|
|
Post by AgbongboAkala on Dec 24, 2015 13:57:41 GMT
Interesting budget but they need to improve on the capital expenditure. With the lion share the ministries under Fashola is getting from the percentage assigned for capital expenditure - it shows where this administration is headed. I'm a tad impressed, though I still think that's just too much workload on one man. Nigerian definitely needs infrastructure and electricity (power) and hopefully, he'll deliver. Err, can we now say, Fashola is the de-facto PM, as Buhari has deferred almost everything his administration would be judged by to him, despite the grip he northern oligarchs have on the proper power structure? That is what they called TRUST & LOYALTY. He put all his trust on Fashola because he believes him. You need to watch GMB means Business in Lagos during the campaign to get a good grasp of the relationship between Fash and PMB. |
|
|
|
Post by AgbongboAkala on Dec 24, 2015 14:21:58 GMT
That is why I don't like getting into discussions with you people in diaspora. You seem to forget that there is a difference between the ideals and realities. We in Nigeria are presently dealing with the realities but you out there, you look at Nigeria from the prism of fantasies. When you said corruption and security should not be priorities, what exactly are the priorities of Nigeria in this trying period? Can an investor be at peace with his/her investment when everyday there is a bomb in Lagos, Abuja or Port Harcourt. Let us be realistic and objective for once.
Why are we where we are today in terms of infrastructure if not because of corruption? During Obasanjo's regime, we heard that Anenih received over N1Trillion for roads. But what do we have? Nothing. Ditto for health, education, power, agriculture and other sectors. For instance, have we asked ourselves where they got the $2.1billion for arms? But see the way the money was spent and yet you are here telling us that corruption is not our problem. It's like someone who is dying of lung cancer as a result of smoking. He continue to smoke while spending huge amount of money on drugs and hospital charges. Will he be healed? No.
Simple question to ask it why are the money appropriated not used for what they're really meant for? That is why I continue to maintain the fact that Nigerians are not ready for any change. The problems of Nigeria can only be solved the Nigerian way when Nigerians are ready.
|
|
|
|
Post by OmoOba on Dec 24, 2015 16:00:30 GMT
That is why I don't like getting into discussions with you people in diaspora. You seem to forget that there is a difference between the ideals and realities. We in Nigeria are presently dealing with the realities but you out there, you look at Nigeria from the prism of fantasies. When you said corruption and security should not be priorities, what exactly are the priorities of Nigeria in this trying period? Can an investor be at peace with his/her investment when everyday there is a bomb in Lagos, Abuja or Port Harcourt. Let us be realistic and objective for once. Why are we where we are today in terms of infrastructure if not because of corruption? During Obasanjo's regime, we heard that Anenih received over N1Trillion for roads. But what do we have? Nothing. Ditto for health, education, power, agriculture and other sectors. For instance, have we asked ourselves where they got the $2.1billion for arms? But see the way the money was spent and yet you are here telling us that corruption is not our problem. It's like someone who is dying of lung cancer as a result of smoking. He continue to smoke while spending huge amount of money on drugs and hospital charges. Will he be healed? No. Simple question to ask it why are the money appropriated not used for what they're really meant for? That is why I continue to maintain the fact that Nigerians are not ready for any change. The problems of Nigeria can only be solved the Nigerian way when Nigerians are ready. You make a lot of sense and I can see where you are coming from. I don't think anyone believes that the fight against corruption shouldn't be top priority; after all one of the reasons cited by investors for not investing in Nigeria is corruption.
What we would like to see in parallel is a drive towards creating a better business environment that would help attract and encourage the investors who are willing to take the risk to go and invest in Nigeria.
Another thing to note is that we must stop this NID and NIN thing as both groups have a lot to learn from each other and the only way this will happen is if we talk/brainstorm. We should look to harness the strengths of each group to bring about the change that we all crave.
NID see things from a different perspective and could potentially come up with innovative ideas to solve some of our problems. Together (NIN and NID) we can develop and implement some of these ideas to ensure that it is right for the Nigerian environment.
