ALOD Policy

Could the PEBEC be a Game Changer for Entrepreneurship in Nigeria?

By Stephen Oyedemi

In 2016, when the PEBEC – Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council was launched, there was little hope as to whether its ambitious mission will be achieved anytime soon. However, last week in an interview after opening the Tony Elumelu Entrepreneurship Forum in Lagos, Nigeria, the vice president claimed that the initiative had achieved 70 per cent success in its 60-day national action plan and has started the second 60-day national action plan. This initiative places a lot of emphasis on improving the ease of doing business in Nigeria by focusing on 8 reform areas which are: starting a business, construction permit, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, paying taxes, trading across borders, and entry & exit of people.

PEBEC was set up in July 2016 by the current administration in an effort to remove bureaucratic constraints to doing business in Nigeria and make the country a progressively easier place to start and grow a business. This is justified by the fact that Nigeria currently ranks poorly in the World Bank ease of doing business ranking, holding the 169th position out of the 190 ranked countries in 2017; a one step up from the 2016 ranking where Nigeria took the 170th position.

Also, in the recently published Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) 2017 report (which is for the year 2015), Nigeria ranks 114th out of the 159 countries with available data. However, the country was ranked 116th in the 2016 report, representing a 2 step improvement over a year. The EFW index provides a comprehensive measure of the consistency of a country’s institutions and policies with economic freedom.

These poor ranking of Nigeria clearly suggests that several things are not being done rightly in Nigeria when it comes to business and entrepreneurship. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) have been described by many experts as the engine of economic growth and prosperity and that much emphasis in needed in this aspect. However, small businesses are faced with many challenges among which are access to capital, poor infrastructure, government bottlenecks, security, and so on. Difficulty in registering businesses, getting permits, etc.,  frustrate entrepreneurs and slows the rate at which new businesses are created.

Interestingly, the PEBEC intends to tackle these challenges through the national action plans and the executive orders released earlier this year. In July, 2017, the vice president signed 3 executive orders aimed at removing all bureaucratic  bottlenecks that had stifled growth of businesses in Nigeria. While this is laudable, many of these bottlenecks still persist and the need remains for the federal government to double its efforts in order to make meaningful progress in easing the doing of business and entrepreneurship in the country.

BudgIT Fiscal Sustainability Index 2017

For Nigeria to improve its future positions in the Fraser institute’s EFW and World Bank ease of doing business rankings, there is also need for individual state governments to take decisive steps towards improving the ease of doing business in their respective states. According to BudgIT – a civic organization working to make Nigeria’s budget and public finance accessible in creative and appealing ways – in its recently published State of states 2017 report, “Significant investment is needed to improve the overall economic performance at state level…” Improvements in the ease of doing business in the states will lead to greater investments, increase in economic activities and eventually better lives for Nigerians. However, most states do not have clear economic blueprints to drive development and investments at the state level.

For the PEBEC to be a game changer for Nigeria, both the federal and state governments should endeavour to create the enabling environment for enterprise to flourish by coming up with workable blueprints with clear deadlines.

*Stephen Oyedemi is a member of SFL Africa Executive Board and Director of Activism for West Africa. He is a post-graduate student at the University of Ibadan and can be followed on twitter @SKOyedemi.

Read more

Economic Intelligence: A springboard for the development and promotion of tourism in Cameroon

It’s proven that tourism is an emergent market.  Nonetheless, for some countries, conquering and maintaining important market shares is problematic. Innovation is a determining factor in ensuring competitiveness and productivity and, to the end, client satisfaction or loyalty.  This brief, aims to contribute to understanding the necessity of elaborating and implementing stricto sensu, a tourism intelligence public policy as springboard for the development of tourism.


The restructuring and reconfiguration of the world’s functioning has given economic information a strategic importance to nation-states. Economists who study the dynamics of territories have that.  Nowadays, it is pertinent to consider territories or States to be the result of the interactive process of creation and not as a point of departure[1].

The context of economic intelligence[2] is simultaneously that of globalisation, inequalities and the development of an information society in an economy of international competition which demands competitiveness both at the level of nation-states and enterprises[3]. This questions the validity of organisational approaches to long-term planning, suggesting the need for organisations to make contingency plans and adopt processes which incorporate flexibility and adaptability[4]. Hence, it is imperative to redefining policies, strategies and, to some extent, models of development in order to stabilise the sector in a competitive environment.

Opening to international markets is simultaneously, promising and threatening for the tourism sector which, the majority of the countries agree, has much to offer to their social and economic development. Consequently, pertinent information can reasonably be considered as one of the most important factors to boost performance.


The practice of economic intelligence has little or nothing to do with the size of the industry, it is amoeboid. Investigations of the Chambers of Commerce and Industry in France show that: SE and SME are often more effective than big groups on the matter, because they are imaginative, nimble, flexible, innovating and intuitive. Also, 15 to 20 % of the French companies of less than 200 people practise economic intelligence; more than one-third practices surveillance or monitoring (technological, legal, commercial, competitive); and half of the SE and SME are already showing interest with these practices[1].

  1. The experience of “Réseau de veille en tourisme de Montréal”[2]

Initiated by the tourism chair of the Science of Management College at the University of Quebec in Montreal, the “Réseau de veille en Tourisme” (RVT) literally translated “the Tourism surveillance network” officially saw the light on the 30th of January 2004.

The RVT is a specialised body with main objectives: the continuous dissemination of targeted up-to-date and analysed information; and know-how developed both with (in/out) Canada; sensitizing the milieu on the value of strategic information in decision making; and the importance of surveillance even within their companies. Occasionally, collaborators and recognised international experts in diverse sectors of activities of tourism comment on these analyses. They bring in a prospective vision while underscoring future implications for the entire tourism industry. The fruit of their labour is published in a bi-monthly electronic bulletin (le globe-veilleur) which is distributed to over 12,500 subscribers.

Click here for Full Article


Bakori Marbian Nkawa is a Contributor at the Nkafu Policy Institute, a Cameroonian think tank at the Denis & Lenora Foretia Foundation. He can be reached at:

Read more

5 Facts about Frederick Douglass

By Joe Carter

February 14 is the chosen birthday of Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), one of America’s greatest champions of individual liberty. Here are five facts you should know about this writer, orator, statesman, and abolitionist:

1. Douglas was born into slavery in Maryland circa 1818. (Like many slaves, he never knew his actual date of birth and so chose February 14 as his birthday.) He was given the name Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey but decided to change it when he became a free man. Although he was set on keeping his first name “Frederick”, he asked his friend Nathan Johnson to help him choose a last name. Johnson had been reading Sir Walter Scott’s narrative poem, Lady of the Lake, and recommended the name of a main character: Douglass.

2. In his youth, Douglass taught himself to read, aided by scraps of reading material he found and with the help of some white children he came into contact with in his neighborhood. Soon after, while hired out to a Maryland farmer, he surreptitiously taught other slaves to read the New Testament at a weekly Sunday school. It was during these meeting that he plotted his first escape attempt, for reading and writing sparked a desire for freedom. “Once you learn to read,” he would later write, “you will be forever free.” In 1845 he wrote about his life of bondage in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. The book became an instant bestseller and the preeminent example of the literary genre known as slave narrative.

