Friday, September 16, 2005

Worsening poverty Worsening poverty Editorial Punch Friday, September 16 2005 The latest United Nations Human Development Report has, again, provided grim statistics on Nigeria’s human development indices and social conditions. The report, which is in line with the views of other respected international agencies on degenerating living standards in the country, reflects a study in alarming regression to poverty. The report ranked Nigeria among the 20 poorest and most vulnerable nations worldwide. Using life expectancy, literacy level and Gross Domestic Product to rank 177 countries, Nigeria took the 158th position in UNDP’s prosperity index. Nigeria thus dropped by seven points below the 151st slot it occupied in the organisation’s 2004 rating, further strengthening the belief that achieving the Millennium Development Goals, MDGs, by the year 2015 is mere wishful thinking. Though the UNDP commended Nigeria’s improved income rating, the country’s GDP having risen from $860 to $1,050 between 2002 and 2003; and literacy level, with the rise in school enrolment from 45 to 64 per cent; it said life expectancy rapidly fell from 51.6 to 43.3 years within the period. Similar reports, locally and internationally, arrived at similar conclusions, despite the Federal Government’s economic reforms. The implications of the report on the nation’s political stability, and on progress in Africa as a continent, are quite disturbing. One out of every five Africans is a Nigerian, while the nation constitutes two per cent of the world population. Nigeria has also been projected to be among the five or six most populated nations in the world by 2025. With her position in the African continent, as the report rightly indicated, sub-Saharan Africa might be left behind in meeting the MDGs. A recent International Monetary Fund report listed unfavourable business climate and corruption as major reasons behind the nation’s economic backwardness. While the IMF ranked Nigeria third to the last in terms of overall quality of infrastructure out of the 102 countries it surveyed, it blamed paucity of foreign investment in the economy on systemic corruption and policy inconsistency. “Frequent blackouts,” the IMF says, “have sharply inflated operational costs through production stoppages, output losses, and missed delivery dates.” Indeed, 97 per cent of the firms the IMF studied in Nigeria relied on their own generators for power supply. The direct consequences of the non-performing economy on the population are growing unemployment, unbearable costs of living and the inaccessibility of potable water, medicare, electricity, good roads, quality education and even food to the majority. Though official reaction to the UNDP report was that it covered years 2002 and 2003, there is practically nothing on the ground to suggest that the living standards of Nigerians recorded any significant improvement in the past two years. That Nigeria, which has raked in more than $320 billion from oil sales alone since 1970, is about the only oil producing country among the league of the world’s poorest nations, is a sickening irony. Presently, the nation’s external reserve has hit an all time high of about $27 billion, while the Excess Crude Oil Account stands at roughly $12 billion. With such fortuitous financial resources at its disposal, a government that has the welfare of its citizens at heart, and which is desirous of pulling the nation from the edge of economic precipice, can achieve a lot. Sadly, while a privileged few swim in obscene wealth and revel in profligate lifestyles, based on their unethical access to public treasury, the majority rot in grinding poverty. Much of the violence and soaring crime wave in the country, which affects life expectancy calculations, are believed to be rooted in the injustices perpetrated by the corrupt haves against the less privileged have nots. Unless good governance is sincerely embraced at all levels and fighting corruption ceases to be mere rhetoric, the nation’s future is at risk. The FG should reflect on its economic reform project that has worsened, instead of improving, living standards in the past six years. The PUNCH, Thursday, September 15, 2005 back to previous page Copyright 2005 Punch (Nigeria) Limited. All Rights Reserved 1:11:20 PM    comment []

A culture of denials A culture of denials By Levi Obijiofor Guardian Friday, September 16, 2005  If anyone ever doubted the widely held view that the federal government's economic policy or its campaign against poverty was flavoured with nothing other than political propaganda, a recent report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on the life expectancy of an average Nigerian has confirmed what everyone had suspected for long. The grim UN report said that life expectancy in Nigeria has shrunk from 51.6 years to a depressing 43.4 years. As our political leaders must understand, life expectancy is in part a product of the quality of life. If the life expectancy of Nigerians falls sharply we expect a significant fall in the quality of life of Nigerians. The two are related. One feeds the other. Far from sounding alarmist, the UNDP report must be regarded as a national calamity. The report shows graphically how long (or indeed how short) an average Nigerian is expected to live on earth. At the heart of the report is the appalling quality of life in Nigeria. And the federal government wants us to believe that its economic credentials are beyond rebuke? Equally serious is the implication of shortened life span on the workforce of the nation. If average Nigerians now live up to 43 years only before they perish, owing to