Development in Nigeria

Promise on Hold?

Edlyne Eze Anugwom

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367349486
• eBook ISBN: 9781000060256
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Business Development
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book unravels the trajectories and dilemmas of development in Nigeria since its independence in 1960. Despite enormous human and material resources, development progress in Nigeria has not met expectations. By delving into the various factors that have influenced development efforts and initiatives, Development in Nigeria: Promise on Hold? aims to draw out lessons to help the country to achieve its potential.

In many ways Nigeria typifies the African puzzle of near-misses, a never-ending drive towards development with enormous promise but no real practical output. As in many states within Africa, these failures can be traced to structural inadequacies and the perennial weakness of public institutions. Problems which collectively undermine sustainable development and growth include political corruption, ethnicity, failure of public institutions, distributional injustice, fiscal centralism in a purported federal state, faulty democratic traditions, malevolent elite class, religious and social conflicts, among others. By taking a comprehensive panoramic overview of the country's historical experience as both a military dictatorship and democracy, Edlyne Eze Anugwom presents a nuanced, comprehensive and contemporary interrogation of the ever-dynamic forces and factors in Nigeria's development project.

This book's incisive examination of Nigeria's development aspirations over time will be of interest to students of Development and African Studies, as well as to practitioners and multilateral agencies involved in development planning and intervention in Nigeria who are looking for strategies for overcoming the challenges facing the country.

1 Introduction

Plethora of near misses and grandstanding rhetoric of nationalism

Overarching goal of the book

The book examines multifarious factors that have directly or indirectly mediated development efforts in Nigeria since independence and from this standpoint provides thorough understanding on how despite enormous human and material resources, development has thus far eluded Nigeria. The above quest was primarily driven by the desire to identify factors that have dogged Nigeria’s development over time and from this perspective unravel new strategies for unleashing the enormous potentials of the country and putting it on a steady path to sustainable development. The basic assumption here is that Nigeria as a state project has neither lived up to expectations nor achieved development growth commensurate with its human and material resources.

As has been succinctly argued, “after independence in 1960, Nigeria has been widely considered one of sub-Saharan Africa’s most prominent postcolonial states” (Heerten & Moses, 2014: 172). In other words, while much hope was placed on the Nigerian nation to lead the way in development on the continent, events so far indicate that almost the contrary has been the uncomfortable reality. Perhaps, the African social scientist, Kankwenda (1994) was referring to Nigeria when he contended some years ago that despite decades of trafficking in development paradigm and ideologies, development remains far-fetched in most parts of the African continent. Therefore, it would seem that in most major indicators of development, Nigeria remains too much like a promise on hold and often reflects a typical African puzzle of self-fulfilling destiny of near misses and perennial development doldrums. In alignment with what appears to be like the situation in many other African countries, the development failures in Nigeria may be traced to structural inadequacies and the incapacity of public institutions.

Therefore, Nigeria has thus far failed to live up to its promises and undoubted potential, given abundant human and material resources. The above reality is what Osaghae (1998) alluded to when he likened Nigeria to a sleeping giant. In fact, that allusion is really a popular phrasing of the evident development disappointment in the country. Incidentally, over two decades later, the nation still seems largely asleep rather than awake. In spite of an undoubted and often overflowing spirit of nationalism, Nigeria has literally frittered away numerous chances to initiate a sustainable development trajectory since independence. There is therefore the sense of near misses and the unending recalibration of the process of development as the public administration of the country is largely characterized by policy reversals and inconsistencies, all of which ironically devour the momentum of any development initiative in the country.

Development: a contested concept?

Development can refer to both a state and a condition of a given society as well as a process, system or course of positive change in a society. In both cases, development is conceived as a dynamic and long-term process of structural transformation. But development is really in more senses than one an often-contested concept and process. Therefore, what constitutes development and how development should be measured is often a source of dissension among both scholars and practitioners. Apart from a general notion of improvement or the broad reference to growth, there is hardly popular consensus on the subject.

All the same, it would seem ironic that despite differing opinions on what constitutes development, there is hardly any strong disagreement over what underdevelopment or lack of development entails. The controversy over development assumes an even more problematic angle when it is used in reference to a developing country like Nigeria. In this case, the evocation of the term, apart from the usual economic and social embodiments, may also generate political and nationalistic fervour. Therefore, over time, development, particularly in terms of the general situation of life in developing societies and the relationship between these societies and the rest of the world, has equally been politicized and often employed in pejorative senses.

