Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – Some articles do more than express an opinion. They awaken memories, revive forgotten ideas, and remind us of the principles that once guided national development. Such was my experience when I read Dr. Kalilu Bayo’s thoughtful essay, The Spectacle of Following the Market in The Gambia: The Case of Distorted Jimpexization. His reflections transported me back more than four decades to the beginning of my career in the Ministry of Economic Planning and Industrial Development (MEPID).
In 1983, I joined the Ministry as a Cadet Economist in the Industrial Development Unit. Fresh from university and eager to contribute to national development, I entered an institution that was intellectually vibrant and professionally demanding.
I had the privilege of working under the supervision of Dr. Hinzen, a German Industrial Economist whose analytical discipline, meticulous attention to detail, and insistence on evidence-based analysis left a lasting impression on me.
The Ministry was under the distinguished leadership of Dr. J. Ayo Langley, the Permanent Secretary, whose professionalism, vision, and commitment to excellence set the tone for the institution. His subsequent appointment as Secretary General and Head of the Civil Service at the Office of the President under President Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara was a fitting recognition of his exceptional leadership and administrative ability. To young officers like me, he exemplified the highest ideals of the Gambian Civil Service.
Few institutions in government resembled the Ministry of Economic Planning and Industrial Development. It was not merely an administrative department but the nation’s principal center for strategic economic thinking.
While other ministries concentrated on managing their respective sectors, the Ministry of Economic Planning and Industrial Development was entrusted with looking beyond the annual budget cycle to prepare National Development Plans, coordinate public investment, promote industrialization, appraise major development projects, and ensure that government policies formed part of a coherent national development strategy. In many respects, it served as The Gambia’s first true policy think tank.
I was equally privileged to learn from and interact with an exceptional group of Gambian economists and development planners.
They included Dr. Kalilu Bayo, Abdou A.B. Njie, Alieu Ngum, Amadou Taal, Baboucarr Sompo Ceesay, Ousman Jammeh, Yusupha Kah, Pa Dodou Mbye, the late Famara Jatta, the late Abdou Cole, the late Ebou Jobarteh, the late Pa Louise Gomez, the late Omar Sallah, Mr. Whyte, Fafa Sanyang, Lamin Nyabaley, and Ebou Jobe, among others.
Each brought unique strengths and perspectives to the Ministry’s work, but they shared a common commitment to intellectual rigor, professionalism, and national development. For a young economist beginning his career, the opportunity to learn from and interact with such distinguished professionals was an education in itself and a privilege that I have never taken for granted.
The Ministry’s strength, however, extended far beyond its economists. It was blessed with seasoned administrators whose professionalism and institutional memory ensured that the machinery of government functioned with remarkable efficiency. I fondly remember the late Baba Jagne, Sulayman Bun Jack, Charles Thomas, and Juka Jabang, whose dedication, discipline, and financial and administrative competence created an environment where excellence was expected rather than demanded.
Supporting them was an equally outstanding cadre of staff whose contribution often went unnoticed but whose role was indispensable. Uncle Njagga John, Elnora Ndow George, Penda Bah, Jallow, Jam Jawo, the late Uncle Matarr Mboge, and Kosna Savage carried out their responsibilities with pride, loyalty, and quiet efficiency. They understood that every member of the institution, regardless of rank or designation, contributed to the Ministry’s success.
No article of this nature can fully capture all those who contributed to the Ministry’s distinguished reputation. There were many other economists, statisticians, planners, administrators, accountants, secretaries, drivers, messengers, and support staff whose professionalism sustained the institution every day. If I have not mentioned some by name, it is not because their contribution was any less significant but because memory inevitably has its limits. They too deserve our gratitude and recognition.
Looking back after more than four decades, I can say without hesitation that the Ministry of Economic Planning and Industrial Development was the crème de la crème of the Gambian Civil Service. It attracted some of the country’s finest minds, fostered rigorous analysis, encouraged healthy intellectual debate, and maintained standards of professionalism that inspired young officers like myself.
