CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENTAL PLAN UNDERTAKEN BY NIGERIA GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION
The ultimate aim of governments worldwide is to achieve sustainable improvement in the quality of life of its citizenry. Therefore, nation states no matter their size or developmental status strive to achieve some level of good governance. However, achieving the goals of governance requires that deliberate plan of action be set out to guide Government throughout the process. This plan will detail the vision, focus and steps to be followed such as the overall vision of the government, what is expected to be achieved at the end of the plan period, the direction of public and private investments, the pace and focus of infrastructural and non-infrastructural development etc. While the plan is purely a guide and amenable to review (or re-direction) as dictated by the operating environment, its absence can however spell doom for the country. Development planning therefore becomes a necessary tool used by many governments and organizations to set their visions, missions, goals, and effective means of realizing development through effective direction and control. For more than two decade, most African countries have been plunged into an economic crisis which has seriously affected the well-being of large sections of their populations, weakened nation states and increased social and political tensions. The continued suffering emanating from the economic crisis has resulted in ‘reactive’ policy initiatives aimed at ameliorating the multi-faceted negative impacts of the crisis. As a result, most African countries are presently undergoing managed adjustment processes with profound implications for all sectors of the economy. The crisis has also resulted in far-reaching dependence upon and interference from external forces, notably multilateral and bilateral donors, as these nations attempt to set out their plans for sustainable development.With particular reference to the Nigeria State, in-spite of her vast and enormous natural and human resources endowment base, given her present development status, she is presently rated along with countries that can be referred to as failed states, that is, countries still at war or just coming out of war. This therefore raises questions as to the efficacy of the various development plans that has pervaded her developmental landscape. Nigeria like most countries of the world has never lacked (economic) development plans/visions. Her development planning experience predates her independence in the 1960. However, in-spite of these various plans – whether short term, medium term or long term (or perspective plan) - her underdevelopment status leaves more questions than answers.
Development
In its
simplest form development means improvement or to becomemore advanced, more
mature, more complete, more organized, more transformed etc. Todaro (1982) sees
development as a “multi-dimensional process involving the reorganization and
reorientation of the entire economic and social system”. This involves in
addition to improvement of income and output, radical changes in institutional,
social and administrative structures as well as in popular attitudes, customs
and belief. Todaro’s definition gives the meaning, which the concept of
development assumes whenever it is discussed in relation to countries.
Development at this level of conceptualisation is often understood in terms of
economic development but, the new focus is now beyond income or innate factors
such as GNP or GDP to human focus in terms of quality of life. Ibezim (1999)
further explains that,economic development does not
only involve physical and financial progress but also improvements in the
political and social aspects of society.
Development,
both as a theoretical construct and a strategy for practice is largely a
product of the last 65 years. Despite the argument of some writers, such as
Cowen and Shenton (1996), that its origins lie in the century prior to 1945,
the shaping of development theory and practice, and its institutionalization,
has been a recent phenomenon (Rist, 1997; McMichael, 1996). Yet, although it
emerged from the aftermath of the last great global conflict (Second World
War), development has been pursued against the backdrop of a long catalogue of
more or less continuous political and social conflicts throughout the world
(Overton, 2000). Development was, and is, seen as a national, systemic and
planned programme of intervention and improvement. The concept of development
cuts across many levels. It refers to macro issues (such as patterns of a
nation’s growth), as much as it refers to meso problems or micro problems (such
as local community development) (Moti, 2010). Development should be understood
as a process, not a product (Barbanti, 2004). Societies are always changing.
Some improve, while others fail. Development theory therefore aims at
explaining both processes.In all one can conclude that development in a nut shell is Government’s
ability to improve the welfare of the citizenry by moving them from a state of
less desirability to a state of higher desirability through deliberate,
conscious and strategically focused designed and implementable programmes, and
projects (Ibezim, 1999). Development cannot take
place haphazardly. It must be planned.
