Abdulrauf Aliyu

In the labyrinth of economic policy and development, the question of government involvement in business is an ever-relevant conundrum. Should governments be in business, and if so, in what capacity? For a nation like Nigeria, at the precipice of pivotal economic transformation, these inquiries hold the key to unlocking its immense potential. Pragmatic economists have long grappled with these issues, offering insights that transcend borders and span generations. As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his economic team steer Nigeria toward a brighter future, it is vital to consider the multifaceted roles government can play: regulating, influencing, stewarding, and promoting.

In the realm of regulation, government acts as the guardian of fairness, justice, and economic integrity. Efficient markets rely on regulatory frameworks that protect consumers, prevent exploitation, and ensure a level playing field for businesses. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith aptly noted, “The market system makes everyone an instrument and no one an end.” Nigeria’s experience in the financial sector regulation exemplifies this principle. Following the banking crisis of 2009, the Central Bank of Nigeria, under the leadership of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, intervened decisively to regulate the industry, strengthening its foundation and restoring public trust.

President Tinubu’s government must continue this vigilant stewardship. In the banking sector and beyond, strict but flexible regulation should be maintained, always adapting to the evolving economic landscape. After all, without well-enforced rules, private sector players may exploit loopholes to the detriment of the nation. Nigeria’s economic resurgence hinges on regulatory oversight that ensures transparency, sound corporate governance, and market stability.

In the art of influence, government can be a conductor, orchestrating an economic symphony. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen reminds us, “Development can be seen as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy.” By using its influence, the government can steer the nation towards a path of inclusive growth. Historically, we’ve seen how Singapore, under the visionary leadership of Lee Kuan Yew, leveraged state influence to promote industrialization and economic diversification. It was not just a spectator but a choreographer, directing investments and strategies that elevated the nation to its present stature.

Nigeria, too, can leverage its influence to bolster key industries. The government can strategically align with private enterprises to stimulate growth, especially in areas like agriculture, technology, and renewable energy. This requires a clear vision and sustained commitment. By engaging in public-private partnerships and providing incentives for investment, the government can be a catalyst for innovation, employment, and wealth creation.

In stewardship, the government acts as a prudent caretaker of national assets. Nigeria’s vast oil reserves, often dubbed a “curse,” have the potential to be a blessing if managed with wisdom and integrity. The Norwegian experience offers a compelling case study. Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, guided by a strict set of ethical and investment principles, has grown into one of the world’s largest and most sustainable wealth funds. This exemplifies how government can steward national resources responsibly.

President Tinubu’s government should consider a similar approach, implementing a transparent and disciplined management framework for Nigeria’s oil wealth. By doing so, Nigeria can transform its resource wealth into a long-term source of national prosperity. The government should embrace good governance principles, ensure transparency, and insulate the fund from political interference to prevent resource curse.

In promotion, government can act as a catalyst for development. Economic historian Alexander Gerschenkron recognized that some nations may require an active government to compensate for structural disadvantages. The East Asian Tigers, such as South Korea and Taiwan, exemplify this by fostering economic growth through strategic state-led industrialization policies. They actively promoted and protected nascent industries, ultimately paving the way for rapid industrial development.

For Nigeria, it is imperative to acknowledge that in the global arena, competition is fierce. The government can play a crucial role in promoting local industries, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Initiatives that provide support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), streamline bureaucratic processes, and enhance access to finance can catapult the nation into a new era of economic vibrancy.

Yet, it is essential to strike a balance, for an overly involved government can stifle innovation and breed inefficiency. Thus, the government must act judiciously, avoiding excessive intervention while providing the necessary tools and infrastructure for businesses to flourish independently.

President Tinubu and his economic team must navigate the intricate web of government involvement in business, treading the path with a pragmatic and strategic approach. The role of the government is not static; it adapts to the needs and circumstances of the nation. Timing is crucial, and the government must be prepared to step back when the private sector can take the reins effectively.

To understand the nuanced relationship between government and business, one must consider the context of emerging markets like Nigeria. The nation is not devoid of success stories. The telecommunications industry, with companies like MTN and Airtel, stands as a testament to how government regulation, coupled with private sector innovation, can revolutionize an industry and improve the lives of millions. The Nigerian government must nurture such success stories and seek to replicate them across various sectors.

In conclusion, the question of government involvement in business is not one of a categorical “yes” or “no.” Instead, it is a question of how, when, and to what extent. As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his economic team chart a new course for Nigeria’s economy, they must heed the wisdom of pragmatic economists and the experiences of nations that have grappled with similar questions.

The government’s roles of regulating, influencing, stewarding, and promoting are not mutually exclusive but should be executed in harmony. The government can be a guide, a guardian, a caretaker, and a catalyst for the nation’s economic development. The key is to find the right balance, adapting to the specific needs and circumstances of Nigeria.

President Tinubu’s government should be pragmatic, flexible, and forward-thinking, aiming to create an environment where businesses can thrive while safeguarding the interests of the nation and its people. With strategic government involvement, Nigeria can unlock its immense potential and pave the way for a brighter economic future.

