Just before the emergency economic summit 2

World bank

World bank

CONTINUED FROM YESTERDAY

Abstaining completely, for the exchange-rate stabilisation period, from using any ways-and-means facilities available to it at the Central Bank-getting the salaries and emoluments of holders of elective offices and political appointees drastically reduced/slashed in half. Former President Obasanjo recently cried out against the obscenely high salaries and allowances that federal legislators have been carting away from the national treasury ; huge portions of such funds end up chasing dollars at any price in the foreign-exchange market-announcing its intention to drastically reduce the size of government over the coming periods : the Oronsaye report that recommended the shut-down of hundreds of un-necessary and not-fit-for-purpose federal agencies is still languishing somewhere.

Introducing a series innovative taxes aimed at sterilising a part of the foreign-exchange purchasing power of the wealthy class, while helping to rake in vastly more Naira revenues. Blinded by easy, free-flowing oil revenues, Nigeria has traditionally been negligent and carefree in the matter of non-oil fiscal revenue generation.

With the savings and streams of new cash flowing into government coffers, the government would obtain more resources to redistribute to programmes that immediately touch and put spendable cash in the pockets of the mass of low-income (and no-income) earners who form the bulk of the populace and potential consumers.

Not only would that redistribution take (some) pressure off the Naira, it would boost demand for local goods and services which in turn would drive the employment of more factory and service hands, reduce un-employment and again reinforce demand for goods and services and so on and so forth. When you put extra cash in the hands of someone who has already met his basic life and leisure needs, the use to which he puts that extra cash is more likely to « hurt » the value of your national currency than is the case if that extra cash is channeled to a low-income urban or a rural family.

My belief is that our governments knew this but had always been scared to touch the privileges of the weathy and powerful class who in any event would continue to be able to meet comfortably their basic and leisure needs.

With its limitless taxing powers, here is a small sample of taxes that the government can immediately roll out to generate cash, redistribute wealth out of the pockets of the wealthy class to fund the developemnt of the productive sectors of the economy and provide succour to the weak while moderating the capacity of the wealthy to attack our national currency: -yearly registration tax on electric-power generating sets determined in accordance with the engine capacity just as you register your vehicles (remember that for industrial and commercial users of gen-sets, such taxes are deductible expenses) ; think of the favourable effect on the economy if funds raised from this source are applied exclusively to house and feed students in public universities !
-sharp increase in the cost of number-plates (issuance and renewal) for luxury automobiles while waiving or reducing the cost for low-caterogy vehicles-special tax on domestic and international airline tickets sold to Nigerians (less than 5% of Nigerians would be affected ; the measure would be Naira-supportive as reduced demand for air travel would mean reduced demand by airlines for foreign exchange)-counterpart-tax payable on real-estate property owned abroad by home-resident Nigerians the amount of which shall be equal to the tax levied on the property in the country of location and shall be payable in any freely convertible currency (think of the streams of cash that the government would haul in each year, at least, for a while…)
-tax on half- or full page non-commercial, non-official, ceremonial advertisements like congratulatory, birthday messages, burial announcements and such like (think of the thousands of vanitous ads that are splashed on newspaper pages each year and what the government can smartly hurl in from that source).

As regards oil revenues, perhaps the government would now accept to do what Norway did immediately it became an oil producer, decades after Nigeria acquired that status : you don’t monetise and spend oil revenues on useless recurrent expenditure (when not looted outrightly) or squandered on purchasing and keeping harems of gleamy official jets and automobiles or constructing useless infrastructure like stadiums and airports in remote state capitals while the country is in a dire need of decent well-staffed primary and secondary schools as well as large, well-funded, world-class universities and technological research establishments. Normally, no more than 10% of current oil revenues should fund the central and state governments’ recurrent budgets while the remaining 90% should compulsorily (that is, constitutionally) be earmarked to fund useful, future-generations’ projects in education, health, roads, housing, energy, public security systems (not « security votes », not defence expenditure!) within a clear and transparent framework.

On the aggregate, the recurrent expenditure should be pegged at a reasonable maximum percentage of the penultimate year’s non-oil revenues with the balance, again, funding nothing but meaningful, real pro-growth infrastructure projects through the length and breadth of the federation.

If Nigerians, today, have nothing good to say about oil or the oil industry, it is not oil but the successive Nigerian executive and legislative leaders who should be blamed as all these leaders may be accused of having betrayed the sacred duty to manage the country’s resources in the best interest of its people.

Nigeria’s true economic performance should henceforth be measured by the performance of the non-oil sector as the numbers from the upstream oil sector merely distort the records of our real performance. It is regrettable that past governments bandied around  synthetic  or lip-stick  economic growth-rate figures which, just a small shower (external shock) was enough to wash completely away in seconds, as we’ve seen over the last 12-18 months.

