doyin13:

But I bet the Niger Deltans would rather their environs look like Abuja than what obtains at the moment.

Of course,I know that.Many people have expressed the wish for their region to look like Dubai.I understand the almost vain desire to have your environs littered with concrete structures and "flyovers". That is partly a Nigerian mentality.

However,the average indigene of the area that constitutes the Federal Capital Territory is no where better off than the average indigene of Orumba in Anambra State.The latter has no flyovers or even a single skyscraper in his hometown.

Yes,we can indulge Nigerian's(in this case the Niger-Delta)crave for "good looking environs". The underlying issue still remains-it won't make much of a damn difference to their living standards.

@ 4Play So if the money is actually used by government to complete projects like power plants etc, to provide water, to provide good roads so that vehicles don't keep needing mechanic every three weeks hence leaving money for other stuff that won't improve the standard of living? Won't "good looking" environs attract investors that would pump money into the place, creating more jobs for people? I do believe that until we hold leaders accountable all this giving states money won't achieve anything. But your arguement that the money won't change anything? I simply don't understand where you are coming from

I am less worried about who gets what money . . . i'm more interested in how to develop a system where indolence is no longer rewarded in the name of "federal allocations".

Allocation is not all of it, but it is almost 80% of it.

Too many people sitting on their hands waiting for money.

@SkyBlue

If you spend money on a particular region at the expense of others,it won't improve appreciably the living standards of the indigenes of that region any more than that of the others.

This is the reality we have witnessed in Nigeria.Look at all the money spent in the North or in Abuja.Do you think the indigenes are better off than others?

To improve living standards significantly,you have to improve it across the nation.You can't isolate one region within a country and seek to improve its living standard without bothering much about the rest.

doyin13:

abi ooo. Its not your taxes na!!!!!!!LMAO

I would apply the same to my taxes and how it is spent. What the country needs now more than ever is an institution in place that ensures that all thieves will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and that no one is above the law. So anyone to put his or her hands on funds that have anything to do with that country be held accountable for it and the person understand that if mismanaged or embezzled, they the risk of facing the death penalty if found guilty. I am an extremist now when it comes to matters that concern Nigeria and corruption. I don tire.

4 Play:

To improve living standards significantly,you have to improve it across the nation.You can't isolate one region within a country and seek to improve its living standard without bothering much about the rest.

The issue is not developing one area to the detriment of the other.
Oil will run out in 40yrs . . . are we preparing for that event or what resource will become the new goose that lays the golden eggs?
For how long are our governors going to remain nothing more than caretakers going to abuja every month to beg for "allocations"?
Pretty much nothing goes on in terms of governance at the grassroots level, local governments only exist in name . . . all they do there is share money to government cronies and everyone goes home.

In 40yrs time there wont be money left to "share" . . . what will we do then?

@ 4Play If you read through my posts you will see that i have been encouraging autonomy of states, but what i am saying to you is that you are assuming that the money spent in the north was used for development. If money is not that important then why are we bothered about what happens to foreign reserves? Those states that got all that money are still the way they are because the money was not spent on wisely on the people but instead went into pockets. If the money was spent to generate power for the north, provide good water, you are still saying their lives won't be improved? In an ideal situation states should strive to generate their own revenue and be more active instead of waiting for money, money which if used wisely can make a difference

Sky Blue:

If you read through my posts you will see that i have been encouraging autonomy of states, but what i am saying to you is that you are assuming that the money spent in the north was used for development. If money is not that important then why are we bothered about what happens to federal reserves? Those states that got all that money are still the way they are because the money was not spent on wisely on the people but instead went into pockets. If the money was spent to generate power for the north, provide good water, you are still saying their lives won't be improved? In an ideal situatuion states should strive to generate their own revenue and be more active instead of waiting for money, money which if used wisely can make a difference

Precisely but we have had more states seeking handouts than we have states working to generate their own revenue. If all the handouts have to this day barely scratched the surface in these states, does giving them more really change anything

@4Him

Nigeria's dependence on oil is not a problem that will be solved by reshuffling the allocation formular.I think what you are saying is that if the other regions didn't have access to oil revenue,they will be forced to seek other means of raising money with the effect that we have diversification of the economy.

This is akin to shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.The implication of what you are saying is that the way to develop other region's economies is through less public investment.Remove or reduce money they spend on infrastructure-roads,schools,hospitals,public utilities-and these places will blossom economically.

If you actually want to diversify our economy,its about economic reforms-privatisation,deregulation,lower taxes,fighting corruption,e.t.c Simply shifting funding from one place to the other won't achieve the desired purpose.If your suggestion were carried out,Nigerians will simply migrate to the Niger-Delta and dilute whatever gains the local people would have gotten.The Niger-Delta will become like Lagos or Mexico City,huge populations but little difference in living standards for locals.

