International Aid and Its Role in Shaping Agriculture Policy Narratives in Ghana

Abstract

International aid in the form of development assistance helps developing countries meet their development needs. Aid is also used as a conduit to drive the interests of donor countries in recipient countries. In Ghana, there is a renewed interest from donors to drive agriculture transformation through investment in market-based policies. However, little is known about how development assistance is used by donor countries to promote their interests in the Ghanaian agriculture sector. This article draws on policy documents and interviews with policy actors and donor stakeholders to understand the processes and outcomes of agriculture sector policymaking in Ghana. Our findings demonstrate the ways financial, technical, and other resources are deployed by donors to shape agricultural policy outcomes. We further demonstrate how donors promote market-based solutions in the agriculture sector. We conclude by reflecting on the limits of these donor-led agricultural policies in meeting the needs of Ghana's smallholder farmers.

Introduction

With about half its population employed in the agricultural sector, Ghana has a mostly vibrant agrarian economy (Boafo and Lyons, 2021; Teye and Torvikey, 2018). The contemporary farming practices, policies, land use, and markets that shape these agriculture-related economic activities are grounded in historical power relations and priorities that date back to the colonial era. The sustained emphasis on export-led agriculture, for example, reflects the extension of colonial policies that prioritised export crops, including cocoa, coffee, oil palm, and sugar cane (Boafo and Lyons, 2019; Boafo et al., 2019; Yeboah and Boafo, 2024). While there have been some shifts during the postcolonial era, Ghana's policy direction remains strongly oriented towards global market integration.

Since Ghana's return to democratic rule in 1992 and the subsequent turn towards participatory models of development, national agricultural policy-making has become increasingly shaped by a diverse array of actors, including civil society and farmer groups, development partners and donors, national policymakers, private sector actors, researchers, and academic institutions, amongst others (Boafo, 2019). In the messy and contested policy-making space, these actors – often with divergent interests and agendas – seek to shape agriculture (and related) policies in ways that best suit their financial, commercial, political, and other interests. Despite the significant effect of these various actors in shaping Ghana's agricultural policy-making processes and outcomes, very few studies have analysed the influence of these diverse actors (notable exceptions include Mockshell, 2016; Mohammed, 2015; Teye and Torvikey, 2018). This research neglect has created a knowledge gap in understanding the political economy of policy-making and outcomes in Ghana. At the same time, there remains a lack of understanding regarding who benefits from agriculture policy-making and outcomes in Ghana.

The main purpose of this article is to contribute to this nascent literature on aid and policy-making in Ghana's agriculture sector. We take the case of international donors to analyse their impacts on Ghana's agricultural policy narratives and policy outcomes. There is an urgent need to critically examine the role of international donors, given their significance in Ghana's policy environment – and elsewhere – since at least the 1980s when conditions supported via the World Bank Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) liberalised the Ghanaian economy, including its agricultural sector (Teye and Torvikey, 2018; Yaro et al., 2016).

Drawing from policy documents and interviews with Ghanaian policymakers and international donor actors, this article demonstrates that international donors have established themselves as highly influential actors in shaping Ghana's agricultural policies. Donors leverage their financial and technical support to influence policy processes and outcomes through direct involvement in policy-making and broader investments in the agricultural sector. Our findings also demonstrate that donors deploy technological and market-oriented narratives as a response to the challenge of national food security, describing Ghanaian agriculture as facing technical problems that require technical interventions as a response. Such narratives, including those that champion hybrid seeds and agricultural chemicals, simplify agriculture and food security-related problems and sideline the broader political, social, and economic factors that must be addressed to support Ghana's mostly smallholder farmers (see Boafo and Lyons, 2023).

The rest of the article is structured as follows: In the next section, we begin with an overview of relevant literature on the political economy of agricultural policies in Africa and then provide a brief historical overview of agriculture development and policy direction in Ghana. Following this, we outline the research approach and methods used in collecting and analysing data. We present our findings, demonstrating how international donors shape agricultural policy narratives and outcomes of policy processes. We then discuss the research findings. The final section concludes the article by reflecting on some of the impacts of donor-led policy development on Ghana's smallholder farmers, the beneficiaries of the policy outcomes.

A Political Economy of Agricultural Policies in Africa

Agricultural policies are often shaped by various actors involved in the policy-making process. Keeley and Scoones’ (1999) influential work examines how the dynamic interplay between narratives/discourses, actors/networks, and politics/interests influences policy outcomes. Discourses and narratives – which encompass how policies are discussed and the associated values, power dynamics, and politics – shape policies in specific ways; they often suggest a storyline with a beginning, middle, and end, or in policy language, a problem, and a solution. Actors converge around diverse policy narratives, forming connections across organisations and among various groups such as academics, think tanks, donors, government agencies, etc. These groups of actors advocate for specific policy frameworks, thereby creating linkages among different networks. These networks often represent interests and may align with certain political stances. Consequently, policies are inherently political, and the policy process is not a straightforward, technical progression but rather a political process influenced by specific actors and networks associated with diverse interests.

