Achieving Measurable Results: A Necessity for Federal and State Collaboration

The Nigerian federal government recently held a two-day National Economic Council (NEC) conference in Abuja to promote economic cooperation and foster inclusive growth across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). The event attracted various governors and significant stakeholders from the national scene.

According to the organizers, the conference aimed to harmonize federal and state priorities in line with the Renewed Hope Agenda. Themed "Delivering Inclusive Growth and Sustainable Development," the event included seven panel discussions and nine keynote presentations that focused on fiscal governance, collaboration between states, human capital development, security, domestic production, and frameworks for partnerships aimed at growth.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who was represented by Senate President Godswill Akpabio at the closing ceremony, stressed the importance of reforms that require bravery, diligence, and consistency. He called on stakeholders to ensure that policy actions yield tangible results such as job creation, infrastructure development, and enhanced healthcare and education sectors as well as broader economic opportunities. A joint communique recommended non- violent strategies to tackle insecurity, the alignment of tax regulations, strategic investments in the oil and gas sector, diversification into non-oil industries, and focus on viable projects in agriculture, manufacturing, energy, transportation, logistics, and digital infrastructure.

While this sounds promising, it echoes sentiments Nigerians have grown accustomed to hearing over the years.

The focal concern is not the reform rhetoric itself but rather the lack of visible outcomes.

Sixty-five years post-independence, despite the establishment of numerous states designed to leverage local comparative advantages, the same fundamental challenges of nationhood, fiscal federalism, and economic coordination remain recurring themes at every discussion. Continuity in such a manner is unsustainable.

This conference should have progressed beyond mere declarations. It ought to have functioned as a stringent peer review platform where states could exhibit quantifiable accomplishments, assess performance metrics, and account for the resources received. Nigerians have the right to know which states are effectively transforming revenue into productivity, employment, and prosperity, and which ones are failing to do so.

Government revenue at all tiers has surged, particularly following the removal of subsidies and adjustments in exchange rates. However, borrowing persists unabated. Citizens continue to seek genuine impactful change. While salary payments are vital, they do not equate to economic revitalization. The removal of subsidies and the introduction of new taxes, in the absence of a clear framework and identifiable milestones, cannot singlehandedly reconstruct a struggling economy.

The elimination of the fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira have been branded as courageous reforms. Yet, reform devoid of organized execution, cooperative effort, and clarity of roles among the federal and state governments leads to confusion. There seems to be an absence of a clear agreement regarding what the federal government should focus on strategically, and what each state should pursue based on its unique advantages.

In a federal arrangement, the central government must offer explicit strategic guidance. Federalism does not imply fragmentation; rather, it suggests coordinated autonomy. States cannot act as disconnected entities, improvising economic policies while awaiting allocations from the Federation Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC).

The recent discord over revenue distribution, including controversies linked to electricity subsidies, underscores the fragility of cooperative federalism. However, considering that most governors align politically with the federal government, coordination should ideally be simpler, not more complex. Governance should not devolve into a monologue; economic management should be guided by specialists, founded on solid evidence, and shielded from political whims.

Another pressing issue pertains to local government autonomy. Numerous states continue to act as stewards of local government funds. In some instances, even where nominal autonomy exists, funds are extracted and redirected. Such practices hinder grassroots development and violate the principles of fiscal decentralization. For development to be truly inclusive, resources must reach the most local levels of governance.

It is a fallacy to claim that the government should not engage in enterprise. Strategic involvement by the state in productive sectors is not an ideological anomaly. Nations like China illustrate how sub-national governments can propel growth by spearheading industrialization and job creation. The question is not whether the government should partake; rather, it is about the efficiency, transparency, and competitiveness of that participation.

Nigeria possesses vast economies of scale within sectors such as livestock, agriculture, mining, tourism, manufacturing, and energy. When states were established, there was an assurance of viable economic potential in each. Various reputable studies have identified these potentials comprehensively. So why do so many states continue to rely heavily on federal allocations?

The issue lies in misaligned policies, inadequate execution, and the politicization of economic management. Frequently, political considerations overshadow sound economic reasoning. Initiatives are launched without assessed feasibility. Borrowing occurs without generating productivity. Conferences are conducted absent accountability systems.

Now deep into the first term of this administration, Nigerians expect visible changes, not continued policy discussions. The success of reforms should be gauged by reductions in poverty, job growth, functional infrastructure, and improved living standards, not merely the number of published communiques.

Future NEC conferences must prioritize defined, measurable objectives. States should report on growth in internally generated revenues, sector output advancements, job creation statistics, and completion rates of capital projects. Independent experts should evaluate assumptions and outcomes. The most effective states should serve as exemplars, while those underperforming should face scrutiny.

Nigeria is rich in ideas but falters in disciplined implementation.

The era of mere verbal consensus has concluded. What Nigeria requires now is a coordinated approach, driven by expert implementation founded on comparative advantages, fiscal accountability, and transparency. Anything less risks reducing yet another well-meaning conference to an annual cycle of familiar pledges.

Nigerians deserve results, not rehearsed proclamations.