Ghost Jobs, Phantom Billions: CPS Questions Budget

The Centre for Policy Scrutiny (CPS) has raised concerns over the government’s inability to provide verifiable evidence on jobs created under its flagship employment programmes, saying the 490,000 jobs projected under the Big Push initiative cannot be confirmed two years after the promise was made.

At the 2026 Mid-Year Budget Review assessment organised by the Centre on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the independent think tank placed a sharp magnifying glass over the figures presented to Parliament five days earlier by the Minister of Finance, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, revealing inconsistencies in the budget document.

While the Finance Minister painted a glowing picture on July 23 of an economy surpassing key targets, crashing inflation,  improving fiscal management and foreign exchange reserves, the CPS gently pulled back the curtain to reveal a troubling game of hide-and-seek with both employment data and public expenditure.

According to the Labour Economist at CPS, Dr. Prince Adjei, although the government has introduced several projects expected to generate employment, there is currently no verifiable evidence to determine the impact of these initiatives on the labour market. He pointed out that while announcing flashy initiatives is easy, backing them up with reliable data is another story entirely. Measuring real-world impact requires tracking permanent, temporary, indirect, and sustained jobs. Simply cutting ribbons or starting construction does not mean people have long-term paychecks in hand.

“The manifesto promise was that the Big Push is projecting about 490,000 jobs. But what we see by mid-year 2026 is that for these 490,000 jobs, we do not have verifiable data to confirm that they have actually been created,” Dr. Adjei noted.

To prove his point, Dr. Adjei revealed that out of the 87 projects assessed under the Big Push programme, 28 had achieved more than 25 per cent completion, while 59 remained below the 25 per cent completion mark. He explained that although the progress of these projects shows that implementation has begun, it does not provide enough evidence to determine how many people have gained employment from them.

 

“It means that it would be difficult for us to pass a conclusive verdict that this Big Push has generated a number of jobs. We need verifiable data on how many sustained jobs and how many temporary jobs have been created,” Dr. Adjei added.

He urged the government to set up a real-time national job monitoring dashboard, adding wryly: “We need to move from allocation to measurable employment outcomes. There must be a programme register and a database or dashboard that can report in real time how many jobs have been created.”

As questions remained over the reported jobs created, the CPS also raised concerns about conflicting figures in the budget document. Dr. Adu Owusu Sarkodie, Executive Director of CPS, explained that some figures in different sections of the government’s own budget appeared not to match, creating confusion over the accuracy of the data.

“The mid-year budget presentation was characterised by data inconsistencies. For instance, the total expenditure as stated on page 25 indicated an amount of GH¢129.2 billion against a target of GH¢158.6 billion. Meanwhile, on page 26, the figure changes to GH¢136.9 billion against a target of GH¢172.5 billion,” Dr. Sarkodie pointed out, leaving attendees wondering which page to believe.

The magic trick didn’t stop there. He also pointed to differences in capital expenditure figures.

“Similarly, the capital expenditure estimates on page 25 stated GH¢21.7 billion actuals against GH¢36.6 billion. But on page 26, the actual H1 2026 CAPEX changes to GH¢22.2 billion. These developments raise serious concerns about the credibility of the data, and, to a large extent, the entire budget, since the fiscal figures are the foundation upon which government policies are formulated,” Dr. Sarkodie warned.

The CPS urged the Ministry of Finance to improve transparency by ensuring consistency in official budget documents and publishing detailed expenditure information from ministries, departments, and agencies.

The Centre also recommended that future budget statements include clearer comparisons between approved budgets and actual spending at the programme level to allow independent assessment and improve accountability.

The think tank’s review concluded that while the government recorded stronger-than-expected fiscal performance, some of the gains were largely driven by lower-than-planned expenditure, leaving several programme allocations unfulfilled.