How various administrations have enhanced industrialization in Nigeria?

Answer 1

How various administrations in nigeria have contributed to the growth of industrialization and export diversification?

View Slide Show

View Slide Show

Related Questions

• What can you do as a country and as citizens to reduce poverty?
• Discuss the importance of the entrepreneurial process to the growth of national income and economic well being of a modern European economy.?
• List of cities in India?
• What was the rationale behind attempts of MG Rover to forge alliances?

Answer:

Successive administrations in Nigeria, whether civilian or military, have felt the need to outdo the previous regime with extravagant plans to industrialize the nation. Once the hopes of the citizenry are raised to astronomical levels of absurdity, however, the plans repeatedly go unimplemented, and the administration quickly returns to business-as-usual of rent collecting.

Many situations in Nigeria defy conventional models and ignore globally accepted norms to such a degree that they have become a travesty. In fact, numerous well-intentioned policies often end up implemented in such a way that they defy their original purpose. For example, law enforcement equipped with taxpayers' funds often malfunctions and becomes a threat to the very citizenry it was empowered to protect. The country's industrialization policies have similarly become distorted.

In the history of industrialization throughout the world, there has been a discernable progression through levels of advancement. No matter the leap or spike in the industrial developmental indices, telltale markers have still been decipherable in their path toward industrialization, especially for emerging economies such as China or the Four Asian Tigers (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan.) These markers have served as invaluable keys to fine-tuning the industrial development strategies of these economies-a kind of Global Positioning System (GPS) for industrial development policy formulators.

Like the rest of Africa, pre-independence Nigeria was structured to maximize the profits flowing north to Europe from exploitative commerce by the colonialists. Little thought was given to industrialization of the processes that yielded the primary products, as the companies were completely foreign-owned with little chance of technology transfer. Instead, huge department stores with finished products were introduced in a one-way street barter that saw Africans consuming finished products for which they had little or no understanding of their production processes.

In an effort to reverse this consumerism trend in post-independent Nigeria, the nation christened its first discernable industrialization policy called the Import Substitution industrialization Strategy in 1961. Obviously, the euphoria of independence may have influenced the administration's capacity to notice the flaws in the strategy, which sought to substitute foreign imports with local production while continuing to rely on foreign raw materials and technology. Clearly, relying on foreign technology and raw materials to produce comparatively disadvantaged products was a policy that was doomed to fail, and, of course, it did. Going forward, policy formulators designed another industrialization strategy which must have been the result of substantial input from pan-nationalists since the resulting indigenization policy was more ideological than economic. The thrust of the Indigenization policy was the empowerment of indigenous entrepreneurs as decision-makers in key industries, thus reducing the overbearing influence of foreign interest in the industrial sector.

To be sure, government always has a central role to play in the industrialization process, but it has become devastatingly obvious that the Nigerian government has been involved far beyond the Call of Duty. The incestuous tripartite relationship between government, business moguls, and ethnic considerations in formulating the indigenization policy has been very troubling. The result of this intercourse of economically adverse players has been bureaucratic corruption that has eventually matured into a systemic monster that refuses to be tamed. This explains why the Ajaokuta steel complex has been gestating for more than 30 years despite the billions of Naira invested, while similar projects have been completed in three to five years.

The Nigerian administration has a tendency to delay serious proactive actions in policy formulation until its hand is forced. In fact, rather than a conscientious blueprint for progress, most industrial development plans are no more than countermeasures to correct perceived deficiencies in the economic sphere. Invariably, such knee-jerk policies are severely limited in scope and cannot sustain a framework for serious long-term industrial development.

The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) implemented in 1986 was meant to accelerate the country past a dependency on foreign imports and technology into localized self-sufficiency in materials, technology, and industrial development. While the jury is still out on the success or failure of this policy, many experts agree that its primary purpose of arresting the freefall of the Nigerian economy at the time was relatively effective. But there is little doubt that the limits of such ad hoc economic reactions may have ultimately pushed the government in the 1990s to d