|
3 March 2010 By Salim Salihu
Muhammed
Several ten-year plans did
not take up the full period of time assigned to them
(Almost, if not all failed and were abandoned).
Although, it could be seen that Nigeria’s economic
plans didn’t actually fail, the nation had only
succeeded in finding a million ways that didn’t work.
In USSR, the initial five-year plans were created to
serve in the rapid industrialization of the
Soviet Union,
and thus placed a major focus on heavy industry. The
plans were developed by the Gosplan based on the
Theory of Productive Forces
that was part of the general guidelines of the
Communist Party for
economic development. Fulfilling the plan became the
watchword of Soviet bureaucracy. The same method of
planning was also adopted by most other
communist states,
including the People's Republic of China, whose
products had flooded the Nigerian market today. In
addition, several capitalist states have emulated the
concept of central planning, though in the context of
a market economy, by setting integrated economic goals
for a finite period of time.
Nigerian plans included
economic forecasts, policies toward the private
sector, and a list of proposed
public expenditures.
Plans did not constitute commitments by public
departments to spend funds. Although Nigerian
political leaders made decisions about general
objectives and priorities for the first plan, foreign
economists were the main authors of the actual
document. Its authors favoured decentralized decision
making by private units, disregard of major
discrepancies between financial and social
profitability, and high economic payoffs from directly
productive investments (as opposed to indirect returns
from social overheads). They discouraged increased
taxes on the wealthy (out of a fear of dampening
private incentive), and advocated a conservative
monetary and fiscal policy
emphasizing a relatively small plan, openness to
foreign trade and investment, and reliance on overseas
assistance. Foreign aid was set at one-half of
public sector investment.
The
global economic crisis
had its impact on indices that contribute to growth
and development, notably employment and production.
Although Nigeria is set to consider or carry out the
blueprint for the implementation of the vision 20:2020
economic plans, effective 2010, its sufficiency and
success would be determined in its ability to cut job
loss and reduce unemployment
rate as well as increase the country’s
production of consumable and export produce. However,
the antecedents of previous plans, notably the first
national development plan
which the colonial government undertook no serious
comprehensive planning,
could mean another expected failure of our economic
plan towards the vision 20:2020, a shadow
implementation, or lack of it. These earlier plans
experienced incomplete
feasibility studies and inadequate evaluation
of projects, accompanied by meagre public
participation, followed by excessive political
intervention in economic decisions. Moreover,
insufficient attention was paid to the small
indigenous sector, and the machinery for implementing
developments in the public sector was unsatisfactory.
In spite of the
global financial crisis,
the Nigeria’s financial sector witnessed a near
reliability in operation until the CBN’s
reconsolidation drive that unveiled the dearth of good
banking ethics and unjustified capital structure in
the banking industry; this could result to an adverse
effect for an industry that should aid government in
executing its economic plans. Some banks in the sector
had since commenced with a mass sweep of its work
force in a bit to remain in business; this would
colossally drive up the unemployment rate, a critical
issue in determining the success of an economic plan.
The country and the sector need and must identify new
sources of growth to replace the jobs lost.
Unemployment is a measurement tool against growth,
thus, a plausible consideration for a rapid production
would boost growth and eventually cut down the effects
of unemployment on development.
As noticed on past economic
plans, blueprints, strategies, (whatever names they
were called) their failures had not been in the
process of implementation, but rather in the failure
to identify the key indices of implementation as well
as non compliance to underlying economic ideas or
principles. There would be need for policies to
improve education, align worker skills with employer
demands and the promotion of green jobs or
technological skills. In line with the Vision 20:2020
guidelines for the next ten years, the blueprint
should focus on the importance of greener and socially
inclusive growth. However, care must be strengthened
on the failures of past economic plans which were
implemented in the interest of the “masters”. The
first development plan of 1946 clearly shows the
arrays of focus of the budgeted/planned N110 million
for a period of ten years; instead of giving attention
to industrial development as did by the soviet union,
priority was given to transportation and communication
which aided the movement of our cash crops to furnish
the industries in Europe.
Most African nations,
including Nigeria, have been rated as “third world”
seemingly for the perpetual "state of crisis," usually
portrayed in terms of the continent's failure to keep
pace economically with other parts of the so-called
developing world. In Nigeria, the objectives of the
rolling plan were to reduce inflation and exchange
rate instability, maintain infrastructure, achieve
agricultural self-sufficiency, and reduce the burden
of structural adjustment on the most vulnerable social
groups. In a scenario where the key indices to growth
and development are not taken into serious
consideration for decades, one is left in awe as to
whether Nigeria is fast becoming a "Fourth World"
nation, lacking even the ability to feed her own
populations and, rather than gaining ground, rapidly
falling behind other Third
World regions. Thus, it is imperative for
Nigeria to engage in critical project management that
could play a significant role in the planning,
execution, monitoring, and control of the many
projects that have been identified during the
articulation stages as paramount in attaining lofty
goals of the Vision 20:2020. And in doing that, the
nation must bear in mind the need to create jobs,
improve infrastructure (including power and
alternative sources of power), and, provision of tax
holidays to boost production and encourage
industrialization.