3. After escaping to the North, Douglass settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts where he became a preacher in an African Methodist Episcopal Zion church. Honed in the pulpit, his oratorical skills would make him one of the most sought after abolitionist speakers of his day. Douglass was associated with a school of the antislavery movement that believed slavery should be ended through moral persuasion, and he attempted to use his writings and speaking events to educate slaveholders and Southerners about the evils of slavery.

4. Douglass spent nearly two years traveling in Great Britain speaking for the abolitionist cause. He was even encouraged to settle in England because his fame made it risky for him to return to the U.S., where federal law gave his slavemaster the right to seize Douglass. Two of his English friends, however, raised $710.96 to buy his freedom. At the age of 28, Douglass finally became a free man.

5. Even before the Civil War brought an end to the American slavery, Douglass became active in the women’s suffrage movement. He became so famous within the women’s rights movement that in 1872 he was nominated for Vice President of the United States at the Equal Rights Party convention. Although he declined the nomination and refused to campaign, he became the first African American to be listed on a presidential election ballot. In 1888, he also received one vote from the Kentucky Delegation at the Republican Convention in Chicago, making him the first African American nominated to be a U.S. presidential candidate for a major political party (he had also received a single vote to be a U.S. presidential candidate during the National Liberty Party Convention in 1848).

JOE CARTER Joe Carter is a Senior Editor at the Acton Institute. Joe also serves as an editor at the The Gospel Coalition, a communications specialist for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and as an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College. He is the editor of the NIV Lifehacks Bible and co-author of How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator (Crossway).

Read more

Why We Need to Bring Back the Gold-Backed Currency

By  Jacques Jonker

When people are confronted with the daunting question of “What is money?”, they usually stare at you like you’ve just asked them to explain the equation for special relativity.

Money is anything with inherent value that is used to measure the value people attach to products and services. It acts as a medium of exchange in order to facilitate trade. What started out as people trading physical goods for one another, developed into an immensely complicated modern economic system as more specialised products and services arose. People realised they needed a universal medium of exchange, and this led to the revolutionary invention of money.

There exists an interdependent relationship between money and goods & services: the value of money is measured in the number of goods and services it can purchase (purchasing power) and the value of goods and services is in turn measured in what amount of monies is needed to purchase it (prices). It is a very delicate balancing act which can only be achieved by the invisible hand of the market, which is why the market must be free.

As far as inherent worth goes, gold seemed a pretty solid option to use as money. Here’s why:

The amount of gold relative to the number of people is relatively miniscule; the demand outweighs the supply by far. Gold thus has a lot of value attached to it. Seeing as the global population keeps increasing, the demand for gold also keeps increasing. Hence the rise in the value of gold; it keeps getting relatively scarcer. It thus makes complete sense to use it as a medium of exchange seeing as it keeps its value.

As nations rose and fell and economies grew ever more complicated, governments the world over decided that the best way to maintain gold as the primary means of exchange, but also make it more “flexible” in order to adapt to modern specialised markets, was to have it represented by paper money and coins. Currency was thus invented.

Currency is different from money in that it has no inherent value. It merely represents the real money: gold. Currency is also easily divisible into much smaller units. Currency was essentially a middle man that nudged its way in between gold and domestic products and services. The balancing act became even more delicate. The gold standard was created.

The gold standard is a fool-proof system at worst. The value of the gold is measured in terms of the currency used. The gold backs up the currency and gives it value and consequently purchasing power; another fine balancing act that can only be achieved by the market’s invisible hand. This act determines the purchasing power of the specific currency.

As explained earlier, in the long run the value of gold keeps rising as the level of demand grows at a faster rate relative to the level of supply of gold. The paper currency representing the gold will thus not lose its purchasing power. When the US finally decided that the whole “live within your means” thing wasn’t working for them, Nixon abolished the gold standard in 1971 and replaced it with a fiat currency.

The word fiat’ is a Latin term meaning “let it be done”. A fiat currency is a system of currency that is backed not by anything of value but by a central government’s arbitrary authority. The US Federal Reserve, for example, is allowed to print US dollars non-stop as long as its financial overlords give it the green light. The only difference between a $1 bill and 1 Monopoly bill is that the government sanctions the former as a viable means of exchange. Yet, it has no inherent worth.

Currencies’ worth is now determined by market forces within the money market, the place where currencies compete for domination. The quantity of currency within an economy can now be adjusted by a central government in order to influence the exchange rate, internal interest rates, and thus the value the currency holds. Reserve banks can also influence exchange rates by actively competing in the money market, also known as ‘dirty floating’. It is no mystery why governments keep on printing worthless paper money: massive expansionary fiscal and monetary policies demand it.

Economists such as Michael Maloney keep warning governments and central banks that they’re creating an unsustainable global financial bubble that is going to implode. There is no foundation on which modern economies are based. Money exists no more.

What we now have is an artificial form of “money” with no inherent worth. It is simply not sustainable. The gold standard keeps the economy in a state of natural unison. It is a system that balances itself out. It is a system that works. It is a system that is endowed with foolproofness by its very nature.

Republished from

Read more

The Nature of Government and the Fatal Flaw in South Africa’s Constitution

By Martin Van Staden

What needs to happen before South Africans realize that the institution of government is not a friend, a servant, or a protector, but a rival that only does good insofar as it is restrained? Our continued trust in government enables its continued expansion and its tendency toward corruption.

The Problem

My recent article on the Western Cape provincial government’s decision to implement an authoritarian alcohol policy sparked quite a bit of controversy which I expected, and preempted in the article itself. Despite South Africans’ daily lived experience telling – shouting at – them that government only undermines them, the institution still enjoys widespread trust, not only in the Western Cape under the Democratic Alliance (DA), but nationally.

This is a particularly grave problem in South Africa due to what I consider to be a fundamental error in our constitution. But, moreover, it is a problem because those who trust government are invariably unaware of the nature of government.

On 24 April 2016, the former liberal and former DA leader Tony Leon wrote a valuable opinion piece in the Sunday Times, titled “Nkandla excesses exposes the glaring gap in founding law”. This article came only weeks after President Jacob Zuma confidently toldAfrican National Congress (ANC) supporters that the Rule of Law can be changed with a majority in Parliament. Those who who are a little more legally aware would know that the Rule of Law is not a rule of the law, but a doctrine which, as Judge Tholakele Madala and legal scholar Professor Friedrich von Hayek both said, permeates all law.

(The subeditor who chose Leon’s article title was incorrect in describing the Constitution as our “founding law”, as there has been complete legal continuity in South African constitutional law since 1910. The founding law of South Africa as we know it is the South Africa Act of 1909, passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Constitution is, instead, our supreme law.)

The article summarizes South Africa’s problem: We enacted a constitution for a moral saint – thought to be Nelson Mandela – and not for a real human being. As libertarians in South Africa and abroad had been warning for decades (centuries, if one counts early classical liberal thinkers), the nature of government means that those who are inevitably attracted to government are people who seek power. This is an absolute rule. There is no reality in which the institution of government does not attract this type of human being. This problem cannot be eliminated. It can, however, be tempered and suppressed, and for that to happen, certain institutions need to be entrenched in political society.

Indeed, if is often said – but rarely heeded – that when a constitution is being drawn up, the drafters must imagine that their very worst political enemy will be in government under the framework they devise. As Leon Louw has said in the past, at constitutional negotiations (like the one that brought Apartheid to an end) the party which will govern after the Constitution is adopted should be chosen at random (say, by a draw). On that basis, the drafting of the Constitution should commence. Thus, between the National Party and the ANC, each of the parties should have participated in the constitutional drafting on the assumption that it is the other which will govern. In this way, the best constitution would have been made: One which limits and decentralizes government.