It is worth noting that the agriculture policy-making process is a complex enterprise as lobbyists for different interests seek to influence policy outcomes (see, e.g. Swinnen, 2021; Swinnen and Van Der Zee, 1993). There is mounting evidence to suggest that improvements in rural productive sectors heavily depend on farmers and individuals involved in local agriculture; this has been especially noticeable during the pandemic. However, critical food systems and policy development discussions often overlook their viewpoints and expertise. Typically, decisions about agricultural policy are made far from rural areas, and the specific circumstances in these areas greatly influence how policies are implemented. ¹

In developing countries, agriculture has long played a vital role in the livelihood of rural and poor households. Households rely on agriculture for food, income, and employment (see Chang, 2009; Lele, 1988; Umbadda and Elgizouli, 2013). Up to 70% of jobs in several of these nations are tied to agriculture, which also frequently contributes even more to these nations’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (ILO, 2021). Furthermore, agriculture significantly contributes to economic growth and development in the least developed countries, especially for those still in the early stages of development (Lele, 1988; Umbadda and Elgizouli, 2013). It also fosters growth in other sectors and significantly lowers poverty (Umbadda and Elgizouli, 2013). As the main source of revenue, food, and employment in Africa, agriculture plays a critical role in the continent's development and is particularly successful in alleviating poverty (Odhiambo, 2007; Ssozi et al., 2019; Umbadda and Elgizouli, 2013).

Yet, despite the pivotal role of agriculture in driving economic growth, rural development, and poverty reduction in numerous African nations, the sector has not fully harnessed its potential because of conditions tied often to market and policy failures. A key reason for the lack of success in agricultural policies to capitalise on development opportunities is the inadequate understanding of the political economy of agricultural policy processes in African policies (Hoeffler, 2011; see also Chang, 2009). Governance of the agricultural sector, agricultural policy-making processes, and diverse political interests within the industry has not received sufficient attention in the literature until recently (e.g. Scoones et al., 2005; World Bank, 2007). The World Bank underscored this lack of attention in its 2007 World Development Report, which reported, “A better understanding of the political economy of agricultural policy-making is necessary to address the continuing policy neglect and under- and disinvestment in the sector” (World Bank, 2007: 42).

Like any other industry, a nation's political structure significantly impacts its agriculture, overall governance framework, and macroeconomic policies. The impact of historical agricultural policies after gaining independence and the resulting failures in policy and markets continue to affect Africa's agricultural sector today significantly. Scholars have increasingly recognised the critical role that history plays in shaping changes in agricultural systems. Despite political reforms in the 1990s, the influence of political economy mechanisms remains crucial in shaping African agricultural development, policy-making, and policy outcomes (see Hoeffler, 2011). For instance, Hoeffler (2011) examined three critical historical phases that were vital for African agricultural policy-making: post-independence (the 1960s–1980s), structural adjustments (1980s), and post-democratisation (1990s), and their influence on contemporary agricultural policy analysis.

Economist Robert H. Bates's pioneering works in the 1970s and 1980s significantly contributed to the study of the political economy of African agricultural policy and serve as a reference point until today (see Bates, 1981, 1983). His concept of agricultural policy was based almost entirely on the idea that the policy arena served as a platform for market policy tools, with agricultural pricing policy having the primary function. Writing before Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and democratisation in Africa, Bates claimed that African political elites had effectively quashed any truly pro-farmer political movements (Bates, 1981). Here, SAPs introduced by the Bretton-Woods Institutions played a crucial role in shaping our understanding of African agriculture over the past decades (Hoeffler, 2011). Indeed, developing countries have adopted numerous agricultural development policies and institutional frameworks in the last decades following the so-called “Washington Consensus” (Chang, 2009). SAPs were diagnostic prescriptive development plans to revive most African economies from their near-nadir in the 1980s (Clapham, 1996a, 1996b). Structural adjustment implied a shift in economic policies away from an interventionist stance, which permits and sometimes encourages state intervention in the economy, towards a neoliberal position that aims to minimise it, letting the market allocate resources wherever possible (Engberg-Pedersen et al., 1996). The International Financial Institutions, under the umbrella of the World Bank, not only controlled the available resources of funds and technical expertise but in light of the failures of African governments' policies and severe economic decline in the 1980s, also offered the only plausible strategies for economic reform: structural adjustment. Over time, various development organisations have inundated Africa with guidance, knowledge, and international aid, most of which have had unsatisfactory results (Clapham, 1996a, 1996b).