So please AgbongboAkala , feel free to challenge the NID's views objectively after all we are all working towards the same objective, a better Nigeria.
|
|
|
|
Post by AgbongboAkala on Dec 24, 2015 18:47:05 GMT
You make a lot of sense and I can see where you are coming from. I don't think anyone believes that the fight against corruption shouldn't be top priority; after all one of the reasons cited by investors for not investing in Nigeria is corruption.
What we would like to see in parallel is a drive towards creating a better business environment that would help attract and encourage the investors who are willing to take the risk to go and invest in Nigeria.
Another thing to note is that we must stop this NID and NIN thing as both groups have a lot to learn from each other and the only way this will happen is if we talk/brainstorm. We should look to harness the strengths of each group to bring about the change that we all crave.
NID see things from a different perspective and could potentially come up with innovative ideas to solve some of our problems. Together (NIN and NID) we can develop and implement some of these ideas to ensure that it is right for the Nigerian environment.
So please AgbongboAkala , feel free to challenge the NID's views objectively after all we are all working towards the same objective, a better Nigeria.
Thanks my dear sister. It's not that we don't want collabo between NID and NIN, but they should try to understand our point of view at times. We are trying to make better use of a very bad situation.  |
|
|
|
Post by AgbongboAkala on Dec 24, 2015 21:55:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by IrekeOnibudo on Dec 25, 2015 10:34:29 GMT
That is why I don't like getting into discussions with you people in diaspora. You seem to forget that there is a difference between the ideals and realities. We in Nigeria are presently dealing with the realities but you out there, you look at Nigeria from the prism of fantasies. When you said corruption and security should not be priorities, what exactly are the priorities of Nigeria in this trying period? Can an investor be at peace with his/her investment when everyday there is a bomb in Lagos, Abuja or Port Harcourt. Let us be realistic and objective for once. Why are we where we are today in terms of infrastructure if not because of corruption? During Obasanjo's regime, we heard that Anenih received over N1Trillion for roads. But what do we have? Nothing. Ditto for health, education, power, agriculture and other sectors. For instance, have we asked ourselves where they got the $2.1billion for arms? But see the way the money was spent and yet you are here telling us that corruption is not our problem. It's like someone who is dying of lung cancer as a result of smoking. He continue to smoke while spending huge amount of money on drugs and hospital charges. Will he be healed? No. Simple question to ask it why are the money appropriated not used for what they're really meant for? That is why I continue to maintain the fact that Nigerians are not ready for any change. The problems of Nigeria can only be solved the Nigerian way when Nigerians are ready. You are absolutely correct AgbongboAkalaIn fact it is for the reasons you present that I generally err on the side of caution, by citing development indices from other developing countries, whenever discussions like this crop up. It is only fair that we compare like with like, fam. |
|
|
|
Post by omohayek on Dec 26, 2015 9:14:08 GMT
That is why I don't like getting into discussions with you people in diaspora. You seem to forget that there is a difference between the ideals and realities. We in Nigeria are presently dealing with the realities but you out there, you look at Nigeria from the prism of fantasies. When you said corruption and security should not be priorities, what exactly are the priorities of Nigeria in this trying period? Can an investor be at peace with his/her investment when everyday there is a bomb in Lagos, Abuja or Port Harcourt. Let us be realistic and objective for once. Why are we where we are today in terms of infrastructure if not because of corruption? During Obasanjo's regime, we heard that Anenih received over N1Trillion for roads. But what do we have? Nothing. Ditto for health, education, power, agriculture and other sectors. For instance, have we asked ourselves where they got the $2.1billion for arms? But see the way the money was spent and yet you are here telling us that corruption is not our problem. It's like someone who is dying of lung cancer as a result of smoking. He continue to smoke while spending huge amount of money on drugs and hospital charges. Will he be healed? No. Simple question to ask it why are the money appropriated not used for what they're really meant for? That is why I continue to maintain the fact that Nigerians are not ready for any change. The problems of Nigeria can only be solved the Nigerian way when Nigerians are ready. You are absolutely correct AgbongboAkala In fact it is for the reasons you present that I generally err on the side of caution, by citing development indices from other developing countries, whenever discussions like this crop up. It is only fair that we compare like with