Ghana's 24-Hour Economy Policy: Grand Vision or Expensive Folly? Critical Analysis of Troubled Implementation

Ghana's much-publicised 24-hour economy policy, launched over a year ago, faces mounting criticism from academics, traders, and citizens over its conceptual soundness and chaotic implementation. The initiative, designed to create employment and boost economic activity, has instead triggered a wave of demolitions across the country that has displaced traders, destroyed homes, and generated fierce public backlash.

A Policy In Search of Purpose

At its core, the 24-hour economy scheme was introduced with the slogan 'Formula 1-3-3' – one job, three shifts, three workers – intended to spread employment opportunities. However, the fundamental logic remains opaque to both critics and ordinary Ghanaians. Questions persist about how a single salary could be divided or multiplied across three workers, and from where monthly wages would be sourced in a round-the-clock operational model. A government official privately conceded the policy 'is a good campaign message, but doesn't really make sense.'

The government's response to these legitimate concerns has been silence. When journalists sought clarity from the 24-Hour Economy Secretariat about the sudden nationwide demolition campaign, officials claimed to have no knowledge of the operations. The disconnect between policy architects and ground-level implementation has become a defining feature of the initiative.

Demolitions Leave Trail of Devastation

To make way for 261 proposed round-the-clock markets, demolition squads have moved swiftly across the nation, with little warning or consultation. The destruction has been indiscriminate and severe: mosques have been pulled down, school buildings crushed, homes flattened, and partially completed markets razed. In locations including Aowin, Enchi, Abossey Okai Zongo, and Aseebu, market women, chiefs, and youth have staged protests in mourning gear, holding placards declaring their rejection of the project.

The human cost has been substantial. Women traders who took loans to finance their stalls now face financial ruin. Families have been rendered homeless. The livelihoods of traders who supply markets with goods – pepper and tomato sellers, fish vendors – have been upended. At Aowin, one distraught market woman addressed cameras with tears, describing how women 'have toiled to take their children to school' and how the demolitions have disappointed those who voted for the government, making them 'a laughing stock of the opposition.'

Why It Matters for Ghana

The 24-hour economy debacle exposes critical governance failures: poor policy design, weak coordination between government agencies, and a lack of genuine consultation with affected communities. For Ghana's informal sector – dominated by market women and small traders who form the backbone of local economies – the policy has become a symbol of government insensitivity to their realities.

The practical feasibility of 24-hour markets is questionable. Ghana's market culture operates on demand: buyers and sellers transact during daylight hours; markets close by 5pm when commercial activity naturally wanes. Marketing a midnight koobi (dried fish) market in Asebu strains credibility. Critics argue the entire project may be contract-driven, benefiting connected businesses rather than creating genuine youth employment.

If implemented as currently designed, the policy risks deepening unemployment rather than alleviating it, whilst destabilising the informal sector that employs millions of Ghanaians. The broader implication is troubling: a government willing to demolish functioning markets and homes for an untested policy signals disregard for the economic security of ordinary citizens, particularly women traders who lack political leverage.

Unless the government fundamentally rethinks its approach – engaging stakeholders meaningfully, clarifying the economic model, and halting destructive demolitions – the 24-hour economy risks becoming a cautionary tale of policy failure, comparable to other ambitious but poorly executed government initiatives.