Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa (Volume 15, No.

4, 2013)
ISSN: 1520-5509
Clarion University of Pennsylvania, Clarion, Pennsylvania

TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN NIGERIA: 1962 TO 2012.

Jide Ibietan1 and Oghator Ekhosuehi2

1
Department of Public Administration, Nasarawa State University, Nigeria
2
Institute of Public Administration & Extension Services, University of Benin, Nigeria

ABSTRACT
Development planning in Nigeria has suffered from lack of coordination and harmonization of programmes/policies both
within the tenure of an administration and those succeeding it. In addition, experience show that this critical task which
ought to draw input from critical sectors and be a bottom-up process operates in the reverse. These explain the very poor
nature of plan articulation which also negatively affects implementation. The paper is subdivided into: Abstract; Introduction;
Conceptual Discourse on Development Planning; History and Trend in Development Planning in Nigeria; Reasons for
Development Planning failures in Nigeria; Conclusion and Recommendations. It concludes that the bad state of social and
physical infrastructure, massive unemployment, widespread poverty and insecurity of lives among others, which successive
development plans were targeted at, point to the dismal performance of development. planning initiatives in Nigeria. The
paper recommends a multi-sector approach to planning and implementation of public sector programmes, and harmonization
of planning initiatives in order to reduce the problems associated with plan implementation.

Keywords: Development, Planning, Infrastructure, Programmes, Implementation, Administration, Policies.

297
INTRODUCTION
Every responsible government is expected to draw comprehensive plans periodically through which the welfare of citizens
can be enhanced socially, economically and politically among others. In developed countries, the goal of such plans could be
to facilitate growth in the above mentioned spheres of life, while in developing countries; the plans are targeted at economic
development.

Contemporary studies/findings seem to be broadening the meaning of the concepts of growth and development or doing a
total overhaul and redefinition of these concepts. The definition of development tends to be moving away from economic
indicators (of increase in GDP, GNP, per capita income and others) to non-economic indices such as the democratic
imperatives of political governance and social indicators (Jhingan, 2007:5-12). This also explains why Sen (1999) visualized
development from the ends and means of freedoms. Sen conceives freedom as a primary end and principal means of
development. This, he referred to as the constitutive and instrumental roles of freedom. The next section discusses the
concept and rationale for development planning in developing countries with Nigeria as the focus.

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: CONCEPTUAL DISCOURSE

Attempts at defining the concept of “development planning” have not been easy. This is due mainly to the problems of
semantics as well as the divergent philosophical and ideological orientations of writers and scholars either as academics or
practitioners. This view was corroborated by Jhingan (2007:488) who alluded to the very loose use of the term in economic
literature. He averred further that “it is often confused with communism, socialism or economic development”. It has also
been used synonymously with the term “national development master plan” which Daggash (2008) viewed as “a long term
integrated comprehensive national plan of actions: that indicates the trajectory of national growth and development”. Dalton
in Jhingan (2007:489) referred to the term in the widest sense as “the deliberate direction by persons in charge of large
resources of economic activity towards chosen ends”. It has also been conceptualized as consisting “in the extension of the
functions of public authorities to organization and utilization of economic resources…Planning implies and leads to
centralization of the national economy” (Zweig in Jhingan, 2007:489). It is deductible from these that the responsibility for
development planning rests squarely on the central government through its officials in order to achieve definite targets and
objectives within a specific period of time. In like manner, Egonmwan and Ibodje (2001:52-53) posited that development
planning entails “a consciously directed activity with pre-determined goals and predetermined means to achieve the set
goals”. They averred further that “it provides the rallying point for social and political mobilization whereby the society is
able to set development objectives and goals, map out strategies and programmes for the attainment of such goals and
mobilize resources for their attainment”.

