|
Nigerian Economic Development Strategy: The Reality By Onwa Nwafor-Orizu
Due to the great changes the world is undergoing through globalization, one cannot deny the fact that the gap between the rich and poor is widening. If policies and strategies are not manipulated away from their current trend, the rich would become richer and the poor would become poorer. The primary solution that comes to mind is the alleviation of poverty. By performing the latter task, it is believed that existing gap will shrink. However, before deciding on a possible ‘battle line’ for poverty eradication, the most important thing is the strategy to employ within the peculiarities of the region involved. The difficult task starts here, how can one formulate poverty eradication policy without holistic analysis of the concept of poverty- its meaning and the failure in proper measurement of case of poverty in the area in question?
This piece is not geared towards an indebt analysis of the concept of poverty but more or less a fair assessment of the relationship between poverty and economic development, the policy strategy engagement visa vie the realities as it affects the people of Nigeria. As a matter of fact reduction of poverty is the central goal of development. To this extent need be to view some scholarly understanding of the meaning of poverty as the basic underlining factor of development. When thinking of poverty, it encompasses and touches the whole human being – education, health, shelter and employment. As Hennie Swanepoel (2000,74) argues that ‘poverty cannot be regarded as lack of money only, but manifests itself in many things such as malnutrition, morbidity, illiteracy, hunger, disease, poor health, ignorance, poor agricultural production methods, isolation and many others’. Many other notable writers like Cohen, Uphoff, Henault, and El Sherbini have shared in this view that development is not only measured in good roads and railways but total life transformation. This confirms the dictum of one of the foremost Nigerian nationalist Nwafor-Orizu, ‘to educate the mind is to liberate it’.
In the post world war 11 eras, it was often assumed that since the advanced countries were already developed, their principal problem was that of economic growth. The mainstreams of economic growth were then considered to suffice for the nations already developed. Arndit (1987, 2) argue that ‘…. In western post war thinking and writing, economic development was interpreted as virtually synonymous with economic growth’. To substantiate on this argument, Doffman (1991, 573) added that ‘distinguishing between the two concepts does not seem worth while’ and Kuznets (1973, 212-13) concur this argument in his endorsement of the conception of development – as such he characterized modern economic growth as ‘thorough transformation of a country’s economic and social framework’. While Gunner Myrdal (1974, 729) gave a more summarized definition of development as ‘the movement upward of the entire social system’.
However, many have applauded the present administrations ‘giant stride’ in revamping our dilapidated economy. There are justifications in that but my worries lie in the scripted policy options of World Bank and IMF which dividend is hoped for the long run. This hope is quit uncertain considering the present socio-economic cum political circumstances in the country. Therefore, the problem of underdevelopment is in substantial measure one of government failure, and as such political failure in Nigeria. A vast literature and comments on the country’s political economy illuminated the role of interest groups (national and international), institutions (national and international) and political market imperfections in shaping the actions of government. Of great importance here is the adoption of policies that unnecessarily leave greater number of the population in Nigeria worse off and second is incredibility of the people in governance which affects adversely on the deliverance of their electoral promises to the people.
It is not economically viable for a country like ours that lack the basic functional infrastructure like poor transportation network, poor electricity, and low level of education, no viable, comprehensive and encompassing labour law, and most importantly insecurity of lives and properties to hurriedly embark on the Washington style economic policy thereby exposing the country to vulnerabilities of market competitions. This trend practically deepens the poverty level, enriching the rich and impoverishing the poor. It is convincing therefore that the cost of attracting foreign investors will not only be so high but the burden will be vested on the common Nigerians and as such will defeat the very purpose of the economic strategy. Secondly, marketising and privatizing basic government controlled social amenity base at almost debased form, which were politically engineered negates the essence of the reform. The point being stressed here is that when an important social amenity based institution like NEPA for instance is sold to a so called private foreign investor company that is practically owned by a politician in the country - that has no pedigree in business in the name of privatization, makes mockery of the policy and how then will this alleviate the poverty in the country or boost the economy? For any developing country like Nigeria to enjoy the merits of open market competitions in the current globalization trend, there must be an efficient basic infrastructure and enabling environment created and sustained by government. This will not only protect the indigenous companies but will enhance the bargaining power of Nigerian workers. There is no foreign investor that will embark on a meaningful investment in a country vulnerable to violence and insecurity.
The argument of subsides have raised series of debate from economists, political analysts and labour leaders within the context of Nigerian economic policy options. Government officials have eloquently defended the reasons for the removal of subsidy – for instance in pump price, but this move can only be wonderful in a situation where by over 80% of Nigerian labour forces are gainfully employed. The employment question is not sole responsibility of government but there must be a general applicable labour law that will protect workers in the hands of private organizations and employers. The basic essence of government any where in the world is to protect its citizens in all facets of life like parents protect their children. More so, the opportunities for individual development through the support from bank loans facilities are far fetched. The difficulties inherent in these systems made it more or less non existent.
The political history and practice in Nigeria militates against the laudable economic policy of this administration. Politics in Nigeria has turned the most lucrative business ever and as such builds the most incredible set of politicians that are so desperate to cling to power. The trend in the politics of Nigeria is becoming so bad that I really wonder the legacy our political elites are going to leave behind in a world fast moving in refined liberal democracy. The level of primitive accumulation and looting as exposed by EFCC is quit alarming that one can easily agree to the fact that there is no economic policy geared towards the alleviation of poverty that will sustain. How can anybody imagine a situation where a states monthly allocation is mortgaged and legitimized for the maintenance of god fathers that rigged elections? How can this ugly trend compliment the economic policy? Worse still the physic of many Nigerians are made in such a way that who ever raises or criticises these issues is seen as stupid and ‘anti the movement’. Furthermore, the desperation in clinging and perpetuation in power encourages the manipulation and fragrant violation of laws of the land. Obvious cases of intimidations and violation of human rights pervades the system. However, the case of economic reform in Nigeria is like a woman that adopted a child in a bid to experiencing motherhood. Onwa Nwafor-Orizu
|