It must be emphasized that when contemplating a political solution to a problem or devising a new political framework, the answer will always lie with institutions, and never with individuals – not “uniter” Nelson Mandela, not “outsider” Donald Trump, not “capitalist crusader” Herman Mashaba. These institutions must be both customary and legal, meaning that not only should there be strong legal restraints on government, but it must become unthinkable for those in government to do certain things.

The Nature of a Constitution

One of these (legal) institutions is a constitution.

A constitution, properly understood, is a special type of law that, unlike other laws, addresses itself to the government (not the people) of a society, and lays out what that government may, and crucially, what it may not do. The core message of constitutionalism is everything which is not allowed is forbidden. Constitutions are one of those things a society cannot afford to get wrong, because they are not transient, and it should always be assumed that governments will try to interpret them in a manner that benefits them.

The Constitution of South Africa, unfortunately, reads like a constitution meant to be transient. The Preamble and the Bill of Rights are filled with references to Apartheid, which will render it an awkward read for someone in the year 2117. This fundamental error undermines the constitutional (rigid, fixed) nature of a constitution by, essentially, giving South Africa a weird temporal status: We will always be stuck just after Apartheid. Time stands still legally.

In the Preamble we “recognise the injustices of our past” and set out to “heal the divisions of the past”. In the property rights provision, government is empowered to secure tenure which has been rendered “insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws”, and people who were dispossessed “after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws” may seek restitution or other redress for such dispossession. (As an ardent proponent of restitution, I believe this could have been framed far more appropriately, without using words like “past” or specific dates. Besides, the rei vindicatio action exists in our law anyway, allowing true owners to get possession of their property back.) Similarly, government is empowered to take measures to realize the right to education “taking into account the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws”.

Examples like this abound.

The United States’ Declaration of Independence was a transient document, filled with references to the oppression of the British Empire. It was not a constitution, but a legal instrument which served one purpose and did so within a short space of time. Decisive executive action was naturally required for the Twelve Colonies to separate from the Empire. The war was fought and won. The U.S. Constitution was not meant as “a contract or a statute”, writes Professor Stephen Macedo in The New Right v. The Constitution, “but a majestic charter for government, intended to govern for ages to come and to apply to both unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances.”

South Africa’s constitution, also presumably meant for the ages, has bound us up (theoretically) in perpetuity with the legacy of Apartheid and the requisite decisive executive action that goes with solving it. Our war against the legacy of Apartheid was made legally permanent and with it, an excessively powerful executive government was made similarly legally permanent. As a consequence, South Africa’s courts have time and time again reaffirmed the principle that because of the legacy of Apartheid, government must have extraordinary powers to deal with it. While the judges themselves might not realize it, this has directly enabled the kind of corruption we see today.

The Rule of Law

Another important legal institution that needs to be entrenched in any society that seeks to be free, is the Rule of Law.

To simplify, the Rule of Law means that society is governed by proper law, and not by the whims of man. The whims of man often take the form of law, but lack the legitimate character of law. (Indeed, do not confuse rule by law with the Rule of Law.) Proper law are rules informed by reason, evidence, and the time-tested principles of law, like rigidity, predictability, certainty, and proportionality. Libertarians would add to this and say that proper law are those rules which have a basis in the social contract: That government exists only to protect people and their property, and that in return people have sacrificed their natural ability to be violent in pursuit of their goals.

The Rule of Law is formally entrenched in South African law per section 1(c) of the Constitution, which states that South Africa is founded on the supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. But while the supremacy of the Constitution has seen relatively broad recognition, the co-equal supremacy of the Rule of Law has been afforded lip-service. From Herman Mashaba dropping “the rule of law must be upheld!” in every new Facebook post to Jacob Zuma ostensibly calling for the Rule of Law to be respected (but thinking it can somehow be ‘changed’ in Parliament), everyone knows about the Rule of Law, but very few people think of it as something consequential.

Research done by the Free Market Foundation appears to indicate that virtually all legislation passed by Parliament violates at least one tenet of the Rule of Law. For instance, essentially all laws which empower executive officials to make decisions, like create regulations or ‘determinations’, does so without any guiding criteria (save perhaps for the cop-out “public interest” criterion), meaning that it is the whim of man rather than the Rule of Law which governs in that particular respect. From mining licenses, to private school licenses, to healthcare regulations, officials have all the discretion in the world, and, in effect, create law which we must abide by. This latter function is supposed to be the domain of Parliament, not officials.

This, obviously, enables corruption.

If a regulator has the power to revoke or not renew a license without having to adhere to any strict criteria, it follows that companies will not want to sour their relationship with the regulator. It follows that bribes become a very likely occurrence. Arbitrariness and corruption are two sides of the same coin.

The courts, too, have tended to ignore the Rule of Law under the guise of ‘deference’. They endorse a minimalist notion of the Rule of Law whereby Parliament or the executive must simply act in accordance with the provisions of existing legislation, regardless of whether the legislation itself violates the Rule of Law. Where the courts have admitted that legislation violates the Rule of Law, like the Currency and Exchanges Act, they have refused to declare them unconstitutional, because, for some reason or another, the courts are unwilling to put two and two together, and understand that the Constitution provides for the co-equal supremacy of both the Constitution and the Rule of Law. It must, thus, follow that anything inconsistent with the Rule of Law is unlawful.

In South Africa, the apparent mixture of transience and permanence in our constitution, coupled with the fact that the Rule of Law has not been respected for centuries, has an oppressive and corrupt government as a consequence.

Jacob Zuma has simply reaped the rewards of an errant system of government. He did not create it. He sought power, which was handed to him on the silver platter known as South African constitutional jurisprudence.

Be Conscious of the Nature of Government

This situation is, however, not hopeless.

We must be careful not to think that ridding ourselves of Zuma is the key to return to liberal constitutional democracy; it is not.

Instead, the first step to moving in the direction of accountable and constrained governance is consciousness.

All it takes to turn the tide, is for South Africans to realize the true nature of government. Everything else will fall into place as a natural consequence of that realization, and nobody will be worse for wear. It is not a zero-sum game. This realization comes at the expense of nothing and nobody, save perhaps for corrupt politicians and their cronies.

Force, compulsion, coercion, and violence are the essence of government. These characteristics are inseparable from that institution, and rightly so – government, as a concept, came about because of the need for a forceful institution to protect individual rights. But just like one does not appoint a mercenary to run a nursery for babies, one should not appoint government to do anything other than protect persons and property from violence or fraud. This is what government is supposed to be limited to, and why force is a crucial ingredient to its nature. But government has not been kept to its proper role, and we have been reaping the fruit of this grave mistake for centuries. This is why acknowledging and appreciating the nature of the institution of government is key to solving all the problems which have resulted from this mistake.

When, or if, South Africans start this process of acknowledgment and appreciation, things like the Western Cape alcohol policy will become impossible. The Western Cape government would not be able to pass such a policy if it did not have broad appeal, which it clearly and ignorantly does have. Similarly, the entire notion of tenderpreneurship would immediately fall away. The over-reliance on government education and healthcare will end at once as communities, now disgusted by the very idea of government involvement in those things as a means of social control, band together and establish community-run private schools and clinics.

