Ghana’s deep-seated preference for imported goods over locally made ones continues to bleed the economy quietly but persistently. What Agriculture Minister Eric Opoku said about the rice sector goes beyond food policy[1]; it cuts to Ghana’s structural economic challenges. The Minister’s revelation that locally produced rice is now cheaper than imported brands should have been good news. Yet, the irony is that many consumers still reach for foreign rice. His statement was justified: by choosing imported rice, Ghanaians are “creating jobs in the country where the rice came from, at the expense of their own people.”
But the issue is not limited to rice. The same pattern runs through poultry, tomato paste, textiles, and even processed foods, sectors where imported goods dominate shelves and shape consumer tastes. This preference has wide-ranging economic consequences.
Each time consumers choose imports, Ghana loses valuable foreign currency. The country spends billions of US dollars annually on food imports alone, draining reserves and putting pressure on the cedi. This persistent demand for foreign exchange weakens the local currency, drives inflation, and widens the trade deficit. It is an economic leakage that deprives domestic producers of the multiplier effect that comes from money circulating within the local economy.
The dominance of imported products erodes the competitiveness of local industries. Local farmers, processors, and small manufacturers face shrinking markets and low profitability. This weakens incentives for investment in productivity and modernization. The result is fewer jobs, especially in rural areas where agriculture and small-scale production are primary sources of income.
Over-reliance on imported staples also exposes the economy to external shocks. When the bulk of a nation’s food supply depends on imports, global disruptions from shipping delays to geopolitical tensions can easily spill over into local markets. Ghana has felt this before: global price spikes or export bans can cause sudden domestic shortages and food inflation, especially among the poor.
At the heart of this challenge lies a perception problem. Many consumers associate imported goods with higher quality and prestige, while seeing local products as inferior. This “preference gap” is cultural as much as it is economic, and it makes policy interventions less effective. Even when local goods are competitively priced, as with rice today, demand doesn’t necessarily follow.
The damage runs deep in rural Ghana, where local industries should be engines of growth. When consumers turn to foreign goods, income and job opportunities in farming communities shrink, slowing down rural development and fueling migration to urban areas. This, in turn, pressures city infrastructure and employment systems. The minister’s mention of growing youth participation in farming shows that the production side is gaining traction. However, sustaining these gains will depend on whether consumer choices evolve in tandem. Without that shift, production surpluses could turn into post-harvest losses, discouraging new entrants and stalling investment.
Ultimately, the Minister’s call for Ghanaians to “support the effort by prioritizing local produce” is not just patriotism; it’s sound economic reasoning. Sustaining the gains from agricultural initiatives will depend on matching rising production with a conscious shift in consumer behavior. Without that change, even the best production policies risk being undermined by our own spending habits.
Credit: IMANI’s Criticality Analysis of Governance and Economic Issues September 29 – October 4, 2025