More importantly, it cultivated a culture of mentorship. Senior officers welcomed questions, encouraged critical thinking and expected every recommendation to be supported by sound evidence. It was a true school of public service.
Its greatest achievement, however, was not only the plans it prepared or the projects it coordinated.
It was the people it produced. Many of the economists, planners and administrators who later assumed leadership positions across government and international development institutions were shaped by the discipline, mentorship and intellectual culture they experienced within the Ministry. That may well be MEPID’s most enduring legacy.
The Ministry’s strategic mandate required it to think not in budget cycles but in decades. Building on that mandate, the Ministry looked beyond immediate fiscal concerns to the country’s long-term transformation. While the Ministry of Finance focused principally on budgeting, treasury management, and fiscal policy, MEPID concentrated on development planning, industrial policy, public investment programming, project appraisal, and the coordination of external assistance.
Over time, as government structures evolved, the planning and finance functions were merged under a single ministry. The integration brought certain advantages, particularly in strengthening the link between development priorities and resource allocation.
However, it also meant that long-term planning sometimes had to compete with the immediate demands of fiscal management, revenue mobilization, and budget execution. This is not unique to The Gambia; many countries continue to grapple with the challenge of maintaining a strong strategic planning function within finance ministries.
As The Gambia pursues the aspirations of Vision 2050 and seeks to accelerate industrialization, economic diversification, and job creation, there is renewed value in strengthening the country’s planning capacity. Whether this is achieved through institutional reforms, enhanced planning units, or stronger coordination mechanisms is a matter for policymakers.
What should never be lost, however, is the philosophy that guided the Ministry in its formative years: that sustainable development requires not only sound financial management but also strategic thinking, rigorous analysis and a clear long-term national vision.
The question today is not whether we should recreate the institutions of the past exactly as they were. Rather, it is whether we can recover the culture of disciplined analysis, evidence-based policymaking, and long-term thinking that made them effective.
The Ministry worked closely with sector ministries to ensure that agriculture, health, education, transport, industry, and other sectors formed part of a coherent national development strategy rather than operating in isolation.
It also served as the principal focal point for dialogue with development partners, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the African Development Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, and other cooperating partners.
This whole-of-government approach strengthened policy coherence and ensured that external assistance supported nationally determined priorities.
For young economists, this provided an unparalleled learning experience. We were exposed not only to economic theory but also to the practical realities of development planning, project appraisal, policy formulation, and international development cooperation.
We learned that successful development depended not merely on securing financial resources but also on ensuring that every dalasi invested contributed meaningfully to national progress. Those experiences shaped our understanding of public service and reinforced the conviction that development is ultimately about improving the lives of ordinary citizens.
The Ministry’s analytical standards also earned it considerable respect among international development partners, with policy dialogue grounded in careful economic analysis and rigorous project appraisal, reinforcing The Gambia’s credibility during negotiations with external partners.
Those were the years when development planning was not viewed as an obstacle to private enterprise. Rather, it was seen as the framework within which private investment could flourish. Industrial estates were carefully designated.
Industrial policy sought not merely to encourage investment but to identify sectors capable of generating employment, adding value to domestic production, reducing import dependence where feasible and expanding export opportunities.
Manufacturing activities were encouraged. Infrastructure was planned with long-term economic transformation in mind.
Every proposal was expected to answer fundamental questions. Was there sufficient market demand? Would the investment create jobs? Could it generate value addition? Would it strengthen the productive capacity of the economy? These were not academic exercises; they were the foundations of responsible public policy. It is precisely this experience that gives Dr. Kalilu Bayo’s reflections their wider significance.
Dr. Bayo’s reflections on the gradual transformation of the Kanifing Industrial Estate deserve careful attention. His central argument is not an attack on entrepreneurship, nor is it nostalgia for state control. Rather, it is a reminder that when planning loses its place, markets can produce outcomes that may be individually rational but collectively inefficient.
