REVENUE
Economy of the District
District Financial Management
The fiscal management of the district comprises revenue mobilization and expenditure administration / transactions. This mainly depend generally on the revenue generated either local or external sources for the district development. The current decentralization process calls on District Assemblies to be responsible for their financial management. This however, has challenged the district to generate much of its revenue within the district. The district has three major sources of funds: Internally Generated Funds (IGF), Inter-governmental Fiscal Transfers, and other Financial Arrangements.
Revenue and Expenditure Pattern from 2018-2021
Performance in revenue generation is generally measured by the gap between the estimated and the actual revenue collected. Revenue performance can also be termed as the rate of achievement in collection. The revenue performance of the district is shown in 1.20 below.
IGF has consistently been the least contributor to the district overall revenue. Since 2018 to 2021, the Assembly has not been able to generate up to 50 percent of total revenue from its internal sources of revenue.
Revenue Pattern
| Source | Baseline 2017 (GH₵) | Actual 2018 (GH₵) | Actual 2019 (GH₵) | Actual 2020 (GH₵) | Actual 2021 (GH₵) |
| GOG | 1,159750.95 | 1,796,077.92 | 1,694,244.56 | 2,320,092.62 | 1,583,923.98 |
| IGF | 340,995.54 | 403,879.79 | 310,200.61 | 341,133.69 | 126,307.93 |
| DACF | 1,430,917.52 | 1,334,571.52 | 2,417,542.01 | 2,436,602.16 | 0.00 |
| MP’s CF | 495,522.78 | 734,090.47 | 610,320.77 | 503,412.27 | 55,461.41 |
| PWD(CF) | 12,140.00 | 246,545.90 | N. a | 158,160.00 | 22,084.90 |
| MSHAP | 0 | 12,182.78 | 13,271.01 | 9,178.04 | 2,332.11 |
| DACF-RFG | 0 | 588,564.00 | 469,018.90 | 296,349.81 | 320,160.00 |
| MAG | N.a | N.a | 120,805.15 | 141,732.56 | 50,179.98 |
| TOTAL | 3,537,218.84 | 5,225,373.30 | 5,635,403.01 | 4,111,193.08 | 2,160,450.31 |
Source: Computed from BSDA Trial Balance, 2021
Reasons for Low Revenue Generation
The following were identified as reasons accounting for the low level of the IGF:
- Unwillingness on the part of the people to pay.
- Poor reporting and accounting system was also identified as another reason.
- The Assembly lacks the machinery to ensure proper accounting from revenue collectors.
- The high illiteracy level of the revenue collectors also came to the fore as another factor accounting for the low IGF in the District. It was revealed that some of the revenue collectors could not even write properly on the revenue tickets.
- Lack of reliable revenue database
- Finally, it was identified that the relatively low level of economic activities in the District serves as a barrier to any effort aimed at increasing revenue mobilization in the District.
- Lack of vibrant market and lorry park
The low IGF implies that the district is over dependent on external sources for the financing of most its development projects.
Measures for improving Fiscal Management/Revenue Generation
- Quarterly Review of targeted revenue to check whether targets are being met or not.
- Joint operation of revenue collectors on Ejura market days to enhance revenue collection
- Formation of Task Force to help revenue collectors
- The Valuation Board at Birim Central Municipal should be tasked to undertake valuation of the properties in the district. This will help determine the appropriate property rate to charge property owners.