The reallocation obviously by itself is not a panacea to our problems. It has to be accompanied by other measures.

And you make it sound like the spending will be a deliberate skewering to favour the Niger Delta.

Such an allocation rejig will only be disentangling the federal allocation mess, allowing local populations to reap the full rewards of their
resources.

@ 4Play, now if we had other states trying to develop and create jobs and generate their own revenue (which isn't that difficult), instead of this comfort with mediocrity while waiting for pay check, people won't all have to rush to lagos, they can develop their own areas. That is an advantage of competition between regions and areas.

Sky Blue:

@ 4Play If you read through my posts you will see that i have been encouraging autonomy of states, but what i am saying to you is that you are assuming that the money spent in the north was used for development. If money is not that important then why are we bothered about what happens to foreign reserves? Those states that got all that money are still the way they are because the money was not spent on wisely on the people but instead went into pockets. If the money was spent to generate power for the north, provide good water, you are still saying their lives won't be improved? In an ideal situation states should strive to generate their own revenue and be more active instead of waiting for money, money which if used wisely can make a difference

So you are saying,for instance, that the FCT doesn't have more infrastructure than the 5 Igbo states? All those tarred roads and impressive buildings I see in the North or Abuja came from where?

See what happens.If you take Anambra and the FCT.The FCT's economy is much larger than that of Anambra(there is really little basis for comparison)but are FCT indigenes better off than Anambra indigenes?No. If you spend money in one particular place unlike others,more enterprising people from other regions will simply move and dilute the gains for the locals.

FCT indigenes would have been far better off if very little migration took place but that is impossible.Spend money on Lagos and people will move to Lagos.Spend money on the Niger-Delta and people will move there.

The way to solve the country's problems,especially its dependence on oil,is not to simply shift spending to one particular area but through sound economic policies.Unless you break up the country,the country has to develop together or we won't develop at all.

4 Play . . . what did we use to build all the structures we had prior to 1966?
We didnt have any oil and each region was forced to fend for itself and we did it quite well. The south was generating close to 3m pounds a yr without a drop of oil by the 50s . . . why cant we do the same?
Japan has not a drop of oil, suffered 2 atomic bombs in 1945 and YET are the world's second largest economy . . . haba!

I'm not advocating a unilateral withdrawal of government funding . . . like Doyin13 suggests let us start by slowly reducing the amount of allocation over a 5-10yr period . . . until each region (those states are a drain on our scarce resources) becomes fairly self sufficient.
Competition is what drives development . . . sitting down waiting for monthly allocations while doing nothing is  the reason our politics is so monetised today . . .

doyin13:

The reallocation obviously by itself is not a panacea to our problems. It has to be accompanied by other measures.
And you make it sound like the spending will be a deliberate skewering to favour the Niger Delta.

Such an allocation rejig will only be disentangling the federal allocation mess, allowing local populations to reap the full rewards of their
resources.

I agree that as matter of fairness,oil producing regions should enjoy more of their resources.However,if someone is saying that it will make much positive impacts on their lives,that is demonstrably false.

If you are saying that it will lessen dependence on oil,that is clearly untrue.

4 Play:

See what happens.If you take Anambra and the FCT.The FCT's economy is much larger than that of Anambra(there is really little basis for comparison)but are FCT indigenes better off than Anambra indigenes?No. If you spend money in one particular place unlike others,more enterprising people from other regions will simply move and dilute the gains for the locals.

Does the FCT have an economy? The presence of fancy buildings is not a sign of development . . .
What we have is not an economy perse but a money distribution system.

4play. . . . . .You are beginning to sound like a Bolshevik

'The country grow together'. When that one start.

There is simply no way, around it. Uniform development of all the regions is nigh impossible.
One region will always develop faster than the other.

It is in this instance that your libertarianism tendencies come in handy.

If we accept that everybody cannot come up together. . . .the most important thing then is to make the
richer regions as rich as possible and then it can drip down to the poorer regions.

4 Play:

I agree that as matter of fairness,oil producing regions should enjoy more of their resources.However,if someone is saying that it will make much positive impacts on their lives,that is demonstrably false.

If you are saying that it will lessen dependence on oil,that is clearly untrue.

true . . . but isnt it about time we started to diversify the economy?
Our budgets are entirely drawn around the price of crude oil. The most important item on every government official's daily list is to check on current oil prices so as to calculate monthly allocation that will accrue to him.
Our governors are forever quarelling with the FG NOT on matters that affect the people but on how to "share" excess crude funds . . . haba!

Why is a state like Zamfara declaring sharia and then demanding oil funds to pay for an illegal state religious structure that is opposed by the vast majority?

@4Play, you are making it sound like 'turn by turn' development. So you mean we all have to get cosy with the situation of having only two functioning cities? Then why on earth won't those cities be overcrowded? So cities can't develop simultaneously? If government of regions are serious about generating revenue then they will. I have asked before, so what were we doing before oil, waiting for oil? If we have at least 5 more functioning cities and development driven by competition, then that won't make a difference? Has government gotten so lazy that each regions government's job is just to wait for money they did not earn to spend it? But let us not lose sight of this, it is not about moving funds to a region or whatever. it is about whatever fund we have being actually spent to improve Nigeria. This is not happening at the moment and hence it does not matter who gets what money. And states can't keep on being lazy. This should be a symbiotic relationship, not a parasitic one

Nigeria is in a mess. Prior 1966, we had infrastructures laid down that guaranteed the North was producing pyramids of ground nuts while the South have plantations of Palm Oil. To the best of my knowledge , not even a blue print exists in any of the states to develop thier own revenue. Most states have been are still being milked dry by the politicians. My local government chairman is doing nothing in terms of developing his purview. Money comes in from the state government and he just gulfs it down with his cohorts. I believe that is almost the same story with most local government. I would not even advocate increasing the allocation given to MY local government. It only means more money for the local politicians and more misery for the man on the street. Until people are made to have the fear of the law any solution would just be a cosmetic one. Just changing tunes.

4Him:

true . . . but isnt it about time we started to diversify the economy?
Our budgets are entirely drawn around the price of crude oil. The most important item on every government official's daily list is to check on current oil prices so as to calculate monthly allocation that will accrue to him.
Our governors are forever quarelling with the FG NOT on matters that affect the people but on how to "share" excess crude funds . . . haba!

Why is a state like Zamfara declaring sharia and then demanding oil funds to pay for an illegal state religious structure that is opposed by the vast majority?

Abi ooo. . .when dem suppose dey learn Technical Drawing, they are going to ILE KEWU

Nigeria is in a mess. Prior 1966, we had infrastructures laid down that guaranteed the North was producing pyramids of ground nuts while the South have plantations of Palm Oil. To the best of my knowledge , not even a blue print exists in any of the states to develop thier own revenue. Most states have been are still being milked dry by the politicians. My local government chairman is doing nothing in terms of developing his purview. Money comes in from the state government and he just gulfs it down with his cohorts. I believe that is almost the same story with most local government. I would not even advocate increasing the allocation given to MY local government. It only means more money for the local politicians and more misery for the man on the street. Until people are made to have the fear of the law any solution would just be a cosmetic one. Just changing tunes.

Development is not wholly driven by natural resources . . . that is why Africa is lagging behind the Asian economies. These people used the advantage of cheap labour to woo all these western industries to set up billion dollar investments. Look at your ipod, its probably built and shipped from China, look at ur underwear . . . maybe Pakistan.

Why cant we have a branch of Microsoft here? Michelin tyres just packed up in PH . . . why arent major car companies here? We have the cheap labour that these people need, just 3 of these multinationals in a single state like Kebbi is enough to ensure they can comfortably survive without a penny from oil resoures.

Why cant we have large scale agriculture subsidised by crude oil resources from the FG? We'd be self sufficient in terms of food and even have enough to export.
2 well maintained seaports in Lagos serving as the central hub of all shipping in the west African region is enough to keep Lagos afloat without oil.
This is how nations without oil are surviving, we can do the same if only we take the pains to look beyond our selfish desires to amass ill-gotten wealth ably fed by free oil cash disbursed with no recourse to accountability.

Let our governors start doing something to generate their own funds . . . we'd have less incentive to rig elections as only those willing to work and not just wait for allocations would put themselves up for elections.

4Him:

4 Play . . . what did we use to build all the structures we had prior to 1966?
We didnt have any oil and each region was forced to fend for itself and we did it quite well. The south was generating close to 3m pounds a yr without a drop of oil by the 50s . . . why can't we do the same?
Japan has not a drop of oil, suffered 2 atomic bombs in 1945 and YET are the world's second largest economy . . . haba!

Every time you step off Lagos Airport and probably have a tour of the country,take a good look around you.How much of the infrastructure you see was built prior to 1966? Far more was built in Nigeria between 1970 to 1980 than was built in the preceding 70 years of the country's existence.

Lets not exaggerate how good things were in the 60s(there is a reason the country degenerated into a civil war)You are talking of an era expectations were lower.Most of the country didn't have electricity,good roads,hospitals,telephones,modern housing,e.t.c.This was an era where the entire University graduands for the Western region for a particular year would number about 400 to 500 people.

We were growing from a very low economic base-what you find in places like S.Leone,Liberia,Mozambique,e.t.c-but it was only untill the discovery of oil that things really kicked off economically. If we had never found oil and continued on that path,we will still be very poor.The 60s are very much exaggerated.

As for Japan,it was already a well developed nation before the 2nd World War,which was why it was able to fight the US and the British Empire to a standstill until Hiroshima and Nagasaki.All that was needed was simply rebuild what was bombed and the country will continue where it stopped.

Japan's story goes to show one thing,the greatest resource a nation has is its human capital.When Nigeria was plodding along with its cocoa and palm oil,how much of our human capital did we develop? The various regions were still producing graduates only in their hundreds after 60 years of Nigeria's birth.

We would have ended up like the various African countries that don't have oil.What will make a difference is sound economic policies not the import-substitution nonsense we were doing in the 60s.Almost all African countries were growing in the 60s,a fallout from growth from the colonial era,but look where they all ended up.

doyin13:

4play. . . . . .You are beginning to sound like a Bolshevik

'The country grow together'. When that one start.

There is simply no way, around it. Uniform development of all the regions is nigh impossible.
One region will always develop faster than the other.
It is in this instance that your libertarianism tendencies come in handy.

If we accept that everybody cannot come up together. . . .the most important thing then is to make the
richer regions as rich as possible and then it can drip down to the poorer regions.

Its not about about uniformity of development,its the simple reality of belonging to one country.If Country A has $100bn to spend annually. It spends $60bn in the North and $40bn in the South where most of the resources come from.If it decides to start spending $90bn on the South,nothing will change as such.Its still 90 + 10 =100.

You guys are thinking that the North will be forced to generate funds to make up for the lost spending.That is not what will happen.If the North didn't develop when you were spending $60bn,it won't develop when you are spending $10bn.You don't generate growth and economic development by investing less.

At some point,people from the North will simply start coming down South in huge numbers and dilute whatever improvements you have in the South for its inhabitants.

How do you grow economies and diversify revenue?Sound economic policies not shifting spending from one region to another.

Okay 4play. . . .what sound economic policies would you suggest for the Naija environment

Maybe that would enlighten us further

4 Play . . . u are right. But oil should have been a catalyst for our development and not the curse it is today.
What the Niger Delta is agitating for is not even 100% control of their resources but 50%.

The idea is to engender some form of competition to drive economic growth. We literarily have no economy right now . . . if oil prices crash to $30/barrel today we'd be in serious trouble.
We have oil and we cant refine a drop! Shame on us . . . we are too busy arguing about sharing the proceeds with no thought for using this extra cash to develop other viable sources of income.

Why is a state like Zamfara declaring sharia and then demanding oil funds to pay for an illegal state religious structure that is opposed by the vast majority?

The only solution is to break up the country.You can't force change by shifting spending from one area to the other.As long as we are in the same country,we are stuck in the same boat.

doyin13:

Okay 4play. . . .what sound economic policies would you suggest for the Naija environment

Maybe that would enlighten us further

The usual medicine-deregulation,privatisation,e.t.c

My view is that as long as we have the North,we can never achieve our full potential.All this talk of shifting spending around from one region to the other won't change anything

4 Play:

The usual medicine-deregulation,privatisation,e.t.c

My view is that as long as we have the North,we can never achieve our full potential.All this talk of shifting spending around from one region to the other won't change anything

We have tried ur medicine and it has only met with limited success. I think pretty much every one is with you on the fact that with the north there is very little hope of going forward.

4Him:

4 Play . . . u are right. But oil should have been a catalyst for our development and not the curse it is today.
What the Niger Delta is agitating for is not even 100% control of their resources but 50%.

The idea is to engender some form of competition to drive economic growth. We literarily have no economy right now . . . if oil prices crash to $30/barrel today we'd be in serious trouble.
We have oil and we can't refine a drop! Shame on us . . . we are too busy arguing about sharing the proceeds with no thought for using this extra cash to develop other viable sources of income.

You think the Gov or people of Zamfara will suddenly turn a new leaf and start showing dynamism in economic matters? These are attitudes formed over hundreds of years. If they didn't improve themselves when they had the resources from the South,they won't do so when they don't have any.

Look at the people of Niger Republic,has not having access to oil money changed them? Has it made them more competitive or resourceful ?

All you will get is migration and political instability.As long as we are one country,we either develop together or we stay poor together.You can't starve one region into becoming more resourceful.

I don tire . . . . there is just one solution, get ur family out of that hole called nigeria.
Another failed state goes down the drain.