Development discourse also often embodies and veils ideological and even doctrinal leanings or aspirations. Thus, the invocation of development and its use in reference to a nation might embody meanings that are neither objective nor intellectually reasoned but are the perspective of the user of the concept or the outcome of the person’s ideological leanings. Perhaps, some of the contests about development result from the emergence of the notion as a generic term that makes general and broad statements about human wellbeing and social development. Thus, even though the concept is seen as old as civilization, its use as a generic construct in Western societies from Greco-Roman times elevated it almost to a doctrine (see Soares & Quintella, 2008) – a doctrine that focuses generally on the social wellbeing of human beings in society.

The above situation persists despite the fact that economists, sociologists and development scholars have invested a lot of energy in specifying or explicating indicators of development. These indicators incidentally often generate their own contestations as some of these indicators are seen as directly tailored after the conception of reality by the West and even designed to undermine African autochthony and agency. It is in the light of this that the discourse of development in this book must start from a general notion of what this concept is and how it is applied in the case of Nigeria.

The work of classical scholars and writers like Condorcet, Kant, Leibniz, Hegel, Marx and the social evolutionists gave the general impression that development is associated with progress, modernization and liberation in human society. In spite of the fact that some of these initial conceptions were evolutionary in nature, they also cohered with significant improvements in society. Without doubt, a new era in the usage or application of the concept occurred in the twentieth century. Pushing this new era were the Americans, beginning with President Harry Truman who saw it as a duty to avail the other nations of the world of America’s technical knowledge as well as foster capital investment in areas (of the world) needing development (see Soares & Quintella, 2008). Thus, the revolution in the practice of development and even the relations between the global North and South on this score was radicalized with the paternal proposal in the inaugural speech of Harry S. Truman as the thirty-third President of the United States. According to Truman:

We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas.

(Truman, 1999: 591)

This statement, apart from obvious positing development (West) as the direct opposite of underdevelopment (rest of the world), also saw the beginning of intellectual and institutional efforts led by the West in the ostentatious bid to address the “backwardness” of the other parts of the globe.

The call to development reverberated in the developing and then mainly colonized parts of the world. For these nations in Africa, Latin America and Asia, the 1960s became eventually the decade of decolonization and the urgent need to foster development in these nations, then seen as third world countries, was initiated. Incidentally, the global concerns about the state of the emerging decolonized societies generated two significant outcomes. One was the establishment of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), expected to help in narrowing the development gap between the developing and developed countries of the world; the other was the emergence and proliferation of modernization theories or perspectives, which saw development simply as making these nations like the West.

While not belabouring the history of development, suffice it to state here that another turning point in the conception and pursuit of development occurred because of a report entitled “Our Common Future” published in 1987 by the World Commission for Environment and Development. The report, more commonly known and referred to as the Bruntland Report, was the culmination of a growing global concern with the use of natural resources and the influence of this on the environment and human survival in the years ahead. The key element of the Bruntland Report was without doubt the popularization of the idea of “sustainable development”. In other words, the focus now should not just be on development per se but on sustainable development, that is, that which takes care of the needs of today without jeopardizing the future. In fact, the report, with focus on sustainable development which is all about the pursuit of development without compromising or endangering the environment and the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, can be seen as the legitimate forerunner of present concerns around climate change. In other words, it is development in which pursuit of present needs does not compromise the ability of future generations equally to meet their own needs in an equally sustainable manner. Bruntland and his colleagues, however, did not invent the idea of sustainable development but the report elevated the notion into global significance and made it almost a mantra of development discourse and programming for many years. Even today, sustainable development is often a preferred way of referencing development that is conscious of the environment and pursued within the bounds of the greater good for the greater number.

In spite of a plethora of definitions, one finds the conception of development along the lines of a process of progress, positive change and growth, which may be in terms of both economic and social improvements and the conscious efforts to establish ecological balance while in the pursuit and substance of the foregoing. In other words, development cannot be de-escalated as simple economic growth or something measured solely or mainly on economic indicators. Development,

always implies a favourable change, a step from the simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, from worse to better. [Development] indicates that one is doing well because one is advancing in the sense of a necessary, ineluctable, universal law and toward a desirable goal.

(Esteva, 1992: 10)

Development is thus comprehensive and embodies both the economy and other spheres of society and must be conceptualized as a process that is highly conscious of the need to preserve the integrity of the environment or achieve ecological balance. Development, especially from a sustainable perspective, must of necessity involve clear social and economic inclusion, economic wellbeing and the conscious effort towards preserving natural resources or the environment. Development is thus comprehensive and multidisciplinary in nature. It is anchored on the realization of the interdependence and complementarity between economic, social and environmental spheres.

