SOLD BY: 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 become more 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 N2.132 billion was proposed. Out of this, public-sector investment was expected to be about N1.352 billion, while the remaining investment expenditure of N780 million was to be undertaken by the private sector. The full implementation of this development plan was however interrupted by two major political events, namely, the military intervention in 1966 and the 1967-70 civil war. Consequently, the period of the plan was extended to March 31, 1970. These major interruptions notwithstanding, both the Federal Government and regional governments recorded a number of landmark achievements during the development plan period. During the crisis period, the Federal Government alone successfully executed projects like the Oil Refinery in Port Harcourt, the Paper Mill, the Sugar Mill and the Niger Dam (in Jebba and Bacita respectively), the Niger Bridge, and ports’ extension, while it also constructed a number of trunk ‘A’ roads. It is interesting to note that it was also during this period that the first-generation Universities were established in Ibadan and Lagos by the Federal Government, Ahamdu Bello University by the Northern Nigerian Government, University of Nigeria Nsukka (UNN) by the Eastern Nigerian Government and the University of Ife (now known as the ObafemiAwolowo University) by the Western Nigerian Government. The federal and regional governments were able to achieve this much in spite of the crisis because, during the period, the annual capital budgets operated within the development plan framework. They were employed as the main instrument of control and allocation of development resources (Ogunjimi, 1997). This was in itself made possible by the existence of a development plan which provided guidelines for meaningful and co-coordinated development during the plan period despite two political crises.
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 N30 billion (which was later revised to N43.3 billion), extensive consultations with the private sector of the economy were made in the course of its preparation.
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 N82.2 billion shared between the public and private sectors with the former putting in about N70.5 billion, while the latter put in the balance of N11.7 billion.
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