THE CONCEPT OF REGIONAL PLANNING

Introduction

In lecture 1 we tried to understand the meaning of planning and planning as a process

activity. Having understood the concept of planning, we then gives it a regional dimension.
We now try to understand the concept of regional planning.

Regional Planning is a Public or State action of human activities in space in order to promote
the socio-economic development goals of a society.

The concept strives to achieve a better integration or spatially organized economies on a basis
of interdependence and reciprocity rather than dependence and exploitation.

A city cannot be planned in isolation. It’s planning must be integrated with the development
of the hinterland and this creates regional planning (the interdependence between the city and
its hinterland necessitate regional planning).

Regional planning is not economic or social or physical planning – it cut across and may
embrace all such forms of planning.

Reasons for Regional Planning

1. Resources are not evenly distributed.

2. To mitigate the adverse effects of economic activities to society as a whole
3. Provide a flexible mode of policy formulation and implementation for sub-national,
national, homogeneous and polarized spatial units.
4. Serves as a bridge between local and national development policy and planning.

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN GHANA:

EXPERIENCE FROM THE PAST
In most developing countries of Africa, national planning for economic and societal
development started only after independence in the 1960s. In Ghana this activity has a much
longer history. Ghana is probably the first country in Africa to have had a national
development plan. This was in the early 1920s when then British colonial governor, Sir
Gordon Guggisberg, an ex-army engineer prepared a ten-year development plan for the Gold
Coast, focussing mostly on infrastructural projects such as the expansion of the railway
network, the construction of Takoradi Harbour, the building of a model post-primary
educational facility at Achimota, the expansion of the road network and the construction of

1
Korle Bu hospital. Unfortunately, Governor Guggisberg was recalled to England before he
could complete all the components of his plan. Colonial governments which succeeded him
apparently did not see the need to undertake any national development planning and
consequently did not initiate any plans for the modernisation and development of the country;
it was not until the end of the Second World War that an attempt was made to prepare a plan
for the development of the country. Although a plan for the period 1946 – 1956 was prepared
by the colonial government, it was not implemented and a new ten-year development plan
was drawn up to cover the period 1951 – 1961. This was abridged to a five-year plan when
Ghana gained internal self government and the government was largely in the hands of
Ghanaians. This five-year plan is generally referred to as the first development plan probably
because it was the first plan prepared under the auspices of a predominantly African
government. The second five-year plan was launched in 1959 and since then plans were
prepared for 1963/64 to 1969/70, but was withdrawn following the change of government in
1966. A new two year plan was drawn up for 1968/1969 to 1969/70. This was followed by a
one year development for the period July, 1970 to June 1971. Following this, plans were
prepared for 1971-72, 1975-80 and an Economic Recovery Programme was prepared for
1981 to 1985.
It is evident from this recital that Ghana has had considerable experience in national
development planning; having launched not less than ten plans, seven of which have been
formulated since independence. The purpose of the presentation is to make a general
examination of past development planning activity in the country as exemplified in the plans
with the aim of identifying the strengths, weaknesses and problems of the planning
machinery and of deriving lessons to guide future planning activity.

I do not intend to analyse each plan in detail and for the purpose of our examination I
have identified three major periods of planning.

Three periods which will be examined are : the colonial period, the Nkrumah period
and the post Nkrumah Period. For each period we shall examine the essential features of
planning activity including the political and institutional framework in which the plans were
formulated and sometimes implemented.

1. The Colonial Period

The major planning effort during the colonial period was, as indicated earlier, the plan
prepared by Governor Guggisberg in 1919 for the ten year period ending in 1930. The plan

2
had as its principal objective “the general progress of the people of the Gold Coast towards a
higher state of civilization and the keystone to progress is education”. According to Aryeetey
(1985) the plan was prepared by Guggisberg himself. He prepared the proposals, determined
the priorities, the sources and methods of financing as well as the schedule of
implementation. There was no institutional framework for development planning at the time.
Besides, there was a lack of skilled personnel to perform the planning functions of the
government.

The plan was a comprehensive one which set out to improve the living standards of the
people through the provision of social services. Guggisberg realised this objective could only
be fulfilled if there was expansion of the economy. Especially, the agricultural economy to
provide goods for export and thus to provide the financial resources needed to pay for the
social development projects and to raise incomes. He therefore initiated a massive
programme of technical infrastructure provision, namely, the construction of roads, railways
and harbours to open up the country, to facilitate the export of agricultural produce.

