Opinion
Bleak Human Development Index?
It is pathetic and emotionally devastating to notice that Nigeria is the fourth most indebted nation in the world. A profile of the 10 most indebted countries on the borrowers list of the International Development Association (IDA), released by the World Bank Fiscal Year 2022 audited financial statements for the IDA as at the end of June 2022 reveals that Nigeria has a 13 billion dollar International Development Association debt stock.
According to the statement, Nigeria was ranked fifth in the World Bank Fiscal Year 2021 audited financial statements known as the IDA financial statement, with 11.7 billion dollars IDA debt stock as at June 30, 2021. Sadly, the report further reveals that Nigeria’s debt profile increased significantly like a Phoenix last year by 1.3 billion dollar. And that the IDA debt profile is different from the outstanding loan facility of 486million dollars Nigeria accessed from the World Bank International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Applying the rudiments of elementary Mathematics, the cumulative debt profile of Nigeria, the self-acclaimed giant of Africa to the World Bank and its agencies is Thirteen Billion, Four hundred and Eighty-Six Million Dollars (13,. 486 billion dollars). This will translate to about Nine Trillion, Five Hundred and Seventy-Five billion and Sixty Million Naira when exchanged to Nigeria’s currency. That is quite a whopping amount which is far above the total budget of Nigeria in the last three years. This figure is also apart from loans obtained from China and other Domestic debts Nigeria has incurred. Economic analysts have blamed the rising debt profile on non-budget performance status of the country. They posit that a nation that imports with nothing to export will inevitably suffer deficit, or financial and currency crisis. This untoward development explains the depreciation of the value of the Naira with a downward spiral inflationary trend that ravages Nigeria.
A borrowing nation remains a slave economically to the creditor-nation. The rising debt profile of Nigeria as revealed by the World Bank is a strong and infallible pointer to another debt crisis that Nigeria is into barely six years she wriggled herself out of that 1996 economic quagmire. Even with an increasing annual budget, the challenge has always been the debt service to revenue which has assumed an alarming dimension, eliciting questions if the country is bankrupt or at the verge of bankruptcy. According to reports, in 2020, to service domestic debt, Nigeria spent about N1.7 trillion as against a budget of N1.87 trillion. For Foreign debts, about N553 billion was spent against a proposed budget of N805.45 billion. The rising debt profile of the country violates a new milestone with the country’s debt service as a percentage of revenue rising to 83 percent in 2020. This means that 83 percent of the revenue generated was used to service debt. Nigeria is currently ranked the highest among Sub-Saharan Africa heavily indebted countries. The situation is made worse with a stunted Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate, retarded export growth rate, a fast dwindling per capita income and an increasing poverty level exacerbated by gross unemployment.
Government spending is a function of income. Government articulates her expected income and expenditure on yearly basis in a budget. Sometimes, the expected expenditure exceeds the expected income, this leads to budget deficit. The shortfall in finance is in most cases financed through borrowing with attendant cost and associated terms and conditions relating to payment patterns at maturity. Consequently, Nigeria is caught in the web of hasty and distress borrowing which she has not been able to service in full over the years.It is sad to state that despite revenue shortfalls, the recurrent expenditure remains all-time high while the needed capital projects suffer. It is speculated that some of the domestic and foreign loans accessed are misappropriated or outrightly embezzled with impunity through white elephant projects and funding of ponzi scheme and projects that have no economic and social value to the people. It is also not far from the truth that public money are wasted on inordinate political ambition and frivolous activities to curry favour to the detriment of the economy and the people. The startling disclosure of the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) Poverty and Inequality in Nigeria reports that about 44 percent of about 200 million population or about 88 million people in Nigeria live below the country’s poverty line.
This is emotionally devastating. Recall that in 2005 the Paris Club granted indebted nations debt relief which was informed by the need to free up resources for investment and foster faster economic growth. This led to a significant decline in the country’s debt burden in 2016. Unfortunately 16 years after the respite, the debt profile of Nigeria is in the doldrums. The past and present Federal Governments led by President Muhammadu Buhari have been accumulating debt at an alarming rate through obnoxious domestic and foreign borrowing, while debt servicing cost has again increased astronomically. The economy is therefore overburdened with massive government debt and debt servicing costs that consume a very large chunk of scare revenue. To get out of this mess government at all levels should limit borrowing to service critical economic and social infrastructure. Loans should not be obtained for frivolous and selfish purposes. The people’s representatives at the National Assembly, State Houses of Assembly and Local Government Legislatures should not be hoodwinked in approving loan facility to Federal, States and Local Governments. They should critically examine the purpose of the loan request vis-a-vis the benefits accruable to the people before approval should be granted.
Without sounding pessimistic, the economic future and human development index of Nigeria is precarious and bleak, except intentional measures are put in place to check incessant borrowing syndrome. It may take a century of no borrowing to offset the nation’s domestic and foreign debt, going by the borrowing sprees of the Federal Government which in less than one year has borrowed 1.3 billion dollar. God help Nigeria.
By: Igbiki Benibo
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo