By: Boadi, Nicholas

I have grown to understand that division of labour brings about specialisation which leads to efficiency and higher productivity.

This article is not to support the large size of Nana Addo's government. In fact, personally, I thought some of the ministries didn't even need deputies but going by correlative and comparative analysis, I shudder to criticise Nana Addo now due to President Kuffuor's legacy of efficiency and effectiveness in government with the largest number of ministers hitherto Nana Addo's government.

For instance, President Kuffuor had ministers and their deputies put together to be 88 in his first term and moved it to 93 in his second term, the largest in the fourth republic. Meanwhile, Ex-President Rawlings started with 83 ministers and deputy ministers; the late President Mills had his ministers and their deputies put together to be 75 and President John Mahama had his ministers and deputies put together numbering 84. Under normal circumstances, one would say that President Kuffuor's government came to milk the country dry looking at the large size of his government compared to those of Ex-President Rawlings, the late President Mills of blessed memory and Ex-President Manama. But looking at the economy President Kuffuor inherited in 2001 and the one he bequeathed to the NDC in 2009, one would agree with me that President Kuffuor's government was by far more efficient and prudent in economic management than those of the NDC with fewer ministers and their deputies.

Going by the indicative economic analysis, President Kuffuor inherited an economy with debt stock of about GH¢6 billion and handed over a debt of GH¢9.5 billion after eight years. He inherited an economy with a growth rate of 3.9% and left it at 8.1% in 2009. He inherited an economy whose inflation was 40.5% and left it at 18.1%. He inherited an economy with an interest rate of 52% and left it at 22%. President Kuffuor inherited an economy whose currency's exchanged rate to the dollar was GH¢0.72 and left it at GH¢1.12, a difference of only GH¢0.40 within eight long years. The list is endless.

Now let's consider those NDC governments with smaller government sizes. The NDC took over a country whose total debt stock was GH¢9.5 billion and skyrocketed it to GH¢122 billion in eight years. They inherited an economy with growth rate (GDP) of 8.1% in 2009 and shrank it to 3.6% by the time they were handing over. They took over a country whose inflation rate was 18.1% and were only able to reduce it to 15.3%. They took over a country whose interest rate was 22% and raised it to 35%. They took over a country whose currency was exchanging to the dollar at GH¢1.12 and left it at GH¢4.30, a difference of more than GH¢3.00 compared to President Kuffuor's legacy of only GH¢0.40 within the same period of eight years. So in the final analysis, which government size and whose economic management ability put a drain on Ghana's coffers?

My little study has taught me that large span of control saves cost but does not really ensure efficiency while small span of control is costly but brings about specialization which leads to higher productivity. Let's take a scenario of two equally competent teachers in two different classes: One teacher teaches a class of sixty students while the other teacher teaches twenty students but they both take the same salary. Ideally, one would argue that the proprietor or the director of the school with the smaller class size could have saved money if he had gone with the large class size model.

This is partly true because money he would have spent on two other teachers could have been saved if he had merged three classes of twenty into one. But the question is, which of the two teachers mentioned would be more effective in class in terms of students understanding of lessons taught and performance? Is it the one with twenty students or the one with sixty students? Of course, the one with twenty students would be more effective because he can give more class works and home works. He can also attend to the individual needs of the weak students in his class but the story would be different in the other class with so many students.

In the final analysis, you would realise that the teacher who teaches smaller class size would be more effective and that would lead to higher productivity in terms of students performance. So my question is "Which one would you prefer - cost saving which leads to poor output or high cost which leads to good efficient output?" Supposing there are a few ministers who would create an avenue to create, loot and share from state coffers like it happened in the case of the payment of dubious judgment debts; is that what we want? I would rather prefer the government with large size that would act with due diligence.

I would prefer higher productivity at an extra cost to the state to cost saving which leads to inefficiency and corruption that would eventually break the system. What about you?