Opinion

Planning The National Economy

Published

16 years ago

January 1, 2010

In the words of Albert Waterson: “anyone who has thought much about planning recognises it as a complex and many sided phenomenon”. The complexity or variation in the concept of development planning is inevitable given the different institutional environment under which planning is being practised. For instance, in the socialist countries where it is the responsibility of the central authorities to take virtually all decisions regarding allocation of resources, planning is an integral part of the system. On the other hand, in a country like United States of America, where the allocation of resources is determined by production, sales and purchase decisions taken substantially by household and firms, planning is an adjunct to such market oriented system. In Britain and France, planning is done mainly to identify constraints, disseminate information and formulate targets for the whole economy.

Differences in levels of economic, social and political development of countries could also cause variation in the nature of planning. Such differences in the levels and patterns of development invariably result in different planning strategies and methodologies. For instance, to the developing mixed economies, planning is done to accelerate the rate of economic growth; it is a sine-qua-non for rapid economic development; their first step to Olympian heights.

From the foregoing, two factors more than any other condition the form and role of a country’s planning: its institutional framework and its stage of development.

Development planning in socialist countries is highly centralised. Such centralised form of planning goes under a variety of descriptions: planning by direction, totalitarian or authoritarian planning, and imperative planning. On the other hand, mixed economies adopt such other forms of planning as planning by inducement, democratic planning and indicative planning.

In terms of flexibility, we can classify planning into fixed and rolling plans. We can also classify planning into functional and structural planning when we are concerned with the type of planning methodologies required to bring about a structural change in society.

The desire of functional planning is to alter such economic magnitudes as national income. Investment, consumption and savings. In other words, the goal of functional planning is to achieve economic growth rather than economic development. On the other hand, structural planning is concerned with creating political sociological or cultural environment suitably oriented to the promotion of broad-based development.

The choice of functional planning may be appropriate for the developed countries considering the fact that their main concern may be the maintenance or perfection of the existing political and economic systems which are relatively okay at the moment. But for the developing countries such as Nigeria, Ghana and Liberia whose fundamental desire should be to effect not only economic changes but also social and political changes, the emphasis should be on structural and not functional planning.

In Nigeria, planning as an instrument of economic development dates back to 1946 when, following the initiative of the secretary of state for colonies in 1944, the Ten Year Plan of Development and Welfare came into operation. As noted by S. Tomori and F.O. Fajana “The plan however, did not run its full term because by 150, the inappropriateness of charting development over a period as long as ten years in a country experiencing rapid structural changes had become evident. Hence a decision was taken to break the plan period into five-year sub-period and to formulate a new plan for the period 1951 – 56”.

Since its independence in 1960, Nigeria has formulated and launched several development plans covering the periods 1962-68, 1970 – 75, 1975 – 80, 1981-1985. The fifth National Development Plan which was to immediately follow the fourth one (1981-85) was postponed until 1988 -92.

Ibrahim Babagida in late 1989 abandoned the concept of a fixed five-year plan and introduced a three year rolling plan for 1990-92 in the context of a more comprehensive fifteen to twenty year plan. For an economy facing uncertainties and structural changes, a rolling plan was considered more suitable.

Why? Because it provided for revision at the end of each year to accommodate new targets and projects.

The Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration introduced the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) to confront the development challenges of the country. NEEDS is a reform programme. And according to its documents: “the reform programme is rightly ambitious. For one thing, we need focused goals and ambitions to make progress. The programme reflects the impatience of Nigerians to see quick and dramatic changes and also the fact that Nigeria has immense potential waiting to be unleashed, talents to be tapped. Having lost some decades, we are in haste to cover lost ground, catch up with our contemporaries and become the largest economy in Africa”.

State government and local government councils have designed and are implementing their own State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS) and Local Government Economic Empowering and Development Strategy (LEEDS) respectively.

In terms of institutional framework for planning, there has been since after 1946 a conscious and deliberate effort to improve the process and machinery of planning in Nigeria. Now guidelines have been developed to ensure that all participants in the country’s development plans formulation, implementation, and assessment process are fully aware of their roles and responsibilities. The participants include: National Planning Commission, National Population Commission, Planning Departments in each Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning across the country, Federal and State Executive Councils, Donor Partners, Assessors, Supervisory Agents and Observers. Also such donor bodies as IBRD, DFID, EU, UNDP, UNICEF, UNPF, DFD, USAID and WHO have aligned their local programmes to support the development planning efforts of the country and improve the quality of their assistance to the nation.

Apparently, the essence of planning for development in Nigeria has been fully recognised. But the issue now is how to make planning effective both in conception and implementation to help establish the country firmly as “a united, strong and self-reliant nation, a great and dynamic economy, a just and egalitarian society, a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens, a free and democratic society” being the five national objectives identified in the Second National Development Plan.