Development
Planning in Nigeria
Marcellus (2009) posits that the
conceptualization of development as given by Ibezim (1999) above has some
serious implications for a holistic approach to development planning in
developing countries. To him, Ibezim’s submission promotes the idea and
practice of equating development planning with economic planning as the economy
is usually regarded as the bedrock for a nation’s development. Understood this
way, Jhingan (2005: 489) says development planning implies:“deliberate control and direction of the economy by a
central authority for the purpose of achieving definite targets and objectives
within a specified period of time”.But emphasis on purely economic factors in
development planning has not been successful in achieving development in the
economic sector talk less of the overall national development in developing
countries. In such countries, Jhingan (2005) notes that the essence of planning
is to increase the rate of economic development by increasing the rate of
capital formation through raising the levels of income, saving and investment.
Against the foregoing, one can conclude that, Development planning
comprehensively involves predetermining a nation’s visions, missions, policies
and programmes in all facets of life such as social, human, political,
environmental, technological factors etc. and the means of achieving them. Economic
visions and programmes cannot be realized without looking at developmental
issues holistically, which entails improvement in all human endeavours.
Development planning presupposes a formally predetermined rather than a
sporadic action towards achieving specific developmental results. More
importantly, it entails direction and control towards achieving plan targets.
As mentioned earlier, Nigeria has never
lacked development plans and her development planning experience predates her
independence. This section gives a detailed account of Nigeria’s development
planning experience. Marcellus (2009) submitted that Nigeria’s planning
experience can be divided into four broad eras viz: Colonial Era, the Era of Fixed- Term planning
(1962-85), the Era of Rolling Plans (1990-1998), and the New Democratic
Dispensation (1999 till date). Marcellus further posited that there exists between
these periods some years dominated by sporadic
governmental actions and ad hoc planning in which the country did not
actually produce a plan document that could be categorized into the four
periods mentioned. These periods represent times of major socio political
upheaval and economic crisis that necessitated transitory and sporadic actions
from the incumbent administrations.
The
Colonial Era
The history of conscious planning
for development in Nigeria can be traced to the colonial days. To be specific,
it has its origin in 1946 when the colonial government introduced what it
tagged “Ten Year Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigeria”. This was under
the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. Under this historic Development
Plan, a total planned expenditure of an equivalent of N110 million for a
period of ten years was earmarked for the period starting from April 1, 1946 to
March 31, 1956 (Ogunjimi, 1997). Analyzing the focus of the ten-year
Development Plan, Ayo (1998) observes that the plan focused on building a
transport and communication system, while little provision was made for
industrial development. He notes further that this first development plan was
also selective in its focus on agriculture, as attention was concentrated on a
limited range of cash crops, which include cocoa, palm products, cotton,
groundnut and timber. An important conclusion which one can draw from the
analysis given by Ayo is that the Colonial Development Plan for Nigeria was
meant to serve the interest of the colonial masters rather than that of the
colony.
This foreign-centered development
plan, however, did not run its full term because, by 1950, the
inappropriateness of charting development over a period as long as ten years in
a country experiencing rapid structural changes had become evident.
Consequently, a decision was taken to break the plan period into two five-year
sub-periods and to formulate a new plan for the sub-period 1950-1956. However,
the introduction of a federal system of government affected this revision as
each of the regional governments became autonomous and adopted different
economic policies. Whatever their weaknesses, this era constitute the beginning
of the practice of development planning in Nigeria (Okojie, 2000).
The Era of Fixed Medium-Term Plans
Within this
period, four plans were launched, namely, First National Development Plan
(1962-1968), The Second National Development Plan (1970-1974), the Third
National Development Plan (1975-1980) and the Fourth National Development Plan
(1981-1985). They were comprehensive because such plans were
conceived and formulated within the framework of improved system of national
accounts. Besides, they covered the operations of both the public and
private sectors of the economy; and, more importantly, they had their projects
related to a number of well-articulated overall economic targets. Each of these
development plans had its own focus and well-articulated objectives which had
far-reaching effects on the nation’s developmental aspirations.
The First National Development Plan was launched in April 1962 and was to cover a period of six years (1962-68). Under this plan, a total investment expenditure of about
General Yakubu Gowon launched the Second National Development Plan in
1970 on behalf of the Federal Government and the government of the then twelve
states of the federation. It was launched shortly after the end of the war.
