policy.
Speaking via a video conference, the World Bank’s Chief Economist for Africa, Albert Zeufack pointed out that Ghana scored average because the quality of polices passed and implemented under the areas mentioned.
“The CPIA is not just about events or passing a law. We look at how the laws and policies influenced a change to enhance transparency and reduce corruption,” he said.
Albert Zeufack added that even though Ghana passed good laws and policies, the effect and enforcement of the laws in reducing corruption and improving the livelihood of ordinary Ghanaians were minimal.
Under structural policies for example, Ghana scored 4.0 in trade but performed averagely with 3.0 at the financial sector.
Under policies for Social Inclusion and Equity, the country did better within that sector by scoring 4.0 in Gender Equality, 3.0 in Equity of Public Resource Use, 4.0 in Building Human Resources, 4.0 in Social Protection and Labour and 4.0 in Policies and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability.
Again, Ghana’s performance in Public Sector Management and Institution was better compared to its peers with 3.6 percent score overall.
Under it, the country scored 4.0 for Property Rights and Rule Based Governance, 3.5 for Quality Budgetary and Financial Management, Efficiency of Revenue Mobilization, Quality of Public Administration and Transparency, Accountability and Corruption in the public sector.
Read Full Story