Indeed, studies on the effectiveness of international aid have yielded contrasting results. While they have found positive impacts, they have also pointed to adverse effects in recipient countries (Trentinaglia et al., 2023). Previous studies have explored foreign aid's role in general or aid to agriculture in economic growth and poverty reduction, though with mixed results (Kaya et al., 2013), with the relationship between economic growth and foreign aid remaining a contested debate in the literature (see, e.g. Moyo, 2009). Generally, aid is not given for purely altruistic goals but reflects an array of donor interests (see Umbadda and Elgizouli, 2013). Massive aid dependency in Africa has weakened governments' ability to negotiate with external donors, set their policies, and act on the wishes of their citizens (Whitfield, 2009). Thus, most policies and projects implemented often reflect the donors' views and not the citizens' wishes (Clapham, 1996a, 1996b). However, it is undeniable that aid has played a significant role in helping developing nations overcome many of their challenges (Umbadda and Elgizouli, 2013). Of course, the donors are unquestionably significant participants who engage with internal political dynamics, but their impact may be exaggerated (Poulton, 2012). More importantly, as van de Walle (2001) and Cooksey (2012) contend, (local) elites utilise donor support to advance their agendas. They thus find ways to circumvent policy restrictions to satisfy their parochial interests (see also Clapham, 1996a, 1996b).

The theoretical framework for agricultural policy has evolved over time. A few years after Bates' seminal research, Stiglitz (1987) expanded the definition of political economy to include early institutional economics concepts such as externalities, imperfect knowledge, and failures of the government and market in the analysis of agricultural policies. His recommendations addressed incentive structures through agricultural sector taxation and subsidisation and the associated macroeconomic costs of such trade policy and other redistribution policy initiatives. Stiglitz further underlined that governments in both wealthy and developing nations often must make agricultural policy decisions in imperfect market environments, necessitating them to settle for “second best” solutions (Hoeffler, 2011). In the context of African agricultural markets, there has been a shift from focusing on neoliberal market-based approaches to acknowledging apparent market failures. This shift emphasizes the importance of addressing property rights, transaction costs, externalities, asymmetric information, social institutions, and market power, highlighting the need to “get the institutions right” rather than just “getting the prices right” (Rodrik, 2006).

Historical Overview of Agricultural Policies in Ghana

One of the legacies of colonisation was tying the Ghanaian economy to the supply of primary commodities to the global market (Campbell, 2013; Owusu-Ansah, 2014). Throughout the colonial period, little was done to promote local food production for the colony; rather, the colonial government focused on extracting agricultural commodities such as coffee, cocoa, and timber to feed industries in the metropole (Rodney, 1973). By the 1950s, the Gold Coast colony of the British was structurally tied to the global economy through the production and supply of agricultural commodities. The colonial model of agriculture production – established and entrenched over two centuries – subsequently shaped agriculture policies in the postcolonial era.

Agricultural policies in Ghana have significantly transformed in the postcolonial period. Between the 1950s and 1980s, agricultural development – and similar to broader economic and development agendas – was primarily shaped by a market-oriented modernisation agenda. During this period, agricultural development was characterised by the uptake of an array of so-called modern farming methods, including mechanisation and the use of chemical inputs. This adoption of modern farming was evident in the priorities of the first Ghanaian government of the postcolonial era under the leadership of Dr Kwame Nkrumah. The Nkrumah government's five-year (1959–1964) agricultural development plan included adopting high-yielding seed varieties, chemical fertilisers, and other agrochemicals (also see Amanor and Pabi, 2007). It also marked the beginning of Ghana's market-based approaches to agriculture and food provisioning. Although Nkrumah's government was overthrown in 1966, successive governments have pursued market-based narratives, albeit in different forms. For instance, upon seizing power in 1972, General I.K. Acheampong emphasised the need for domestic self-sufficiency in food production and provided vital support to farmers and the private sector – related to input provisions and a guaranteed market – to achieve this.

Since Ghana's independence in 1957, economic development policies, including those specifically related to the agricultural sector, have oscillated between socialist and capitalist (including a liberalised-market approach) ideologies. By the 1980s, however, the adoption of SAPs served to institutionalise market-based developmentalism (Al-Hassan et al., 2014; Asuming-Brempong, 2003). The agricultural sector was a key target of SAPs, given its central role in the Ghanaian economy, both in terms of contributing significantly to GDP and employment generation (Asuming-Brempong and Kuwornu, 2013). The implementation of SAPs deregulated input and output markets across the agricultural sector and drove the privatisation of agricultural input imports and their exemption from taxes (Asuming-Brempong and Kuwornu, 2013). Informed by this market liberalisation strategy, market-based agricultural modernisation has continued to be promoted by the private sector in the post-liberalisation era (from the 1990s to date) (Zimmermann et al., 2009).

Further efforts to accelerate growth across the agricultural sector in the post-liberalisation era culminated in adopting a Medium-Term Agricultural Development Programme (MTADP) from 1991 to 2000 (Asuming-Brempong and Kuwornu, 2013). This programme was primarily designed and funded by the World Bank, with little contribution from domestic policymakers or other local actors (Asuming-Brempong, 2003; deGrassi, 2007). This programme, in turn, became the main policy document for the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) in the 1990s. As the first agricultural strategy during the post-liberalisation era, it primarily depicted the market-based ideologies of SAP.

The MTADP sought to increase private sector participation in agricultural marketing and liberalise the supply of seed, fertiliser, and other inputs, with the proposition that privatising input supply systems would improve input delivery through market competition (Asuming-Brempong, 2003; Asuming-Brempong and Kuwornu, 2013). Seeking to build upon the success of MTADP, the Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Development Strategy (AAGDS) was adopted in 1996 to enhance growth across the agricultural sector (deGrassi, 2007).