In the ever-changing landscape of public finance, it is imperative for nations to adapt and evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In Nigeria, the Government has a crucial task at hand—to make informed decisions about allocating its budgets, even when facing limited information and tight time constraints. The traditional approach to public budgeting in Nigeria, though well-established, is no longer sufficient in the face of rising complexity and uncertainty. The solution lies in Anticipatory Public Budgeting (APB), a transformative concept that aligns financing decisions with long-term strategic objectives and bridges the gap between Nigeria’s long-term goals and its traditionally short-term financial tools. In this op-ed, we will explore the essence of APB, two contrasting definitions, and its potential to reinvent Nigeria’s approach to public finance while drawing inspiration from successful implementations in New Zealand and Singapore.

APB can be defined in two key ways, each offering unique insights into how it can reshape Nigeria’s public finance landscape. The first definition sees APB as a dynamic, forward-looking approach that integrates data-driven insights and predictive modelling to anticipate future budgetary requirements and challenges. This definition emphasizes the importance of data analytics, artificial intelligence, and forecasting tools in predicting financial needs accurately. By employing these advanced technologies, governments can plan more effectively and allocate resources where they are most needed, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending.

The second definition views APB as a strategic framework that emphasizes long-term planning and goal alignment. This definition underscores the importance of considering the nation’s overarching objectives, such as economic diversification, improved healthcare and education, and risk management, while budgeting. Instead of focusing solely on short-term fiscal concerns, APB encourages the Government to think strategically, identifying long-term challenges and opportunities and incorporating them into budgetary decisions. This strategic approach enables a more holistic and future-oriented public budgeting process, ensuring that resources are allocated to projects and initiatives that will yield lasting benefits for the nation.

In New Zealand, the implementation of APB has yielded substantial public value. The New Zealand Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, a key component of their APB approach, shifts the focus of public finance from a narrow perspective of economic growth to a more comprehensive understanding of well-being and sustainability. By emphasizing the well-being of its citizens, New Zealand has redirected its budgeting efforts toward improving the quality of life, fostering inclusivity, and addressing long-term challenges, such as climate change. This shift has allowed the Government to allocate resources more effectively, aligning its financial tools with the country’s long-term goals.

Singapore, on the other hand, offers a contrasting yet equally compelling example of APB’s success. The Singaporean Government, known for its long-term strategic planning, has effectively used APB to ensure its continued economic growth and prosperity. By proactively anticipating and addressing future challenges, such as technological disruption and aging demographics, Singapore has managed to stay ahead of the curve. Their approach to APB enables the Government to respond to both negative risks and positive opportunities, leading to a more resilient and innovative society.

So, why does Nigeria need Anticipatory Public Budgeting? The answer is multifaceted. Nigeria, like New Zealand and Singapore, faces a complex web of challenges and opportunities. Diversifying away from oil dependence, improving healthcare and education outcomes, and managing risks like pandemics or harnessing technological advancements are crucial objectives that require long-term thinking. APB can bridge the gap between these strategic goals and the often-short-term nature of traditional public budgeting in Nigeria.

Firstly, Nigeria needs APB to effectively address its economic diversification. The nation’s heavy reliance on oil revenue has proven to be a double-edged sword, leading to fiscal vulnerability in times of oil price volatility. Anticipatory Public Budgeting allows the Government to plan for economic diversification strategies and allocate resources to sectors that will contribute to long-term sustainability. This approach mitigates the risks associated with oil dependence and fosters a more stable and diversified economy.

Secondly, APB is essential for improving health and education outcomes in Nigeria. The country faces significant challenges in providing quality healthcare and education to its citizens. Anticipatory Public Budgeting can help identify areas in need of investment and allocate resources to initiatives that will lead to lasting improvements in these sectors. By adopting a strategic, long-term perspective, Nigeria can enhance the well-being and productivity of its population.

Lastly, APB equips Nigeria to manage both negative and positive risks effectively. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, highlighted the need for proactive risk management in public budgeting. With APB, the Government can anticipate and allocate resources to address such unforeseen challenges. Simultaneously, it can also seize positive opportunities, such as embracing new technological advancements to stimulate economic growth and innovation.

Anticipatory Public Budgeting offers a new vision of public finance in Nigeria, aligning its fiscal decisions with the nation’s long-term aspirations. By embracing the APB approach, Nigeria can unlock its potential for sustainable economic growth, improved well-being, and effective risk management. The government must transition from traditional, short-term budgeting to an approach that harnesses data-driven insights, long-term planning, and strategic vision. In doing so, Nigeria can embark on a journey to transform its public finance system into one that is better equipped to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. It is time for Nigeria to embrace Anticipatory Public Budgeting, unlocking its future potential and ensuring a prosperous and resilient nation for generations to come.

As Nigeria finds itself in 2023, the country is grappling with a fiscal crisis that has been gradually unfolding, ominously undermining the nation’s economic stability and growth prospects. The recently released 2022 budget implementation report painted a grim picture of Nigeria’s financial health. The Federal Government ended the previous year with a staggering fiscal deficit of N7.5 trillion, exceeding the budgeted deficit by a substantial margin. This deficit represents a disturbing 129% of the actual revenue collected. The situation raised profound concerns and deserved close scrutiny, as it foreshadowed the dire straits in which Nigeria finds itself today.

