No More Hiding Behind Nigeria’s National Numbers. By Otunba Segun Showunmi - The Alternative.
I think it is time for the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) to lead a subnational statistical revolution.
Nigeria cannot continue to discuss development almost exclusively through national averages when the country is a federation of 36 states, the FCT and 774 local governments, each with vastly different economic structures, resources and governance outcomes.
National aggregates can conceal subnational failure just as easily as they reveal national progress.
If Nigeria’s GDP grows, which states are driving that growth? If poverty falls, where is it falling fastest? If employment rises, where are the jobs being created? If internally generated revenue increases, which states are actually expanding their fiscal capacity? If investment is growing, where is the capital going?
These questions should not be left to political interpretation. The data should tell us.
The NBS should therefore publish a standardized State Performance Dashboard, disaggregating major socioeconomic indicators by geopolitical zone, state and, wherever statistically feasible, local government.
The dashboard should cover at least six areas:
Economic Productivity: state GDP, GDP growth, GDP per capita, sectoral output, manufacturing, agriculture, exports, business formation and employment.
Fiscal Effort: internally generated revenue, IGR per capita, IGR relative to state economic output, federal transfers, total revenue, capital expenditure, recurrent expenditure, debt and debt service.
Human Development: poverty, education, learning outcomes, healthcare, maternal and child health, water, sanitation, electricity and other quality-of-life indicators.
Investment & Business Climate: private investment, new businesses, business survival, industrial activity, infrastructure and other measures of economic attractiveness.
Public Finance & Outcomes: not merely how much governments spend, but what citizens receive in return. A budget is not an achievement. Expenditure is not an achievement. Improved outcomes are achievements.
Institutional Capacity: budget execution, financial reporting, procurement transparency, debt management and the quality of public administration.
But we must be careful not to create a simplistic league table. States do not begin from the same baseline. The NBS should therefore measure absolute performance, relative performance against comparable states, and trajectory over time.
A state that inherited severe structural disadvantages but is improving rapidly should receive credit. A state that inherited a strong economic base but is stagnating should not be allowed to hide behind history.
We should also introduce a Fiscal Dependency Ratio federal transfers as a proportion of total state revenue and a Fiscal Effort indicator that measures the extent to which states are building their own sustainable revenue base.
This is not an argument against federal transfers. Equalisation is a legitimate feature of federalism. But equalisation should help states overcome structural disadvantages; it should not become a permanent business model.
The bigger issue is accountability.
Today, governments can easily claim success or blame failure on “Nigeria.” That must change.
If one state is attracting investment while another is not, let us know.
If one state is improving education while another is deteriorating, let us know.
If one state is expanding IGR and reducing fiscal dependency while another remains permanently dependent on federal allocations, let us know.
If one government is converting public resources into measurable improvements in citizens’ lives and another is not, let Nigerians see the difference.
Good statistics are not propaganda. They are public infrastructure.
The NBS should publish the underlying data in accessible, machine-readable formats so that citizens, researchers, investors, journalists and civil society can interrogate it.
This would fundamentally change Nigerian politics.
We would move from allocation politics to performance politics; from political claims to measurable outcomes; and from national averages to subnational accountability.
And yes, some governments will be uncomfortable.
Some will be exposed as performers.
Some will be exposed as underperformers.
Some will demonstrate genuine progress.
Others will have to explain why, despite receiving substantial public resources, their outcomes remain poor.
That is not the problem.
That is the point.
Nigeria is not one government. There is a Federal Government, 36 state governments and the FCT, and 774 local government administrations.
If responsibility is decentralized, accountability must be decentralized too.
So let the NBS publish the numbers.
Let citizens compare.
Let successful governments be celebrated and studied.
Let struggling governments receive the support they need.
And let the freeloaders finally know themselves.
No more hiding behind Nigeria’s national numbers.
Comments