like, fam. , Interloper , Moffy , OmoOba , Iya Niyen! , Omoluabi , dansoye1 , Belmot , Her Highness , IrekeOnibudo , AgbongboAkala , You and Razid are both missing my point, but OmoOba has hit the nail on the head: I am not saying fighting corruption is not important, just that it cannot be the only thing Buhari focuses on. The reality is that even if corruption went to zero tomorrow, Nigeria would still be too poor to have the funds for all the investment it needs. The fact is that corruption exists everywhere, but it does not have to be brought down to zero for growth to happen. Take a look at China, where this year has seen a huge campaign against it: rampant corruption that existed there for the last 30 years didn't prevent spectacular growth. So yes, let's fight corruption, but let's not make it an excuse for ignoring everything else. Razid, as for the NID vs. NIN distinction you're trying to make, you seem to think that those of us in the diaspora lack direct family members who are still on the ground in Nigeria, and are therefore somehow able to view things with complete detachment. In fact, for me at least, the opposite is true: I can't stand to see my relatives and close friends go without so many amenities I can take for granted, simply because they can't escape the grasp of an incompetent government. IrekeOnibudo, if we only look at other developing countries you consider comparable to us, we risk making no headway in the future. The fact is that the countries which are better run all cease to be "developing" after a while and then join the "developed" column: on a per capita basis, South Korea was poorer than Nigeria in 1960, and China was poorer than Nigeria in 1981. Ignoring the success stories and focusing on the failures who remain "developing" is not the way to learn what works and what doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by IrekeOnibudo on Dec 26, 2015 10:32:13 GMT
You are absolutely correct AgbongboAkala In fact it is for the reasons you present that I generally err on the side of caution, by citing development indices from other developing countries, whenever discussions like this crop up. It is only fair that we compare like with like, fam. , Interloper , iyalode , Moffy , OmoOba , Iya Niyen! , Omoluabi , dansoye1 , Belmot , osoronga ,@quimicababes, Omo Oba of the Source , Her Highness , IrekeOnibudo , ioannes , laudate , oduabachanal , stblack , zaynie , Honorebu , ilaje2015 , omohayek , AgbongboAkala , You and Razid are both missing my point, but OmoOba has hit the nail on the head: I am not saying fighting corruption is not important, just that it cannot be the only thing Buhari focuses on. The reality is that even if corruption went to zero tomorrow, Nigeria would still be too poor to have the funds for all the investment it needs. The fact is that corruption exists everywhere, but it does not have to be brought down to zero for growth to happen. Take a look at China, where this year has seen a huge campaign against it: rampant corruption that existed there for the last 30 years didn't prevent spectacular growth. So yes, let's fight corruption, but let's not make it an excuse for ignoring everything else. Razid, as for the NID vs. NIN distinction you're trying to make, you seem to think that those of us in the diaspora lack direct family members who are still on the ground in Nigeria, and are therefore somehow able to view things with complete detachment. In fact, for me at least, the opposite is true: I can't stand to see my relatives and close friends go without so many amenities I can take for granted, simply because they can't escape the grasp of an incompetent government. IrekeOnibudo, if we only look at other developing countries you consider comparable to us, we risk making no headway in the future. The fact is that the countries which are better run all cease to be "developing" after a while and then join the "developed" column: on a per capita basis, South Korea was poorer than Nigeria in 1960, and China was poorer than Nigeria in 1981. Ignoring the success stories and focusing on the failures who remain "developing" is not the way to learn what works and what doesn't. Greetings omohayek, I think it is slightly uncharitable to suggest that Buhari's current anti-corruption campaign is at the expense of a much needed drive for foreign investment, sir. Please bear in mind, now, that I make this assertion as someone who shares the concerns you have expressed elsewhere about his seeming reticence towards restructuring our political system. So why do I advance this argument?Well, for one, I think most of those crying foul at the moment are drawn from a sizeable cohort that refused to play by fair rules in the past. Yes I am referring to predatory groups of local and foreign investors who are largely responsible for the capital flight recorded in the last 6 months. I say this because in discussions with country managers/directors of three different multi-nationals that I know personally, my anecdotal observation about the refusal of their principals to abide by local laws and our weak (but existing) framework of financial governance was simply reinforced. You are going to have to forgive me for taking a different view here – I simply do not think you have allowed enough time to objectively appraise Buhari's success or failure, with respect to the climate of investment he has fostered thus far. In fact, sir, anyone reading your earlier take might be forgiven for drawing parallels with the attendant payload of Mugabe's land-reclamation exercise. Buhari in IndiaSourceBuhari in the USA SourceI understand your point about the growth of Asian tigers like South Korea, Malaysia et al, sir. But I also think it important that we acknowledge some of the ills which have plagued Nigeria over the period you identified - secessionist war; a long succession of military dictatorships; and, lately, regional terrorism… |