One glaring issue highlighted in the report was the decline in actual revenue. In 2022, the government’s revenue amounted to N5.8 trillion, a shortfall not only from the budgeted N9 trillion but also from the N6.7 trillion collected in the previous year. The declining revenue stream exacerbated Nigeria’s fiscal difficulties, making it increasingly challenging to meet financial obligations. In this context, the government’s efforts to accelerate economic growth and improve revenue generation, as mentioned in the report, are crucial to navigating the fiscal quagmire.

The excessive expenditure on recurrent costs and debt service is another alarming aspect of the fiscal crisis. The government allocated a colossal N5 trillion to recurrent non-debt expenditure, with personal costs devouring N3.49 trillion. This left minimal fiscal space for other essential services and development projects, hindering Nigeria’s progress. Equally worrisome was the fact that debt service consumed N5.65 trillion, a staggering 97.4% of the budgeted revenue. This represented a significant increase from the 62.8% of budgeted revenue spent on debt service in 2021. As the budget office rightly emphasized, reining in the growth of recurrent expenditure, especially personnel costs, was critical for Nigeria’s fiscal stability.

Capital expenditure in Nigeria painted a disappointing picture, as it remained markedly low. The government could only muster N1.89 trillion, falling far short of the targeted N3.6 trillion. This dearth of investment in infrastructure development and long-term economic growth was a cause for concern. Investment in capital expenditure was vital for sustainable economic development, and its inadequacy further compounded the fiscal crisis.

The budget-deficit-to-GDP ratio of 3.77% was higher than the 3.0% target stipulated in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2007. This indicated that Nigeria was living beyond its means relative to the size of its economy. The need to address non-essential fiscal deductions to free up resources for budget implementation, as cited by the DMO, was a step in the right direction.

To better understand the gravity of Nigeria’s fiscal predicament, it was essential to examine how it affected the exchange rate. Large fiscal deficits could trigger a currency crisis by increasing the money supply, leading to inflation and devaluation of the domestic currency. In the worst-case scenario, it resulted in higher interest rates, further eroding investor confidence and triggering capital flight. A dwindling foreign reserve exacerbated the situation, eventually culminating in a balance of payments crisis. This scenario made imports more expensive, widened trade deficits, and placed additional downward pressure on the currency. Nigeria’s current struggle with currency devaluation and inflation was a testament to this complex interplay of factors.

Notably, the situation in Nigeria was not unique. Many countries had faced similar fiscal crises, often with devastating consequences. One needed only to look back at Nigeria’s own history to find instructive examples. In the 1980s, Nigeria experienced an oil price crash that led to a severe fiscal crisis. The government relied heavily on borrowing, contributing to a ballooning national debt. The economic turmoil culminated in the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) introduced in the mid-1980s to address the fiscal imbalance.

However, history also offered lessons on how to tackle such crises. The SAP, although controversial and painful, was implemented to restore fiscal discipline and stabilize the economy. Nigeria’s present situation necessitated a similarly resolute response. As noted by prominent economist John Maynard Keynes, “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” In Nigeria’s case, prudence in fiscal management during periods of economic growth and resource abundance was key to weathering the storm.

The report on the 2022 fiscal performance underscored the urgency of implementing structural reforms and fiscal consolidation measures. These reforms focused on enhancing revenue collection, curbing recurrent expenditure, and fostering transparency and accountability in public financial management. Equally important was the need for strategic investment in capital projects that spur economic growth. Nigeria’s experience should underscore the importance of diversifying revenue sources, particularly reducing over-reliance on oil revenue, as stressed by the report.

Furthermore, the country had to address the issue of non-essential fiscal deductions, as cited by the DMO. This would free up resources for budget implementation at all tiers of government, reducing the burden on the federal government. As Nigeria had experienced before, a well-thought-out economic reform program could pave the way for fiscal sustainability and long-term growth.

The fiscal crisis in Nigeria today is a complex issue with far-reaching implications. It threatens economic stability, hampers growth, and erodes investor confidence. The government’s excessive spending, particularly on recurrent costs and debt service, coupled with declining revenues, underscores the urgency of addressing this issue. History provides lessons on how to tackle fiscal crises, and Nigeria’s policymakers must take heed. Implementing fiscal discipline, boosting revenue collection, and prudent expenditure are vital steps in securing the nation’s economic future. As economist Paul Krugman aptly put it, “In the long run, our most serious economic problem is that we have a society in which all resources and power are concentrated in the hands of a few people. This concentration of wealth and power is far more important than either the federal budget deficit or the trade deficit.” Nigeria’s fiscal crisis is a symptom of this larger problem, and addressing it requires a multifaceted approach that prioritizes the welfare and prosperity of all its citizens.

On the morning of Oct. 7, the Palestinian militant group Hamas carried out a massive attack on Israel that was nearly unprecedented in its scale and scope. Hamas fired rockets from Gaza and infiltrated its operatives across the border, where they engaged in firefights at seven different locations in southern Israel, according to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). At least 250 Israelis have been killed, and that number is expected to rise, with over 1,400 more wounded, including at least 18 injured critically and 267 in serious condition. Hamas has also reportedly taken dozens of Israelis hostage, releasing video to support its claims.