Perhaps, Nigeria must be
cautious of past “Economic Errors” of successful
administrations in formulating economic plans,
strategies or policies; one of such errors is the
manipulation of, and exercising huge influence over
interest/bank rates, manipulating bills rate and the
control over the supply of credits. But the
government, through its regulatory institutions, is
not the author of interest rates. Interest is an
inherent feature of the
capitalist economy. It represents the premium
people place on consuming the same goods sooner rather
than later, with present goods always commanding a
higher price than the same goods later. Borrowers pay
interest; savers earn interest: the market rate of
interest reflects people's preferences. What the
government does do is distort rates. By artificially
lowering rates, the government fools investors into
thinking that investment today will pay off in future
consumption (drawn out of savings). When that moment
doesn't arrive, the government either has to keep the
game going (thereby causing prices to rise) or curb
the flow of credit by increasing rates (thereby
bringing about an economic
downturn). The government tries to keep the
system "liquid" for its member banks, but in doing so,
it further distorts the rest of the economy. In either
case, the interest rate is not set by the government
but only maladjusted by the government.
In Nigeria today, as it
were in most South-East Asian countries, the most
significant obstacles to business activity and
expansion emanate from poor governance. Businesses
often face burdensome licensing and opaque
registration requirements, volatile law-and-order
conditions, endemic rent-seeking behaviour and
corruption, and insecurity in the enforcement of
contracts. Within this environment, small businesses
which have more limited access to capital and
political connections tend to carry a
disproportionately heavy burden. However, it is
expected that the Vision 20:2020 economic blueprint
must focus attention in facilitating a level playing
field that allows small businesses to prosper towards
generating employment, increasing opportunities for
women and the poor, and ensuring globally competitive
exports and supply chains. A projected Economic Plan
aimed at bettering the economic life of a nation
should provide a strategy to support investment and
enterprise in three primary components: analysis,
advocacy, and public-private dialogue. In
Indonesia,
the Philippines,
Vietnam,
Cambodia
and
Sri Lanka,
the Economic Governance Index (EGI) serves to identify
those aspects of governance that determine the
investment and enterprise competitiveness of
localities. Moreover, the results of the EGI feed into
collaborative processes among government, business,
and civil society, to reform regulations that
constrain investment and the growth of private
enterprise.
Although the
Vision 2020 blueprint
could be seen as yet another economic “panorama”, but
rather, it should be viewed as a test of our
economists’ ability to save the nation from its
economic crisis. Many analysts see that the Malaysian
government has made it past the 1997 Economic crisis.
The crisis caused the degradation of the Malaysian
currency (Regent) by half of its value. Yet, against
all expectations and in less than two years the
Malaysian economy broke out of the crisis and was put
once more on a road to achieving booming high growth
rate in comparison with the other tigers that were
stricken by the same crisis. The Secret of Success:
Fixation of the Currency and Regulating Foreign
Capital;
Nigeria’s Vision 20:2020
Economic Blueprint, no doubts, stands the test of time
as one of the best policy ever written for a nation
faced with economic downturn.
However, a plausible implementation of a lucid
strategy of this kind will require the considerations
of some form of restrictions that would be better
viewed as “External Aggressions”. This restriction
policy had paid well for many countries striving to
survive their various economic blows. The Malaysian
government has held on to these policies up to date
for two reasons. First, the policies were successful
in achieving the targeted goals, especially stopping
the degradation of the currency. Moreover, the
taxation policies increased the local demand which led
to the increase in consumption and eventually the rise
of spending and investments. Second, the policies
prevented any new attempts to bid on and broker with
the local currency that will degrade its value.
Whatever the method of
economic reform or plans adopted, rapid growth in a
globalized environment requires a well-functioning
infrastructure including especially electric power,
road and rail connectivity, telecommunications, air
transport, and efficient ports. These had been
experienced in the rapid development of Malaysia where
the provision of infrastructure paved way for local
entrepreneurs to contribute to nation building through
the provision of jobs, local subsidy to wealth lost on
foreign goods, rapid industrialization and improved
exports. One cannot overemphasize the role of local
entrepreneurs in economic development. A society that
begins its development with a sizable group of local
entrepreneurs is way ahead of the game. Malaysia,
Indonesia, and
India’s
strategies should serve as a reference point to our
economists on the need to look inwards towards
considering indices that would set Nigeria on the pace
to becoming one of the top economies in the future.
Salim Salihu Muhammed
salimmed16@yahoo.com |