Legal and political scholars have been trying to evade the nature of government for centuries. They often acknowledge the general principle that government is a violent institution which must be constrained to only its social contract duty to protect person and property, “but”, they say, this or that circumstance necessitates a greater role for government.

In South Africa today, the “but” is the legacy of Apartheid. During Apartheid, the “but” was the possibility of black domination over the white minority. During the prior century, the “but” was the proximity between the British and the Boers. During the early Cape settlement, the “but” was the isolated location of the colony. There is always a “but” which has the effect of defeating the general principle.

It is, and has always been, high time to stop with the “but”. The “but” has only ever created more problems and more cause for more even more “buts”. This will continue unless people draw a line in the sand. This might sometimes mean forgoing the possibility of revenge or advancing certain group interests, but it is absolutely necessary to kick-start a free and prosperous society.


For as long as South Africans continue to envision the solution to our problems to be found in government, will we continue down this endless cycle.

This applies not only to the Democratic Alliance as well, but especially to the Democratic Alliance, because the DA now finds itself in many people’s political blindspots. One never truly appreciates the nature of government if particular organizations or individuals are caught in their blindspots. Nobody is exempt from the nature of government as a forceful institution which can inherently overpower any non-governmental actor for any reason. Whether it is me, Herman Mashaba, Pravin Gordhan, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Jacob Zuma in charge of government, the nature of government never changes.

Trust in yourselves, first and foremost, and in your families and communities. Never trust government, especially if it says it seeks to help, and especially if it is ‘your guy’ who is in power.


Read more

Adam Smith’s Concept of Justice

by Dr. Vernon Smith

One of the best-known quotations from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776) defines natural liberty: “Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man.”

Smith inserted the condition “so long as he does not violate the laws of justice” ahead of the directive because it was central to his conception of liberty. What everyone remembers is “free to pursue his own interest,” with the last often turned into “self-interest.” But Smith’s conception of human sociality and economy—I like the word “humanomics”—was far deeper than modern utilitarianism.

Justice is the infinite set of permissible actions remaining after specifying the finite limited set of prohibited actions and corresponding penalties.

What did Smith mean by justice, and why is it so important for understanding his message? The carefully articulated answer was in his first book: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759, pp. 78-91).Justice for Smith was the negative of his proposition on injustice, which stated that improperly motivated (that is, intentionally) hurtful actions alone deserve punishment because they are the objects of a widely shared sense of resentment.

Rules that punished in proportion to resentment emerged naturally in pre-civil society as a means of defense only against real positive evil and to secure innocence and safeguard justice.

Hence, justice is a residual. Justice is the infinite set of permissible actions remaining after specifying the finite limited set of prohibited actions and corresponding penalties.

Imagine a large playing field in which people explore, discover, and innovate, but with well-defined foul boundaries that people are not to breach without penalty; these boundaries will change, based on consent, with experience, culture, and technology.

Smith saw society as seeking human socio-economic betterment through the control of actions that our common experience leads us to judge as hurtful rather than through collective actions designed to achieve future conjectured benefits. The latter is uncertain and fraught with unintended consequences; moreover, history is littered with examples of grandiose failures. The former relies on natural impulses for individuals and assemblies to pursue betterment, risking only their own resources; this framework led him to oppose slavery, colonialism, empire, mercantilism, and taxation without representation at a time when such views were unpopular.

His policy views derive from his belief that every person’s socio-economic achievements should depend as much as possible on merit and as little as possible on privilege.

Reprinted from the Independent Institute

Read more

2017 ALOD Summer Camp Abuja


The summer camp was an intellectually exerting exercise and the participants expectedly, were mentally prepared having been selected on merit . The speakers had a highly interactive and engaging audience.  The  principles of liberty and freedom created a whole gamut of debates and reactions from participants who after the classes confessed to having their thoughts and ideas about society and governments re- formed.

Formal feedback expected via mails are expected to form the bases for evaluation by the ALOD. The creation of a closed group Whatsapp platform by the participants is an expression of their desire to remain connected to ALOD and the ideas of libertarianism and economic freedom(entrepreneur).

The group presentation was  a fusion of libertarian thoughts vis-a-vis economic freedom (Entrepreneur) and drama representation of the ideas  participants were exposed to within the 3 – day program.

The participants at the 2017 African Liberty Organisation for Development (ALOD )Summer camp were drawn from the best 30 out of the 75 undergraduate entrants from across 37 universities in Nigeria who participated in this year Adam Smith essay competition titled “Free Market and Equal Opportunities”

The best  30 essay  entrants  were awarded scholarship to participate in the summer camp.  Besides,  the cash prizes to the best 10 essay entrants,  the scholarship covers tuition,  course materials,  accommodation,  feeding and certification


“Immediately I stepped out of the NYSC Orientation Camp situated at Kubwa, Abuja, I just realized that I stepped out of one world to a different world. I smiled to myself, saying “wow” so it just takes something as a pinch of salt to change a concept, view, perspective, ideology, people, nations, names, places, you can go on and on, the list is endless, just to mention but a few.

Four days earlier, I was in a different world in my thought about my views on Capitalism, Government policies, International/Foreign Aid, Charity and Philanthropic giving, the list is endless, I had no idea that within the next 72 hours, a radical change in my thinking ideology was going to change positively. . .”  

Lewis Aondoyila Tanguhwar

“ Well, what should I say when I discovered during the camp that even in universities nobody really teaches students what is needed to be financially independent simply because everyone of them has crucified capitalism and capitalists. I called my friend and told in three days the summer camp lasted, I learnt one-third of the entire knowledge I acquired in four years in university. 

It was an enriching opportunity to me. I felt honoured to meet with Director General, National Directorate of Employment, Prof. Garba Mohammed, Alh. Adedayo Thomas, Mr. Moses Okorejior, Lilian Kawira from Kenya, Brain box, etc. I cannot forget the wonderful cooks that fed me from my arrival, even before I could drop my bag till my departure, though I don’t know their names.

 In fact, it an intellectual revival program which its impact is indelible. I got a lot of wonderful, enriching and entrepreneurial-life-transforming books and financial prize. My lecturers taught me how to get a good certificate through good grades but ALOD taught me how to be free from the shackles of poverty.

Concerning the organization of the summer camp, I can only say that the ALOD needs more sponsors to achieve more and better results. Once again, I appreciate all the organizers of ALOD Summer Camp. Thanks to you all.”

 – Sunday Eloms Njoku. 


The essay winners were presented with cash prizes after they were made to defend their winning essays through a  5 – minute verbal replication of the works.


Read more

Will technology enable workers or replace them?

As the next generation of robots arrives in the workplace, will they enable workers or replace them? According to MIT’s Daron Acemoglu, one of the most frequently cited economists in the world, this distinction is the difference between technology that raises workers’ wages versus tech that reduces overall employment and stifles wage growth.

Daron Acemoglu is a professor of economics at MIT, a frequent contributor to Foreign Policy Magazine, and co-author of the book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. He joined me to discuss his recent research and what technological innovation means for the future of work.