Vincent Ochonma

Opinion

Monthly Environmental Sanitation Imperative

Published

10 hours ago

May 18, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “A clean environment is not a government gift; it is a civic duty that protects our health, preserves our cities, and reflects our national character.”

For many Nigerians who grew up in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, the last Saturday of every month followed a familiar pattern. Roads were deserted, markets closed, and residents swept compounds, cleared gutters, cut overgrown weeds, and disposed off refuse. The monthly environmental sanitation exercise became a national ritual that promoted cleanliness, discipline, and civic responsibility. As an environment correspondent about two decades ago, I joined officials of the Rivers State Ministry of Environment on sanitation monitoring tours across Port Harcourt and surrounding communities. Although enforcement officers were sometimes accused of excesses, the exercise succeeded in creating public awareness about the importance of keeping our surroundings clean. Over time, however, the practice faded away in many states.

In its absence, indiscriminate dumping of refuse, blocked drainages and environmental neglect became increasingly common. Today, heaps of waste line roads, markets and motor parks, while gutters clogged with plastics contribute to perennial flooding. Given the mounting environmental challenges facing Nigerian cities, there is no better time to revive environmental sanitation. Its return is no longer a matter of nostalgia; it is a practical necessity for public health, environmental safety, and sustainable development. Poor sanitation remains a major cause of disease. Stagnant water and uncollected waste create breeding grounds for mosquitoes, flies and rodents, increasing the risk of malaria, cholera, typhoid and other infections. Floodwaters contaminated by refuse also expose communities to serious health hazards.

Rapid urbanisation has worsened the situation. Cities such as Lagos, Port Harcourt and Abuja are expanding faster than their waste management systems can cope. As populations grow, so does the volume of waste generated daily. Monthly sanitation exercises can help rebuild environmental consciousness. Beyond cleaning streets, they remind citizens that environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. They also offer an opportunity to educate children and young people about hygiene, public health and community participation. Critics argue that the old sanitation policy restricted movement and was sometimes abused by security personnel. Those concerns were valid, but they do not invalidate the concept itself. Rather than abandon it, governments should reform the programme to make it more humane, participatory and transparent.

That is why the recent decision by the Lagos State Government to reintroduce monthly sanitation deserves commendation. Even if participation is largely voluntary, the move sends a strong signal that environmental responsibility must be taken seriously. Other states should emulate this initiative. In Rivers State, the Rivers State Waste Management Agency has intensified efforts to improve waste collection and restore Port Harcourt’s reputation as the Garden City. Reintroducing monthly sanitation would complement these efforts and deepen public involvement. At the federal level, policies such as the Digital Waste Marketplace, the Plastic Waste Policy and the National Waste Management Network are commendable. However, environmental sanitation remains one of the most direct and visible ways to mobilise citizens toward cleaner communities.

The exercise, however, must be supported by efficient waste management infrastructure. Citizens cannot be expected to maintain clean surroundings if there are inadequate waste bins, irregular refuse collection, and limited recycling facilities. Governments at all levels should invest in modern waste management systems, properly fund sanitation agencies, and promote recycling programmes. Waste sorting should become standard practice to reduce the volume of refuse ending up in landfills and drainage channels. Countries such as Singapore, Sweden and South Korea have demonstrated that waste can become a valuable economic resource. Recycling industries in these countries create jobs while protecting the environment. Nigeria can adopt similar strategies and turn waste into wealth.

Environmental laws must also be enforced consistently. Regulations against illegal dumping exist in many states but are rarely implemented. Offenders should face penalties, but enforcement must be fair and free from extortion. Urban planning is another critical factor. Poor drainage systems, overcrowding and inadequate sewage infrastructure worsen sanitation problems. Governments must prioritise road construction, drainage maintenance and orderly urban development. Markets deserve particular attention. They generate enormous quantities of waste every day, yet many lack organised disposal systems. Local councils and market associations should work together to establish effective waste collection arrangements in commercial centres. Religious institutions, schools, traditional rulers and civil society groups also have important roles to play.

Environmental responsibility should be taught and reinforced as a social value. Community leaders can help change attitudes by consistently promoting cleaner habits. This issue is even more urgent in an era of climate change. Flooding, erosion and extreme weather events are already threatening many Nigerian communities. Poor waste disposal worsens these challenges by blocking waterways and reducing urban resilience. A clean environment also offers economic benefits. Well-maintained cities attract investors, tourists and businesses. Reduced disease outbreaks lower healthcare costs and improve productivity among workers and students. More importantly, cleanliness reflects national values. A nation that allows public spaces to deteriorate projects an image of disorder and neglect. Nigerians deserve cleaner streets, healthier neighbourhoods and safer communities.