One cannot justify murder and violence, but why would Hamas commit such horrible crimes when they know what the final outcome is going to be? Hamas’s leaders see Israel as illegitimate and hostile. They believe that attacking Israel is justified and that, in the end, they can gain politically from doing so. They know that ordinary Gazans will pay a terrible price from the Israeli response, but they hope that the eventual political settlement will be in their favor.

Initial information suggests that the attack has no precedent in recent Israeli history. The IDF said approximately 2,200 rockets were launched in the initial barrages, making it the largest rocket attack against Israel since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. The number of rockets launched was an order of magnitude larger than the attacks at the beginning of the 2014 and 2021 crises. Hamas also appears to have been quite innovative, using paragliders among other means to enter Israel by surprise. The infiltration is particularly devastating for Israel due to the lives lost and the hostages taken.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “We are at war,” and launched Operation Iron Swords, conducting airstrikes in Gaza and calling up reservists. Al Jazeera reports that the Israeli response has already claimed 232 lives in Gaza, with many more deaths sure to come.

The situation is chaotic, and the fighting is ongoing—the ultimate numbers of dead, wounded, and hostages may be far greater than initial reports. Undoubtedly, early information is incomplete, exaggerated in some areas and understated in others, and in some cases plain wrong. But several observations stand out.

Tim Marshall’s insights on recent history, causes, consequences, and a way forward for the ongoing Israeli-Palestine bombardments offer valuable perspectives that shed light on the complex and tragic situation unfolding in the region.

Historical Context: 

To understand the current crisis, we must first acknowledge the deep-seated historical tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. Tim Marshall has consistently emphasized the importance of historical context when analysing geopolitical conflicts, and in this case, it is no different. The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict date back decades, marked by disputes over territory, sovereignty, and identity. Decades of violence, failed peace talks, and a lack of a comprehensive resolution have left both sides disillusioned and deeply entrenched in their positions.

Causes of the Escalation: 

Hamas’s massive attack on Israel, as horrific as it is, cannot be viewed in isolation. It is a tragic manifestation of the desperation and frustration that has been simmering in Gaza for years. The blockade of Gaza, imposed by Israel and Egypt, has resulted in dire living conditions for its inhabitants, with limited access to basic necessities. Tim Marshall’s analysis highlights the role of political leaders in fuelling this desperation. Hamas, deemed a terrorist organization by Israel and many Western countries, sees violence as a means to gain political leverage and draw international attention to the plight of Gaza.

The statement, “One cannot justify murder and violence,” underscores the fundamental ethical principle that violence should never be condoned. However, it also prompts us to question why such violence occurs. It underscores the belief among Hamas leaders that attacking Israel, despite the predictable and devastating consequences, is seen as a justifiable means to achieve their political goals.

Consequences of the Escalation: 

The consequences of the recent escalation are disastrous for both Israelis and Palestinians. Tim Marshall’s emphasis on the human cost in conflicts is particularly relevant here. The casualties on both sides are staggering, with innocent civilians paying the heaviest price. Families are torn apart, communities shattered, and the psychological scars of violence deepen.

The disproportionate use of force by both sides exacerbates the suffering. The rockets launched by Hamas and the airstrikes by Israel wreak havoc, not differentiating between combatants and non-combatants. The taking of hostages adds another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation, further highlighting the tragic consequences of this conflict.

The Way Forward: 

Tim Marshall’s approach to conflict analysis encourages us to seek a way forward, even in seemingly intractable situations. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the path to peace is long and fraught with challenges, but it remains essential.

First, there must be a renewed commitment to diplomacy and dialogue. The international community, including the United Nations and regional powers, must facilitate negotiations that address the core issues of the conflict, such as borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem. A two-state solution, with a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state, remains a widely supported framework for peace.

Second, humanitarian considerations must be paramount. The suffering of the people in Gaza cannot be ignored any longer. The blockade must be eased to allow for the free flow of goods and services, and efforts should be made to rebuild infrastructure and improve living conditions. International aid and support for reconstruction are imperative.

Third, leaders on both sides must take responsibility for their actions and refrain from using violence as a political tool. The cycle of violence can only be broken when both parties commit to a peaceful resolution and work towards a future where their respective rights and aspirations are acknowledged.

In conclusion, the ongoing Israeli-Palestine bombardments are a tragic manifestation of historical tensions, desperation, and political calculations. Tim Marshall’s insights remind us of the importance of understanding the historical context, acknowledging the causes of the escalation, recognizing the devastating consequences, and charting a way forward through diplomacy and humanitarian efforts. While the road to peace in the region is long and arduous, it remains an imperative goal for the sake of the innocent lives caught in the crossfire and for the hope of a more stable and just future.

As the curtains rose on a bright morning in Abuja, Nigeria, I found myself seated among a panel of distinguished individuals, all gathered to discuss the intricate web of challenges that plagued our nation’s economy and society. Dr. Tope Fasua, the recently appointed Special Adviser on Economic Matters to the President, had convened this event on September 28, 2023. The room buzzed with anticipation, and as I looked around, I couldn’t help but sense the gravity of the topics that lay before us. My role as a panelist was to provide insights into Nigeria’s economic challenges, and I had a specific perspective to share—one that sought to redefine our approach to development.