These strategies, programmes and projects related to the agricultural sector in the post-SAPs years were consolidated into the first sector-wide and broad policy framework – the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP I). FASDEP I was adopted between 2002 and 2008 and reflected the strategic thrust of AAGDS, including providing support for the private sector as the so-called engine of growth (MoFA, 2007). The FASDEP I was intended to harmonise the various interventions underway in the post-SAP era and to consolidate donor relations, thereby providing a roadmap for poverty alleviation in Ghana (Al-Hassan, 2010).

Actors involved in this stage of Ghana's agriculture policy development included the National Development Planning Commission (NDPC) of Ghana and various development partners, the latter providing funding for these policy developments (Al-Hassan et al., 2014). This policy framework had two broad market imperatives: improving input and output markets. These imperatives were embedded in narratives articulated by international donors that, amongst other impacts, were described as enabling the modernisation of agriculture. In turn, they argued that this would create an environment where farmers could participate in the market economy, thereby generating higher incomes that would lift them out of poverty and address the local challenge of food insecurity (Teye and Torvikey, 2018).

Nearly four years into its implementation, the FASDEP I was revised to further enable the modernisation of the agricultural sector via leveraging private sector investment. Reflecting this, FASDEP II – adopted between 2009 and 2015 – prioritised ongoing enhancement of the commodity chains of key export crops, including cocoa. This policy also emphasised the importance of engagement with scientific advancements, including the use of modern technologies and inputs, as well as ongoing commercialisation to foster market-driven growth (MoFA, 2007). These policy objectives aimed at market integration, further integrating farmers within input and output markets.

This brief review demonstrates how Ghana's agricultural policies in the postcolonial period have been tied to the involvement of an array of international actors in reconstructing the Ghanaian economy via the expansion of a neoliberal agricultural agenda. The policy analysis in this section was limited mainly to FASDEP I and II because, at the time of this research, MoFA had yet to adopt a new policy framework in the agriculture sector.

Research Methods

We adopted an exploratory research approach to understand Ghana's agricultural policy-making processes and outcomes. To do this, we employed a qualitative research approach, ideal for understanding a social phenomenon within its context (Hennink et al., 2020). Qualitative research also provided an opportunity for policy actors and donor agencies engaged in the agriculture sector in Ghana to describe the policy processes and outcomes in the sector.

Data Collection

A purposive sampling technique was adopted to target policy actors and donor agencies engaged in the agriculture sector in Ghana. An initial review of policy documents enabled us to map out the national institutions and international agencies involved in the agriculture sector in Ghana. We found institutions and agencies engaged in the sector across international, national, and local scales. To understand the role of these institutions and agencies in the agriculture sector in Ghana, we interviewed actors in the policy unit of the following institutions and agencies: MoFA, Food, Agriculture and Cocoa Affairs Committee of Parliament of Ghana, United States Agency for International Development's Agricultural Policy Support Project (APSP), Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), Food and Agriculture Organisation and Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana (PFAG). These actors were selected based on their involvement in agricultural policy formulation, advocacy, implementation and evaluation. A total of 20 policy actors were interviewed between September and November 2016.

It was made clear that participation in the study was voluntary, with a reassurance of the confidential and anonymous nature of the study. Policy actors were interviewed in their offices or at their places of work. Although an interview guide was used to ensure consistency in the interview process, actors were encouraged to share their experiences with the agriculture policy processes and outcomes as much as possible. Interviews covered several themes, including power imbalances in the policy space, financial support from donors, technical support from donors, policy-making processes, actors involved in policy-making, and policy narratives, amongst other topics. On average, interviews lasted one hour and were tape-recorded with participants' permission, although some of them did not permit audio recording. As a result, detailed hand-written notes were also taken to enhance data analysis.

In addition to the interviews, documents, including agricultural development plans, policy briefs, institutional reports, policy documents and legislative instruments, were obtained via visits to relevant government institutions and donor agencies. However, some of the documents were also retrieved online. These documents covered topics related to seed, land, fertiliser, plants, and the Green Revolution, as well as smallholder farmers, commercial agriculture, aid and development. Documents related to agriculture policies and legislation were obtained from the policy unit of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Moreover, documents related to aid, donation and international assistance were obtained from AGRA and USAID. All the documents obtained were public documents that were already available online.

Data Analysis

The recorded interviews with the policy actors were transcribed into texts. The texts were then compared several times with each other and against the recorded audio files to enhance the accuracy of the data for the analysis. Transcripts were analysed using a thematic approach, where themes were generated from the data. The themes were inductively derived “bottom-up” from the transcripts and not “top-down” from pre-existing theoretical concepts (Miles et al., 2019). In the results sections, we have maintained actors’ own words using low inference descriptors (Miles et al., 2019). This was also done to ensure rigour and trustworthiness in the findings. Although we maintained the actors’ own words in the results, we did not mention their names to keep their identities confidential.