The implementation of the plan was undertaken by various government departments. The
projects completed under the plan – the expansion of the railways, Takoradi Harbour,
Achimota School and College, Korle Bu Hospital, major trunk roads laid a solid foundation
on which the development of modern Ghana was subsequently based.

Following Guggisberg’s departure from the Gold Coast no other plans were prepared by
the colonial governments until the end of the Second World War when a 10 year
development plan was prepared for the period 1946 to 1956. For reasons which were
probably related to the political fervent at the time the plan was not implemented. Later,
another plan as prepared by the colonial government for the period 1951 – 1961, but as
mention earlier this was changed to a five year plan by the new predominantly African
government. According to Aryeetey (1985) the Governor’s office instructed all departments
to prepare individual departmental programmes for the plan period. These programmes were
prepared on sectoral basis by head quarters staff of the departments and submitted to the
office of the Financial Secretary which later became the Department of Finance and
subsequently the Ministry of Finance. The Finance Ministry put these programmes together
and made cuts as dictated by the availability of financial resources. There was no co-
ordination or monitoring of projects. Again, according to Aryeetey, all that the Finance

3
Ministry was interested in was seeing to it that monies allocated for projects were properly
accounted for.

The basic feature of planning in the colonial era was that it was highly centralised, all
decisions were taken from headquarters to be implemented by branches of departments in the
rural area. Planning was always of the shopping list type consisting of isolated projects to be
constructed. There was no global view, no overall strategies. It was a piecemeal and
fragmented approach and there was no machinery for initiated a continuous process of
monitoring, review, evaluation, feedback and adjustment. Furthermore, there was little or no
consultation with the presumed beneficiaries of the components of the plan. In sum, there was
no effective machinery for coordinating plan formulation and implementation.

2. The Nkrumah Period

Three plans were prepared during the Nkrumah period. The first one covering the period
1951 – 56 was, as mentioned, earlier, a carryover from the colonial period and consisted of
projects proposed by the various departments in Accra. The second plan, 1959 – 64 was
essentially of the same type consisting of a shopping list of projects to be executed by the
sectoral departments. The only real plan, in modern terms of the Nkrumah era was the one
covering the period 1963/64 to 1969/70 entitled ‘A seven year plan for National
Reconstruction and Development’. The fact that this was the first real attempt at
comprehensive developing planning for the nation was noted by the plan formulators when
they stated in the report: “This seven year plan represents the first attempt in Ghana to
formulate a development plan with a wide concern for the growth of the economy as a whole
in contrast to previous planning which had largely been limited to programmes of public
works and social development (Government of Ghana, 1964).

At the time of the formulation of the seven-year development plan, Ghana had embraced
socialism as its guiding ideology. This fact, coupled with other factors of a political nature
contributed to the perpetuation and accentuation of a highly centralised administration and a
centralised organisational framework for development planning. The task of Development
planning was entrusted to a National Planning Commission which was set up in October,
1961 with an office of the Commission which was to service it. Membership of the
Commission covered a wide field of knowledge and experience drawn from the civil service,

4
universities and business. This expert body was organised into a series of committees, each
committee being empowered to co-opt as many other members as it needed. When the first
draft of the plan was completed a conference was organised in 1963 to discuss the draft. To
this conference were invited internationally eminent authorities in the field of economics and
planning (i.e. economic planners) from other African countries as well as local professionals,
business and educational authorities. The plan was a comprehensive one which also had
particular emphasis on transportation. It made provisions for co-ordination and monitoring of
the plans within the Commission itself. After the promulgation of the plan a new Planning
Commission was to be appointed by government which “under the Chairmanship of the
President of the Republic” had the responsibilities for seeing that the plan is successfully
implemented. The Vice Chairman of the Commission was the Minister charged with
responsibility for planning and there were up to three full time implementation agents of
assigned sections of the plan.” The plan also made provision for the appointment of a
planning officer in every department and ministry of government who would generally be its
deputy head. He had “responsibility for the co-ordination of the activities of this agency with
that of other agencies, as well as generally for the efficient performance of its other planning
responsibilities, thereby ensuring that the objectives of the plan are brought to bare constantly
on all departmental activities.” (Government of Ghana, 1964).