As the discussion unfolded, a member of the audience voiced a viewpoint that had echoed through Nigeria’s policymaking corridors for years: “Nigeria has an implementation problem,” they said, “our plans are well-crafted, but the issue lies in their execution.” It was a sentiment I had heard countless times before, but today, I was here to challenge it. In my view, Nigeria’s struggles extended beyond mere implementation issues or planning deficiencies; our nation faced a more profound problem—a lack of coherent strategy.

The conversation took flight as I delved into the heart of the matter. I began by distinguishing between development strategy and development plans, using Nigeria’s Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) and Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 as compelling examples of the contrasting approaches.

In Nigeria, I explained, our development plans have often been meticulous in detailing what to do and how to do it, much like the ERGP. Yet, the missing link has been the overarching strategy—the “why” behind the “what” and “how.” Our plans have been input-driven, preoccupied with the mechanics of development without a clear strategic vision.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, provided a striking contrast with its Vision 2030. This was not merely a plan; it was a strategy—a vision of the future Saudi Arabia aspired to. It was outcome-driven, with a keen focus on what they wanted to achieve, not just how to get there. The Saudi Arabian strategy was working because it had a clear sense of purpose and direction.

To drive home the point, I turned our attention to the agriculture sector, an area Nigeria has consistently identified as worthy of promotion. However, I argued, we had failed to define what “winning” meant for Nigeria in this sector. We lacked a clear understanding of why we wanted to play in this field and how we intended to win.

In Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, they had made it abundantly clear why they were promoting certain sectors. They were not merely playing; they were strategically positioning themselves to win. This clarity of purpose informed every decision they made and every resource they allocated.

Continuing with the agricultural sector as an example, I emphasized that Nigeria had not adequately addressed the critical question of what capabilities needed to be put in place. Saudi Arabia, with its strategy, had identified the essential capabilities required to succeed in their chosen sectors. They were investing in education, research, technology, and infrastructure to build those capabilities.

Furthermore, I pointed out that Nigeria had overlooked the crucial aspect of the management system required to drive these capabilities toward success. Saudi Arabia, with its Vision 2030, had a well-defined system of governance, policies, and regulatory frameworks that supported and facilitated the execution of their strategy.

The room fell into a contemplative silence as the panel and the audience absorbed the significance of these distinctions. It became clear that Nigeria’s struggles were not merely about planning and implementation; they were rooted in the absence of a coherent national strategy—a grand vision that would guide our actions, prioritize our efforts, and align our aspirations with our capabilities.

I concluded my remarks by echoing the words of John Lewis Gaddis, who succinctly defined strategy as “the alignment of potentially unlimited aspirations with necessarily limited capabilities.” Nigeria, I argued, must find this alignment. We must bridge the gap between what we aspire to achieve and what we realistically can. It was time for our leaders and policymakers to shift their focus from the blame game of implementation to the strategic thinking that would drive our nation forward.

The former minister on the panel nodded in agreement, recognizing the validity of the argument. The former national legislator, known for his pragmatism, voiced his support for a more strategic approach to governance. The entrepreneur on the panel shared stories of his struggles in navigating the labyrinth of Nigeria’s economic landscape, underscoring the need for a clear national strategy that would provide a roadmap for businesses.

The university professor, an authority on the capital market, chimed in, highlighting the importance of investor confidence, which could only be bolstered by a coherent and consistent national strategy. Finally, the SME consultant, who had worked closely with small and medium-sized enterprises, stressed the need for clarity and stability in policies, both of which a well-defined strategy could provide.

As the discussion continued, the room came alive with ideas and enthusiasm. It was evident that the concept of a national strategy had struck a chord with the audience. I hope Dr. Tope Fasua, our host and the Special Adviser on Economic Matters to the President, will recognize that this perspective could be a catalyst for change.

In the end, our gathering had evolved into more than just a panel discussion; it had become a call to action. It was a call to transform Nigeria’s approach to development, to replace the fragmented plans with a unifying strategy, and to chart a course toward a future where our aspirations were not limited by our capabilities but guided by them.

As I left the event, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of hope. We had taken a step in the right direction—a step toward a Nigeria with a clear strategy, where we played to win, and where the nation’s aspirations were not mere dreams but achievable realities. It was a vision worth pursuing, and I was optimistic that, with the right strategic thinking, Nigeria could indeed rise to its full potential.

In the realm of Nigerian politics, the past two decades have witnessed a transformation in leadership that has left a significant mark on the nation’s destiny. It is a period marked by transitions from one administration to another, each promising to bring about the much-needed change and progress. The leadership selection process, however, has often been plagued by the peril of overconfidence, as aptly noted by the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman. This op-ed examines the leadership styles of two former Nigerian presidents, Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari, through the lens of overconfidence and its implications for the nation’s progress.