For a vibrant and intelligent people that Nigerians have at least been able to show themselves to be, it is an insult and a shame that more than fifity years later, Nigeria would still be sucking from the crude-oil «feeding bottle». That must stop.
Concluded

• Lafiaji, an economist, is a former executive secretary of the African Petroleum Producers’ Association, Brazzaville, Congo.



3 Comments
  • Yahka Mba

    ENOUGH OF FAULTY ECONOMIC PRESCRIPTIONS!

    Beautiful piece on internal revenue generation that creates money that merely ends up in another “feeding bottle”, only this time, an IGR, rather than crude-oil, feeding bottle. For, nothing in this article shows how to generate non-zero sum wealth that truly brings Nigeria into developed country status. And that is precisely the problem with what I call Nigeria’s pseudo-economics. It seeks to manipulate money that has no real foundation in the type of production that is needed for the goods we love to consume. And when I say “we”, I don’t mean just the rich, but rich and poor alike, government and the general public alike, and so-called industries and consumers alike, in respect of all the beautiful “economic” projects mentioned by this economist in his zero-sum pit that leads deeper into national poverty with its unyielding population bomb.

    Let the economists please listen. We have had enough of your strategy of import substitution with backward integration. That is no strategy at all. It is merely an indefinite postponement of a simple courageous decision to take the technological development bull by the horns and overcome our technological backwardness the way every truly developed country has. It is a false strategy of hopeless hope that in the long run we will become developed. And like a mirage in a scorching desert of technological backwardness, that goal has continued to recede as we draw nearer. And forty long years after our Third National Development Plan of 1975, a beautiful and comprehensive but faithless economic plan developed in the midst of a squandered oil boom, we are still just as far away from our goal as when the so-called “strategy” was invented!

    Nigeria no longer needs another cake-sharing “economic summit”. What she needs now is a technological development summit. In other words, she needs a win-win non-zero sum cake-baking summit. What do we need to do to tackle head on our technological development challenge? What does Biafra’s 24 month technological mobilization teach us about the imperatives of technological development? How do we establish the revealed invariants? What role can money, taxation, education, legislation, politics, governance, etc., play in the process? What changes may be required in the multitude of backward institutions set up to merely express our abdication of our technological development tasks?

    Some of the optional but gainful answers to these questions have been addressed at https://www.facebook.com/Nigeria-and-Technological-Development-366353936899646/ . The economists of technologically backward Nigeria should begin to educate themselves in these areas to help them stop making themselves obstacles to Nigeria’s true development goals!

    • amador kester

      Magnificient comment. However the article above made some reasonable recommendations or proposals that need heavy fine tuning. He forgot to factor in the technological revolution essence that alone can leap a nation onto an industrial society. No nation made it without this. When these are take into account and fine tuned, your proposal and his will become two complemantary simultaneous equations as food for thought for the oncoming economic summit

      • Yahka Mba

        Thanks for your comment. You would like to make some allowance for “heavy fine tuning” of David Lafiaji’s proposals, adding that he “forgot” to factor in the technological essence. He did not forget. He was merely operating true to the paradigm of economists in backward countries like Nigeria. He has learnt to merely hope we will develop in the long run. Again, placing his “reasonable recommendations or proposals” on a technological development summit table can only constitute a distraction – a red herring that holds the prospect of derailing the quest for technological development. Let Nigeria first appreciate what she requires to do to possess technolgical development – how she needs to position herself for absolute future technological advantage. Economic proposals may then have a context for determining their validity or for fine tuning them.

        Let us not forget that Nigeria has sought technological development since before independence. But the search has been notable for its indirect route. First, it was sought through anti-colonial independence, agricultural sufficiency, developing a middle class, central planning and military rule. All these had failed to yield technological development by the time of Buhari’s first coming. Then came Babangida’s SAP trying to see if replacing central planning with laissez faire could achieve the desired result. No luck. We have also gone through democracy looking for its dividends, and then the rule of law. Still no technological development. Now we are attempting a ding dong back to central planning, and seeing reasonable proposals therein, as if we have not been that way before! All these indirect routes have failed.

        Underlying the choice of indirectness has been either fear or ignorance. The belief of many that technology is “the white man’s magic” probably underlies this tendency to avoid direct routes in dealing with our technological development challenge, and smacks of both fear and ignorance. Fortunately, there is at least one sub-group in Nigeria that knows that this belief is false. That is the group of physical scientists and engineers. They know the laws of physical matter and its transformation from raw material to finished goods, and that it is not magic. If there should be anything like a “National Development Plan”, to lead us away from technolgical backwardness, they should be the ones designing it, not the economists. They are the ones that should be in the driving seat of the National Planning Commission, not the economists! Economists and other social scientists may serve as advisers, but do not possess the professional tools to map a way out of national poverty for us through technological development. The social scientists can add fine tuning to this map, but cannot create the map ab initio. Other proposals may also be drawn up by social scientists in support of the needs of the map. And these would be considered subsequent dependent equations, rather than “complementary simultaneous equations”.

Related