₦airaland Forum

[center][/center]By the time Bola Ahmed Tinubu took office in 2023, Nigeria’s economic fragility was already well established. But nearly a decade into rule by the All Progressives Congress (APC), the conversation has shifted from inheritance to accountability. And when placed side by side with Ghana, the contrast becomes harder to ignore.

In 2015, Nigeria stood clearly ahead. Its GDP per capita hovered around $2,500, significantly above Ghana’s roughly $1,400. Today, that relationship has flipped. Ghana’s per capita output sits in the $2,200–$2,500 range, while Nigeria’s has fallen to roughly $800–$1,200. This is not a marginal divergence—it is a reversal.
Why?


Part of the answer lies in policy choices. Ghana has faced its own crises—debt distress, IMF intervention, currency volatility. It is not an economic miracle. But even through turbulence, it has maintained a degree of macroeconomic continuity and investor confidence that Nigeria has struggled to sustain.
Yet the more uncomfortable explanation sits elsewhere: security.


Over the past decade, Nigeria has contended with persistent and expanding insecurity—from the insurgency in the northeast to banditry in the northwest, and kidnappings and communal violence across multiple regions. These are not isolated disturbances; they are systemic risks that directly undermine economic activity.
Agriculture offers a clear example. Large swathes of arable land in northern Nigeria have become effectively inaccessible due to violence. Farmers either abandon production or scale back significantly. The result is reduced food supply, which feeds directly into inflation—one of the most visible pressures on Nigerian households today.


Investment tells a similar story. Capital, by its nature, is risk-averse. When businesses must factor in security costs—private guards, logistics disruptions, insurance premiums—the attractiveness of the investment climate deteriorates. In some cases, investment simply does not come at all.


Compare this with Ghana. While not immune to security concerns, it has maintained relative internal stability. That stability functions as an economic asset. It supports tourism, enables more predictable agricultural cycles, and reduces the cost of doing business. Investors may worry about currency risk in Ghana—but they are far less concerned about physical insecurity disrupting operations.


This divergence compounds over time.
Nigeria’s challenges—currency depreciation, inflation, declining per capita output—are often discussed in purely economic terms. But they are deeply intertwined with governance and security. An unstable environment constrains productivity, distorts markets, and limits the effectiveness of even well-designed reforms.

Which brings us back to the Tinubu administration.

The removal of fuel subsidies and exchange rate reforms were framed as necessary corrections. That may be true. But reforms cannot succeed in a vacuum. Without addressing the underlying security crisis, economic policy operates with a structural handicap. You cannot sustainably grow an economy where key productive regions are functionally insecure.

So what is the excuse?

Legacy issues explain the starting point, but not the persistence of the problem. Global conditions provide context, but not justification for underperformance relative to peers like Ghana. Reform pain is real, but it becomes far harder to defend when layered on top of avoidable structural failures.


Hanzo.
If you perform woefully you will be voted out !!

Any reforms that do not start by addressing the huge leakages in the economy is dead on arrival.

Dogalmighty17:
Any reforms that do not start by addressing the huge leakages in the economy is dead on arrival.

only a person who hates corruption . Not tinubu