We also conducted document analysis to understand and generate empirical knowledge on the processes and outcomes of agriculture policy-making in Ghana. The documents obtained during the fieldwork and from online sources were organised systematically by categorising them by source and type. We then familiarised ourselves with the documents by conducting a systematic review to identify discourses, scenarios, interests, and actors engaged in shaping policy objectives, narratives, and practices in Ghana. Key themes, ideas, and other relevant information were mapped out and noted. Codes were generated to systematically categorise the content of the documents based on the themes of interest. We then analysed the content of the documents based on the themes we developed, looking for patterns, trends, contradictions, and relationships among the data. Finally, we interpreted the empirical findings generated from the documents in relation to our research questions. The findings from the documents were triangulated with data from the interviews to ensure accuracy and validity.

Two main themes emerged from the analysis of policy documents and interview texts. First, our analysis revealed policy-making processes, and their outcomes were influenced by several key actors, with international donors foremost among these. Second, our study demonstrated the diverse power resources deployed by international donors to affect agricultural policy-making and its outcomes. These included both financial and technical forms of aid. We now turn to present these findings.

Results

Actors Engaged in Agriculture Policy-making Processes

Interview responses revealed that cabinet members – mostly Ministers of State appointed by the President – are responsible for policy decisions. The Ministers of State are the highest political authority and decision-making body in Ghana. Policy actors generally described the policy space and process in Ghana as being controlled by the highest political authority of the ruling government. They further emphasised that the policy-making process and structure always ensured that policy ideas flow top–down, with outcomes that marginalise civil society, pro-farmer, and other grassroots groups from policy-making processes. For instance, as a policy actor said in an interview:

In this country, if you don’t belong to the cabinet, you are not part of the policy-making process. Policies are supposed to serve the interests of the masses. Therefore, grassroot organisations representing the masses must participate in decision-making processes that affect their lives. But we don’t see that here in Ghana. Well, having said this, I can also say things are changing; different stakeholders are now gradually participating in the policy process (Policy Actor, Civil Society Group, September 2016).

Although the policy process was generally described as centralised, policy actors during interviews also acknowledged that the policy space is expanding and that additional stakeholders have begun to participate in the national level of public policy processes. These include donors and an array of private sector actors, researchers, philanthropic organisations, and civil society/farmer movements. Interviews with representatives of these stakeholders revealed that all these policy actor groups have different competing policy interests and deploy power and other resources to advance their interests. Thus, these actors were far from unified in terms of their interests, agendas, and needs. For instance, during interviews, several development partners and donors articulated strong support for market liberalisation, tax reductions, and incentives for the private sector and large-scale farmers. However, interviews with civil society and farmer groups revealed that they support policies that will protect smallholder farmers from market distortions. For example, the programme coordinator for the Peasant Farmers Association of Ghana (PFAG) – an apex body of a small farmers’ organisation in Ghana – reiterated during an interview that:

Our main mandate is to advocate for pro-poor agricultural policies because subsistence farmers are very poor, smallholder farmers who depend on farming as their only livelihood source. They are usually very poor. So, we advocate for agricultural policies that will serve the interests of farmers (Programme Coordinator, PFAG September 2016).

The analysis so far demonstrates that there are different competing policy interests in the agriculture sector in Ghana, particularly between donor organisations and farmer groups. The outcome of this has rendered Ghana's agricultural policy-making a very complex process. The complexity arises from the need to consider and address the diverse and often conflicting interests and concerns of different stakeholders involved in the agriculture sector in Ghana. It may also involve trade-offs between pro-market and pro-poor interests between donor organisations and farmer groups, respectively. Additionally, external factors such as international trade agreements, climate change, and global food markets can add further layers of complexity to agricultural policy-making. Ideally, the intricate and multifaceted nature of agricultural policy-making in Ghana should involve navigating the challenges posed by competing interests to find common ground. However, that is not the case, as donor organisations wield more power to control and advance their interests in the process.

Our results revealed that Ghana's agricultural policies were frequently forged via intense interactions between national policymakers and international donors. Demonstrating this, while the state – led by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture – was the source of policy narratives, these were largely shaped by donor organisations. In contrast, farmers and local civil society organisations wielded little influence on the actual policy content. While these local level actors were frequently invited to participate in workshops – usually in the capital, Accra – these events appeared to be little more than telling farmer and civil society organisations about decisions already made. In an interview, a policy actor said:

Sometimes, we are invited by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to participate in policy formulation workshops. It is good that they invite us, but most of the time, the policy decisions are already taken by donor organisations. After reading the drafted policy document, you would know already who took those decisions and whose interests they serve. Our views would not be taken (Policy Actor, Civil Society Group, September 2016).

Interview responses further show that in some instances, international donors appeared to share overlapping goals with the national government, including a shaped stated commitment to alleviating poverty, increasing agricultural productivity, achieving food security and the ongoing commercialisation of agriculture. Yet approaches to accomplish these outcomes differed between donors and government. To illustrate, a Deputy Minister of Agriculture further explained that the government's priority areas in the agriculture sector were often inconsistent with the investment priorities of their donor organisations. The inconsistencies, according to the Minister, usually drove conflict and misunderstanding. The Minister illustrated an ongoing disagreement between the government and donor organisations. The disagreement includes donors advocating for measures to liberalise the agriculture input market to allow foreign seed and fertiliser companies to market their products in Ghana by competing with local companies. As a result, donor organisations are calling for the revision of the seed law that was passed in 2010. In an interview, the Deputy Minister questions the interests of donor organisations in the seed sector: “I don't really understand why the seed law was passed only in 2010, but there is growing interest from the donor community to revise the law.” Regardless of the resistance, donors were significant in shaping policy and legislation processes, circumstances enabled via the power resources – including in the form of financial and technical aid – they could leverage.

Financial Aid

Analysis of agriculture policy documents revealed that Ghana's public expenditure on agriculture remains one of the lowest in Africa. Ghana's agricultural budget share has remained well below 10 per cent despite the sector employing 40 per cent of Ghanaians and contributing 20 per cent to the Gross Domestic Product. In this context, donors have come to play a vital financing role, including providing over 60 per cent of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture's entire budget (see, for instance, World Bank, 2017). Domestic policy actors indicated through interviews that aid funding has created opportunities for donors to engage in and shape the outcomes of policy and practice interventions in Ghana.

Policy documents and interviews revealed that the agriculture sector is the highest recipient of donor funding. Consequently, the sector is especially affected by donor investors. We found that multiple donors – including multilateral, bilateral and philanthropic organisations – invest in Ghana's agricultural sector. Interviews with donor agencies show that they invest in the agriculture sector because the majority of the poor and food insecure in Ghana are engaged in the sector. Therefore, the sector can potentially drive poverty reduction, structural transformation and economic prosperity through investments. Keen to engage in the sector, donors participate in the Agriculture Sector Working Group (ASWG), a policy dialogue platform run by the Programme Coordinating Unit of MoFA. This enables donors to meet with representatives from MoFA and district assemblies quarterly to coordinate interventions and build alliances to shape agriculture policies. As an interview with a policy officer of MoFA revealed:

We bring all donors together under the ASWG to discuss policies and interventions in the sector. Since donors are many and are investing in the sector, we needed a platform to ensure there is a common interest between all donors as well as government. For us on government side, we advocate for policies that would drive investments in the sector to improve the conditions of farmers. And so, donors fund most of our projects to this aim (Policy Officer, MoFA, November 2016).

Despite this claim by the policy officer, interview responses and policy documents show that donors prioritise trade liberalisation in the agricultural sector, including via support for the private sector to drive agricultural commercialisation (also see Teye and Torvikey, 2018; Yaro et al., 2016). Indeed, trade liberalisation, private sector investment and commercialisation were the core objectives and dominant narratives in all the agriculture policy documents (FASDEP, Seed Policy, Fertilizer Policy) we have reviewed. Demonstrating this, donors frequently describe farmers' pathway out of poverty and food insecurity as tied to market integration and broader structural transformation (also see Amanor and Iddrisu, 2022).

Results from our study show that donors tied their financial support to conditions aimed at liberalising trade in the agricultural sector, thereby creating financial business opportunities for both domestic and foreign private actors. For instance, our interviews and analysis of reports revealed that USAID and AGRA were supporting the government of Ghana in reforming the Seed and Fertiliser policies and regulations to allow the private sector to participate in the input market in Ghana. These donors provided the technical and financial support needed by the MoFA to reform the Seed and Fertiliser policies and regulations to allow both the domestic and foreign private sector to drive the growth of the input sector in Ghana. However, domestic input dealers cannot compete with multinational input dealers from donor countries. Reflecting on this, during the research, domestic policy actors have criticised donors as opening the seed sector for foreign businesses, often from donor countries, a process that will collapse the local input industry. For instance, a Deputy Minister of Agriculture described donors as having business interests in Ghana's agricultural sector:

The Americans are not just investing in the Ghanaian economy so that Ghana will make progress; they want American companies to trade in Ghana. They want American products to be in Ghana so that their businesses can influence us (Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Ghana, November 2016).

As illustrated, donor assistance is often tied to the promotion of the interests of donor countries (also see Debrah et al., 2015). Donors invest in agricultural interventions and seek to shape policy narratives that will align and advance their national business interests (see also Mockshell, 2016; Mockshell and Birner, 2015a, 2015b). Donor influence is enabled by both the provision of funds for actual policy-making processes alongside the funding requirements for the actual implementation of projects and programmes outlined within the policies. While national policymakers can design programmes and projects, they cannot implement them without donor financial support. Simply put, in the absence of adequate national-level funding, agricultural policy and planning processes remain dependent upon external funders. This creates the conditions for donors to shape domestic policies, programmes, and projects in ways that align with their commercial, political, and other interests. As a policy official with the MoFA expressed, “Under normal circumstances, donors should not have this level of power in the agriculture sector. We can design policies and interventions, but we don't have the funds to implement them. Donors often give us the funds to implement our interventions; that is how they get the power to shape policies in the sector.” In addition to funding, international donors also deploy soft power resources via technical assistance to shape agricultural policies in Ghana.