Daniel Kahneman, a renowned psychologist and behavioral economist, has spent decades studying human decision-making and the cognitive biases that often influence our choices. His assertion that “one of the real dangers of leader selection in many organizations: leaders are selected for overconfidence” is a fitting starting point for an analysis of Nigerian political leadership. Overconfidence, in the context of leadership, can manifest as an unwarranted belief in one’s abilities, a lack of receptiveness to feedback, and an overestimation of the likelihood of success. This overconfidence can have far-reaching consequences when it comes to governance.

Goodluck Jonathan, who served as Nigeria’s president from 2010 to 2015, is a prominent example of a leader whose tenure was marked by overconfidence. When he assumed office, he inherited a nation grappling with issues such as corruption, insecurity, and economic instability. His leadership, however, was marred by a lack of decisiveness in addressing these challenges. Instead of acknowledging the gravity of the problems and seeking innovative solutions, he often appeared complacent, as if hoping that issues would resolve themselves.

One glaring example of Jonathan’s overconfidence was his handling of the Boko Haram insurgency. Despite the escalating violence and the kidnapping of hundreds of schoolgirls in Chibok, he downplayed the threat, leading to a delayed response that allowed the terrorist group to gain more ground. This overconfidence not only cost lives but also fueled a sense of frustration and helplessness among Nigerians.

Furthermore, Jonathan’s leadership was characterized by an inability to tackle corruption effectively. Despite promising to fight corruption, he seemed reluctant to hold his own party members accountable for their misdeeds. This selective approach to anti-corruption efforts eroded public trust and perpetuated the culture of impunity.

On the other side of the spectrum, Muhammadu Buhari’s presidency, which began in 2015, was also marked by overconfidence, albeit of a different kind. Buhari, a former military leader, was widely seen as a disciplinarian who would bring order to Nigeria’s chaotic governance landscape. His reputation was built on a perception of unyielding integrity, and many Nigerians believed he had the solution to the nation’s problems.

However, Buhari’s leadership style often veered into authoritarianism, with a tendency to sideline democratic institutions and concentrate power in the executive branch. His administration’s overconfidence in its ability to solve Nigeria’s problems without consulting a wide range of stakeholders resulted in a lack of inclusivity and accountability.

One of the most significant manifestations of overconfidence during Buhari’s tenure was the mishandling of the economy. His government’s decision to implement a strict foreign exchange policy and its reluctance to embrace economic diversification led to a recession that hurt ordinary Nigerians. The overconfidence in a narrow set of economic policies disregarded the complexity of the nation’s economic challenges and hampered the country’s growth potential.

Furthermore, Buhari’s administration displayed overconfidence in handling security matters. While the fight against Boko Haram made some progress, other security challenges, such as the Fulani herdsmen crisis and the resurgence of secessionist movements, were often met with heavy-handed tactics rather than dialogue and reconciliation. This approach fueled resentment in affected communities and exacerbated conflicts.

The peril of overconfidence in leadership selection becomes evident when we examine the impact of these two presidencies on Nigeria’s development. Jonathan’s reluctance to confront pressing issues and his selective approach to governance led to a lack of progress on critical fronts. Buhari’s authoritarian tendencies and rigid economic policies stifled innovation and hindered the nation’s growth potential.

It is essential to acknowledge that leadership decisions in Nigeria are influenced by various factors, including political patronage, regional considerations, and ethno-religious dynamics. However, the common thread of overconfidence in leadership selection remains a concerning factor.

To overcome this peril, Nigeria must adopt a more rigorous and merit-based approach to leadership selection. Leaders should be chosen based on their competence, track record, and ability to navigate the complex challenges facing the nation. Additionally, mechanisms for accountability and transparency must be strengthened to prevent leaders from becoming complacent and overconfident in their positions.

Furthermore, leaders should surround themselves with diverse and knowledgeable advisers who can provide different perspectives and challenge their assumptions. Overconfidence often thrives in environments where leaders are insulated from dissenting voices. In contrast, leaders who encourage constructive criticism and engage in open dialogue are more likely to make informed decisions that benefit the nation.

In conclusion, the peril of overconfidence in leadership selection has had a significant impact on Nigeria’s political landscape. Both Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari’s presidencies were marked by overconfidence, which hindered progress on critical issues and contributed to the nation’s challenges. To break free from this cycle, Nigeria must prioritize merit-based leadership selection, accountability, and inclusivity in governance. Only then can the nation harness its full potential and address the pressing issues that have long impeded its development.

In the realm of government-led mega projects, Nigeria’s track record has been marred by a series of failures, leaving citizens disillusioned and sceptical about the efficacy of these initiatives. The Ajaokuta Steel Company, a symbol of unfulfilled potential, stands as a vivid example of these systemic setbacks. Drawing insights from the scholarly works of experts who’ve dissected the dynamics of such undertakings, it’s evident that Nigeria’s struggles stem from a combination of ambitious planning, flawed execution, and a disregard for fundamental principles.

The Ajaokuta Steel Company, envisioned as a cornerstone of Nigeria’s industrialization, has struggled to deliver value for money over the decades. Despite its vast resources, the integrated steel mill remains an enigma, largely due to a series of missteps and persistent challenges that have hindered its completion. A closer examination of the project’s trajectory reveals insights that parallel observations made by scholars in the field.