|
|
|
Post by omohayek on Dec 26, 2015 11:17:16 GMT
Shymmex , Interloper , iyalode , Moffy , OmoOba , Iya Niyen! , Omoluabi , dansoye1 , Belmot , osoronga ,@quimicababes, Omo Oba of the Source , Her Highness , IrekeOnibudo , ioannes , laudate , oduabachanal , stblack , zaynie , Honorebu , ilaje2015 , omohayek , AgbongboAkala , You and Razid are both missing my point, but OmoOba has hit the nail on the head: I am not saying fighting corruption is not important, just that it cannot be the only thing Buhari focuses on. The reality is that even if corruption went to zero tomorrow, Nigeria would still be too poor to have the funds for all the investment it needs. The fact is that corruption exists everywhere, but it does not have to be brought down to zero for growth to happen. Take a look at China, where this year has seen a huge campaign against it: rampant corruption that existed there for the last 30 years didn't prevent spectacular growth. So yes, let's fight corruption, but let's not make it an excuse for ignoring everything else. Razid, as for the NID vs. NIN distinction you're trying to make, you seem to think that those of us in the diaspora lack direct family members who are still on the ground in Nigeria, and are therefore somehow able to view things with complete detachment. In fact, for me at least, the opposite is true: I can't stand to see my relatives and close friends go without so many amenities I can take for granted, simply because they can't escape the grasp of an incompetent government. IrekeOnibudo, if we only look at other developing countries you consider comparable to us, we risk making no headway in the future. The fact is that the countries which are better run all cease to be "developing" after a while and then join the "developed" column: on a per capita basis, South Korea was poorer than Nigeria in 1960, and China was poorer than Nigeria in 1981. Ignoring the success stories and focusing on the failures who remain "developing" is not the way to learn what works and what doesn't. Greetings omohayek , I think it is slightly uncharitable to suggest that Buhari's current anti-corruption campaign is at the expense of a much needed drive for foreign investment, sir. Please bear in mind, now, that I make this assertion as someone who shares the concerns you have expressed elsewhere about his seeming reticence towards restructuring our political system. So why do I advance this argument?Well, for one, I think most of those crying foul at the moment are drawn from a sizeable cohort that refused to play by fair rules in the past. Yes I am referring to predatory groups of local and foreign investors who are largely responsible for the capital flight recorded in the last 6 months. I say this because in discussions with country managers/directors of three different multi-nationals that I know personally, my anecdotal observation about the refusal of their principals to abide by local laws and our weak (but existing) framework of financial governance was simply reinforced. You are going to have to forgive me for taking a different view here – I simply do not think you have allowed enough time to objectively appraise Buhari's success or failure, with respect to the climate of investment he has fostered thus far. In fact, sir, anyone reading your earlier take might be forgiven for drawing parallels with the attendant payload of Mugabe's land-reclamation exercise. Buhari in IndiaSourceBuhari in the USA SourceI understand your point about the growth of Asian tigers like South Korea, Malaysia et al, sir. But I also think it important that we acknowledge some of the ills which have plagued Nigeria over the period you identified - secessionist war; a long succession of military dictatorships; and, lately, regional terrorism… Buhari may say the right things during his foreign trips, but what is he actually doing to match the words? Holding on to obsolete, money-losing refineries, imposing astronomical fines on MTN, trying to keep the Naira at an artificially high rate, pushing for throwing more money into the white elephant that is Ajaokuta, announcing "free" university for STEM students when primary and secondary schools are starving for funding - nothing in Buhari's actual policies has shown the slightest correspondence to what an investor-friendly, growth-oriented agenda would look like. All I see is a man attempting to repeat the mistakes of the past and thinking he'll have better luck because he's personally free of corrupt tendencies. As for where the blame lies for Nigeria's 50 lost years of failure, while