Some of your recent work has looked at how the increasing use of machines will affect workers, and your conclusions aren’t too optimistic. In particularly your paper “Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets” shows how robots have a negative effect on both employment and wages in some communities. This finding has been treated with some alarm and I see people using it as evidence we’re headed toward a jobless future, the robots are going to gobble up all the jobs, etc. And one reason I think there is this alarm from your paper — aside from the fact that we’ve seen the rise of new technologies at exactly the same time that we have a weak recovery after a recession — is that the standard Econ 101 perspective might be different than your finding from the paper.

So first I want to give a review of what that standard perspective is. I got a report from a consulting firm that was very optimistic about our future with robots, AI, and jobs. Here is the happy ending the consulting firm gave me:

New automated technologies will boost productivity considerably over time. This will generate extra income, initially for the owners of intellectual and financial capital behind these new technologies, but eventually feeding into the wider economy as this income is spent or invested in other areas. This additional demand will generate more jobs and increase incomes especially in sectors that are less automatable. So, the historical evidence suggests that automation will eventually lead to broader, similar overall rates of employment, and higher average real incomes across the country, though there might be a different skew to the income distribution.

So that is a fairly happy ending despite all the concerns of the rise of the robots. To what extent do you agree with this happy ending scenario?

I think that’s something we don’t know about. I think there is a lot of comfort in thinking that there is an inexorable link between productivity, wages, and employment, and everything is going to be fine; but, there are so many unknowns. I would interpret my research here, and it really goes perhaps even against my own priors, as concerning but not alarmist.

Alarmism would be: We’re losing jobs so quickly that within the next generation’s lifetime, we have some major problems if we don’t do something about it. That’s not the case. The rate of job loss from automation or this particular branch of automation, robotization, is relatively small over the last 20 years or so, perhaps less than half a percentage point of the population, (the working age population). So, we’re not talking about huge numbers.

I think what the result signifies is important to put in a broader context, and that was your question. The way that Econ 101 thinks about productivity, employment, and wages, is that whatever increases the productivity is going to translate into wages relatively quickly. And we used to chastise Keynes, one of the greats of economics, for predicting in 1929, before the Great Depression in a speech that he gave, that rapid technological changes would reduce demand for labor and lead to technological unemployment, or much shorter working days or working weeks for people. And that hasn’t come true obviously in the intervening 90 years.

But, the conceptual point that new technologies could reduce the demand for labor, rather than increase the demand for labor, is a possibility and it’s not a crazy idea. There are many conceptual reasons why that could be the case, and I think what makes it more likely is precisely new technologies that automate — meaning replace tasks that were previously performed by labor. And it’s not a crazy thing because there are other examples in which this happens. Almost one hundred years from the beginning of the British Industrial Revolution to the middle of the 19th century did see an unprecedented rate of arrival of new technologies that totally transformed how production, especially textiles but also in other industries, took place. But we didn’t see pretty much any change in wages, and that led to what is sometimes called the living standards paradox.

I think that is another example in which many technologies that replace workers in important tasks in the economy do not necessarily translate into higher wages and higher labor demand immediately. And I think the important point here is a concern but not alarmist, because I think how we deal with these technologies, and whether we can turn them into things that essentially lift all boats very much depends on our institutional and educational responses to them.

The British economy, in the middle of the 19th century, started a breakneck pace of institutional transformation, things that we had not seen before. You know, a welfare state of sorts, taxation, unions, and it also started investing in skills at a very high rate by historical standards. I think those were not unimportant in turning this wave of technologies into something that increased wages for the average working man of Britain. So, that’s why this is the right time for having this conversation about what these new technologies are doing, what we expect them to do, and how we can work toward making them work for us.

I have mentioned technology, you have mentioned technology, but one of the points that you make in your work is that not all technology is the same. And in fact, you differentiate between what you like to call “enabling technology” versus “replacing technology.” Can you talk about the race between those two things, and how that race is changing?

Absolutely, I think that is exactly the crux of the matter. Enabling technologies are essentially what we focus on in basic economic analysis. Those are the things that make the workers more productive in tasks and functions that they are already performing, and perhaps even also expand those tasks. They tend to increase wages and labor demand because they are making workers more productive. When you look at the details, it’s more complex because when you make workers more productive, sometimes you need fewer of them in some activities, and they can get reallocated to other activities. But at its root, this type of technology is directly making workers more productive; but this is very different from replacing technologies.

What would be an example of an enabling technology?

An example of an enabling technology that I like to give — but I think every technology has some grey areas — is the computer assistive design machines, or new spreadsheets. Those take some very specific types of workers. For computer assistive design machines, it would be design workers, and this type of technology increases their productivity. Now they can design things much more precisely, they don’t have to waste time doing repetitive tasks, and it boosts their potential capabilities. Spreadsheets, the same thing. If you are a mid-level or supervisory worker, or essentially a non-routine clerical worker, spreadsheets, early on in the 1980’s, really expanded your capabilities quite a bit.

In contrast, replacing technology directly displace workers from the tasks they were previously performing. A good example would be ATMs; ATMs took away a whole range of tasks that bank tellers were performing, so now we don’t need the bank tellers for those tasks. Now it doesn’t mean that ATMs don’t have the capability or the potential for raising wages, they could do it through the optimistic scenario that you outlined in the beginning of our conversation. Now ATMs make the business of bank transactions much more productive, and as those become more productive, we want to consume lots of other things. We want to perhaps now consume advice from bankers about financial planning, and we also might want to consume more coffee and more cars, and things like that, because the banking sector has become more productive. And that increases labor demand in other activities, and that might be sufficient to offset the negative effects of displacement, or even surpass them.

What I hear about most of all, and what you also focus on in the paper, is robotics and artificial intelligence. Are those — and again technologies in some ways can be enabling and maybe also replacing — but are those technologies fundamentally replacing technologies that are going to result in job loss and probably stagnating wages for some people?

I think the odds are in the favor of these technologies being more on the replacing side. If you look at robotics, what that technology does is it automates and increases the ability of machines to do relatively more complex tasks than manufacturing workers were performing before. AI is very much geared toward applying machine learning to big data, to unstructured data, in order to replicate human judgment and human decision-making in a variety of things. And according to the experts, we are getting to the point where we can use AI to perform tasks that were previously done by accountants, financial planners, paralegals, definitely customer service, and the clerical occupations.

As these technologies advance and spread, if I was just going to look at the big economic numbers that get released every quarter, I might see GDP go up, I might see productivity go up, but that wouldn’t necessarily translate into incomes going up or good paying jobs being created then.

Exactly, I mean, obviously these technologies have a great potential for increasing productivity. Automation is about performing a variety of tasks and functions much more cheaply, and that will translate into greater GDP, greater riches for the nation. But it will not raise labor demand and it might harm a great many workers. Now, the puzzle, of course, is that over the last 15 years, or perhaps slightly longer, productivity numbers have been doing badly.

Right, I’ve been writing a lot about this productivity paradox, in which we certainly read about these great new innovations, whether it’s AI or robots — now everyone has a computer in their pockets, Silicon Valley is going crazy with startups — so it seems like there’s all this innovation and technological progress. But when you look at our productivity numbers, it looks like total stagnation; they’re flat-lining, and they actually started to weaken before the Great Recession. So, how do you think about that productivity paradox and how do we solve it?

I think this is one of these questions that is so puzzling that nobody has the answer to it. But I think it is important to get some facts on the table; back to like you said, this is not about the Great Recession, this is not about a cyclical phenomenon, this is something that we’ve been living with. Into the 2000s and perhaps even in the late 1990s, there was a pickup in productivity in the 1990s but even then, we’re not in the age of very rapid productivity as in the 1950s or the 60s.

