 Thank you. My name is Chah Asaka from ISSA, University of Ghana. I'll present the Ghanaian experience with industrialization. And I'd like to, in terms of overview, give a bit introduction of where Ghana is and the evolution of industry, the stretch of the industrial sector, and conclude some emerging policy issues. In terms of introduction, Ghana's economic growth over the last decade has been among the most rapid in Africa and actually is also well in good standing among the fastest growing economies in the emerging countries. The economy has experienced moderate but very consistent growth over the past 25 years, averaging about 5% between the 1990 and 2010. With the new fund oil and gas coming on stream, Ghana is well positioned to become one of Africa's leading commodities powerhouses. And oil revenue is expected to eventually contribute an equivalent of about 20% of total national revenue. I'll present later on how the oil sector is impacting the industrial sector in general. Currently it is estimated that on average, over the medium term, Ghana will be growing at least 8% per annum, which should take us to the upper middle income status. We already are the lower middle income status. When the impact of oil and gas development is taken into consideration, the average GDP is projected to grow at about 11.3% per annum over the medium term. For the attainment of economic transformation, the industrial sector is very key, and that sector is projected to grow at an average of about 20.3% over the medium term per annum. In terms of evolution of industry, I'll look at that in blocks over the historical period. The pre-economic reform program period from 1957 when we got independence up to the 1960s. Prior to 1957, when Ghana gained political independence, the industrial sector was very small. It was mainly manufacturing, and that contributed very little to economic growth. The sector had been underdeveloped mainly because the colonial power were interested in extracting raw materials from the former good coast, which is currently Ghana, and also for creating an economic system which was heavily dependent on manufactured products from Britain. By the time the NKRMA government got independence in 1957, the industrial sector was already very small, very underdeveloped, and the NKRMA had a socialist agenda and also saw industrialization as key factor to the modernization and the development of the country. The extensive industrialization program that NKRMA pursued was based on the import substitution industrialization strategy, and it was aimed at transforming the industrial sector and to reduce the dependence of the economy on the colonial powers, Britain, and also on other foreign economies because of NKRMA's socialist agenda. Priority to the import substitution industrialization strategy was believed that it would help get rid of the distorting effect of the colonial system that it inherited and also to escape from the dependence on primary exports and to break the vicious cycle of poverty according to Kelec 2010. The import substitution industrialization strategy involved basically the development of large-scale capital-intensive manufacturing industries owned and managed by the state. The state played a very large role. State-owned enterprises were involved in domestic production of previously imported consumer goods, processing of exports of primary products, mainly agriculture and mining, and the expansion and development of building materials and the electrical and electronic and machinery industries. And the government also invested heavily in the infrastructure to be able to support this industrialization agenda, a lot of road, and up to today, a big chunk of Ghana's infrastructure was developed during the period of the first president, Kwame Nkrumah, the Motorway, the Acoustic and Border, and so on. In terms of the success of NKRMA's industrialization strategy, during the 1960s, there was evidence that the manufacturing sector was picking up. It also shifted the import structure away from consumer goods to intermediate and, more importantly, capital goods to be able to support his industrialization agenda. The manufacturing sector, for example, grew from a 2% share of GDP in 1957 at independence to about 9% by 1969. Over the period, I mean, during the 1960s, manufacturing output grew at a rate of about 13% per annum. The share of manufacturing in total industrial output grew from 10% in 1960 to about 14% in 1970. Industrial sector employment grew by an average of 8% per annum, with total employment in the manufacturing sector alone, increasing by nearly 90% between 1962 and 1970. If you look at the table here in terms of share and growth rate of gross manufacturing output by ownership, you see that the holy state-owned enterprise grew from about the share of about 11.8% in 1962. By 1967, this was about 24.1%. And the joint state and private-owned enterprise grew from about 7% to about 17.5% between 1962 and 1997. You will see a concomitant decline in private ownership from about 80%, 81% to about 58%. And this was intentional because the government was really wanted to control the economy, so they were taken over by private enterprises and had policies that were not very friendly to private-led growth or development. In terms of growth, you see the same thing that the state-owned enterprise grew from about 34% to 36%, and there was a decline of private ownership from 20.5% to 7.1%. So by the 1970s, in post-subsistion to a certain strategy, began to face some structural problems. The economy had severe balance of payment problems, which led to the city being devalued by about 90%. As a result of the balance of payment problems, production and capacity utilization in most of the imports of city industries fell over the period from the mid-1970s to 1983, just before the structural adjustment was introduced. For instance, you will see that the average capacity utilization over the period from 1970 to 1977 was in the range of just about 43% to 50%, and it became worse in 79 and 1980 at about 33% and 25% respectively. And by the close of 1982, the average capacity utilization had further declined to 21%. So as a result of that, you see that in this table, industry was declined from about 19.3% from 1970 to about 11.1% in 1984 as a percent of GDP. And that's also in line with the manufacturing, which also declined from about 12.7% to about 7.6%, and services picked up from 27% to about 35%, and agriculture also picked up. So during the period where the structural adjustment was introduced from 1983 and part of it was the economic reform program to 2000. The main policy initiatives here under the economic reform program for the industrial sector was the restructuring of the industrial and ally sectors, addressing the constraints faced under the import substitution decision strategy, increasing the production of manufactured goods through greater use of existing capacity, and the removal of production bottlenecks in the efficient industries. And these initiatives were based on a new industrialization strategy that plays more emphasis on the more internationally