Last week, we discussed how the absence of effective planning is at the heart of our poverty. Well, it’s just one of the causes of our low level of living. We cannot plan for people whose numbers we do not know, and those without proper identity and addresses. So, we can add the absence of a national database or reliable statistics. It is really hard to concentrate on the challenge of poverty reduction without reference to what we have long identified as poverty generators in Nigeria. And they are quite a handful – corruption, leadership failure, lack of commitment to the nation, poor managerial capacity in high places, weak institutions and planning without facts and data.
Each of these problems can wrestle any nation down. So, we have a nation in total disrepair and now manifesting incapacity to play good host even to its own citizens, as evidenced by rampant insecurity. The war against poverty can never be won until we accept the fact that we have collectively failed; identify our errors and honestly accept them, and then start anew.
Nigeria has been grappling with the problem of poverty for many years. However, there seems to be no significant progress, as it has grown from the affliction of some to the plague of all Nigerians. Truly, we have been living in denial, when it comes to the question of poverty. If we take account of the fact that most Nigerians provide their own light, water security and even roads, in some cases, then we can see clearly that there are very few rich people here.
It is actually hard to feel rich when more than half of your countrymen are abjectly poor. Government is busy doing all kinds of good-intentioned things to support the hurting families but one thing is missing – the result is not showing.
Development has changed from a concept of economic growth, measured in terms of expanding per capita income, to something more complex but more robust. Development is now more concerned with factors affecting the overall development of the human person, than quantitative growth rates.
I have said elsewhere in this column that Nigeria has long since the early 80s, stopped effective economic planning. Otherwise how does one explain the fact that most of the infrastructure we enjoy today were built in the 80s when resources were much smaller. Very few serious social overhead capital items have been created during the past several years, despite the rising value of our annual budgets.
The total investment envisaged under the Fourth Plan (1981-85), was only N82 billion, but we all know the roads and bridges that were built then. Of course, this has always been a public sector driven economy (one of the many ills that everyone knows but nobody wants to confront). Of that proposed investment, the public sector was to account for N70.5 billion, while the private sector’s share was put at N11.5 billion. The planned investment was expected to generate an annual GDP growth of 7.2 percent.
With regard to growth of the key sectors, the manufacturing sector had a projected average growth rate of 15 percent over the plan period, with significant positive impact on the living standards of the citizens, at the end of the plan period. Out of all the four development plans that were launched after independence, the Fourth Plan was the most ambitious, with regard to size of investment.
The Fourth Plan had many challenges and unique features. It was the first to be drawn under the presidential democratic system of government first headed by Shehu Shagari. It came at a time when the debts acquired by the military had begun to materialise and so was bugged down by debt service costs. As a result, Nigeria recorded dismal growth figures in many sectors of the economy. This sadly marked the beginning of the disregard for proper economic planning in Nigeria. Although the Fourth Plan was said to be the least successful of all the plans, it was not a major failure when viewed against what we now have in the so-called Economic Recovery and Growth Plans (ERGPs), being half-heartedly implemented.
Under the Fourth Plan Nigeria achieved the following results: we established and commissioned the Oku Iboku newsprint paper project, Egbin power station and Akure Airport. NITEL set up 87 telephone exchanges all over the country. The subscriber base, was nothing to write home about, increased from 188,000 in 1981 to 297,000 in 1985.
Some achievements were also posted on the educational front as enrolment at all levels increased. It was at this time that Nigeria witnessed the most extensive infrastructure development with the construction of thousands of kilometres of roads. The Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) was implemented in 17 out of the then 19 states in the federation. All these were done with Shagari’s N82 billion investment. We can compare those modest achievements with what happens today with trillions of naira being spent and judge. The Babangida regime introduced the structural Adjustment Programme, thereafter the downward spiral began, and we introduced the ERGPs. How many people in Nigeria’s planning community can tell you the result of the past and current ERGPs – there is no scorecard and no reprimand for failure.
Malaysia, to which we often make reference, introduced its Vision 2020 in 1991, during the launch of the 6th Malaysian Plan. She achieved an average growth rate of 6.7 percent between 1981 – 84, when Nigeria was recording negative growth rates. The success was achieved largely through expansionary counter-cyclical public expenditure.
Nigeria makes big budgets, which are spent on the maintenance of unproductive public officials but can we spend our way out of the current stagnant economic condition? For Malaysia, this expenditure approach resulted in imbalances in the external sector warranting borrowings to fund the investment gap. But we borrow to bail out corrupt state governments and cannot hold them to account.
Why are we where we are today in Nigeria? Many states, though bankrupted by poor governance, are richer than many countries in Africa, yet they cannot boast of a single good hospital. Our policies are wrong-headed because we cannot stand the rigour of good planning.
At times like these, monetary policy should be used to promote growth and provide liquidity. Exchange rate is supposed to be managed in the most transparent manner to defend the currency. The simplest policy actions that can trigger growth – resolution of the age-old power problem, payment of a living wage in robust industries, an industrial policy that links big industries and the SME sector and return to rule of law – are so big for us to implement.
The past week was agog with celebration of the new economic advisory team. It’s good to have good headed advisers but the team is as effective as the premium the boss puts on advisements. For me the planning ministry should be restored and populated with the best economists and development specialists available.
No economic advisory team is good enough to replace a properly equipped planning ministry. The thing about advice is that it is advisory. Nobody responds to advise; that way also nobody knows when it is accepted or rejected.
I am for an institutionalised master class planning department. A good economic advisory team will then be an added advantage.
EMEKA OSUJI
