Let’s Go Back to Planning

By KAYODE KOMOLAFE

(FROM PREVIOUS EDITION)

Time was in Nigeria when planning was an indispensable part of economic management. That was long before the approval of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the rating agencies became the most important source of legitimacy of policies. Even a colonial government put in place after World War II a 10-year development plan from 1946-1956. In the days of the Cold War, planning was regarded as a dirty word by some liberal bourgeois economists. This was because “centralised planning” was a distinguishing feature of the economies of the defunct Soviet bloc. In other words, economic planning was simplistically equated with socialism.

Yet, post-independence Nigeria valiantly put in place National Economic Development Plans. The ideas came from development economists from the universities and research institutions, experts in public finance and, of course, public servants who were devotees of planning and development. They were by no means communists. Those were the days when economic planners were thinking of how many children would be in school five years from the beginning of the plan and how many teachers and what infrastructure would be needed to ensure quality education for those students. If the culture of developments had not been destroyed Nigeria would, perhaps, not be bearing the shame of being the global capital of out-of-school children.

This policy tragedy is one of the most poignant consequences of the curious abandonment of planning as an instrument of socio-economic policy. As a result, random execution of projects (or what a former governor once aptly described as “governance by projects”) became a substitute for rational planning for development. The story of the four national development plans undertaken within the first two decades of independence would remain a matter of interest to future economic historians. They were the First National Development Plan (1962-1968); the Second National Development Plan (1970-1974); Third National Development Plan (1975-1980) and the Fourth National Development Plan (1981-86). They were not just federal government plans. They were plans for the development of Nigeria.

For instance, the objectives of the Second Plan included building a “self-reliant” nation; “a just and egalitarian society;” “full opportunities for all citizens” and fostering a “free and democratic society.” These plans were criticised from radical perspectives as reducing development to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and playing a growth-number game with human progress. The issue of the lack of planning discipline was also raised.  The point, however, is that at least there were coherent and measurable plans in place for critics and popular forces to engage in policy discussions.

The arrival of the proponents of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in the policy arena put paid to the idea of the Fifth National Development (1986-1990). Since then, all manners of visions, agendas and strategies of development have been drafted for Nigeria. The sense of political economy which informed the earlier development plans even from a liberal perspective was lacking in the formulated visions of the last 40 years. Lacking was the commitment of those in power to make the dreams a reality. It is a conceptual error to imagine that planning could be discounted in modern economic management.

To be sure, capitalist economies are also planned to varying degrees and in different forms. So, the ideological prejudice against planning, as an essential element of policy, is grossly misplaced. This is more so for an economy that is yearning for development. Fiscal and monetary policies have planning components. These policies often go awry when the planning element is ignored. And that could be a recipe for a crisis.

Economic planning is squarely the job of government. It’s therefore methodologically wrong-headed to place economic planning in the hands of businessmen. Businessmen are competent in corporate planning for profit. That is a different task from that of a government elected to plan the economy for the welfare of the people.  The objectives are different. A policy that could serve the public purpose of enhancing people’s welfare may not be profitable in the eyes of a businessman.

However, a welcome departure from the neglect of planning may be on the horizon. The other day the minister of budget and economic planning, Senator Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, was in the economic team that appeared before the senate to explain the administration’s policies. Significantly, Bagudu prefaced his brilliant presentation with a reference to Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution. He quoted Section 16 (2a): “…The State shall direct its policy towards ensuring .. the promotion of a planned and balanced economic development”

That is the path to development.

One of the public servants who was involved in drawing up past development plans was Allison Ayida. He was Head of Service and Secretary to the Federal Government.

Bagudu and his colleagues in the economic management team may find some nuggets in Ayida’s views on economic planning. For instance, Ayida wrote: “In national economic planning, there can be no substitute for inadequate political leadership. Administrative leadership, however competent, cannot rise above the quality of political leadership.”  In fact, Ayida’s perspectives on planning are distilled in a book entitled “Allison Akene Ayida: Nigeria’s Quintessential Public Servant.” The book is edited by Professors Femi Kayode and Dafe Otobo.

The 10  principles of planning which Ayida professed are “the collective will of the people to plan and coordinate their resources; competent technical planning apparatus; collation and systematic analysis of statistical data on the economy; effective system of budgetary controls and sanctions that would not only relate expenditure to available resources, but also keep within plan allocations, targets and priorities and effective machinery for rational allocation of foreign exchange resources.” Other principles are “the management and coordination of external aid to reflect development priorities; tailoring research to meet planning requirements; continuous application by adaptation, transplantation or innovation of modern science and technology to economic development; provision of adequate manpower budgeting and continuous training of planners and accessibility to political power.”

It’s time Nigeria revived the governance culture of planning for development.

KAYODE KOMOLAFE  A journalist with over 30 years’ experience, Komolafe has participated in numerous international conferences in Journalism, labour, democracy and development including the Leadership and Simulation program at J.Mac Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. In 2013 he was inaugurated into the National Human Rights Commission Governing Council. Currently THISDAY Deputy Managing Director, Komolafe holds a first degree from the University of Calabar, Calabar, and a postgraduate certificate from the International Institute of Journalism Berlin, Germany.