Development is in this sense measured reliably by indicators which at the minimum embody these three elements. A critical element of development, especially from the angle of developing nations like Nigeria is that of social inclusion, that is, how economic development or growth embodies social inclusion. In such a context, impressive economic indicators in the midst of deepening poverty, deprivation and social and physical infrastructural decay means essentially the inversion of development. In addition, there is no arguing the fact that social development cannot happen without a good economic base; equally, it would be very difficult to achieve economic development in the midst of social blight or social pathologies. Social development, as implicated here, goes beyond social inclusion to include social justice, distributional justice, good and responsive governance, education, health etc. that define both democracy and citizenship in contemporary terms. Both social and economic development can only be made consistent and permanent when guided by the need to always maintain ecological balance, that is, environmentally sensitive development as well as inclusive growth.

In agreement with the comprehensive and multi-sphere conception of development, the development economist, Michael Paul Todaro weighs in by arguing that development is not only or purely an economic phenomenon; it is rather a multidimensional process which involves the reorganization and reorientation of both the economic and social systems (Todaro, 1985). Todaro consistently held that development is both a physical reality and a state of mind. In this case, society utilizing some combinations of social, economic and political processes attempts to secure a better life for its members. He goes on to identify what can be called his core objectives of development.

These include: raising peoples’ levels of living or what can be called quality of life – this would include an increase in incomes and consumption, food, available medical services, education and other critical needs through the appropriate growth processes; the society should also create conditions conducive to the growth of self-esteem – this is achieved through establishment of political, social and economic systems and accompanying institutions which foster and promote human dignity and respect; the society should also aspire towards increasing the freedom of people to choose through enlarging or increasing the range of their choice, for instance improving varieties of goods and services available to them. Without doubt, Todaro’s conception and outlook on development can be criticized on a number of grounds, however my interest in it is the fact that it opens up the vista of development as a comprehensive phenomenon embodying a wide range of processes and institutions over time.

In view of the foregoing, the book conceptualizes development mainly in terms of general qualitative improvement and responsive adaptation to the social environment. The above ideas resonate with the notion of sustainable development and the 1980 Brandt Commission (see Wionczek, 1981) conceptualization of development as a process, which while taking care of the needs of the present generation, does not in any way compromise or endanger the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The conceptualization of development along the above lines implicates an integrated approach, which includes economic, social (geopolitical) and environmental dimensions (see Lapeyre, 2004). In this manner, development is both widespread and comprehensive, especially when used in reference to a modern heterogeneous and multicultural society like Nigeria.

In spite of the seemingly wide-ranging issues covered in the book, they are interrelated as elements of development in Nigeria. Nevertheless, more importantly, one conceives development as used in the book from a systemic perspective, that is, an interdependent and interconnected open system where an event in one sphere of society affects the others and the whole. In other words, development is conceived here as a systematic process of growth and sustainable improvement in all major spheres of society. It is neither a question of one aspect without the other nor a question of some aspects playing catch-up with the others. Thus, the existence of poor leadership, for instance, would affect general development planning and execution of development programmes.

In the same manner, pervasive political corruption would take the steam out of even the best-conceived development programme. The existence of wide-ranging poverty impedes both the democratic process and implicates either a poor economy or a grossly lop-sided economy characterized by acute inequality and general deprivation. Pervasive and recurrent social conflicts without doubt would impinge on other spheres o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: plethora of near misses and grandstanding rhetoric of nationalism
• 2 Nigeria: country, nation and people
• 3 Theorizing an obvious absurdity
• 4 Between public trust and private profit: political corruption and development in Nigeria
• 5 An ever-malignant tumour: ethnic virus and centrifugal nationalism in Nigeria
• 6 The struggle with secularism: religious conflicts and violence in Nigeria
• 7 Boom and bust: an economy in quagmire – oil and the diminishing of economic development prospects
• 8 From election to selection: democracy, leadership and development in Nigeria
• 9 The Niger Delta, oil conflict and the minorities question
• 10 Beyond Bakassi: state, democracy and the resurgence of Biafran nationalism in Nigeria
• 11 Primordial loyalties, ethnonationalism and the general crisis of national identity
• 12 Resource distribution, marginalization and sectionalism: implications for democracy and development in Nigeria
• 13 Federalism and development in Nigeria: a balancing act or retreat from the norm
• 14 Conclusion: between unity and implosion
• Index