Why is development planning so important to every responsible government especially in the developing economies?
Planning emanates from scarce resources in comparison to the demand for same. Planning is thus seen as a strategy for the
allocation/utilization of resources to improve the standard of living of the citizens. Planning therefore entails the
prioritization of resources in order to meet desired ends. Another objective of planning in the “foot hill countries”
(Mckinsey’s ranking implying backward economies) is to increase the rate of economic development through capital

298
formation which results from raising income, saving and investment levels. The capacity and propensity to save in these
poor economies has been identified as abysmally low leading to a vicious circle of poverty which can only be broken through
planned development. Another rationale for planning includes strengthening market mechanism by removing market
imperfections, determining the amount and composition of investment and overcoming structural rigidities in the economy.
The phenomena of endemic unemployment and disguised unemployment characteristic of the poor economies are reversible
through central development planning that releases surplus labour from agriculture to industry. With respect to Nigeria
however, this view of surplus labour in agriculture is suspect and contestable in the light of massive graduate unemployment
and the rapid urbanization of the country from the oil-boom years (of early 1970s). It is in the light of the foregoing that
development planning entails “direction, regulations, controls on private activity and increasing the sphere of public activity”
(Jhingan, 2007:492).

Aboyade (1983) in Onah (2006:51) argued that for development planning to be a meaningful and serious-minded exercise,
“it must contain an analysis of the economy’s recent development past, an evaluation of its probable development trend over
the future years to be spanned by the plan, and some indication of the nation’s natural, physical, human and financial
resources”. He posited further that development planning construed as continuous (on going) process, must be seen as “a
means to an end and not an end in itself”. It needs to be noted that the formulation and execution of a successful
development plan require these factors: Efficient and well manned planning commission; Adequate and reliable statistical
data for analysis and projections; Clearly articulated and realistic objectives indicating targets and priorities; Effective
mobilization of resources for plan implementation; Plan balancing achievable through input –output technique and cost-
benefit/result analysis; Transparent, incorruptible and efficient administration (competent public bureaucracy) in formulating
and executing plans; A proper development policy covering the entire gamut of the plan in order to avert pitfalls in the
development process; Economy in administration aimed at curtailing duplication in bureaucratic settings/activities and to
derive maximum benefits in public or government budget and expenditure; An education base that produces an efficient and
effective human capital for development purposes; A theory of consumption that is democratic and emphasizes consumption
patterns commensurate with income and not copying developed or Western countries consumption patterns; and public
cooperation/support for the plan.

To what extent has the Nigerian development planning efforts embraced or incorporated the aforementioned factors? The
next section of this paper on the History and trend in development planning in Nigeria will attempt to answer the question.

HISTORY AND TREND IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN NIGERIA

PREAMBLE
There is unanimity in documentation among writers and scholars that the first attempt at development planning in Nigeria
started in 1946 with a ten year plan of Development and Welfare (Okoli, 2004:160; Obikeze and Obi, 2004:232; Ugwu,
2009:201). It is also on record that this plan which was expected to run till 1956 came to an abrupt end in 1951 due to the
constitutional changes that introduced federalism, thus the plan ran concomitantly with “other plans for each of the then four
regions of the federation viz: the West, East, North and the Southern Cameroons” (Okoli, 2004:161). The plan was stymied

299
due to limited financial resources; serious weaknesses in the public policy making process and non-consultation with
Nigerians as beneficiaries of the plan.

The 1951-56 plan which followed was meant to last for five years, however the 1954 Lyttleton Constitution made Nigeria “a
real federal system” and the bitter struggles for dominance among nationalist leaders which resulted in the 1953 Kano riots
led to the scrapping of the plan that year. Obikeze and Obi (2004:232) reported that this plan was not particularly different
from the original one. In view of the above developments, the 1956-62 plan was introduced. However, political events
unfolded dramatically, rapid reversals of earlier political stand led to the Northern members of parliament demanding self-
government “as soon as practicable”. This was an aftermath of the Action Group (AG) sponsored motion seeking self-
government for Nigeria in 1956; hence independence came (earlier than expected) in 1960. There was a compelling need to
draw a Development Plan reflecting the independent status of Nigeria. And as Okoli (2004:162) recorded, “the new status
made the 1956-62 Development plan anachronistic”.