poverty and poor quality of life, the immediate impact is a significant drop in the nation's workforce. As economic statistics show, the bulk of most nations' workforce is drawn from people aged 30-55 years. If the UNDP report holds true in Nigeria, there are dire consequences for the nation. One of them is that Nigeria would be confronted with the unenviable prospect of hiring most of its workforce from overseas job seekers, perhaps from the West African sub-region. The report showed that within just a few years, Nigeria has slipped further in the UNDP's global development index from a position of 151 to 158 out of a total of 177 countries. Either position does not provide a good report on Nigeria's economic developments. Nigeria ought to do better. By anyone's assessment, this is a terrible report that casts Nigeria in the league of banana republics that are associated with all manner of economic and social problems. The report is telling us in another language that, in terms of the UN's socioeconomic development indices, Nigeria has regressed rather than advanced in the past couple of years. It's an indictment on the record of economic miracles often claimed by President Olusegun Obasanjo and a coterie of his economic advisers. Equally worrying is Nigeria's track record of responding to official UN reports on the country. For example, whenever the UN and its agencies release a bad report card on Nigeria, there are four predictable ways that federal government officials often respond to such a report: to deny the report outright; to put an official spin on the report; to contest the veracity and validity of the statistics; or to wring their hands and find easy scape goats for the dismal performance of the economy. The federal government's reaction to the latest UNDP report has not deviated from the normal practice. No sooner did the report hit the public sphere than federal officials began to question the credibility of the report. Contesting the authenticity of the report or the figures contained in the report can only damage rather than enhance Nigeria's image in the international community. Nigeria is a member of the United Nations and its agencies. The data on Nigeria must have been collected from within Nigeria. In essence the statistics are not fictitious but based on actual data collected from Nigeria. In this regard, it is not a good public relations strategy to attempt to discredit the UN report. The standard of living and the quality of life in Nigeria provide everyone with overwhelming evidence to support the UNDP report. For example, the federal government's poverty alleviation programme has remained for many years a mirage. The poor are getting poorer and the sick are getting sicker. The poverty alleviation programme has not reduced the economic problems of the average Nigerian family. Many families are still grappling with the challenges of making a living on a daily basis. Similarly, the sick and the weak are abandoned at the mercy of the elements. Medicare and hospital facilities remain as difficult to find as it is to find genuine drugs in pharmacies and chemists. What is however distressing about the UNDP report on Nigeria is not so much the validity of the data as Nigeria's attempt to discredit the current report. Rather than accept the report with philosophical candour and tackle the problems identified in the report, Obasanjo's chief economic adviser Professor Ode Ojowu mounted the rostrum to challenge the statistics contained in the report. Ojowu told The Guardian last week that the National Planning Commission would recalculate the figures in the UNDP report in order perhaps to come up with easily digestible data that are more sympathetic to Nigeria. The economic adviser's reason for insisting on a recalculation of the UN data was based on his belief and misleading assumption that the federal government had done a lot toward accomplishing the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Perhaps the chief economic adviser should be reminded that there is a clear difference between the government's objectives and the extent to which some or all of the objectives have been accomplished. If the government had achieved its development objectives, the facts would not be subject to contestation. Whatever might have irritated Nigeria's chief economic adviser about the UNDP report, the idea that a federal adviser would contemplate recalculating the figures contained in a United Nations' report in order to give it a possible positive spin is tantamount to tampering with official figures. The suggestion sounds like trying to fudge figures in order to twist the UNDP report in Nigeria's favour. It is appalling that the economic adviser should make such a comment. There are times when it is more honourable and wise for federal officials to remain silent rather than utter embarrassing comments that expose the nation to international ridicule. This is one such occasion. You don't find political leaders and economic advisers in other developing countries challenging UN reports by issuing silly comments that tend to invalidate authentic statistics from the UNDP. A couple of months ago, President Obasanjo challenged the UNDP report on the poverty level in Nigeria. So, Nigeria has developed something of a bad habit in its response to official UN reports. It is time that Nigerian political leaders accepted the facts and stopped behaving like internationally acknowledged hecklers. This culture of denying and challenging UN reports on Nigeria is doing the country no good. Regardless of how Obasanjo and his advisers contest the UNDP report, the incontrovertible fact remains that Nigeria has