Because it was a post-war development plan, its focus was on the reconstruction
of a war-battered economy and the promotion of economic and social development
in the new Nigeria. What this means, according to Olaniyi (1998), is that the
philosophy of the plan was consequently influenced by the exigencies of the
war, which include the building of a united, strong and self-reliant nation; a
great and dynamic economy; a just egalitarian society; a land of bright and
full opportunities for all citizens; and a free and democratic society.
Like the First National Development Plan, the Second National Development Plan also recorded a number of major projects, which were successfully executed by both the federal and state governments. Such projects included the successful construction of many federal roads; the successful take-off of the National Youth Service Corps Scheme; the introduction of federal scholarship and loan schemes for Nigerian students, etc.
General Gowon also launched the Third National Development Plan on behalf of all governments in the country. The plan covered a five-year period from April 1975 to March 1980. Ayinla (1998) describes this plan as a watershed in the evolution of economic planning in Nigeria. It was a unique development plan because, apart from its huge initial investment of about
The cardinal objectives of this plan were also part of its uniqueness. Such objectives included increase in per capital income during the plan period; more even distribution of income; reduction in the level of unemployment; diversification of the economy; balanced development; and indigenization of economic activities. As laudable as the objectives of this development plan were, the implementation was adversely affected by the change of government in July 1975, barely three months after the plan was launched. In particular, the change of government led to a reappraisal of some of the cardinal objectives as contained in the plan. Here, more emphasis was placed on those projects which were thought to have direct effects on the living standard of the common man. Sectors that were thus given priority included agriculture, water supply, housing and health (Olaniyi, 1998).
The Fourth National Development Plan, (1981-85) was launched by President ShehuShagari in 1981 on behalf of the Federal Government and the governments of the then nineteen states of the federal. This was the first plan to be formulated by a democratically elected government under a new constitution based on the presidential system of government. As observed by Ogunjimi (1997), the plan was intended to further the process of establishing a solid base for the long-term economic and social development of Nigeria. Unlike the previous development plans, the fourth plan was the first in which the local governments were made to participate at two levels. One, they participated at the level of preparation, and two, they were allowed to have their own separate programmes under the plan. The capital investment target was
The Fourth Development Plan was again affected by the change of government in 1983 and by yet another change in 1985. These two changes seriously disrupted the implementation of the programmes of the plan and, consequently, the performance of the economy during the fourth plan period was generally poor. Whatever the case (success or failure), it is interesting to note that between 1945 and 1986; the concept of development planning was a common planning tool for social, economic and sustainable development in Nigeria.
The Rolling
Plan Era (1990-1998)
By1986, it had become obvious that the National
Development Plans had hit the rocks. The huge deficits of the third and fourth
plans exacerbated the country’s external debts situation, which stood at about
$22 billion. Thus, began the introduction of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which was basically a
‘reform therapy’ from the World Bank and International Monetary fund (IMF). SAP
was only an economic emergency programme expected to last for two years. SAP
underscored a shift from project-based to policy-based planning system, and
emphasized a private-sector-led economy rather than the prevailing public
sector-led philosophy that had inspired previous plans. SAP therefore,
presented an opportunity for revaluating the country’s planning system as the
fixed medium term planning system seems to have failed.
A three tier planning system was to succeed SAP. The
new proposal consisted of:
Ø A 15-20 year Perspective or Long
term Plan;
Ø A three-year Rolling Plan; and
Ø An Annual Budget that will draw from the
Rolling Plan.
The
perspective plan was to identify long term policies upon which the rolling
plans and the annual budgets will derive their medium and short term programmes
respectively. The Babangida administration consequently introduced
a perspective known as rolling plan. Based on this, the government decided on a
20-year perspective plan for the period 1989-2008. According to the philosophy
of this rolling plan, the first phase of the perspective plan would constitute
the Fifth National Development Plan. With this structural change of policy, the
five-year planning model was replaced with a three-year rolling plan to be
operated along with a 12 to 20 year perspective plan and the normal operational
annual budgets. This plan became operational with the 1990 budget and it
provided the foundation for the three-year rolling plan (1990 - 92). In order
to effectively execute this programme, some fundamental reforms were the
merging of budgetary and planning functions with the sole objective of
minimizing conflict between the two (Ogunjimi, 1997; Ayinla, 1998; Ilesanmi,
2000).In the same way that the tradition of five-year development plan was
jettisoned by the Babangida administration, the idea of rolling plan was also
shelved in 1996 by General SaniAbacha for Vision 2010, which was launched on
September 18, 1996. The programme was to herald socio-economic prosperity for
the citizens by systematically improving the quality of life of Nigerians in
fourteen years (Ogunjimi, 1997). The work of Vision 2010, a 250-member
committee of private-sector representatives, government ministries, academics,
journalists, traditional rulers, trade union leaders and foreign businessmen,
among others, inaugurated by General Abacha on November 27, 1996, was similarly
intended to move the country forward. The committee submitted its final report
to General Abacha on September 30, 1997, recommending “large-scale deregulation
of the Nigerian economy” among others. In other words, the medium term plans in
Nigeria was suspended between 1985 and 1999.