Reviving environmental sanitation will not solve all environmental problems overnight, but it can serve as a powerful starting point. Combined with effective waste management, public education and stronger infrastructure, it can restore environmental consciousness across the country. Ultimately, environmental cleanliness is a shared responsibility. Government must provide leadership, infrastructure and enforcement, while citizens must demonstrate discipline and civic commitment. From disposing of household waste properly to keeping drains free of obstruction, every Nigerian has a role to play. If Nigeria is serious about protecting public health, reducing flooding and building livable cities, the return of monthly environmental sanitation is a step whose time has come.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

God’s Intentionality in Ecological System

Published

10 hours ago

May 18, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole”.

From the very first chapter of Scripture, the Bible presents a profound truth: creation was not accidental, random, or without meaning. The universe emerged from the deliberate counsel of an all-wise God who fashioned every aspect of life with purpose and precision. The heavens were stretched out by His command, the earth was carefully positioned, the seas were bounded, and every living creature was assigned a distinct role within a perfectly coordinated ecological system. When God surveyed His completed work, He pronounced it “very good,” affirming that creation was whole, harmonious, and exactly as He intended. The natural world remains a visible testimony to God’s intentionality. The sun provides warmth and energy at the right intensity to sustain life. The moon governs tides and seasons. Trees absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

Rivers irrigate the land and quench thirst. Bees and butterflies pollinate crops. Birds disperse seeds. Animals maintain biodiversity. Every component of creation is interdependent, demonstrating that God designed nature as a balanced system in which each part contributes to the wellbeing of the whole. Nothing was made without significance, and nothing was left to chance. Among all created beings, humanity occupies a unique and privileged position. Unlike plants and animals, man was created in the image and likeness of God. This divine imprint endowed human beings with intelligence, moral consciousness, creativity, and the capacity for relationship with their maker. It also established mankind as the steward of creation. God granted humanity dominion over the earth, not as a license for reckless exploitation, but as a sacred trust to cultivate, protect, and preserve the world He had declared good.

Dominion, in God’s original intention, was to be exercised with wisdom, compassion, and responsibility. Human beings were meant to care for the land, use natural resources judiciously, and ensure that all forms of life flourished in accordance with divine order. The earth was to be managed as a trust from God, not plundered for selfish gain. Unfortunately, this divine mandate has been grossly misunderstood and widely abused. It is deeply regrettable that man has deviated so drastically from God’s original intention. Instead of stewardship, humanity has too often embraced greed. Instead of preservation, there has been exploitation. Instead of gratitude to the Creator, there has been reckless consumption and abuse of the environment. Across the world, forests are felled indiscriminately, rivers are contaminated, and fertile lands are stripped of their productivity.

Species disappear as habitats are destroyed. Air pollution threatens public health, and climate change disrupts weather patterns and livelihoods. What God created as a life-supporting ecosystem is increasingly treated as a disposable commodity. In Nigeria, the consequences are especially painful. Oil spills in the Niger Delta have devastated farmlands, poisoned rivers, and destroyed fishing communities. Poor waste management clogs drains and contributes to flooding. Erosion eats away homes and roads. Illegal mining and logging scar the landscape. In many cases, communities suffer while those responsible evade justice. At the root of much of this destruction is corruption. Funds earmarked for environmental protection, sanitation, and erosion control are often diverted for personal enrichment. Regulatory agencies are compromised through bribery.

Powerful individuals and corporations place profit above human welfare. Corruption thus becomes not only a moral failure but an assault on God’s creation. This environmental abuse is also a tragic expression of man’s inhumanity to man. When water is polluted, children fall sick. When farmlands are destroyed, farmers lose their means of survival. When rivers are contaminated, fishermen are plunged into poverty. When floods and erosion displace families, communities are torn apart. The burden of environmental degradation falls most heavily on the poor and vulnerable, while future generations inherit a diminished world. Yet, despite humanity’s failures, there remains hope for restoration. God’s purpose for creation has not changed. He still calls His people to responsible stewardship and righteous living. When individuals and nations return to God’s principles, they begin to view the earth not as an object to exploit, but as a sacred trust to preserve.