gone backwards rather than developed (in all sense of the word) in the past few years. In the context of the damning report by the UNDP, the key question should be: Where are the much touted claims consistently drummed by Obasanjo and his economic advisers that the government's economic and development policies have produced flawless results? The UNDP report has cast a huge dark cloud over every claim of economic achievement made by the government. Only a few months ago the federal government was celebrating what it called an unprecedented achievement in wresting from the Paris Club of creditor nations a significant reduction in Nigeria's external debts. But the jury is still out on whether the orchestrated debt relief from the Paris Club is indeed an economic blunder dressed up as a substantial reduction on the nation's debt burden. Time will tell.       BUSINESS SERVICES Property Appointments Money Watch Market Report Capital Market Business Travels Maritime Watch Industry Watch Energy Report Insurance Compulife © 2003 - 2005 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).  Powered by dnetsystems.net dnet® 10:09:26 AM    comment []

Guardian Friday, September 16, 2005 World Bank rates Nigeria second poorest nation From Chinedu Uwaegbulam, New York   YET, another World Bank report has put Nigeria at the lowest rung of the world's development ladder. The new publication released at the ongoing United Nations summit offers new estimates of total wealth including produced capital, natural resources and the value of human skills and capabilities, which show that many of the poorest countries in the world are not on a sustainable path. It cites Nigeria as a resource-dependent nation, which could have produced capital five times higher than it did in 2000, if only it had made a moderate effort to save. The document: "Where is the Wealth of Nations? Measuring Capital for the 21st Century" launched by the World Bank listed the top-10 richest countries and top-10 poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa dominates the latter, with Nigeria standing on the ninth position only before Ethiopia, which has the lowest level of total wealth. Switzerland heads a list in which the top-10 performers are all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. European countries-of which two are Scandinavian-dominate the list and non-European economies are the United States and Japan. Madagascar, Chad, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Nepal, Niger, Congo Republic, and Burundi are ahead of Nigeria in ranking. Their wealth per capital varies from $5,020 to $2, 859 while natural capital stood between 265 per cent and 42 per cent. The produced capital of the countries were put between 180 per cent and 6 per cent, and intangible capital 64 per cent and 39 per cent. Figures for Nigeria's wealth per capital are $2,748, natural capital 147 per cent, produced capital 24 percent and intangible capital is minus 71. Although the statistics are four years late, World Bank officials defended the document saying, it is relevant as not much has changed in the countries listed in the report. "The calculations show how even a moderate saving effort, equivalent to the average saving effort of the poorest countries in the world, could have substantially increased the wealth of resource-dependent economies. "In 2000, Nigeria, a major oil exporter, could have had a stock of produced capital five times higher. Moreover, if these investments had taken place, oil would play a much smaller role in the Nigerian economy today, with likely beneficial impacts on policies affecting other sectors of the economy." According to the World Bank, "the large share of natural resources in total wealth and the composition of these resources make a strong argument for the role of environmental resources in reducing poverty, fighting hunger, and lowering child mortality. The analysis in this volume proceeds from an overview of the wealth of nations to analyse the key role of the management of wealth through savings and investments. It also analyses the importance of human capital and good governance and engages finance ministries in developing a comprehensive agenda that looks at natural resources as an integral part of their policy domain." Natural resource stock values are based upon country- Level data on physical stocks and estimates of natural resource rents based on world prices and local costs. Intangible capital, then, is measured as the difference between total wealth and the other produced and natural stocks. The estimates of natural wealth are limited by data-fish stocks, and subsoil water over extraction are not measured in the estimates, while the environmental services that underpin human societies and economies are not measured explicitly. "Everyday, decision makers in developing countries are faced with difficult choices regarding the exploitation of natural resources and the environmental impacts of development programmes and policies," said Ian Johnson, World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development. "But the tools currently being used are leaving out the natural resources stocks and intangible capital such as knowledge and skills. Sound management of ecosystems is key to a responsible path to growth. This publication challenges common assumptions about how nations generate their wealth."       BUSINESS SERVICES Property Appointments Money Watch Market Report Capital Market Business Travels Maritime Watch Industry Watch Energy Report Insurance Compulife © 2003 - 2005 @ Guardian Newspapers Limited (All Rights Reserved).  Powered by dnetsystems.net dnet® 10:07:46 AM    comment []