The formulation and presentation of the plan was a competent piece of work and from the
technical point of view, one cannot find many faults with it. However, like all placed plans
before it, it was highly centralised without adequate provision for planning as a continuous
iteractive process. Again, the role of the regions and districts in the planning process was
minimal or non-existent. Local communities did not have the opportunity to contribute to the
elaboration of the plan nor was there any machinery institute for articulating their view on
projects to be located in their areas.

3. Planning in the Post Nkrumah Period

The period following the removal of Nkrumah from office in 1966 was one in which the
concept of decentralisation was seriously put forward as the cornerstone of administrative
reform since over centralisation of the administration was considered a major weakness of
the Nkrumah government. Immediately following the fall of Nkrumah’s government, the
National Planning Commission was dissolved and was replaced by the Ministry of Economic

5
Affairs as the body responsible for economic development. Planning and programme units
were established within some key ministries to make them less dependent on a central
planning body. Subsequently, the new constitution which was promulgated in 1969 made
specific provisions for the establishment of district and regional councils, the latter were
charged with responsibility for: -

1) co-ordinating and supervising regional development plans

2) integrating departmental programmes in the regions
3) planning of development projects at the regional level, and
4) performing such other functions as could be done at the regional and district levels.

However, the establishment of the regional councils was never accomplished. District
councils were however established in 1974. These had been deemed necessary because:

• the administrative machinery at the local level had been largely unresponsive to the
critical problems of a changing society.
• decision-making and plan formulation had been slow because responsibility at the
local level was ill-defined and in many cases dispersed among a large number of
agencies which had to refer development matters to the parent ministry in Accra for
decision.
• finally there had been no effective machinery for consultation among the various
agencies operating at the local level.

The creation of the district councils was meant to solve these problems and under the
structure, responsibility for most aspects of governmental activity would be concentrated in
the District Chief Executive to permit quick decision making, maximum utilisation of
resources and effective co-ordination of the work of all the agencies in the district. The
councils’ development planning functions therefore could not effectively contribute to the
planning process.

The major planning effort of the post Nkrumah era was the preparation and launching of
the 5 year plan for 1975/76 to 1979/1980. During the period of the preparation and
implementation of this plan, regional administrations were brought into the planning process
but planning was carried out on sectoral basis as before. According to Kodwo Ewusi (1978),
the different ministries under the regional administration formulated their own development
plans. These plans largely reflected the objectives and principles executed by the parent

6
ministry in Accra where the decisions on the allocation of resources to the different sectors
were taken. The role of the regional departments was limited to the selection of sites for
projects, subject to the approval of the national ministry. They also acted as co-ordinators for
all the various projects being implemented in the region, the final choice of projects in the
region having been made by the parent ministries. Kodwo Ewusi (1978) illustrates the
process of planning at the regional level by describing the case of the Central Region. In this
region, the Secretary to the Regional Planning Committee (such committees had been
established in all regional drawing their membership from local professionals, university
teachers and business) asked for development proposals from each ministry and discussed
each proposal with the ministry concerned to ensure effective co-ordination and to ensure that
the projects conformed to regional aspirations and were in consonance with government
development policies. After the proposals had been discussed by the Secretary, they were
presented to the regional planning committee under the chairman of the Regional
Commissioner where they are further discussed, co-ordinated, integrated, and adopted. Each
sectoral ministry then sent its proposals as agreed by the committee to its parent ministry in
Accra. However, the co-ordinated programmes produced at the regional level were still
subject to approval by headquarters where Ewusi (1978) points out that a major falling of the
planning process at this level was that neither the regional sectoral ministries nor the regional
planning committees was given any guidelines as to the financial resources likely to be
available. The various bodies relied for guidance on the allocation received in previous years.

It will be seen that even though some attempt was made at decentralisation, development
planning, for all practical purposes, was centralised in Accra and the results of plan co-
ordination at the regional level could be nullified by the actions of the officers in Accra.