The first issue that emerges is the phenomenon of “optimism bias.” Government mega projects often begin with grand ambitions and inflated expectations, fuelling a distorted perception of the project’s feasibility. This is precisely what happened with Ajaokuta. The project was launched with lofty objectives, overlooking the complexities that lay ahead. Scholars have noted that such optimism often leads to underestimation of costs, timelines, and potential risks. This is a recurring theme in Nigeria’s project failures, including Ajaokuta, where initial estimates failed to account for the intricate engineering challenges and logistical bottlenecks.

The Ajaokuta saga also underscores the peril of political interference and corruption. Dan Gardner’s insights about the “politics of fear” and the “preference for stories over statistics” shed light on how projects become entangled in the web of political interests and personal gain. The privatization attempt of Ajaokuta, for instance, was tarnished by corruption allegations, diverting attention from addressing the core issues plaguing the steel mill. This echoes Flyvbjerg’s observations about the “iron law of megaprojects” – cost overruns and delays – as political considerations often prioritize short-term gains over long-term viability.

While some proponents of the Ajaokuta Steel Company’s predicament might point fingers at geopolitical interests, it’s crucial for Nigeria’s new Ministers for Steel Development to steer clear of these distractions. Conspiracy theories, while captivating, divert attention from the systemic failures that truly impede progress. A focus on resolving internal challenges is imperative to turning the tide.

To change the narrative, a paradigm shift is urgently needed. First, meticulous planning rooted in realistic assessment of costs, benefits, and potential risks should replace the prevailing optimism bias. Informed by historical examples like Ajaokuta, the government must ensure that projects are grounded in feasibility studies that accurately account for complexities and uncertainties.

Second, the new ministers must prioritize transparency and accountability. The lack of both has fueled skepticism and eroded public trust. Embracing Gardner’s emphasis on data-driven decision-making can aid in countering the “politics of fear.” Regular progress updates, disclosure of expenditures, and independent audits can go a long way in restoring confidence.

Third, project governance must be insulated from political manoeuvring. As Flyvbjerg suggests, creating independent oversight bodies can help prevent projects from becoming hostages of shifting political priorities. This entails the establishment of robust mechanisms that shield projects from short-term political agendas, fostering an environment conducive to long-term success.

Furthermore, the new ministers must harness the power of technology and global best practices. Modern project management tools can help streamline processes, enhance communication, and detect potential roadblocks early on. Collaborating with international experts and organizations experienced in executing large-scale projects can provide invaluable guidance, reducing the risk of pitfalls experienced in the past.

Lastly, the Ajaokuta Steel Company should serve as a learning opportunity, emphasizing the significance of adaptability and continuous improvement. As projects evolve, the ability to adjust to changing circumstances becomes critical. By embracing a flexible approach that incorporates lessons learned along the way, Nigeria can enhance the chances of project success.

In conclusion, Nigeria’s history of government mega project failures, exemplified by the Ajaokuta Steel Company, reveals a pattern of overambition, political interference, and insufficient planning. Insights from the works of Flyvbjerg and Gardner shed light on the systemic factors that have perpetuated this cycle. The new Ministers for Steel Development must pivot from past approaches and prioritize transparency, data-driven decision-making, and effective project governance. While geopolitical theories may provide an easy scapegoat, true progress will come from confronting internal challenges head-on and embarking on a path of transformation guided by prudence, diligence, and a commitment to the nation’s long-term development. Only then can Nigeria break free from the shackles of its project failures and forge a future marked by successful, impactful mega projects

As President Bola Ahmed Tinubu prepares to administer the oath of office to a new cohort of ministers, the halls of governance are poised to welcome accomplished individuals from diverse spheres of excellence. These new leaders, beacons of achievement in their respective domains, now stand at the precipice of an altogether different endeavour – the realm of public policy and administration. With their unique skills, experiences, and visions, they possess the potential to reshape the trajectory of our nation. However, it is imperative that they heed the wisdom of history, exemplified in Krugman’s “the great man’s disease,” which warns against complacency in traversing the complex landscape of public policy.

Public policy is an intricate tapestry woven from the threads of societal needs, political dynamics, economic forces, and ethical considerations. The transition from accomplishments in private enterprise to public service necessitates a recalibration of perspective. While excellence in one domain is laudable, it is no guarantee of prowess in the other. The skills that drive business success may not seamlessly translate to the realm of public administration. Indeed, the corridors of power are replete with stories of esteemed professionals faltering in the face of complex public challenges.

To succeed in their ministerial roles, these new appointees must recognize the distinct nuances of public policy. They must approach their responsibilities with humility, acknowledging that a successful corporate playbook may not directly apply to governance. Public administration operates within a unique ecosystem where stakeholder interests are multifarious, and the repercussions of decisions ripple through the fabric of society. Hence, a departure from the allure of “the great man’s disease” is crucial. The hubris that success in one realm breeds expertise in another must be supplanted by an eagerness to learn anew.

In this journey of transition, a roadmap for success emerges through three interconnected pillars: comprehension, collaboration, and commitment.

Comprehension mandates an earnest study of the intricate interplay between policy choices and societal impact. The ministers must delve into the complexities of economic theory, social psychology, and ethical philosophy. They must engage with the latest research and expert opinions, forging an understanding of the holistic effects of their decisions. While their accomplishments may have been rooted in single-dimensional goals, public policy necessitates a holistic and interdisciplinary perspective.

Collaboration emerges as the crucible where diverse expertise converges to forge potent solutions. A successful business executive may have been at the helm of decision-making, but the ministers must now champion consensus-building. In the cacophony of political discourse, they must harmonize conflicting viewpoints, fostering an environment where the collective wisdom of experts converges. Collaboration extends beyond the confines of their ministries, involving civil society, academia, and international partners. By embracing a tapestry of perspectives, ministers can weave policies that resonate with the multifaceted fabric of society.

Yet, collaboration alone cannot suffice without a steadfast commitment to public value – a concept espoused by Mark Moore. Public value embodies the idea that governments exist to create societal benefits beyond individual preferences. Ministers must transcend personal agendas and short-term gains, directing their efforts toward the betterment of the populace. This requires a resolute dedication to transparency, accountability, and empathy. In defining and delivering public value, ministers must foster a culture of service, recognizing that their achievements will be measured not solely by shareholder returns but by the well-being of citizens.

To deliver public value optimally, these new ministers must embark on a voyage of introspection, adaptability, and strategic insight. They must distill their private sector acumen into a coherent framework for public service. By embracing humility as a guiding virtue, they can transcend the trappings of “the great man’s disease” and navigate the intricate tapestry of public policy.

As the dawn of a new era beckons, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s incoming ministers stand as torchbearers of hope and change. Their accomplishments outside of government lay a solid foundation, but the edifice of effective governance requires a different set of tools. Comprehension, collaboration, and commitment shall be their compass, guiding them through the labyrinthine corridors of policy formulation and implementation.

It is through their unwavering dedication to public value that these ministers will carve their legacy. Mark Moore’s concept encapsulates the essence of their mission – to create policies that resonate with the collective aspirations of the nation. In achieving this, they can transcend the limitations of past paradigms and usher in a new era of prosperity, equity, and societal well-being.

As they step into their roles, may these ministers bear in mind the wisdom of history, the complexities of public policy, and the imperative of public value. For in doing so, they shall illuminate the path toward a brighter future for our beloved nation.

In the realm of governance, as in life, a compass can guide one’s direction, but it offers little insight into the obstacles that lie ahead. This truth, articulated by the quote, “[A] compass . . . [will] point you true north from where you’re standing, but it’s got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms that you’ll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp . . . , [then] what’s the use of knowing true north?” rings particularly pertinent in the context of President Tinubu’s economic policy decisions.

President Tinubu’s recent measures to remove the petrol subsidy and float the naira in order to unify the exchange rate were ostensibly driven by a desire to align Nigeria’s economic trajectory with global norms and fiscal prudence. However, in the complex terrain of economic policy-making, merely following a compass pointing to “true north” is not sufficient. One must also consider the swamps, deserts, and chasms that may lurk along the path.

John Lewis Gaddis, a renowned historian and strategist, emphasized the importance of aligning aspirations with capabilities. He astutely noted, “If you seek ends beyond your means, then sooner or later you’ll have to scale back your ends to fit your means.” This wisdom underscores the significance of assessing a nation’s resources, capacities, and socio-political context before embarking on ambitious policy changes. In Nigeria’s case, the removal of the petrol subsidy and the floating of the naira were pursued with potentially unlimited aspirations, but they collided with the nation’s necessarily limited capabilities.

The removal of the petrol subsidy, though touted as a move towards fiscal responsibility, unleashed a wave of hardships on ordinary citizens. The sudden surge in fuel prices rippled through the economy, escalating the cost of living and stoking public discontent. The lack of adequate safety nets or alternative strategies left many stranded in the metaphorical economic swamp, struggling to stay afloat amid rising prices and diminishing purchasing power. This demonstrates the danger of pursuing policy goals without a comprehensive understanding of the real-life consequences they entail.

Similarly, the decision to float the naira in pursuit of exchange rate unification carried unintended consequences. While this move aimed to present a united front to the international market, it neglected the fact that Nigeria’s economic landscape is riddled with pitfalls, such as inflationary pressures and vulnerabilities in key sectors. The swift depreciation of the naira exposed these weaknesses and highlighted the importance of a balanced strategy that considers both the overarching goal and the immediate reality.

Gaddis further asserted that a strategy emerges when one connects the dots between current circumstances and intended objectives within the context of the situation at hand. President Tinubu’s economic policies, however well-intentioned, seem to have overlooked this crucial step. A comprehensive strategy should account for the diverse economic and social landscape of Nigeria, acknowledging the limitations of the nation’s capabilities while charting a path toward achievable, equitable, and sustainable growth.

In the end, the lessons from President Tinubu’s economic policy missteps serve as a cautionary tale for leaders worldwide. A compass may point true north, but it is a balanced and well-informed strategy that guides a nation safely through the swamps, deserts, and chasms that lie on the journey toward prosperity. To align potentially unlimited aspirations with necessarily limited capabilities, as Gaddis wisely stated, is to bridge the gap between the real and the imagined, and to plot a course that safeguards the well-being of a nation’s citizens while fostering its growth.