The New Democratic Dispensation (1999-2010)
(a) The
Obasanjo Era (1999 – 2007)
Democratic
governance returned to Nigeria in May 1999 with the military handing over to a
democratically elected government. The new administration started development
planning in 1999 on a clean slate with the initiation of a four-year medium
term plan document, the National Economic Direction (1999-2003). The plan had
the primary object of pursuing a strong, virile and broad- based economy with
adequate capacity to absorb externally generated shocks. While being a new plan
document, the objectives and policy direction was not significantly different
from that to which the country has followed since the introduction of SAP.
According to Donli (2004):“The new plan
was aimed at the development of an economy that is highly competitive,
responsive to incentives, private sector-led, diversified, market-oriented and
open, but based on internal momentum for its growth.”However, with the
re-election of the Obasanjo administration in 2003, there was a rethink on the
issue of development planning which gave birth to the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) - 2003-2007. This heralded the return to serious
medium term planning in Nigeria.
NEEDS is
described as Nigeria’s plan for prosperity. It is a four-year medium term plan
for the period 2003 to 2007. Though a federal government plan, the States and
Local Governments were also expected to have their counterpart plans- the State
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS) and the Local Government
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (LEEDS) respectively. It was a
comprehensive plan that sought to include not only all levels of government
towards moving in the same direction, but also, the organised private sector
(OPS), the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the general public in
cooperative activity in pursuit of developmental goals. NEEDS as a plan,
contained all the envisaged policies and programmes of the federal government
for the period 2003-2007 and far beyond and served as the fountain of the much
touted Obasanjo’s reforms. NEEDS was not only a macro- economic plan document,
but also a comprehensive vision, goals and principles of a new Nigeria that
would be made possible through re-enacting core Nigerian values like respect
for the elders, honesty and accountability, cooperation, industry, discipline,
self-confidence and moral courage. The primary goal of making Nigeria a
‘promised land’ would be realized according to NEEDS through four key
strategies of wealth creation,
employment generation, poverty reduction and value reorientation. At the
twilight of the Obasanjo administration in 2007, printed draft of NEEDS-2 which was expected to cover 2008-2011 was released into circulation.However, the NEEDS plan
had only limited successes vis a vis its stated objectives especially as it
related to deregulating the economy, reducing bureaucratic red-tapism in
governance, creating of jobs, alleviating of poverty and providing welfare
programmes and infrastructure such as water, improved health care, electricity
and roads, etc.
Yaradua/Jonathan Administartion (2007 – 2011)
With the handover to a new civilian
administration of President Musa Yar’Adua’s in 2007 – although from the same
party with a cardinal campaign slogan of policy continuity - NEEDS 1 and 2 were
harmonized to give birth to another plan document christened “The Seven Point
Agenda”. This can be referred to as the new Medium Term National Development
Plan for 2008-2011. The policy thrusts of the seven point agenda are:Critical
Infrastructure (Power, Energy and Transport); Land Reform; Human Capital
Development (Health and Education); Law, Order and Security; Food Security and
Agriculture; Wealth Creation and Niger Delta.
With the death of President Musa Yar’Adua in 2011, his Vice Goodluck
Jonathan who took over promised to continue with the policies of his
predecessor; however all is silent about the Seven Point Agenda.
ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE UNDER THE VARIOUS
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Any
attempt at assessing the economic performance will require answers to the
following pertinent questions. What has been the story so far of Nigeria’s
recent experiences with development planning? Has the country been achieving
her objectives or, more generally, has the country being moving in the general
direction of success? What do the signs show? While these questions may be
answered from different perspectives, however, the answers to the above posers
are obvious no matter the side of the divide one stands. While one can talk
about limited success in some areas, the overall picture shows a dismal
performance.
Table 1: Performance of the Nigerian Economy under
NEEDS
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
||||
Selected
Indicators
|
Target
|
Actual
|
Target
|
Actual
|
Target
|
Actual
|
Macroeconomic
·
Growth in GDP (%)
·
Gross National savings (%of GDP)
·
Reduction in Poverty Incidence (%)
·
Inflation rate (%)
·
Minimum no of new jobs (million)
|
5.0
14.1
5.0
10.0
1.0
|
6.5
18.4
n.a
10.0
n.a
|
6.0
17.2
5.0
9.5
2.0
|
6.2
19.4
n.a
11.6
n.a
|
6.0
23.9
5.0
9.5
20.0
|
n.a
“
“
“
“
|
Federal
Govt. Finance
·
Overall fiscal balance (% of GDP)
·
Total Expenditure (% of GDP)
·
Recurrent Expenditure (% 0f total budget)
|
- 1.9
23.5
65.0
|
-0.5
12.5
72.4
|
-3.2
23.4
60.0
|
-1.1
12.5
69.2
|
-3.2
22.9
60.0
|
n.a
“
“
|
External
Sector
·
Overall BOP (% of GDP)
·
Current account balance (% of GDP)
·
External Reserves ($m)
·
Growth in imports (%)
·
Growth in exports
|
-10.8
-2.9
7,687
15.0
10.0
|
9.6
17.7
16,950
-4.4
49.1
|
-9.2
-2.3
8,687
18.0
20.0
|
9.3
22.8
28,279
13.8
36.6
|
-4.4
-.05
9,687
25.0
25.0
|
n.a
“
“
“
“
|
Financial
Sector Growth
·
Net domestic credit
·
Net credit to Govt.
·
Credit to private sector
·
Narrow Money (M1)
·
Broad Money (M2)
|
24.5
29.9
30.0
10.8
15.0
|
12.0
-17.9
26.6
8.6
14.0
|
24.6
29.9
30.0
8.3
15.5
|
-14.5
37.0
30.8
15.5
16.0
|
22.5
23.5
30.0
16.7
15.5
|
n.a
“
“
“
“
|
Infrastructure
·
Power generation (mgwt)
·
Road (Rehabilitation, maintenanace and new
roads-KM)
|
4,000
3,500
|
2,765
n.a
|
5,000
3,500
|
2,687
n.a
|
7,000
4,000
|
n.a
n.a
|
Source:
National
Planning Commission, Abuja (NEEDS Document): Central Bank of Nigeria Annual
Reports 2004 – 2006.
WHY DO DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FAIL IN NIGERIA?
Before dwelling on the reasons for plan/policy
failure, it is pertinent to clarify the meaning of policy failure. Broadly,
policy failure means chronic failure of socio-economic development policies to:
(i)
Achieve their stated objectives
(ii)
Sustainably attain ultimate goals of an economy, which
is to constantly improve the economic welfare of the vast majority of the
people.
(iii)
Institute and sustain durable solutions to basic
socio-economic problems.
Based
on Nigeria’s experience in plan/policy management process, policies have failed
at virtually every stage viz: Identification and articulation of the problem;
Specification of the objectives and targets; Implementation; Monitoring and
Evaluation; and Feedback.
The
general reasons for policy failures can be listed to include the following:
(i)
Manpower:
Inadequate qualified staff with requisite knowledge, skills and attitude.
During the first and second development plans, there was high dependent on
expatriate staff that were not conversant with the plan environment and the
least committed to the project. In the recent past, the faulty
recruitment/selection process has impaired negatively on plan design,
appraisal, implementation and monitoring and evaluation because the system has
thrown up officers with limited potentials to add value to the system.