Technical Aid

Data from our study show that donors were able to wield influence over agricultural policy-making by providing technical resources, such as vital research data needed to support policy formulation. Such technical resources – in the form of data and measurements – are often translated into policy facts, with outcomes shaping Ghana's agricultural policy.

Interview responses and analysis of reports show that the reliance on donors for technical resources in the agriculture sector in Ghana is tied to the growing global demand for evidence-based policy-making. This requires policy formulation to be grounded in research facts, including global comparative data, as part of policy design, assessment, and evaluation. The growing demand for evidence-based policy-making is grounded upon the premise that policy-making should be informed by the rational analysis of evidence (also see Chhokar et al., 2015). Yet despite this growing emphasis upon empiricism, national-level policy-making in Ghana is often constrained by limited resources in the conduct of evidence-based research. The frequent disconnect between academic research and policy-making institutions exacerbates such circumstances. In this context, donors have come to fill the evidence vacuum. In an interview with an agriculture policy research officer, he said:

Most policies in the agriculture sector are not supported by research evidence. This is because of the disconnect between academic research and policy-making institutions. The government is not funding the necessary research that will inform policies in the sector. This is the reason why donors are powerful in the sector. They bring in the funds and evidence needed to design policies (Policy Research Officer, MoFA, November 2016).

The centrality of donors in the provision of resources for policy-making was evidenced throughout several policy documents. For instance, in the Medium-Term Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (METASIP) document, it was stated that “agricultural sector policies are supported with technical and financial assistance from development partners and financial institutions” (MoFA, 2010 p.v). The culture of evidence-based policy-making – in and of itself an effective approach – has, however, created the conditions for dependency upon donor expertise (see, for instance, Whitfield, 2012).

Interviews and document analysis further revealed the crucial place of USAID and AGRA in the provision of evidence-based policy analysis related to Ghana's agricultural sector. USAID's Agricultural Policy Support Project (APSP) was undertaken to review and reform agriculture sector policies and regulations. This included a stated goal of improving the food security-enabling environment for private sector investment. According to the APSP Annual Report (2016), the project aims to increase the capacity of the government of Ghana, the private sector, and civil society to implement evidence-based policies, conduct research and advocacy, and perform rigorous monitoring and evaluation of agricultural programmes implemented under the METASIP. The Chief of Party of APSP further elaborated on the project's goal in an interview:

The APSP (is) fully funded by the US government through USAID. It is a five-year programme. The intent of the project is to strengthen food security in Ghana and improve the enabling environment for private-sector investment. And to do that, we are tasked with strengthening the agricultural policy process. And so, we have three components: one has to do with the first stage of development, strengthening the formation and implementation of agricultural policies. The second component has to do with research that provides evidence-based analysis of policy-making. The third component has to do with working with the private sector to assist them in voicing out their concerns in terms of policy demands, in terms of advocating for improvement in the enabling environment and getting the private sector closer in terms of dialogue, promoting exchanges, discussions of policy issues (Chief of Party, USAID-APSP, September 2016).

Further interviews revealed that the APSP has provided technical expertise to the executive and legislative arms of government to review and redraft Ghana's Land Bill. One direct aim of this redrafting was to transform land administration and promote secured access to land for private investors (see also APSP Annual Report, 2016). In addition, APSP also provided technical expertise to review, draft and develop the seed regulations and procedures to support the implementation of the Plant and Fertilisers Act 803 (APSP Annual Report, 2016).

The emphasis on evidence-based policy-making reinforces a “technocratic” public policy-making approach, including quantitative precision and technical expertise above other forms of professional – or indeed local – knowledge (see Parsons, 2004). Moreover, the reification of evidence-based policy-making has enabled powerful policy actors – donors – to become providers of technical expertise and resources required for policy-making. By providing technical assistance, these actors can occupy positions of authority and expertise, thereby securing their influence on Ghana's agricultural policy-making in ways that further extend a farmer input-dependent agenda and exclude civil society from the policy process.

Our analysis demonstrates how donors deploy financial and technical assistance – representing power resources – to national institutions to drive commercialising and privatising reforms across agricultural policies. Financial and technical assistance, separately, and in combination, have provided a conduit for international donors to shape policies in ways that support the expansion of market-based and Green Revolution approaches (see Vercillo et al., 2020).

Discussion

This article aims to understand the policy-making processes and outcomes in Ghana's agriculture sector. To do this, we interviewed policy and donor actors engaged in the sector, who shared their views on policy-making processes and outcomes in Ghana. We also reviewed policy documents to map out policy narratives and to determine whose interest those narratives serve. Based on responses from the policy actors and analysis of policy documents, our study highlights two themes central to scholarship on international aid and political economy of development. First, our study highlights how international aid has established donors as the most influential actors in the agriculture sector, including its policy-making process in Ghana. The second finding revolves around how aid is used as a conduit to drive the interests of donor countries in recipient countries. Our work, therefore, contributes to scholarship on political economy of aid and development by demonstrating how financial and technical aid are used as tools to shape agriculture policies in Ghana in a way that reflects the interests of donor countries (Mockshell, 2016; Mockshell and Birner, 2015a, 2015b; Teye and Torvikey, 2018).