Now, the second thing is, people point out the mismeasurement of productivity. I think that’s definitely something to be taken into account and we need a much better measurement. But it’s not as if the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis are idle. They are doing a great job in terms of trying to measure productivity as well as we can. And I think the evidence is, we’ve always mismeasured productivity to some degree and there isn’t a compelling reason to think that it’s gotten much much worse, that it explains all of this slowdown.

So, I think the big issue is that new technologies are coming, but it takes time for us to use them in the most productive way, and that’s for two reasons. One is, we need to adapt a whole host of supporting institutions in order for the productivity of these new technologies to be realized. If our organizations don’t work well with these new technologies, if the workers don’t have the right skills for these new technologies, that’s going to hold back the gains that we can make from them.

But the second one is that, in fact, the technologies are not sufficiently pervasive — yet. If you imagine our cars, the amount of new technology, high-tech gadget that are in our cars, it’s just mind-boggling. But you cannot drive our cars any faster than our grandparents did. Why? Because if you want to drive much faster, you need non-congested roads, much better tires, and there are going to be a whole host of other institutional limits for our ability to drive much faster. So, at this point, we can pack better and better software into the cars — perhaps our air conditioning can get better, perhaps our stereo system can get better — but the thing that we really want from our cars, which is get us faster from A to B, that’s not changing.

Now, the next wave can start transforming that, now you can have many more innovations together with the organizational adjustments, institutional adjustments, and we can go to driverless cars. And that can suddenly change the equation because even if the cars cannot go faster, the cost of doing that sort of driving is going to go down a lot. And that’s going to start changing. So, what that suggests is that there is a cumulative aspect to all of these innovations. And it may well be that we are still in the middle of this cumulative aspect.

I have seen numbers saying that you have productivity inequality, where you a smaller number of leading-edge firms which seem to be very productive and very innovative, and then everyone else is getting left behind. Could it be that we are innovative and we are productive but it’s limited to superstar firms, and either there’s not enough competition so other companies aren’t taking up these innovations, or they’re hard to figure out, and these other companies just figured it out sooner? Is the future already here, just not evenly distributed?

I think that’s very important. I think the business of innovation is probably becoming more unequal and the phenomenon of superstar firms, as you’ve mentioned, is a real one. The US economy has become much more concentrated than any time for which we have data to measure concentration. There’s a recent OECD study which shows that if you look at the top firms in various sectors, and this is tracked over several OECD economies, their growth rate seems to be very similar to what it was in the 1980s and the 1990s. But if you look at the next tier of firms, the follower firms so to speak, they have slowed down.

So that again highlights the inequality in the technology treadmill or the inequality in the innovation capabilities of different firms. And that may have institutional reasons, but I think that it might also be a consequence of the nature of these new technologies. Once Google starts dominating all information, it’s very difficult for another search engine or for another company who wants to use another similar innovation for AI or for customer service to catch up with it, because Google has this superb war chest in the form of terabytes and terabytes and terabytes of data that nobody else can access.

Just to  jump back for a second to this idea that you have two different kinds of technological progress, replacing and enabling, it reminds me very much of some work done by Clayton Christensen over at Harvard, in which he talks about the different kinds of innovation. You have efficiency innovations, which is sort of classic; it’s a new technology, it replaces workers, overall it just reduces the cost of making existing products. Then he has what he likes to call sustaining innovations, which replace old products with new, such as a Toyota Prius replacing a Camry or something. And then he has what he calls empowering innovations, which are brand new products and services creating new jobs. He gives the example of Ford Model T or the Sony transistor radio. Could it be that the technological progress we’re making is just more of the sustaining or efficiency kind of innovation, and we’re just not generating enough of this enabling or what he calls empowering kind of innovation?

I think that’s exactly right. I think we are not creating the types of technologies that are going to use our available labor force. And I’m not sure the process versus product is exactly the right division. But obviously, many process innovations, exactly as you have suggested, would be of the replacing kind; but there are also process innovations like computer-assisted design or spreadsheets that increase our productivity, but do so in a way that enables existing workers to become more productive.

But it is also the case that many of the important products that we have created over the last several decades, over the last two decades in particular, have not added much to the bottom line employment figure. Think of Apple’s iPods and iPads and iPhones; they are amazing innovations and consumers have absolutely rewarded the company by purchasing billions of them. But, look at the number of employees working in the United States for producing these products — it’s very very small. So, there we have an intersection of new technologies that have a very heavy design component and the division of labor can be very finely broken down, and the labor-intensive parts of those products can be manufactured abroad. So, there is a sort of a parallel process to automation that’s increasing efficiency but it’s not really adding to the bottom line employment figure.

Is that a problem that can be fixed by policy? Can we rejigger things to create or change the balance? Move the needle more toward enabling and empowering kinds of innovation and technological change? It seems like we need more of that, but does that just fall like manna from heaven?

I think very much policy can play a role, but not an obvious one. Because I think there’s a lot of evidence that shows the exact composition of innovation and therefore the exact types of technologies that firms develop are responsive to policies and to financial profit incentives. The problem is, it is difficult for us to describe or recognize exactly enabling technologies when they are in the incubation period; so you cannot say we’re going to subsidize the enabling technologies. It was much easier for us to recognize green technologies, but even there, our track record of giving subsidies to green technologies is a mixed one. These sorts of fine incentives are very easy to game.

But I think there are other problems in the labor market and the innovation market that we can start thinking about. We implicitly subsidize production with machines relative to production with labor. If you buy a machine, you don’t have to pay payroll taxes, you can debt finance it, and that’s going to get a subsidy from the government. And the capital income that is generated is going to be taxed at a lower rate. If you hire a worker, you have to pay payroll taxes, they are going to be taxed at a much higher rate, you have to put up with lots of other costs coming from regulations, and other things you have to do when you’re employing workers. So that creates a very non-level playing field, so we’re essentially subsidizing firms implicitly for using machines rather than labor. So I think it’s probably a good idea to start thinking about how we can even that playing field a little bit. So I am definitely not suggesting a robot tax so that we can raise revenues.

That was my next question about Bill Gates and the robot tax.

I can comment on that, but I think what I’m suggesting is, let’s not subsidize robots and other machines implicitly while making it much harder for firms to higher labor.

I have heard people suggest though, when they look at those productivity numbers they say, “Well, gee, that to me looks like companies aren’t using enough machines, so maybe we need to dramatically raise the minimum wage, make workers more expensive, and then companies will, say, use more kiosks and they’ll become more productive and down the road, we’ll have higher growth and higher productivity.” So there’s also that flipside argument that I hear.

Well there is some of that going on, you know, certainly if you look at countries where wages are higher and workers are scarcer, you see more automation. So the US, actually, is a laggard in automation. South Korea, Japan, and Germany are far ahead of the United States in the use of robots and perhaps more worryingly, if you think that robots are part of the future, we don’t have any of the major robot producers in the world; they are all in Japan and Germany, so we are lagging behind there.

But I think taxing employment and workers further would definitely be at the very very very bottom of my list of good ideas. Because I think the problem we are going to be facing in the next several decades is how can we encourage people to be part of the labor force. And I think the United States does very well on that, relative to other countries, partly because of the earned income tax credit. So I think certainly the minimum wage has a role in making sure that some workers are not paid very very low wages, especially if you take workers who don’t have any other option so they might be subject to monopsony power. But I think jacking up the minimum wage so that you force firms to sort of automate more — I think that probably is going to be very distortionary.

And we did mention the robot tax, which is interesting because when Bill Gates mentioned it, he mentioned it both as a source of revenue to help with retraining, but he also specifically mentioned it was a way of slowing down progress and giving workers more time to adjust. I mean it makes a difference for truckers — which you always hear about now when you hear about automated vehicles — it matters whether we go to level 5, full automation in the trucking industry over 10 years versus over 25 years. So do you have any sympathy to slowing down the pace of automation to give workers more time to adjust?

Well what I would say is three-fold. First of all, I believe that if we are indeed, as I just have tried to articulate, subsidizing capital, then that’s distortionary, and that’s a bad idea. We should be having a level playing field. I think we need to go much deeper into this and look exactly at various different types of technologies and see if some of these numerically controlled machines or other automation technologies, as well as robots, are being introduced precisely because labor is being artificially made more expensive. And if that’s the case, there is an obvious thing for us to do.

Second, I totally agree with you; the issue is one of adjustment of labor. So if labor is suddenly caught unaware about what’s going on, and is thrown out of work because of automation, the costs of that are very high. Detroit is the case in point. But, we know self-driving cars and self-driving trucks are coming, so it’s not as if it is going to hit anybody as a big surprise. It’s just that US society does not have the institutions to prepare either the workers currently in this occupation, or even worse, the youth that will be graduating from high school or college in the next few years. We’re just not providing them with the human capital and training opportunities and vision to prepare for them so that they can work with the machines rather than try to do what the machines are doing.

So slowing down the progress, I think, yes and no. If the problem is we are totally unaware and this is hitting us as a surprise, there might be some adjustment process that might help us. But I think, at the end of the day, these technological changes are also our future; we want to have rapid technological change because that’s where the productivity gains are coming, and that’s where productivity gains are going to come from. So we don’t want to slow down the technological progress, we want to turn the technological progress and our skills so that they can work with each other.

We’re already going long, and we did not even get a chance, unfortunately, to get to Why Nations Fail, which I think probably has a lot to say to us these days in the United States. So I just want to end as I always do. I go online and I ask the Twitter-verse for questions, so here’s that question: “The thing that every middle-class parent wants to know is, dear God, what should my child major in when they go to college, given our technological progress and automation?” So what should the kids be majoring in and studying to deal with this future? Do they all have to be computer science majors?

I think that’s a great question and you know what the funny thing is? That parents are asking this question, but policymakers aren’t. Who in the current administration is worrying about such things, for example? Nobody. I think we don’t know the answer to that. We know certain things: We know that flexibility is a great asset in the current labor market and will become a bigger asset, and a more valuable asset in the decades to come. That we want students who can adapt to different circumstances, who can reconfigure themselves to use and deploy different types of skills, and that’s very important, and that’s not something that our high schools or even our colleges do a good job in. But if you go in greater detail, do we need workers who have numeracy skills? Do we need workers who have better software skills? Do we need workers who are better at teamwork?

I don’t think we know these things. Obviously, there is going to be a small elite group of workers, perhaps 2 or 3% of the US labor force, who are going to work in computer programming, designing these AI, big data machine learning programs, or designing new products, and those workers need to have all the computer science and all the technical expertise they can get. As well as the vision; I mean, it’s not just about knowing how to program. Steve Jobs didn’t become Steve Jobs because he was the best programmer. He had a vision, he had a way of conceptualizing the product that other people could not, so that’s actually a broad skill.

But let’s take somebody who’s going to work in the financial industry. Do they need to know much better programming so that they can seamlessly program the AI machines? Possibly, but probably not. Probably the AI technology is going to be developed enough that people who use it don’t actually need to reprogram it. But they may need to have a broader set of skills so that they can act as the conduit between these programs and the customers. They may need to have much better teamwork and soft skills in the new labor market. We just don’t know that because we have not been studying it.

So in some sense, this is reemphasizing what I was trying to say earlier on. The changes that are going to come in the next 20 years shouldn’t surprise anybody, but we are totally unprepared for them.