it's true that Nigeria has had its share of hardships, then again, so did South Korea - a much fiercer conflict than ours in fact, one that leveled the entire country and kept it divided, followed by military dictatorship for 20 years, accompanied by continuous acts of North Korean terrorism throughout the entire period, and a ceasefire that could be triggered into an all-out war at any moment. Hardly any country in the world can claim to have had a worse 20th century than China - 20 years of Somalia-style warlordism, then 16 years of total war with Japan, then a 4-year civil war between Nationalists and Communists, then 1 million dead in the Korean War, then mass famine during the Great Leap Forward, then total chaos during the Cultural Revolution. Yet, here we are, with both countries far better off today than we are - and neither had oil money to rely on like we do. Put in perspective, Nigeria has actually had it easier than both of these countries, and many others that have done better than we have, which is why I think we let our leaders off far too lightly. Yes, Nigeria is rife with corruption, and I'm happy that there's a government which seems serious about wanting to fight it, but I'm skeptical that Buhari's methods will be any more successful in the long run than they were the last time around, as he doesn't appear to understand that systemic corruption requires systemic solutions, not one-off drives and "War Against Indiscipline" style campaigns. Meanwhile, the economy is languishing and capital is fleeing the country, in large part because of Buhari's economically illiterate agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Dec 26, 2015 13:34:37 GMT
You are absolutely correct AgbongboAkala In fact it is for the reasons you present that I generally err on the side of caution, by citing development indices from other developing countries, whenever discussions like this crop up. It is only fair that we compare like with like, fam. , Interloper , iyalode , Moffy , OmoOba , Iya Niyen! , Omoluabi , dansoye1 , Belmot , osoronga ,@quimicababes, Omo Oba of the Source , Her Highness , IrekeOnibudo , ioannes , laudate , oduabachanal , stblack , zaynie , Honorebu , ilaje2015 , omohayek , AgbongboAkala , You and Razid are both missing my point, but OmoOba has hit the nail on the head: I am not saying fighting corruption is not important, just that it cannot be the only thing Buhari focuses on. The reality is that even if corruption went to zero tomorrow, Nigeria would still be too poor to have the funds for all the investment it needs. The fact is that corruption exists everywhere, but it does not have to be brought down to zero for growth to happen. Take a look at China, where this year has seen a huge campaign against it: rampant corruption that existed there for the last 30 years didn't prevent spectacular growth. So yes, let's fight corruption, but let's not make it an excuse for ignoring everything else. Razid, as for the NID vs. NIN distinction you're trying to make, you seem to think that those of us in the diaspora lack direct family members who are still on the ground in Nigeria, and are therefore somehow able to view things with complete detachment. In fact, for me at least, the opposite is true: I can't stand to see my relatives and close friends go without so many amenities I can take for granted, simply because they can't escape the grasp of an incompetent government. IrekeOnibudo, if we only look at other developing countries you consider comparable to us, we risk making no headway in the future. The fact is that the countries which are better run all cease to be "developing" after a while and then join the "developed" column: on a per capita basis, South Korea was poorer than Nigeria in 1960, and China was poorer than Nigeria in 1981. Ignoring the success stories and focusing on the failures who remain "developing" is not the way to learn what works and what doesn't. Sir, I'm not against your argument about this administrations excessive noise about corruption and security. Personally, I believe that despite all the noise - nothing tangible has been achieved in those areas since this government came to power. Boko haram is still as strong as ever, causing carnage everywhere, despite the media blackout. And the administration is yet to procure modern weapons for the Nigerian military. They're basically still fighting the insurgency with the obsolete weapons and tactics they used during the GEJ era. As for corruption, the whole shebang looks like a smokescreen to me for now, till they start prosecuting the GEJs, Iwealas, and Diezanis of this world - the three headed monsters that wrecked Nigeria. So I agree with your argument. However, where our views diverge is your argument for complete privatisation of all Nigeria's assets. Personally, I don't believe extreme capitalism is always the solution to failed public services, hence I suggested PPP as a better option to certain infrastructures owned by the state. Yes, certain sectors can be privatised but not all. Nigeria is still growing and once you sell everything to multi-nationals, who are out to maximise profits - without proper control - then it's just basically like playing a game of Russian Roulette.This is a country where over 70% of the people still live below the poverty line and there's no welfare programme for the people. I honestly don't think Nigerians enjoy anything from being from that country. So why sell all the assets future generation can build on? I think we need to highlight the sectors that ought to be privatised and the ones that should be left alone, albeit the government has to endeavour to make them work. A thriving economy has to be mixed - unless you want to create a bigger gap between the haves and have-nots. |