His description of what he terms “Jimpexization” is particularly thought-provoking. Investors naturally seek to replicate successful business models. Yet when imitation replaces careful analysis, the result can be an oversupply of similar investments, declining returns, and inefficient use of scarce capital.
The proliferation of roadside shops in areas where many already remain vacant is a visible illustration of this challenge.
This observation extends beyond retail infrastructure. It speaks to a broader issue confronting many developing economies. Too often, investment follows what appears profitable today without sufficient attention to future demand, spatial planning, or economic diversification. Consequently, capital becomes concentrated in familiar activities while sectors capable of generating higher productivity, exports, and quality employment receive comparatively less investment.
None of this diminishes the remarkable entrepreneurial spirit of Gambians. On the contrary, the willingness of citizens to invest their savings, establish businesses, and create employment deserves recognition. The challenge is to ensure that private initiative is supported by sound planning, reliable information, and effective regulation.
The debate therefore should not be framed as planning versus markets. Successful economies rely on both. Markets encourage innovation, competition, and efficiency. Governments provide strategic direction, infrastructure, land-use planning, and the policy environment necessary for sustainable growth.
Today’s Gambia faces challenges that were less pronounced in the early 1980s. Rapid urbanization, population growth, climate change, and technological transformation require stronger planning institutions rather than weaker ones.
Industrial policy also deserves renewed attention. Manufacturing, agro-processing, logistics, renewable energy, and the digital economy all require deliberate planning if they are to become engines of inclusive growth.
As I reflected on Dr. Bayo’s article, I found myself remembering not only the policies we discussed but also the people who shaped our thinking. They belonged to a generation of public servants who approached development with humility, intellectual curiosity, and an unwavering commitment to national service.
Markets are indispensable, but they deliver their greatest benefits when guided by thoughtful planning, capable institutions, and a clear national vision.
For reminding us of that enduring truth, Dr. Kalilu Bayo has rendered a valuable service to our country. His essay deserves to be read not only as a commentary on the changing landscape of Kanifing but also as an invitation to rediscover the enduring value of strategic development planning.
As one who had the privilege of serving alongside many of the men and women who built that remarkable institution, I feel a responsibility to acknowledge their contribution. They represented a generation that served without fanfare but with immense competence, integrity, and patriotism.
The greatest tribute we can pay them is not merely to remember their names but to preserve the values they embodied: intellectual honesty, professionalism, disciplined analysis, humility, mentorship, and an unwavering commitment to the national interest.
As I look back over more than four decades in public service, serving in different ministries and working with national and international development partners, I often find myself returning to the lessons I learned as a young Cadet Economist in the Ministry of Economic Planning and Industrial Development.
The names, faces, and offices may have changed, but the principles remain timeless: analyze before deciding, plan before implementing, listen before concluding, and always place the national interest above personal interest.
If this article encourages younger economists, planners, and civil servants to value professionalism, mentorship, intellectual curiosity, and integrity as much as technical competence, then it will have achieved its purpose. Ministries may be reorganized, renamed, or merged, but the values that define great institutions should never be lost.
The true legacy of the Ministry of Economic Planning and Industrial Development was not simply the plans it produced or the offices it occupied. It was a way of thinking about development: analytical rather than impulsive, strategic rather than reactive, collaborative rather than fragmented, and always guided by the national interest.
If today’s generation embraces those same values, that legacy will continue to shape The Gambia’s development for generations to come.
If that legacy inspires even one new generation of public servants to think beyond the immediate and serve beyond themselves, then the Ministry’s influence will continue long after its name has changed.
Dedicated to all who served in the Ministry of Economic Planning and Industrial Development and helped shape The Gambia’s development through professionalism, integrity, intellectual excellence, and selfless public service. May their legacy continue to inspire future generations.
Leave a Reply