competitive industrial sector, as opposed to what we had under the incremental regime. You see from Table 3 that the industrial sector in general and the manufacturing sector in particular responded quite positively and strongly to the reforms. You see the first period, the period just prior to the introduction of the economic reform program between 81 and 83, there was a decline in industry from about 13%, and the period immediately after the structural adjustment, 84 to 88, moved from negative 12.5% to about 11.2%, and that was the same for manufacturing from negative 8% to about 12.7%, and the mining inquiry in the same electricity, the same self-construction. But this was not sustained by the end of 2000, but we still have a positive growth of industry about 4.3% and manufacturing of about 4.1%. In terms of this graph, you see the various contribution. Up to 1984, you will see the fluctuation in the bad performance of both industry, manufacturing, basically all the sectors. And from 1984, since the structural adjustment was introduced, things have remained quite stable, even though it could have been done better. We're still in the historical development, the post-economic reform program from 2000 to 2012, but I break it down into two periods. So the first five years, there was a shift in the focus of Ghana's industrial strategy. The policy strategies within the industrial sector were adopted and they were aimed at promoting agro-processing this time, facilitating the development of commercially viable export and domestic market-oriented enterprises in the rural areas, improving agriculture marketing and enhancing access to export markets, improving the competitiveness of domestic industrial products and promoting industrial subcontracting and partnership exchange. You will see that the industrial sector responded positively also to these initiatives. Industrial growth was buoyant in 2002, increasing from about 2.9% in 2001 to 4.7% in 2002 and then to 5.1% in 2004. That's the first five years after the agro-processing program. You will see that industry grew from about 2.9% to about 7.6%, manufacturing also moving from a growth rate of about 3.7% in 2001 to about 5%, and manning and querying from negative 1.6% to about 6.3%. Now, interestingly, the relatively strong growth experience by the sub-sectors of industry did not transform to any higher contribution of industry to GDP. You see that the contribution of industry to GDP remained quite stable between 2001 to 2005, around 24 or 25%, and the same for manufacturing. The current structure of the industrial sector, I am basically looking at the, from the 2006 to the current period of about 2012, the Ghana industrial sector, after the re-basin of our economy that led us to lower-medium income status, consists of five sub-sectors now. The manufacturing sector, the construction sector, the mining and the querying, the electricity and water and sewage sub-sectors. Before this re-basin in 2010, the electricity and water and sewage sub-sectors had been lumped together, but they have not been split. You will see that the period between 2006 to 2007, you see industry has now increased from about 20.8% to about 27.6%. And manufacturing is on the decline. Rather, mining and querying is on the rise from 2.8% to 8.8%. The reason is that from 2010, you see that in bracket under the mining and querying is the involvement of the oil sector now. So the oil sector contributed 0.4% to the 2.3% in 2010. And by just last year, the oil sector is actually contributing about 6.9% of the 8.8% of industry. So basically, mining is picking up and manufacturing is on the decline. Again, in that last period of 2006 to 2012, in terms of growth rate of industry and its sub-sectors, industry itself was growing at about 9.5% in 2006, but in 2011, because of the oil, industry grew at 41.1%. That was the base effect. That's when the oil exports began. And the manufacturing also around about 13%. And the mining and querying, 206%, because of the oil production. The rest are not very interesting. But this could not be sustained, of course. The provisional estimate for 2012 is that industry has come back to 7%. Manufacturing is down from the 13% to 4.3%. And the mining and querying from 206% to 5%. These are the effects of oil. The last section is a relative contribution of the sub-sectors to industrial GDP. You see manufacturing as a result of the oil is declined from 49% of GDP to now about 24% of GDP. Provisional estimate for 2012. And the mining and querying is moved from 13.5% of GDP to about 32% of GDP because of the oil. In terms of size distribution of the current firms in the industry, the number of establishments within the industrial sector has increased significantly between 87 and 2003. This is where we have two industrial sensors. One was in 87 and one in 2003. So that's what we can compare. The number of establishments have moved from about 8,600 to about 26,000 firms. This should be more if we have current data. So that's quite a lot. This represents over 200% increase over the period 87 to 2003. And the total number of firms in both years were over 90% were into the manufacturing sector. And in terms of size distribution, you will see that the Ghana industrial sector appears to be primarily comprised of micro and small firms who make up about 94% of the total number of firms in the sector. And the medium firms are just about 4%, and just about 2.3% are large. So it's mainly micro firms. In terms of employment, also again for the period where we have data, total number of employed has moved about 1 million, 1.1 million to about just 1.2 million over that 2000, 2006. And as a share of total employment in the industry, this is just about 15%, actually declined to about 14.2%. And then you see that manufacturing actually is the share of manufacturing employment to industry employment is moved from 69% to 80%. Mine and aquarium is declined. So in terms of spatial distribution, probably this is the last table, is one of the things that manufacturing is mainly, in fact actually the industrial activities are mainly concentrated in two regions, the greater Accra region and the Ashanti region. So they contribute close to about 50% of all the activities in manufacturing also in industry. And all the other regions, basically there's almost nothing going on, especially in the northern poor region, the last three regions, northern, Upper East, Upper West region. That's quite a problem. Well, to conclude with the emerging policy issues that are currently under discussion, the top three issues that emerge from the debate are how to empower the private sector, especially the small and the medium enterprises to expand productive employment and technological capacity within a highly competitive manufacturing sector, and how to promote agro-based industrial development to ensure value addition to manufacturers and garnish traditional and non-traditional exports. And finally, how to promote the spatial distribution of industries away from the current situation of over-concentration in industries within the urban areas. I think I'll stop here. Thank you.