Evaluation of Political Programs for the 2025 Presidential Election: Response to Readers’ Observations

“Only the refutable is scientific”. This is the epistemological principle set forth by Karl Popper, as the foundation of all scientific debate. This principle, today accepted by all scientific disciplines, means that every scientific proposition and every scientific conjecture must submit to the test of refutation. It is by virtue of this principle that the authors of the Document Economic Evaluation of the Programs of Candidates for the 2025 Presidential Election positively receive the various appraisals, observations, and criticisms that this work has elicited from readers. These observations and criticisms are all the more welcome as they will allow for the improvement of this work, which is a long-term project, and of which the present document is only a beginning, the starting point of an investment that the GPE aims to establish over the long term. The authors, beginning with the coordinator of the work, which I am, assure their complete availability to carry out the specifications that this implies.

The GPE’s ambition is indeed henceforth to proceed with the evaluation of economic policy programs proposed and/or applied in Africa by governments, but also to analyze the programs proposed by candidates in various electoral cycles, particularly national cycles such as the presidential election, and legislative, senatorial, and regional elections. The reason for this is that it is during these cycles that political parties present their vision, and the programs that are the projects for translating that vision into action. It follows from the above that what was done regarding the 2025 presidential election in Cameroon should, in the future, also be done for other African countries, and for the aforementioned electoral cycles.

In doing so, and in accordance with its mandate, the GPE, and through it the University, aims, on the one hand, to help citizens better structure their appreciation and their choice concerning the political offers presented to them. On the other hand, the goal is to make the authors of these offers aware of the necessity to impose on themselves an requirement for rigor and coherence in the formulation of their offers, and thus to mobilize the expertise that this implies. Having made these clarifications, we would like below to provide some elements of response to certain observations and criticisms from some readers, while hoping that the debate continues so that the relevance of future studies is even greater. These observations and criticisms will be grouped into two categories: methodological on the one hand, and substantive (on the merits) on the other.

I. Methodological Observations and Criticisms

A number of readers of the document questioned the methodological aspects. Some readers thus questioned, and regretted, the length of the document. One reader drew attention to this point, complaining about it, by writing: “I do not understand how our intellectuals lack a spirit of synthesis. Who is going to read 100 pages?”. In fact, the answer to this challenge is found at the very beginning of the document, with the executive summary in French and English, which precisely provides the synthesis requested by our critical reader. This executive summary precisely provides the synthesis requested, clearly showing that the authors were aware that not everyone would read all 100 pages. Even when some readers did so, the task would be facilitated by the prior reading of this executive summary which sets the scene, and clearly presents the objective of the study, its methodology, and the instruments mobilized, as well as providing a summary of the results obtained from the analysis. And an important point, so that no one ignores it, the authors highlight and draw attention—and the summary does this right away—to the scope and limits of the exercise, by writing:

“This method does not claim to capture the entire complexity of the programs, but it allows candidates to be compared on a common and transparent basis.”

And these limits are further explained in the document, particularly on page 30. It is at this level, moreover, that the authors anticipate a recurrent observation, that of the time devoted to its realization, which many readers, following the authors themselves, rightly found too short. The authors themselves recognize, in effect, that “A longer analysis period, initiated earlier, would have allowed for an in-depth analysis of the presidential candidates’ programs, but also to offer the latter the possibility of self-evaluating their proposal and making necessary adjustments. Furthermore, given its pedagogical nature, this study deserves to be extended to other dimensions outside of the purely economic prism”. This observation made by the authors themselves is not only proof, on the one hand, of the awareness they have, as scientists, of the limits of the work presented to readers, and therefore of the relevance of the critical observation made on this point by the latter, but beyond that, it constitutes a moral commitment they make to remedy it, and above all to deepen the work, by extending it to other fields and to other methodological and instrumental enhancements. The reader thus has elements to appreciate, in the future, the ability of the authors to keep this commitment and to judge whether the specifications will have been fulfilled.

A final point that seems important to return to, even if readers did not dwell on it, concerns the epistemological and scientific positioning of the work. Having coordinated the work, I must admit that the obligation to better present the epistemological and scientific positioning of the study was not entirely fulfilled, and we must apologize to the readers, committing ourselves to doing better for future studies. Indeed, the scientific claim assigned to the study deserves to be better justified, so that the reader has the relevant elements of appreciation, both regarding what the work contributes and the limits of the exercise.

