Kraft's article trumpets the point of view that adopting Western bankers' remedies for Third World economic ills "seems to be working" in Ghana. Kraft emphasizes the delight of the IMF and World Bank at this development and the relief felt by Ghanaian professionals.
But in the 34th paragraph Kraft admits that "few Ghanaians have seen the tangible evidence of recovery" and "most workers are making less" since devaluation of the currency.
In what way can a country's economic shift be said to be "working" when most of its population is worse off? Wouldn't the bankers who appear to be Kraft's main sources approve of mentioning more prominently than the 42nd paragraph the fact that a loaf of bread costs nearly a day's pay under the regime's draconian policies?