Another major weakness of development planning in Ghana has been the failure to
include spatial considerations as an integral part of the development planning process leading
to the adoption of development policies which had adverse effects on the national spatial
system. The importance of occasional decisions in development planning was recognised by
the authors of the 1963 to 1970 plan. However, their views on the contribution of spatial
factors were rather limited. The report stated as follows:-

“In order to assist all participatory bodies to work out their detailed design in relation
to the national plan, a National Physical Development Plan will be set forth. It will
translate the policies of economic and social plans into tangible designs of economic

7
 geography, allocations of population, labour force potential, industrial location, urban
growth allocations, major transportation corridors, power and water zones and other
essential infrastructure” (Government of Ghana, 1964)

Physical planning was thus seen as coming into play after all the economic and social
policy decisions had been taken. Spatial considerations did not form part of the development
plan formulation and implementation process. A National Physical Development Plan was
completed, as stated, by the Town and Country Planning Department of the Ministry of the
Ministry of Lands in 1963. Since then, the spatial dimension (aspect) of development
planning has largely been ignored.

There are number of features common to all the planning efforts between 1951 and 1980.
These are:-

1) All the plans tended to be highly centralised, prepared by officials area or even in a
district capital in their lives.
2) In the formulation of the plans, there was little or no consultation with people who
were supposed to be the beneficiaries of the plans.
3) The implementation of the plans was generally erratic and subject to the whims of
local officials. Very often the government lacked the will to implement strategies it
had itself evolved.
4) The central focus of the plans was economic growth with a typical emphasis on the
development of industries and a corresponding neglect of agriculture, although lip
service was always paid to it. The spatial consequences or impact of economic
decision making was largely ignored.
5) There was a lack of stability in the institutional structure for plan making and plan
implementation. In the late 1950s, there was a Ministry of Economic Planning which
was replaced by an Officer of the Planning Commission. This gave way in 1966 – 69
to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Between 1969 and 1971, planning functions
were added to those of the Ministry of Finance and the latter became the Ministry of
Finance and Economic Planning. A divorce took place in 1971 and the planning
functions were assigned to the Development Secretariat. Finance and Planning was
established only to be attached again to the Ministry of Finance in 1978 to form the
Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning.

8
 In a study conducted by Prof. Trevallion and Prof. Austin Tetteh on the organisation of
physical planning, a number of findings which revealed other weakness of development
planning as practised in Ghana at the time were identified as:

1) In spite of the work done in preparing a national physical development framework

and a national physical plan in the early 1960s no mechanism existed for physical
planning at the national level to match the economic planning efforts at the level;
2) No planning strategies had been prepared at the regional level;
3) No effective participatory mechanism existed for looking in strategy formulation with
political decision making as a continuous, systematic and dialogue at any level of
government;
4) There was systematic on-going process for the feeding back of experience in the
implementation or non-implementation of planning strategies or programmes.
5) No systematic and structured machinery existed for a continuous technical dialogue
between the regional levels of development strategy formulation and the district level.
6) Finally, no structured arrangements existed for the integration of physical and sectoral
planning.

It seems any attempt to reform or reform or restructure the institutional framework for
planning must address itself to these problems and deficiencies specifically, such efforts
should aim at evolving a planning process which is cyclical and continuous incorporating
monitoring, evaluation and feedback processes. The new planning system provides for an
integrated planning framework in which economic, social and spatial policies are formulated
as an interdisciplinary activity. It also provides for the devolution of the problems on the
ground as well as to the sectorial ministries. It also provides for a process of continuous
dialogue between the central planning agency and the regions, districts, and sectoral agencies
as well as providing a mechanism, for involving the local people in development plan
formulation including the setting of goals and the formulation of development strategies.

Finally, a suitable legal framework has been proposed to ensure an integrated and
decentralised planning process. Until quite recently no attempt was made o provide a
planning law which covers all aspects of planning process. Existing laws did not apply to the
whole national territory but largely to places as statutory planning areas. The proposed
planning law is to ensure the comprehensiveness of planning and to ensure the compliance of
all actors who activities impinge on the development effort.

9
References

1. Ernest Aryeetey: Decentralising Regional Planning in Ghana: Dortmund, 1985

2. Government of Ghana: Seven Year Plan for National Reconstruction and
Development, Accra, Officer of the Planning Commission, 1964
3. Kodwo Ewusi: Planning for the Neglected Rural Poor in Ghana, Accra, 1978
4. Albert Waterson (1965): Development Planning Baltimore: John Hopkins press
5. John Friedmann (1973): Retracking America, A Theory of Transactive Planning, New
York. Double day
6. Russell Ackoff (1974): Redesigning the Future. New York. John Wiley and Sons
7. Raymond Apthorpe (1970): People, Planning and Development Studies. London
Frank Cass

10