On the epistemological level, the scientific claim asserted by the work implies that we must be explicit about the reasons that justify it, and which allow for the opening of debate on the scope and credibility of the work, and the appreciation that those who receive it may have. This is the submission to the test of refutation, recalled in the introduction.

This requirement has begun to be met by this work, with developments on the methodology and the analysis grid, but it must go further, by presenting to the reader the other possible analysis grids, and the reasons for preferring these, and not those. It will be all the more necessary to do so because the authors themselves implicitly recognize the interest in broadening the analysis to other disciplinary fields, such as law and political science, as it is true that economic policy programs depend on the quality of institutions and the rule of law; even more so, on how institutions function and how the rule of law is applied. The reading and appreciation of the document must therefore be undertaken under the epistemological clause “ceteris paribus” (all things being equal). A commitment is thus made for all these things to be effectively taken into account in future works.

Regarding the scientific positioning and supplementing what has just been said above, it is important to emphasize, by insisting, that the document offered to the reader is situated as an extension of a vast analytical field opened in economics since the 1970s, by the pioneering works of Stigler^[1] and Nordhaus^[2], who were the first to initiate reflection on how voters determine their choice and thus their vote, in favor of one program or another, and therefore in favor of one candidate or another. Thus, for example, the analysis in terms of the political-economic cycle developed, giving rise to a multitude of approaches, such as those of satisfaction and stock of popularity, political market, political reaction function, and the median voter, to name just a few^[3]. The first applications to concrete experiences were made on the experiences of Great Britain and France, with, in the latter case, the costing of the Common Program of the Left, before the 1981 elections, which brought Mitterrand’s Socialist Party and its allies to power.^[4]

The work undertaken in this document presented to the reader is therefore part of a scientific field richly explored for decades by economists, and which we wanted to apply to the case of Cameroon, with the objective of deepening the analysis of the political programs and offers of political parties in the future, and well before electoral deadlines, compelling them to better articulate them, by measuring their implications, and making them aware that this is a heavy investment that involves the mobilization of human capital, financial capital, and logistical capital, well in advance of the deadlines. This work is also situated downstream of all the reflection that has been undertaken in our countries on governance, and of which the National Governance Program was in its time an illustration,^[5] as well as being an extension of the critical reflections addressed by African economists to the structural adjustment programs imposed on our countries in the 1990s and early 2000s^[6], programs which continue to be applied there in various forms, and concerning the new economic challenges on which politicians must pronounce.

II. Observations and Criticisms on the Merits (Substance)

We will address this aspect of the observations received with a clarification that allows us to firmly reject and dismiss the assessment made of the document by a reader, who, assuming they read it, likely sought to disqualify it based solely on the fact that the Director of the GPE, Pr Viviane Biwolé, is allegedly “card-carrying,” thus implicitly affirming that the Director of the GPE holds a ruling party membership card. By doing so, did the author of this assessment intend to deny all credibility to this work, solely because of this affiliation? Such an assessment is unacceptable and amounts not only to an inference of intent (or prejudgment), but even more so, to intellectual terrorism that does not honor its author. On the one hand, the assertion, however peremptory it may be, is based on no proof, and on the other hand, even if this were the case, it does not give the right to unjustly remove the Director’s right to express her opinion, which could precisely give rise to refutation. Indeed, no serious debate can be conducted based on such a priori assumptions which deny the other the right to express themselves and have their opinions, especially when there is no proof that these personal opinions influenced the analysis, biasing it. Moreover, in the case of the present work, the Director is not the author, even if she assumes moral responsibility for it due to her position, and the authors worked in complete independence, in good faith, knowing that they were engaging their scientific credibility, and thus accepting to submit to the test of refutation. Having made this clarification, let us turn to the critical observations and appraisals made by various parties, whom we would like to thank once again for this contribution to the debate and the improvement of the work.

One of the main criticisms made relates to the assessment aspect (bilan), with various parties noting the bias this induces in favor of the status quo. One reader formulates the criticism as follows: “An absence of questioning the historical record of past policies, which is nevertheless crucial for judging the credibility of future commitments, especially for the ruling party. A slight bias in favor of the status quo, the analysis framework favoring continuity to the detriment of potentially necessary proposals for disruption and a source of vitality. The analysis framework implicitly tends to sell a conservative vision of economic policy. In short, the document offers a basis for discussion but can give the feeling of marketing the status quo and inevitability.”. This formulation summarizes, with all the necessary force and relevance, one of the major criticisms made of the document, and deserves careful consideration. It requires providing some clarifications regarding what has been done, and especially how to better articulate future analyses.