- Regular change in operational areas of revenue collectors
Expenditure Pattern
The main expenditure items are compensation, Goods and Services and investment/Assests. The various components of expenditure which are financed district’s revenue are tabulated in the table below:
Update on Expenditure
| Expenditure Item | Baseline 2017 (GH₵) | Actual 2018 (GH₵) | Actual 2019 (GH₵) | Actual 2020 (GH₵) | Actual 2021 (GH₵) |
| Compensation | 1,259,313.71 | 1,849,300.42 | 1,250,942.92 | 2,386,340.74 | 1,521,365.27 |
| Good and Services | 1,729,142.93 | 2,292,391.20 | 2,736,252.00 | 3,127,751.91 | 230,811.70 |
| Investment/Assets | 600,762.20 | 1,133,264.10 | 845,331.54 | 1,327,266.99 | 41,173.71 |
| TOTAL | 3,589,218.84 | 5,274,956.22 | 4,832,526.46 | 6,841,359.64 | 1,793,350.68 |
Source: Computed from BSDA Trial Balance, 2021
Economic Activities
Agriculture is by far the major economic activity undertaken in the District. According to 2010 Population and Housing Census, intimately 57.9 percent of the economically active population is directly involved in agricultural production. The second largest sector engaging people is whole sale and retail; repair of motorcycles and motor vehicles (12.7%) followed by manufacturing (7.6%). Water supply; sewerage waste management and remediation activities, information and communication, financial and insurance activities and a host of others employ a very low proportion of the population.
Economically active population (persons 15 years and older) is 23,485 (44.1 percent) of the population while the economically inactive population is 8432 (15.8 percent). In both instances, there are more female than males. According to table 22, out of an economically active population of 23,845, unemployed are 1174 representing (about 5 percent).
The employment figures may be misleading as the census report does not indicate whether income levels of persons employed are enough to pay for their basic needs. The report is also silent on the sustainability of their jobs. The district must advance policies to encourage descent jobs by creating friendly environment for the private sector.
Potential Tourist Sites in the District
The district also has some sites of historic and aesthetic importance; these are potentials for
Tourism development, but also as a way to improve the quality of life of the local people when they are developed. According to Table 1.26, four (4) potential tourist sites have been identified in the district. Four of which are located in the Swedru Area Council. This includes the Aboye confluence at Awisa, the Birim Tropical Forest and wild Animals in Apoli and Aduasa and the estuary at Apoli Beposo.
It would be important to ensure access, services and basic infrastructure in these locations to make them profitable. As well this could serve as a starting point of local and external tourism within the district.
Potential Tourist Sites in the District
| No | Name of the community | Area council | Tourist potential sites |
| 1 | AkyemAwisa | Swedru | Aboye confluence (a place where two rivers meet with one darker than the other one) |
| 2 | Aduasa | Swedru | Birim forest range |
| 3 | Apoli – Beposo | Swedru | Birim and Pra river meeting point |
| 4 | Apoli – Ningo | Swedru | Tropical forest with wild animals |
Source: BSDA DPCU 2021
Local Economic Development (LED)
The purpose of Local Economic development is to build up the economic capacity of the district to improve its economic future and quality of life for all. It is a process that ensures that public, private and non-governmental sector partners work collectively to create better conditions for economic growth and employment generation (World Bank Urban Development Unit, 2004:4)
The Birim South District engages in several local economic activities. Apart from farming which is mostly carried on in its rural areas, there are other several micro and a few medium scale activities which also go on in the district notably the capital, Akyem Swedru. Carpentry, fitting, mason, automobile/electronic repairs, restaurants/chop bars, painting, cobblers are some of the micro scale activities engaged in by people in the district. Other few medium scale enterprises include the Coppon Wood Processing Company, Ayipa Wood Processing Company, Mineral/Pure water producing companies among and a lot more.
These areas or sectors enumerated above provide employment to majority of the people in the district. However, the Local Economic Development in the District is be devilled with three categories challenges namely the district level, the Central government and the private sector. The table 1.19 throws more light on the problems of LED in the District.
Categories of LED Challenges in the District
| District Level | Central Government | Private Sector |
| 1.Lack local level capacity and lack of commitment to show leaders in policy decision making
2.Lack of capacity to administer policies and projects 3.Uncoordinated LED activities 4.Weak private sector to engage the District for LED 5. lack of practical commitment and effort to promote LED |
1. Lack of Sector Coordination on LED
2. Inadequate enabling environment
|
1. Inadequate Managerial Skills
2. Poor entrepreneurial orientation 3. Obsolete Technology 4. Informal nature of businesses 5. Limited Training 6. Low access to post production infrastructure |
There is the need to formulate policies and strategies to create an enabling environment for local businesses to operate smoothly in order to expand production and incomes for development as LED has a great potential to enhance economic growth.
Economic activities map of Birim South (DPCU, 2021)