|
|
|
Post by omohayek on Dec 26, 2015 14:25:34 GMT
Shymmex , Interloper , iyalode , Moffy , OmoOba , Iya Niyen! , Omoluabi , dansoye1 , Belmot , osoronga ,@quimicababes, Omo Oba of the Source , Her Highness , IrekeOnibudo , ioannes , laudate , oduabachanal , stblack , zaynie , Honorebu , ilaje2015 , omohayek , AgbongboAkala , You and Razid are both missing my point, but OmoOba has hit the nail on the head: I am not saying fighting corruption is not important, just that it cannot be the only thing Buhari focuses on. The reality is that even if corruption went to zero tomorrow, Nigeria would still be too poor to have the funds for all the investment it needs. The fact is that corruption exists everywhere, but it does not have to be brought down to zero for growth to happen. Take a look at China, where this year has seen a huge campaign against it: rampant corruption that existed there for the last 30 years didn't prevent spectacular growth. So yes, let's fight corruption, but let's not make it an excuse for ignoring everything else. Razid, as for the NID vs. NIN distinction you're trying to make, you seem to think that those of us in the diaspora lack direct family members who are still on the ground in Nigeria, and are therefore somehow able to view things with complete detachment. In fact, for me at least, the opposite is true: I can't stand to see my relatives and close friends go without so many amenities I can take for granted, simply because they can't escape the grasp of an incompetent government. IrekeOnibudo, if we only look at other developing countries you consider comparable to us, we risk making no headway in the future. The fact is that the countries which are better run all cease to be "developing" after a while and then join the "developed" column: on a per capita basis, South Korea was poorer than Nigeria in 1960, and China was poorer than Nigeria in 1981. Ignoring the success stories and focusing on the failures who remain "developing" is not the way to learn what works and what doesn't. Sir, I'm not against your argument about this administrations excessive noise about corruption and security. Personally, I believe that despite all the noise - nothing tangible has been achieved in those areas since this government came to power. Boko haram is still as strong as ever, causing carnage everywhere, despite the media blackout. And the administration is yet to procure modern weapons for the Nigerian military. They're basically still fighting the insurgency with the obsolete weapons and tactics they used during the GEJ era. As for corruption, the whole shebang looks like a smokescreen to me for now, till they start prosecuting the GEJs, Iwealas, and Diezanis of this world - the three headed monsters that wrecked Nigeria. So I agree with your argument. However, where our views diverge is your argument for complete privatisation of all Nigeria's assets. Personally, I don't believe extreme capitalism is always the solution to failed public services, hence I suggested PPP as a better option to certain infrastructures owned by the state. Yes, certain sectors can be privatised but not all. Nigeria is still growing and once you sell everything to multi-nationals, who are out to maximise profits - without proper control - then it's just basically like playing a game of Russian Roulette.This is a country where over 70% of the people still live below the poverty line and there's no welfare programme for the people. I honestly don't think Nigerians enjoy anything from being from that country. So why sell all the assets future generation can build on? I think we need to highlight the sectors that ought to be privatised and the ones that should be left alone, albeit the government has to endeavour to make them work. A thriving economy has to be mixed - unless you want to create a bigger gap between the haves and have-nots. I think there's some clarification needed here - I've never advocated that Nigeria should privatize all functions. What I have actually been advocating is that most of the things the Nigerian state is trying (and almost always failing) to do would be better off being left to the private sector, and that it is precisely incompetent state interference in almost all aspects of the economy that is to explain why Nigeria has fallen behind even countries like Indonesia which we formerly better off than - and why the very same Nigerians who stagnate at home thrive when they go abroad. The evidence for this assertion of mine is overwhelming: can anybody name a single Nigerian parastatal that has not ended up being a mess of corruption and incompetence? The problem you have to handle upfront in your advocacy for continued government interference in