Regarding the assessment (bilan), it was indeed done, with the dedicated developments forming the subject of point I, “Context and analysis framework”. This point provides an inventory of Cameroon’s macroeconomic situation, based on data from the National Institute of Statistics, particularly National Accounts, the BEAC, the IMF, the World Bank, and notably the CEMAC Economic Barometer 2024, published by the latter. Thus, after recalling that “in 2025, the Cameroonian economy maintains a trajectory of moderate growth, … with a real gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate estimated at +3.9% compared to +3.5% in 2024,” the document also emphasizes, as an extension of this observation regarding the pace of growth, “the structural weakness of this economy which can be better appreciated by referring to the sectoral contributions to growth”.

This weakness is characterized by the low contribution of the primary and secondary sectors; regarding the latter, the analysis adopts the view of the INS which speaks of “a secondary sector losing momentum,” and this, to the benefit of the tertiary sector which the authors qualify as the “tertiary sector of the poor,” because it is dominated by import-export activities and the informal sector. This explains, according to the document, “that the external deficit widens year after year, consolidating its structural nature, which makes it an economy that creates little added value”. The authors logically conclude that “the observed growth rate, as well as the sectoral contribution to growth, are moreover significant of a regression of this economy, compared to the evolution observed during the 1970s and 1980s decades, where it experienced countercyclical growth compared to a global economy then affected by the negative effects of the two oil shocks”.

The document relates the current growth rate to what it was in the years 1975-1985 where, the analysis notes, “the average real growth rate was 7.5%, rising in certain years to 8.5% as in 1977, and 10.1% in 1979”^[7] The document concludes that “our current growth rate is illustrative of what economists call ‘impoverishing growth,’ in that growth does not translate into a significant improvement in the living conditions of economic agents”. After recalling the structural developments of that period, characterized by strong growth in the share of GFCF (Gross Fixed Capital Formation) in GDP, the document concludes that the evolution observed in recent years “is in fact indicative of the deterioration of the industrial fabric established in the 1975-1985 period”.

Regarding public finances and debt, for example, the authors make this observation: “Public finances remain under tension. The State budget is raised to 7317.7 billion FCFA in 2025, but total expenditures (5563.6 billion) continue to exceed revenues (5548.1 billion), leading to a deficit of -113.3 billion (2025 amending finance law). The expenditure structure remains rigid with a predominant share allocated to current expenses, namely, salaries (1586.6 billion), goods and services (1028 billion), and debt service (378.2 billion), to the detriment of public investment”.

Regarding debt, the analysis notes that: “direct public debt amounts to 13,115 billion FCFA, or 40% of GDP, an increase of 1055 billion over one year. Debt service, which absorbs an increasing share of public resources, amounted to 631.3 billion FCFA in June 2025. External debts accounted for 76.4% of this. According to CEMAC convergence criteria, Cameroon is below the authorized ceiling and thus formally meets this condition”. But the document, rightly, continues by noting that “for a relevant analysis, it is necessary to go beyond this simple observation. Indeed, the convergence criterion focuses on the debt stock, without taking into account essential elements such as the structure of claims, their maturity schedule, the loan conditions (interest rates, tied or untied nature), or the quality of the use of borrowed funds. When these parameters are integrated, the debt ratio of 40% places the Cameroonian economy facing significant vulnerabilities. These tensions manifest themselves notably through the increase in payment arrears (RAP) of more than three months, which rose by 145 billion FCFA, a sign of persistent cash flow difficulties (MINPAT, 2025)”. In other words, the study complements the stock analysis with a flow analysis.

The reminder of the findings made by the analysis, while doing justice to the fact that the authors of the evaluation did indeed sketch a historical assessment of past policies—the importance of which readers’ critical observations rightly emphasize—does not, however, invalidate the relevance of these critical observations, insofar as the consequences were not sufficiently drawn from them for the overall scoring. It must indeed be admitted, concerning the scoring, particularly the overall score assigned to the different programs, that this score does not sufficiently draw the implications of the analysis findings, as recalled above.