(ii)
Expansion of
Administrative Arms: There was craze for the creation of administrative
arms in the form of States and Local Government, each with their uniqueness,
developmental states which poses challenges to plan design and implementation -
For example, from the initial 3 regions in 1960, to 12 states in 1967 to 19
States in the 1980’s and now 36 States and a total of 774 Local Government
Administration - It therefore becomes difficult to have a unified and
controllable plan. This is made worse by the dearth of qualified and skilled
personnel especially at the State and Local government levels.
(iii)
Poor plan
harmonization: There were real difficulties in harmonizing plan goals
across the different tiers of government. In the early planning days this was
due to decentralization and later due to creation of states.
(iv)
Oil boom:
The discovery of oil led to a shift from agriculture as the backbone of the
economy to oil. This changed the perception of public office as ‘service
center’ to ‘resource sharing/grabbing centre’. This mentality then became
“money was not the problem but, how to spend it”. This explains also, the
penchant for white elephant projects or cosmopolitan projects that have no
direct impact on the lives of the ordinary citizenry.
(v)
Ambiguous
Goals/Objectives: Development planning goals/objectives more often than not
are mere statement of intentions without clear cut/ identifiable strategies to
achieve them.
(vi)
Distortion in
the structure of capital programme: All through the various plans, there
were discrepancies between planned and actual capital expenditures. For
example, in the first development plan, budgeted capital expenditure was N 1,
353.6million while actual expenditure was
N 1, 073, ditto for other plans. These gaps have partly been responsible
for the high number of abandoned projects littering Nigeria’s developmental
landscape.
(vii)
Over dependence
on external funding: There was overdependence on external (private sector
and foreign aid) funding for the various plans. For example, in the first
development plan, 50% of funding was expected from outside, but only 25% was
received. Specifically, during this plan period, the private sector was
expected to provide N 780 million out of the total budgeted N 1, 353.6 million.
Also, during the 4th development plans, the private sector was
expected to contribute N 11.7 billion out of the total budget of N 70.5
billion. This scenario was synonymous to all the plans with grave consequences
for goal attainment.
(viii)
Inability to
concretize gains: A major challenge for Nigeria’s development plan lie in
the transmission mechanism for translating ‘improved’ macro-economic
performance into improved quality of life for the majority of Nigerians. The
question therefore is: why is this difficult if the touted macro-economic
improvements are real?
(ix)
Non-
Institutionalising of a virile Monitoring and Evaluation System: In
virtually all the plans, there was no deliberate attempt at institutionalizing
a virile monitoring and evaluation system to ensure that the input, process and
output are proceeding according to plan. Where there was resemblance of an M
& E system, they were not fully complied with.
(x)
The perfunctory
mentality: This connotes that the Government itself does not understand the
purpose of the plans. Because more often than not the plans never seemed to
guide governmental action. When a government draws a plan and the actual
programmes and policies pursued markedly differ from the plan projections, it
shows that either the plan was not realistic or that government was not
committed towards the plan. Also, this connote that plans are being done
routinely or as a matter of tradition/custom without thorough attention or
genuine feelings – “just to fulfill all righteousness” or to be seen to be
doing something. For example, the leader and his wife (wives) will more or less
impose on the nation their pet projects which are not in the year’s budget.
This project will be funded while those in the budget never get funded.
(xi)
Wrong Focus:
Overtime it has become obvious that the ‘sole’ focus of planners has been to
achieving growth. That is planners often focus on growth as an end in itself.
In order words, ‘people’ have actually not been the focus of development plans.
Plans that focus on growth alone lead to a disconnect between growth, poverty
reduction and development.
(xii)
Lack of Plan
continuity: Of the 50 years of nationhood, 35 years were spent under
military regime with its characteristic coups and counter- coups - kitchen
coups, palace coups etc – with each coup comes an end to the previous plans and
the usual ‘foundation laying’ for another plan. No deliberate attempt was ever
made to tap into successes of previous plans to build on it. Also, in the last
ten years of democracy, the rate of policy ‘somersault’ has been quite alarming
in spite of the fact that the three presidents are from the same political
party.
(xiii)
Lack of
objective self assessment: Common sense dictates that sometimes the way forward
for a nation or a people to achieve progress in their life is not to go forward
but to go backward and re-asses themselves, redefine their visions and goals
within the realities and challenges of their time. Till date Nigeria finds it
difficult to asses itself, her collective values, dreams and aspiration and
accept that something is fundamentally wrong and that doing things the old ways
cannot lead to a new answer and by implication the “Promised Land”.