more aspects of the economy is this: how do you align the incentives of the public servants with the people they are supposed to be serving? Privately run corporations are disciplined by market forces to keep inefficiency, theft, nepotism and the like to a minimum, but how do you hold public sector workers to similar standards? After all, they have security of tenure, no matter how well or poorly the organizations they work for serve the purposes for which they were created, and as many of them owe their employment to political patronage rather than any skills they have, they generally aren't well paid, when they are paid at all. What stops a poorly paid civil servant from coming to the office once a month, and then demanding a bribe to do his job when he shows up? It is this failure to grapple with the incentive issues faced by public sector workers which I'm criticizing Buhari for: no matter what EFCC achieves with the big fish, corruption will always be rampant at the lower levels in Nigeria until the incentives to engage in corruption are sufficiently weakened. Personally, I think the right way to achieve this is to reduce the scope for corruption in the first place, by removing bureaucratic and political interference in as much of the economy as possible. For example, if railroads were privately run, there would be no room for kickbacks on railroad contracts, and the owners of the assets would have real incentives to invest in their property, and real incentives to get customers to use rail services; given a stable investment environment, the railroad companies could even borrow abroad or look for foreign equity partners to invest in laying down new tracks reaching every nook and cranny of the country. That is exactly how the railroads were created in most developed parts of the world, including the USA and the UK, and it is how even the subways were built in Japan. In a similar vein, without import restrictions on rice and the ability to single out particular items for high tariffs, Umaru Dikko and Aliko Dangote could never have enriched themselves at public expense. If the Nigerian government restricted itself to providing just the truly public services like policing, courts, regulation of the borders and primary healthcare, it would be able to get by with a much smaller payroll of staff who could be better paid and easier to monitor. Employees who earned reasonable incomes would have less incentive to steal or seek bribes, and more to lose if they were caught doing so. The government could then impose stringent transparency conditions, so that anyone could do a quick web search to learn the details of every single government contract, and institute double-blind recruitment for staff, with external auditors hired from outside the country. It could set up websites where people could file anonymous complaints against public staff, and tie department heads' bonuses to how many complaints were received. Finally, the government could institute random checks on employee behavior by having wiring people with cameras and microphones and sending them into government offices, pretending to be ordinary members of the public; if you can't tell who is or isn't a real client, you're a lot more likely to treat everyone you see with respect and real attention. The long and short of it is that a government which does a few crucial things very well is much better than one which fails at many things, at least in my eyes. It's all very well to say that what I'm advocating is too radical, but what would be more convincing is explaining how you'd then deal with the incentive problems I've identified - and how your proposed solutions would be any different from the failed measures Nigeria has seen in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Shymmex on Dec 26, 2015 18:38:13 GMT
Sir, I'm not against your argument about this administrations excessive noise about corruption and security. Personally, I believe that despite all the noise - nothing tangible has been achieved in those areas since this government came to power. Boko haram is still as strong as ever, causing carnage everywhere, despite the media blackout. And the administration is yet to procure modern weapons for the Nigerian military. They're basically still fighting the insurgency with the obsolete weapons and tactics they used during the GEJ era. As for corruption, the whole shebang looks like a smokescreen to me for now, till they start prosecuting the GEJs, Iwealas, and Diezanis of this world - the three headed monsters that wrecked Nigeria. So I agree with your argument. However, where our views diverge is your argument for complete privatisation of all Nigeria's assets. Personally, I don't believe extreme capitalism is always the solution to failed public services, hence I suggested PPP as a better option to certain infrastructures owned by the state. Yes, certain sectors can be privatised but not all. Nigeria is still growing and once you sell everything to multi-nationals, who are out to maximise profits - without proper control - then it's just basically like playing a game of Russian Roulette.This is a country where over 70% of the people still live below the poverty line and there's no welfare programme for the