More broadly, our findings demonstrate that a diversity of actors are engaged in agricultural policy-making in Ghana, including development partners, donors, politicians, national policy actors, private sector actors, and, to a lesser extent, civil society and farmer groups. Despite this plurality of actors and interests, agricultural policy-making remains highly centralised, with political elites and technocrats central to policy-making, while civil society, farmer groups and other local actors are significantly curtailed from meaningful participation. Overall, agricultural policy-making in Ghana demonstrates a top-down approach that often excludes the participation of local actors, who are purported to be beneficiaries of the outcomes of the policies.

The findings also highlight the role of international donors in shaping agricultural policies and agricultural change agendas in Ghana, including their roles in providing financial and technical support in shaping the contours of a globalised and financialised agricultural development agenda (Patel, 2013). Our results have demonstrated how donors have leveraged financial and technical support as powerful resources to drive commercial, market-oriented, and input-dependent imperatives in agriculture policies in Ghana. In so doing, the activities and agendas of international donors are further integrating Ghana's smallholder farmers into global agri-system commodity chains, including for the purchase of farm inputs and access to markets (Patel, 2013). In the case of AGRA, this technological and input-intensive imperative is significantly pronounced, locking smallholder farmers into global agri-food supply chains where they can frequently exert little power (see AGRA, 2015, 2017).

Furthermore, the findings demonstrate the role of international donors in driving the increased demand for evidence-based policy-making in Ghana. While evidence-based policy-making may be intended to depoliticise policy processes, by centering objective science in decision-making, our analysis demonstrates how it creates the conditions for international donors to wield substantial power to influence and shape agriculture policies. While evidence-based policy-making can be seen as building the technical capacity of domestic policy-making institutions, it also fosters a culture whereby expertise is professionalised, with outcomes that may render the knowledge of farmers and other local actors invisible (see also Schurman, 2018). An emphasis on evidence-based policy-making further reinforces a “technocratic” public policy-making in Ghana, with donors playing a key role in influencing the process through their provision of information (also see Mockshell, 2016).

Moreover, the findings demonstrate how international donors can drive market-based narratives in the policy-making process. Donors stated their support for market liberalisation, tax reduction and incentives for both the private sector and large-scale farmers, including on the basis that they considered large-scale farmers necessary in driving Ghana's agricultural transformation (Teye and Torvikey, 2018; Yaro et al., 2016). They also emphasised the central role of market-based and private-sector approaches to agricultural development and the application of science and technology to ensure the transformation of the agricultural sector in Ghana. This was demonstrated via agricultural policy narratives that frequently positioned low productivity and food insecurity in Ghana as technical problems and/or the result of limited market participation. Policy responses indicated that improving farmers’ competitiveness would rely upon linking them to both global input and output markets. However, a significant policy deficiency and distortion of this approach is that policies that improve competitiveness may not address the needs of the poor in the agricultural sector (see Brooks et al., 2007).

The prevailing market-oriented agricultural policies result from past efforts to liberalise and integrate markets, including the World Bank and IMF initiatives in the 1980s. During the adjustment period, agricultural programmes and projects were designed to deregulate rural markets and liberalise import markets, impacting input and output markets (Benhin and Barbier, 2001; Vercillo et al., 2020). The removal of government subsidies was based on the belief that state intervention in the input market distorted prices and hindered private sector participation. However, this led to a rapid increase in input prices and production costs, causing hardship for poor farmers (Houssou et al., 2016). Konadu-Agyemang (2001) argued that although the neoliberal economic strategies in the 1980s aimed to reduce poverty and stimulate economic growth, they brought hardship to Ghanaians, particularly rural inhabitants who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods.

Conclusions

The article has provided extensive evidence from Ghana, shedding light on the involvement of various national and global actors in influencing agricultural policy and its outcomes. It is evident that amidst many diverse policy actors’ interests and needs, international donors have emerged as pivotal players in shaping agricultural policy processes, driving a technocratic and commercial agenda. These international donors utilise diverse resources, including financial and technical aid, to influence this agenda. However, local-level actors have significantly limited involvement despite being portrayed as the primary beneficiaries of these policies. The engagement and participation of smallholders and their representatives in the policy process seem superficial. At the same time, the top–down and centralised approach to policy-making often overlooks the agency and expertise of farmers in addressing their own challenges.

Based on our findings, we advocate for a depoliticised and democratised approach to the agricultural policy process in Ghana. This approach should prioritise the full participation of local actors, particularly farmers and their representatives. Additionally, to effectively address poverty and food insecurity among smallholder farmers, policies in the agricultural sector must be designed to be pro-poor and sensitive to food security concerns. Emphasising local food production, respecting existing farming practices, and the capacity of farmers to innovate in response to local environmental conditions are essential considerations. However, accomplishing these objectives is currently challenged due to the substantial influence of international donors over Ghana's agricultural policy-making process.