(xiv)
Inadequate
consultation: Plans more often than not are just handed over to the people
without prior consultation or any form of input into the plan. The top-down
approach to development planning has become the order of the day. And when
consultations are made, more often than not they are restricted to their
cronies/allies, political associates and business stooges. The leadership see
themselves as been able to provide solutions to all socio-economic problems –
they play god- and have preference for - ‘There Is No Alternative’. (TINA).
They therefore see any opposing view no matter how rich and robust as
anti-system.
(xv)
Preference for
anything foreign: This arises from what can be referred to as the ‘lazy
mentality syndrome’ whereby policy prescriptions coming from foreign bodies are
always perceived to be better and accepted without testing or sifting. Such
policy options are adopted without being adapted to the country’s
socio-economic environment.
CONCLUSION
For
the majority of people living in poverty, struggling to feed their children,
mourning the loss of loved ones to printable diseases and unsure of the future,
development planning is meaningless. There is the need for an urgent, all
inclusive people-centered development plan that will have concrete, realistic
and achievable targets within a medium term strategy framework. It is not
enough to build health clinics if there are no roads for mothers to gain access
to them. It is not enough to train teachers or provide textbooks, if the
children have to struggle with homework at night in the dark. People do not
live their lives in the health sectors, or education sectors, or infrastructure
sectors, arranged in tidy compartments. People live in families, villages,
communities, countries where all the issues of everyday life merge. We need to
connect the dots. This will require a national economic leadership that has its
overriding goal as the improvement of national welfare and quality of life and
will provide shared vision for the complicated national problems. Development
plans and National Visions if not consistently implemented cannot lead to
sustainable development as exemplified by Nigeria.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It
is pertinent to state that development planning is not an easy task given its
complex and futuristic inclination. However, it is a must do in order to
achieve balanced and sustainable development. We, therefore make the following
recommendations:
(a)
Future National Development Plans should be more of an ‘Indicative
medium-term plan and should be private sector driven and where prices are largely
determined based on free market principles. However, the need to create a
‘buffer zone’ for the vulnerable majority becomes pertinent because of the
prevalence of poverty.
(b)
Refocus, re-invigorate and re-engineer the privatisation policy to focus
on critical infrastructure such as
power, transportation and those infrastructure that support the artisans,
craft-men and the small scale business in general to enable individuals take
control of their lives.
(c)
Set realistic and achievable targets. For example aspiring to achieve a
GDP growth rate of 13 – 15% is over ambitious given the historical average
growth rate of 6% and the existing environment.
(d)
There is need for a fundamental reform in the management and
restructuring of the economy in terms of economic and political governance in
the public and private sectors, and fundamental shifts in national values,
institutional performance and the enthronement of national discipline.
(e)
Re-invigorate direct effort at diversifying the economic base. Attention
should be shifted back to agriculture, tourism, solid minerals, sports,
export-oriented manufacturing.
(f)
Genuine and improved stakeholders’ involvement is very critical
especially at the lower tiers of government, organised private sector (OPS),
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), Community Based Organizations (CBOs),
organised labour, academia, professional bodies etc in order to ensure a
paradigm shift and wider buy-in.
(g)
Institute a broad-based and functional plan coordinating unit manned by
professionals
(h)
Strengthen the data capacity base through strengthening the human and
institutional capacity of statistical services especially at the State and
Local Government levels, while instituting a robust monitoring and evaluation
system for development plans.
References
Ayinla,
M.A. (1998), Essays on Planning and Budgeting System in Nigeria, Ilorin Berende
Printing and Publishing.
Ayo, E.J.
(1998):,Development Planning in Nigeria. Ibadan, University Press Plc.
Barbanti, Jr., Olympio. “Development and
Conflict Theory” Beyond Intractability. (Eds). Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess.
Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado Boulder. Posted: August
2004. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/development.
Accessed 26 January 2010
Cameron James (1993), “The GATT and the
Environment”, in Olewe, B. N. (1995), Development Administration, Aba: Grace
Books.