people. I honestly don't think Nigerians enjoy anything from being from that country. So why sell all the assets future generation can build on? I think we need to highlight the sectors that ought to be privatised and the ones that should be left alone, albeit the government has to endeavour to make them work. A thriving economy has to be mixed - unless you want to create a bigger gap between the haves and have-nots. I think there's some clarification needed here - I've never advocated that Nigeria should privatize all functions. What I have actually been advocating is that most of the things the Nigerian state is trying (and almost always failing) to do would be better off being left to the private sector, and that it is precisely incompetent state interference in almost all aspects of the economy that is to explain why Nigeria has fallen behind even countries like Indonesia which we formerly better off than - and why the very same Nigerians who stagnate at home thrive when they go abroad. The evidence for this assertion of mine is overwhelming: can anybody name a single Nigerian parastatal that has not ended up being a mess of corruption and incompetence? The problem you have to handle upfront in your advocacy for continued government interference in more aspects of the economy is this: how do you align the incentives of the public servants with the people they are supposed to be serving? Privately run corporations are disciplined by market forces to keep inefficiency, theft, nepotism and the like to a minimum, but how do you hold public sector workers to similar standards? After all, they have security of tenure, no matter how well or poorly the organizations they work for serve the purposes for which they were created, and as many of them owe their employment to political patronage rather than any skills they have, they generally aren't well paid, when they are paid at all. What stops a poorly paid civil servant from coming to the office once a month, and then demanding a bribe to do his job when he shows up? It is this failure to grapple with the incentive issues faced by public sector workers which I'm criticizing Buhari for: no matter what EFCC achieves with the big fish, corruption will always be rampant at the lower levels in Nigeria until the incentives to engage in corruption are sufficiently weakened. Personally, I think the right way to achieve this is to reduce the scope for corruption in the first place, by removing bureaucratic and political interference in as much of the economy as possible. For example, if railroads were privately run, there would be no room for kickbacks on railroad contracts, and the owners of the assets would have real incentives to invest in their property, and real incentives to get customers to use rail services; given a stable investment environment, the railroad companies could even borrow abroad or look for foreign equity partners to invest in laying down new tracks reaching every nook and cranny of the country. That is exactly how the railroads were created in most developed parts of the world, including the USA and the UK, and it is how even the subways were built in Japan. In a similar vein, without import restrictions on rice and the ability to single out particular items for high tariffs, Umaru Dikko and Aliko Dangote could never have enriched themselves at public expense. If the Nigerian government restricted itself to providing just the truly public services like policing, courts, regulation of the borders and primary healthcare, it would be able to get by with a much smaller payroll of staff who could be better paid and easier to monitor. Employees who earned reasonable incomes would have less incentive to steal or seek bribes, and more to lose if they were caught doing so. The government could then impose stringent transparency conditions, so that anyone could do a quick web search to learn the details of every single government contract, and institute double-blind recruitment for staff, with external auditors hired from outside the country. It could set up websites where people could file anonymous complaints against public staff, and tie department heads' bonuses to how many complaints were received. Finally, the government could institute random checks on employee behavior by having wiring people with cameras and microphones and sending them into government offices, pretending to be ordinary members of the public; if you can't tell who is or isn't a real client, you're a lot more likely to treat everyone you see with respect and real attention. The long and short of it is that a government which does a few crucial things very well is much better than one which fails at many things, at least in my eyes. It's all very well to say that what I'm advocating is too radical, but what would be more convincing is explaining how you'd then deal with the incentive problems I've identified - and how your proposed solutions would be any different from the failed measures Nigeria has seen in the past. I agree with this. |
|
|
|
Post by Honorebu on Dec 28, 2015 17:44:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Honorebu on Dec 28, 2015 17:49:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dansoye1 on Dec 28, 2015 18:08:32 GMT
|
|