In this type of exercise, indeed, one of the characteristics of the analyses is that the program of the incumbent government benefits from what economists call the “incumbent’s premium”. This is due to entirely objective reasons. One of these reasons is that the outgoing government benefits from a capital of expertise whose cost everyone, including its competitors, bears through taxes. Due to this fact, and because among the criteria included in the overall scoring, consideration is given, among other things, to the program’s coherence, the costing of commitments and promises, feasibility in the budgetary context, and experience, a bias inevitably occurs in favor of the incumbent candidate. This is the famous “incumbent’s premium” to which numerous studies have been dedicated^[8]. This is further reinforced, particularly in African countries, and consequently in Cameroon, by the fact that the incumbent benefits, sometimes despite themselves, from international expertise, notably from the IMF, the World Bank, and donors, who may even impose it through their system of conditionalities.

This bias, of which one must be aware, must nevertheless be compensated for by a better consideration of the historical record, which must therefore be accounted for as a liability, as well as an asset, of the incumbent. Thus, the fact that contenders for power, especially those who have never exercised it, are objectively disadvantaged because their promises, and therefore their programs, are primarily and essentially rhetorical, having not yet had the opportunity to be subjected to the test of facts, and thus having no record that can be placed to their credit or liability, implies that, conversely, the incumbent must be confronted with their record, both its positive and negative aspects. In other words, what constitutes the weakness of some constitutes the strength of others, and vice versa.

In the analysis proposed by the document, objectivity leads to the recognition that this compensation exercise deserves to be deepened and better taken into account, and the coordinator of the work, which I am, assumes full responsibility for this analytical limit, while pleading the mitigating circumstance of the short time frame, lamented by all parties.

It is indeed the coordinator’s responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of this exercise, which he must, moreover, carry out himself, by ensuring that the assessment is properly taken into account when determining the overall score.

It is important, however, to note, conversely, and to the credit of this study, that in this evaluation, the sectoral analysis already largely corrects the perverse effect of the incumbent’s premium bias, as it shows that many programs of competitors other than the incumbent have scores equal to or better than those of the latter, in important thematic areas such as economic governance, environmental concerns, economic diversification issues, and the structural transformation of the productive system.

The document was also criticized for having used the SND 30 as a proxy for the ruling party. To this objection, we respond that the SND 30 is a good proxy, insofar as it is assumed by the incumbent as their programmatic initiative, which brings us back to the question of the assessment and its consideration to relativize the incumbent’s overall score, especially since, as the document notes, and by way of illustration, the incumbent’s score on the financial sector reflects “identified limits, particularly regarding budgetary feasibility and institutional capacity,” a thematic area on which certain competitors perform significantly better.

III. Conclusion

The authors, through my voice and by virtue of my position as coordinator of the study, would like to express their gratitude to all those who took the time, not only to read the document, but also to share their appraisals and critical observations. They are very pleased that their comments have opened such a rich debate, which they hope will not be closed, but will continue. They commit to ensuring the continuity of this work by extending it to other disciplines, the integration of specialists into the initial team of which can only enrich and deepen the reflection.

They regret, however, that the timeframe for carrying out this evaluation did not allow the reflection thus initiated to be made available to the competitors, to help them become aware of both the analytical richness found in their programs, and the limits on which they could have deepened the substance and consistency of their political offers.

Turning to the Institution, the authors express their debt to the GPE and its Director—and beyond that, to the academic authority of the University of Yaoundé II—for taking the initiative and encouraging the realization of this study, while allowing the authors to work in complete independence. It is in exchange for this independence that the authors, through my voice, also assume full responsibility for the limitations noted, which are, therefore, entirely attributable to us.

Pr Bekolo-Ebé Bruno
Agrégé of the Faculties of Economic and Management Sciences
Honorary Rector of the Universities of Yaoundé II and Douala
President of the Cameroonian Society of Agrégés

About the Editorial Team and Contributors

• Administrative Supervision: Pr Viviane Ondoua Biwolé, Full Professor of Management Science, Director of the GPE
• Scientific Coordination: Pr Bekolo-Ebé Bruno, Honorary Rector, Full Professor of Economic Sciences, President of the Cameroonian Society of Agrégés
• Team: 4 Full Agrégé Professors in Economic Sciences, 3 Agrégé Senior Lecturers in economics, 5 PhD students in economics

→ Read the full document