Responsible stewardship means protecting natural resources, planting trees, reducing pollution, disposing of waste properly, enforcing environmental laws, rejecting corruption, and treating others with justice and compassion. It requires governments to act with integrity, businesses to operate ethically, faith communities to teach creation care, and citizens to take personal responsibility for the environment. Creation care is therefore more than an environmental concern; it is a spiritual obligation. Our treatment of the earth and of one another reflects the sincerity of our reverence for God. To exploit nature, oppress the vulnerable, and enrich ourselves through corruption is to rebel against His purpose. To protect creation and uphold justice is to honor the Creator and participate in His original design. The world God made was declared “very good.” It is our solemn duty to ensure that our actions preserve rather than destroy that goodness.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

Confronting National Development In Chinese Style

Published

6 days ago

May 13, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “China’s rise was not a miracle. It was the result of deliberate planning, disciplined execution, and a national determination to make poverty reduction the foundation of national development.”

A short TikTok video by @ancientchinaforever recently offered a compelling summary of China’s remarkable transformation from one of the world’s poorest nations to a global economic powerhouse. In just a few minutes, it captured a lesson that developing countries like Nigeria cannot afford to ignore: meaningful development does not happen by chance. It is the product of vision, consistency, and a deliberate commitment to confronting poverty. In 1981, according to the World Bank, nearly 88 percent of China’s population lived in extreme poverty. The country was overwhelmingly rural, industrially weak, and lacking in modern infrastructure. Millions of people had limited access to quality healthcare, education, and basic social services. Yet China refused to accept poverty as its destiny. Its leaders made a strategic decision to treat poverty reduction as the starting point of national development.

Rather than relying on slogans or isolated welfare programmes, they created a coordinated system that mobilised government institutions at every level toward one overriding goal: improving the living conditions of ordinary citizens.

This was the turning point in China’s history. Poverty alleviation became a national mission. Clear targets were established, responsibilities were assigned to provincial and local governments, and officials were evaluated based on measurable results. Data was used to identify poor households, monitor progress, and adjust strategies where necessary.In effect, China built what may be described as a national development machine.The first major reforms focused on agriculture. Through the household responsibility system, farmers were given greater control over their land and allowed to sell surplus produce after meeting government quotas.

This policy created incentives for productivity and innovation. The results were dramatic. Agricultural output rose significantly, rural incomes increased, and millions were lifted out of poverty.With food security improving, China turned to industrialisation. The government established Special Economic Zones, most notably in Shenzhen, to attract foreign investment and promote export-driven manufacturing. What was once a small fishing community quickly transformed into one of the world’s leading industrial and technology hubs. Factories created millions of jobs, drawing workers from rural areas into expanding urban centres. China soon became the manufacturing capital of the world, producing electronics, textiles, machinery, and consumer goods for global markets.The revenue generated from industrial growth was reinvested in infrastructure and human development.

China understood that development requires more than factories. It demands modern infrastructure that connects people, goods, and markets. Massive investments were made in roads, railways, airports, seaports, electricity, and telecommunications.

Today, China’s high-speed rail system, modern cities, and efficient logistics networks stand as visible proof of decades of purposeful investment. Equally important was China’s commitment to education and healthcare.Schools were expanded, literacy improved, and vocational training equipped workers with the skills needed in a modern economy. Healthcare reforms reduced preventable diseases and protected families from being pushed deeper into poverty by medical costs.These investments ensured that economic growth translated into tangible improvements in living standards.

Another defining feature of China’s development model was policy continuity. Through successive Five-Year Plans, national priorities were clearly outlined and pursued over decades. While leaders changed, the core development agenda remained consistent. This stability encouraged investment, strengthened institutions, and allowed long-term projects to be completed. Unlike countries where each administration abandons the policies of its predecessor, China sustained a clear sense of direction.The results have been extraordinary. According to the World Bank, China has lifted more than 800 million people out of extreme poverty—the largest poverty reduction effort in human history. A broad middle class has emerged, and the country has become the world’s second-largest economy. Chinese companies such as Huawei Technologies and Alibaba Group now compete at the forefront of global innovation.

China’s journey has not been without challenges. Rapid industrialisation has contributed to environmental degradation, regional disparities, and demographic pressures. However, these challenges do not diminish the scale of its achievement. They underscore the complexity of transforming a nation of over one billion people. For Nigeria, China’s experience offers valuable lessons. First, poverty reduction must be treated as a strategic national priority rather than a campaign promise. Second, development requires long-term planning and policy continuity. Third, sustained investment in agriculture, infrastructure, education, and healthcare is essential. Fourth, institutions must be strengthened to ensure accountability and measurable outcomes. Finally, leadership must combine vision with disciplined execution. Nigeria is richly endowed with natural resources, entrepreneurial talent, and a youthful population.

What remains missing is a coherent and consistent development strategy that places national interest above politics. China’s transformation demonstrates that development is not a matter of luck. It is the outcome of clear priorities, effective institutions, and unwavering commitment. For countries still grappling with poverty and underdevelopment, China stands as compelling proof that when a nation confronts its challenges with strategic intent and collective discipline, extraordinary progress is possible.

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi