Manny4life, I think you have it a bit backwards.

Basic infrastructure comes before "presence", so to speak.

No investor or private businessman going to want to build a business in Location X because there is a Seaworld there, but without high-quality roads and bridges linking his business to the outside world.

ekt_bear:

Manny4life, I think you have it a bit backwards.

Basic infrastructure comes before "presence", so to speak.

No investor or private businessman going to want to build a business in Location X because there is a Seaworld there, but without high-quality roads and bridges linking his business to the outside world.

You misunderstand me, and no offense but I don't have it backward. My point has always been give people an economic reason to establish a presence first, before embarking on infrastructures, that is why Lagos in how terrible it looked until recent gov fashola embarked on his improvement program. You missing my point about Sea world, I was only making a statement (government investment that establishes its niche), meanwhile no investor will invest in a state regardless of how much you have spent on there if there's no economic viability. Unfortunately, there's a ot of misconception people get wrong; Infrastructures do not create economic activity, they can only boost economic activity (correct me if I'm wrong). Why do you think there has been a lot of investment mistakes? Investors will be willing to invest in infrastructures along with the govt (partners) but investors will never invest either in govt infrastructure or corporation if there's no economic viability. You can build a $1billion port, Airport, Roads, Bridges, tunnel etc, but until there's an economic need (NOT WANT) equating to how much was spent, it just mean decision gone bad.


You don't need infrastructure to create need for people, Anambra is known for their trade, regardless of the potholes on the roads, poor logistics and what have you, does it mean millions isn't moved around in the state? Lagos doesn't even have a sound infrastructure for its 18million residents, does it mean that people are still not jumping their potholes of dirty roads to work everyday? My point is, let him create a need first through Govt investment activity, let people see a need for it,  and then the rest follows. A state that size with little IGR has nothing to do with the Capital Bond Market seeking to raise tens or hundreds of millions of $$$.

Anambra can
afford to go to bond market
because of its IGR, but it will be
highly suicidal for a state like imo
which based most of its income
on federal allocation.

Mr Chino, my dear, whenever I read your posts, all I see are pointless empty boasts with absolutely zero evidence to back them up.
Here's the ranking of Nigerian states by their IGR in billions:

(1) Rivers >>> 184.5
(2) Lagos >>> 182.8
(3) Akwa-Ibom >>> 144.5
(4) Delta >>> 124.1
(5) Bayelsa >>> 89.5
(6) Kano >>> 51.7
(7) Ondo >>> 46.1
(8.) Oyo >>> 41.1
(9) Edo >>> 40.9
(10) Kaduna >>> 40.8
(11) Abia >>> 37.7
(12) Imo >>> 35.7
(13) Ogun >>> 35.6
(14) Benue >>> 35.3
(15) Kwara >>> 34.1
(16) Katsina >>> 33.2
(17) Niger >>> 32.3
(18) Borno >>> 31.9
(19) Cross river >>> 31.8
(20) Gombe >>> 31.7
(21) Bauchi >>> 31.6
(22/23) Anambra >>> 30
(22/23) Jigawa >>> 30
(24/25) Sokoto >>> 29.2
(24/25) Adamawa >>> 29.2
(26) Kebbi >>> 28.9
(27) Osun >>> 28.6
(28) Kogi >>> 28.4
(29) Plateau >>> 28.1
(30) Taraba >>> 28
(31) Enugu >>> 27.7
(32) Zamfara >>> 27.5
(33) Yobe >>> 26.3
(34 Nasarrawa >>> 23.8
(35) Ekiti >>> 23.6
(36) Ebonyi >>> 22.8

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&key=0AsNUaGBnBF1KdFpfNEVNNDYtSzBhRk1HT2tuRDlMUFE&hl=en_US&gid=2

You must really think Nairaland is some playpen where you can practice your wishful thoughts.
Oh well, hope this effectively shuts you up.

^^^


Dude, I wouldn't use that as a valid source; reason why I said so is because, I created exactly same spreadsheet when ekt_bear posted it, although I did not alter the information. There were so many inconsistencies with those numbers; I wanted to prove indeed that, information can be deceitful, particularly when there's no source citation for such documents, they are very misleading.

Ejiné:



Mr Chino, my dear, whenever I read your posts, all I see are pointless empty boasts with absolutely zero evidence to back them up.
Here's the ranking of Nigerian states by their IGR in billions:

(1) Rivers >>> 184.5
(2) Lagos >>> 182.8
(3) Akwa-Ibom >>> 144.5
(4) Delta >>> 124.1
(5) Bayelsa >>> 89.5
(6) Kano >>> 51.7
(7) Ondo >>> 46.1
(8.) Oyo >>> 41.1
(9) Edo >>> 40.9
(10) Kaduna >>> 40.8
(11) Abia >>> 37.7
(12) Imo >>> 35.7
(13) Ogun >>> 35.6
(14) Benue >>> 35.3
(15) Kwara >>> 34.1
(16) Katsina >>> 33.2
(17) Niger >>> 32.3
(18) Borno >>> 31.9
(19) Cross river >>> 31.8
(20) Gombe >>> 31.7
(21) Bauchi >>> 31.6
(22/23) Anambra >>> 30
(22/23) Jigawa >>> 30
(24/25) Sokoto >>> 29.2
(24/25) Adamawa >>> 29.2
(26) Kebbi >>> 28.9
(27) Osun >>> 28.6
(28) Kogi >>> 28.4
(29) Plateau >>> 28.1
(30) Taraba >>> 28
(31) Enugu >>> 27.7
(32) Zamfara >>> 27.5
(33) Yobe >>> 26.3
(34 Nasarrawa >>> 23.8
(35) Ekiti >>> 23.6
(36) Ebonyi >>> 22.8

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&key=0AsNUaGBnBF1KdFpfNEVNNDYtSzBhRk1HT2tuRDlMUFE&hl=en_US&gid=2

You must really think Nairaland is some playpen where you can practice your wishful thoughts.
Oh well, hope this effectively shuts you up.

ejine seriously though how come imo state's IGR is bigger than ogun state ?

I guess I disagree.

So you would advocate building the economic reason first (e.g., Tinapa) before first ensuring that the location is easy to get to?

That will lead to disastrous results.

Even if for whatever reason you think that additional infrastructure won't bring new private sector investment, surely you see that potholes and poor logistics decrease the profitability of existing businesses. And thus even in the unlikely invest no investors want to take advantage of your better infrastructure, existing users will benefit.

Also, I think you underrate the positive impact of having good roads and bridges. If someone builds a road reducing say a 2 hour journey down to 1 hour, that is kind of a big deal.

The #s from that document are from a presentation made by the very same senator discussed in the OP's article. Part of his presentation was made publicly available.

ekt_bear:

The #s from that document are from a presentation made by the very same senator discussed in the OP's article. Part of his presentation was made publicly available.

so the senator believes that the igr of imo is higher that that of ogun?i find that hard to believe.

asha 80:

so the senator believes that the igr of imo is higher that that of ogun?i find that hard to believe.

Where did you get that from? That is not what the spreadsheet says. Click the link.

ekt_bear:

I guess I disagree.

So you would advocate building the economic reason first (e.g., Tinapa) before first ensuring that the location is easy to get to?

That will lead to disastrous results.

Even if for whatever reason you think that additional infrastructure won't bring new private sector investment, surely you see that potholes and poor logistics decrease the profitability of existing businesses. And thus even in the unlikely invest no investors want to take advantage of your better infrastructure, existing users will benefit.

Also, I think you underrate the positive impact of having good roads and bridges. If someone builds a road reducing say a 2 hour journey down to 1 hour, that is kind of a big deal.

What is Tinapa? Forgive my ignorance, I don't know what that is. Look, I said, let him create an economic reason (a need) first before anything else. I think you are misunderstanding my point, I have not said infrastructures are not good, what I've always said, building infrastructures without economic viability (with burdened debt) is far more a serious disaster. I'm not saying don't build basic infrastructures, what I'm indeed saying "don't borrow $100million for infrastructures" when you have no economic viability to generate back $100million in 5years.

Existing users will benefit? At what cost to the government is the right question. Are the existing people ready to pay up for the built infrastructures? Additional infrastructures is great only if there's a need for it, businesses need to move goods quicker and faster i.e. if there are businesses, and for there to be business, there has to be people in need, and for people to be in need, something has to attract them.