Central Bank of Nigeria: Major Economic
and Financial Indicators, Annual Reports and Statistical Bulletin (1960-2005).
Consultative Group (CG) Poverty Reduction. Paper Prepared by International Technical
Committee on Poverty Reduction for Federal Ministry of Finance, Abuja, Nigeria
(May 2000).
Cowen, M. P. and Shenton, R. W. (1996),
Doctrines of Development. London and New York: Routledge.
Dalal-Clayton, Barry and Bass Stephen
(2000), National Strategies for Sustainable Development: The Challenge Ahead.
Diejomaoh, V.P. (2008), National
Development Planning, Markets and Development in Nigeria. Being text of a paper
presented at the Annual Public lecture of the Nigeria Economic Society,
Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Abuja, 18th March.
Donli, J.G. (2004), An Overview of
Nigeria’s Economic Reforms. NDIC quarterly;
(4) pp. 62 – 82.
Federal Office of Statistics: Annual
Abstract of Statistics and Gross Product of Nigeria (1960-2005).
Ibezim, E.O. (1999),
Political Economy: Issues and Problems in Contemporary Society, Onitsha. Hybrid
Publishers
Ilesanmi, O.A. (2000),
International Economics. Lagos. Fapsony Nigeria Limited.
Jhingan, M.L. (2005),
The Economics of Development Planning. New Delhi. Vrinda Publications Ltd.
Marcellus, I.O. (2009),
Development Planning in Nigeria: Reflections on National
Economic empowerment
and Development strategies (NEEDS) 2003-2007. Journal of Social Science. Vol.
20 (3). Pp 197 – 210.
McMichael, P. (1996),
Development and Social Change: A Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge
Press.
Moti, U. G. (2010), “An
Examination of the Effect of the Tiv-Jukun Conflict of Central Nigeria on
Development”, in Otto F. von Feigenblatt, (2010), Alternative Perspectives in
the Humanities and the Social Sciences, JAPSS Press, Inc. Bangkok. pp. 26-38.
.Moti, U. G. and Vambe
J. T. (2008), “Challenges of Sustainable Development in Nigeria”. African
Journal of Social Policy and Administration. Vol. 1. No. 1. pp.85-91.
Munasingbe, M. and
Sheaffer. W. (1995), (ed.) Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The
Biogeophysical Foundations. Washington D.C. : International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development and World Bank.
National Human
Development Report, Nigeria (1960-2009)
National Human Development Index Report, Nigeria
(2008-2009).
National Planning
Commission, Abuja (NEEDS Document): Central Bank of Nigeria Annual Reports 2004
– 2006.
Nigeria Vision 20:2020
(2009), Federal Government Press Limited, Lagos.
Obadan, M.I.
(2007), The Nigerian Economy: Growth,
Structure and Economic Management Strategies,” Mimeograph.
Ogunjimi, S.O. (1997),
Public Finance for Polytechnics and ICAN Students. Niger. Leken Production
Okojie, C.E.E. (2000),
“Development Planning in Nigeria since Independence”. inIyoha, M. A. and C.O.
Itsede, (ed.), (2000), Nigerian Economy:
Structure, Growth and Development, Benin City, Mindex Publishing.
Olaniyi, J.O. (1998),
Foundations of Public Analysis, Ibadan. Sunad Publisher Ltd.
Olewe, B.N. (1995),
Development Administration. Aba, Grace Books.
Overton, John (2000),
Development in Chaos? Paper for the DevNet Conference. Wellington, 17-19
November. http://www.overton.pdf.
Accessed 4 February 2010.
Rist, G. (1997), The
History of Development. London: Zed Books.
Todaro, M.P. (1982),
The Economics of a Developing World, London. Longman.
UNDP Human Development Index Report (1990- 2008).
World Bank Commission
on Environment and Development (1991).
World Bank (1997),
World Bank Development Report:
Washington D.C. World Bank.
Integrating Environment
Considerations into Economic Policy Making Processes, Bangkok, 20-24 July 1998.
(http://www.unescap.org/drpad).
World Bank (2000),
World Bank Annual Report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wrabley Raymond B. (1992), Nation –Building and the
Presidency: Competing National Visions at the Founding.
No comments:
Post a Comment