Read more

Oyesoji Aremu: Nigeria At 57 And The Failure Of Her Educational System

by Oyesoji Aremu
By all intents, assumptions and human estimation, age 57  is said to be very advanced. An individual at 57 would, therefore, be said to be approaching the Senior Citizens Class with full responsibilities amidst further expectations to savour the joy of toiling at a very advanced age when frailties set in. Failure for a 57-year-old man, therefore, could by society standards, be seen to be a technical and permanent failure in life except a miracle happens.
Nigerians are religious no doubt. That could make many among us to say: ‘it is not yet Uhuru for the country’. I share the same sentiment albeit with a defining view and perception. After all, the Bible says: ‘the prayers of the righteous, avail much’.
Thus, at age 57, whatever might be the shortcomings of the country could be said to still be remediable not minding her advanced age.
The index of measuring the country’s achievements in this intervention as Nigeria celebrates 57 years of an uninterrupted independence, is education. Education by all known theories and precepts is the only yardstick through which other indices of advancement of a country rest. Failure in this sector, is therefore, failure in other known sectors like economy, health, technology and telecommunications, politics, the list is inexhaustible. No wonder, our beloved country at 57 is perpetually ‘lamed’ and permanently ‘dwarfed’ in development. If properly harnessed, human and natural resources that are available in Nigeria could be utilised to put her education in a good stead; and same use to bring fortune to the country. Ask what brings fortune to the United Kingdom. It is her education industry.  Unfortunately, these resources have not been effectively used to meet the increasing needs of the country in terms of human capital development and others through qualitative and accessible education for all.
For Nigeria and with specific reference to the education industry, it is a story dotted in failure and permanently on the altar of policy somersault. For emphasis, the sector is the most neglected in the country. Forget about the cacophony of noise from the North to the South, West to the East; and across geopolitical zones in terms of education governance, it is all about heaps of lies and mortgage of the future of this country.
Show me a country with a robust and well-funded education industry, I will point to you a country like Finland, South Africa, Ghana; just to mention three of the numerous countries that have become the envy of others in all-round and complete development, and education haven to thousands of Nigerian youths. Our loss in terms of capital flights to education tourism to Europe, America, Asia, and countries like South Africa and Ghana in Africa are better imagined than stating the obvious of our commonwealth of failure in education.
Putting the nation’s achievements in education on a scale of ten, and comparing her with her contemporaries who had independence about the same period, I will conservatively grade her 3.
Mainly, the education industry has three major sub-sectors: early childhood/primary, secondary and tertiary. Thus, the totality of the quality of education sector remains abysmally low and unimpressive even to those on the lower rung of Social Status Ladder. From the primary to secondary and tertiary sub-sectors, it has been a tale of woes in academic performance to the history of decadence in facilities and unmotivated personnel. An objective appraisal of the three sub-sectors shows that all is not well.
Unfortunately, the primary and secondary sub-sectors have totally collapsed and no longer enjoying serious patronage on the part of the government at all levels. *Those who are left to salvage from the knowledge crumbs in public primary and secondary schools are wards of those I earlier referred to belong to the lower rung of the Social Status Ladder*. The running of the two sub-sectors is now in the hand of the private sector who, latch at the poor policy of the government to take control of primary and secondary education due to the neglect of the government. One must thank the private sector in that it is through it, whatever remains of the glory of education in primary and secondary sub-sectors is envied amidst what many could afford.
One may wonder then if the neglect of these sub-sectors has any bearing with the constitutional provision which put education on the concurrent list? That provision did not make any intervention for the private sector. It is the jackals in government that look elsewhere and allow the private sectors to hijack primary and secondary education in Nigeria. The same scenario is playing out in the tertiary sub-sector of education industry with continuous deregulation of university education. At independence, Nigeria had only three universities and four polytechnics. The number of secondary schools was also known because of their qualities and fame. Then, schools were actively supervised by ministries of education. While one welcomes the increase in the number of higher institutions (especially universities), what remains disturbing is the alarming rate of their proliferation without a corresponding funding of the existing ones; and thereby, raises questions of quality assurance. The increasing number of candidates every year (they are about 1.7 million this year) seeking admission to higher institutions especially universities, makes it imperative to have more universities but not on the altar of sacrificing quality.
In other climes, the government encourages open access to education by licensing public universities to run in a dual mode. Examples abound in South Africa, India, China, and UK.
I must stress it that government cannot be the sole funders of education. However, my take is that the regulatory bodies have been compromised and thereby throwing the education sector in the hands of businessmen and women whose primary motive is to make profit, forgetting that education is a social sector.
Arguably, the fault is not theirs. Rather, governments at all levels should take the blame for compromising the future of the children of this country. Successive administrations with perhaps exception of the ones in the first republic have committed a grievous infraction against education in Nigeria. None of the primary and secondary schools established prior to the first republic which produced crop of many political leaders, captains of industries, celebrated academics, and a host of other notable Nigerians can be said to be a good reference now. Many of these schools except for those which have been handed over to missionaries are caricatured, dilapidated and no longer fancied. For emphasis, the country has not fared well in the provision of qualitative education to its citizenry.
The sector also continues to witness industrial unrest, especially at the tertiary level. This is happening due to poor incentives for teaching and non-teaching personnel. This is one of the reasons why we do not get their best.
Often, the country witnesses poor academic performances as evident in secondary schools annual results by WAEC and NECO.
At 57, Nigeria should make her education to be prosperous and triumph over all known limitations. This feat cannot be achieved overnight. It would require a serious commitment through adequate funding and appropriate policies. It may not be out of place if the country should declare a state of emergency in the sector. Governments at the national and state levels would have to accept the obvious and apologize for their failure. Anything short of these would mean that our governments are not remorseful and introspective.
The expected triumph and prosperity of education is a serious business. If Nigeria wants to be at par with countries that celebrate prosperity in education, there must be a total overhauling of the sector. This can start now. The last line of the second stanza of the University of Ibadan Anthem reads: ‘For a mind that knows is a mind that’s free’. At 57, can we say Nigeria knows? As we reflect on this, I wish you all happy independence.
Republished from
Prof. Aremu is of the Institute for Peace and Strategic Studies and Director, Distance Learning Centre, University of Ibadan.
Read more

The World Is Getting Freer, Faster

According to the new Fraser Institute report, economic freedom is steadily increasing, and that’s a good thing.

Earlier today, the Fraser Institute published the 21st edition of its annual Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) report. The Canadian think-tank uses 42 data points across five different areas (size of government, legal/property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally and regulation) to rank the economic freedom of 159 countries and territories.

The results? As Johan Norberg puts it, “freedom is awesome”. Which is to say that – almost without exception – the freer the country, the more rapid its economic growth, and the higher its citizens’ income.

The full report is available on the Fraser Institute’s website. But here are the key points:

America is not the real Land of the Free

Hong Kong, despite recent political upheavals, takes the top spot – as it has since 1980. For the tenth year in a row, Singapore comes in second. New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, the UK, Mauritius, Georgia, Australia, and Estonia make up the rest of the top 10. The United States has moved up from 13th spot to 11th. There it joins Canada, which has fallen six places. Other notable rankings are Germany in 23rd place, France in 52nd, Mexico in 76th, Russia in 100th and China in 112th place.

The freer the country, the better

Why do the positions on the list matter? They matter because, as mentioned above, there is a high correlation between economic freedom and important indicators of human well-being.

The freer the nation, the better off the poorest people in it are.

The Fraser Institute splits the measured countries and territories into quartiles (i.e., each quartile represents a quarter of the samples) based on their level of economic freedom. The freest quartile has an average income that is seven times higher than that of the least free quartile ($42,463 and $6,036 respectively). Between 1990 and 2015, economic growth averaged 3.35 percent a year in the freest quartile, whereas the least free experienced a measly 1.66 percent growth.

It’s not just about money. In the freest nations, life expectancy is 80.7 years. This is 16.3 years more than in the bottom quartile. For many people, that amounts to a difference between knowing one’s grandchildren or dying before their birth.

Finally, the freer the nation, the better off the poorest people in it are. The bottom 10 percent of income earners in the freest quartile earned 11 times more than the bottom 10 percent in the least free quartile ($11,998 per year and $1,124 per year respectively). In the freest countries, the poorest 10 percent make almost twice as much as the average person in the least free countries.

Economic freedom isn’t just about the economy

The inclusion of the index acknowledges that women are not always accorded equal treatment before the law.

For the first time, the 2017 edition of the report has adjusted its methodology to include the Gender Disparity Index (GDI). The inclusion of the index acknowledges that women are not always accorded equal treatment before the law. By using information from the World Bank’s Women, Business and Law and 50 Years of Women’s Rights projects, the Fraser authors have amended the EFW scores retrospectively.

This methodological change has meant that the Arab nations have dropped – a lot. (The report was compiled before the news broke that Saudi women will now be allowed to drive, but I don’t think it would have affected the findings much.)

In the previous report, for example, there were four Middle Eastern nations within the top 30. Now that GDI is included, not a single Arab nation ranks in the top 36. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which were previously the highest ranked MENA nations at 5th and 11th places respectively, are now just 37th and 45th. And the 10 countries that experienced the biggest decreases due to the GDI adjustment were all Muslim-majority nations.

The world is getting freer, faster

Economic freedom has increased substantially in the last 25 years – especially in developing nations.

This is the final and most important point to make. Despite our tendency towards pessimism about the state of the world, economic freedom has increased substantially in the last 25 years – especially in developing nations.

In 1990, the average score for a “high-income industrial” country was 7.18, compared to only 5.28 for the average “developing” country. By 2015, the average score in high-income countries was 7.76 and the average in developing countries was 6.61. The gap between the two groupings has fallen from 1.90 to 1.15 – an improvement of 40 percent. This is thanks in large part to trade liberalization and the widespread conquest of inflation and introduction of sound money.

The result is that, if the 1980s world average was a nation, it would place in 154th place today – ranking between war-torn Syria and anarchic Libya. If the 2015 world average was a nation in 1980, it would be the 9th freest – with a score of 6.88, slightly above Canada at the time.

The new EFW shows that despite many anomalies and challenges, economic freedom remains deeply linked to important indicators of human well-being, including wealth, poverty alleviation and life expectancy. As such, it is the poorest members of the human family who get the greatest benefits from it. Long may that continue.

Reprinted from CapX

Read more