Building a road is GOOD, don't get me wrong, it will reduce your trip, but if you built a $50million highway/bridge , typically, this types of roads should have an estimated 40,000 cars plying through them daily and are willing to pay $0.40, (the cost for convenience), question is are people willing to do that? second is, what are the chances that there will be actually 40,000 cars plying through there daily to achieve a  break-even revenue for the next 5/10/15years before loan is paid back?

ekt_bear:

Where did you get that from? That is not what the spreadsheet says. Click the link.

seen

ekt_bear:

The #s from that document are from a presentation made by the very same senator discussed in the OP's article. Part of his presentation was made publicly available.

Hmm, why do I find that information grossly WRONG? I have my reasons why I said that but hey I would not delve into that at the moment. Besides, how do I get this presentation since it was public because I truly find those number wrong and misleading.

manny4life:


What is Tinapa? Forgive my ignorance, I don't know what that is.

A project in Cross Rivers state you may want to take a look at some time.

Look, I said, let him create an economic reason (a need) first before anything else. I think you are misunderstanding my point, I have not said infrastructures are good, what I've always said, building infrastructures without economic viability (with burdened debt) is far more a serious disaster. I'm not saying don't build basic infrastructures, what I'm indeed saying "don't borrow $100million for infrastructures" when you have no economic viability to generate back $100million in 5years.

So this is the heart of the matter. If I (by I, I mean the state government) invest X in infrastructure, how long will it take to pay off (not necessarily to me the government directly, but to my populace?)

So we know that Africa has by far the worst infrastructure of any continent. We know that electricity and bad roads are two of the biggest obstacles to business in Nigeria.

Is it too much to conclude from this that we are very, very far away from the point of diminishing returns? That every dollar invested by the government in infrastructure will pay off tremendously over the near future? I agree, if Nigeria were even as developed as a country like Mexico, Iran, etc, then definitely you have to ask more questions.

Granted, yes, you should probably do a study and analyze the situation quantitatively first. But what do you think the result of that hypothetical study would say regarding future payoffs?

Am sure your question may have been answered by people around here. The fact you will know is that some of this fugures are highly fictitious. Ok, let get this straight, technically speaking does it seem to you that states as Edo, Benue, Kwara, Katsina have more IGR than Anambra?

It may have to occur to you that Anambra have more industries and investments coupled with huge commercial activities more than all these state put together. If most of the states that are there are more powerful financial, then what can you about the recent appraisal that some state are technically dead.

I think this singular report vindicates Anambra when it comes to its state of IGR. Anambra is yet to be declared oil producing state but they are already going places.

Ejiné:



Mr Chino, my dear, whenever I read your posts, all I see are pointless empty boasts with absolutely zero evidence to back them up.
Here's the ranking of Nigerian states by their IGR in billions:

(1) Rivers >>> 184.5
(2) Lagos >>> 182.8
(3) Akwa-Ibom >>> 144.5
(4) Delta >>> 124.1
(5) Bayelsa >>> 89.5
(6) Kano >>> 51.7
(7) Ondo >>> 46.1
(8.) Oyo >>> 41.1
(9) Edo >>> 40.9
(10) Kaduna >>> 40.8
(11) Abia >>> 37.7
(12) Imo >>> 35.7
(13) Ogun >>> 35.6
(14) Benue >>> 35.3
(15) Kwara >>> 34.1
(16) Katsina >>> 33.2
(17) Niger >>> 32.3
(18) Borno >>> 31.9
(19) Cross river >>> 31.8
(20) Gombe >>> 31.7
(21) Bauchi >>> 31.6
(22/23) Anambra >>> 30
(22/23) Jigawa >>> 30
(24/25) Sokoto >>> 29.2
(24/25) Adamawa >>> 29.2
(26) Kebbi >>> 28.9
(27) Osun >>> 28.6
(28) Kogi >>> 28.4
(29) Plateau >>> 28.1
(30) Taraba >>> 28
(31) Enugu >>> 27.7
(32) Zamfara >>> 27.5
(33) Yobe >>> 26.3
(34 Nasarrawa >>> 23.8
(35) Ekiti >>> 23.6
(36) Ebonyi >>> 22.8

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&key=0AsNUaGBnBF1KdFpfNEVNNDYtSzBhRk1HT2tuRDlMUFE&hl=en_US&gid=2

You must really think Nairaland is some playpen where you can practice your wishful thoughts.
Oh well, hope this effectively shuts you up.

manny, you may have missed this: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-826082.0.html