FIRST NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The First National Development Plan (1962-68) aimed at, and required cooperation between public and private sectors, and
as expected between federal and regional governments. It also aimed at high level or rate of development which was
expected to supersede the colonial plans before it, hence it required a realistic study of the financial stands of both public and
private sectors. It aimed at avoiding any Balance of Payments (BOP) crises; thus past plans were studied in order to project
for the future. This plan equally emphasized agricultural; industrial; transport and manpower development. Other objectives
of the first National Development Plan included the achievement and maintenance of the highest possible rate of increase in
the standard of living of the populace. It also aimed at a target saving of about 15 percent of the GDP by 1975; an annual
investment of 15% of the GDP during the plan period; a GDP minimum growth rate of 4% for the economy. And as reported
by Obiekeze and Obi (2004:234), the plan which was expected to last for six years had a proposed total investment
expenditure of about N2, 132 million. The public sector investment expenditure was put at N1, 352.3 million and the
remaining investment expenditure of N780 million was to be made by the private sector. However, the subsequent crises
culminating in the thirty-month Nigerian Civil War (1967-70) punctuated the implementation of this plan.

Apart from this, Osifo-Whiskey (1987) quoted Okigbo thus: “In it (1962-68 plan) each region’s list of programmes is like the
others. There was no attempt, at the centre, to plan the development centrally so that each region could optimise…in a truly
national economy”. The plan was not national, it rested disproportionately on public sector contributions, it conceived the
role of the private sector as marginal, thus it failed to harness the private sector’s contribution to national development.
However, many industries were established and the contribution of industrial sector to GDP rose from 5% in 1960 to 8% in
1970.

300
SECOND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The Second National Plan (1970-74) can be referred to as “Oil-boom development plan” because it coincided with the period
that Nigeria made high earnings from the sale of crude oil and allied products. Having emerged from a devastating civil war
and with lessons to learn, the plan had the following objectives as captured by Ujo in Ugwu (2009:201-202):
- The reconstruction of facilities damaged by the war or fallen in despair.
- The rehabilitation and resettlement of persons displaced by the war.
- The rehabilitation and resettlement of demobilized armed forces personnel
- The establishment of an efficient administrative service, and an appropriate economic infrastructure, especially in the
new states.
- The achievement of a rate of growth of per capita output sufficiently high to bring about a doubling of real income
per head before 1985.
- Creation of job opportunities
- The production of high level of intermediate manpower
- The promotion of balanced development between the urban and rural areas
- The rapid improvement in the level and quality of social services provided for the welfare of the people.

The plan also had some lofty heights to attain such as building a united, strong and self-reliant nation; a great and dynamic
economy; a just and egalitarian society; a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens; and a free and democratic
society.

Egonmwan and Ibodje (2001:54) reported that this plan “involved a capital expenditure of N3.2 billion and an anticipated
overall growth rate of 7% per annum”. Resulting from the profligacy that characterized the oil-boom period, the initial plan
budget of N3.2 billion was revised upwards to N5.3 billion which as Osifo Whiskey (1987) posited”… was little compared to
third…” It can therefore be persuasively argued that the Nigerian governing elite started the march towards economic
regression from this period as a result of fiscal and financial indiscipline. Again, during this (1970-74) plan period, Nigerians
were expected to fully participate in private sector which witnessed the enactment in 1972 of the Nigerian Enterprises
Promotion Decree (which was to Nigerianise certain companies and increase Nigerian participation from 40% to 60%
ownership). Full foreign investments were discouraged as the central government bought shares in major commercial houses
like the banks and insurance companies. However, Ezekiel (1987:39, 41) adds that a comprehensive review of the 1972
Indigenisation Decree took place, its provisions and others were consolidated into Decree No. 3 of 1977 which came up with
three schedules, instead of the two under the 1972 decree. Ezekiel (1987) averred further that “it was discovered that the
decree, rather than transfer ownership and control to Nigerians, succeeded in subjugating them”.

On thorough analysis and scrutiny, Nigeria’s economic governance requires complete diagnosis and surgery. Financial
indiscipline, sundry mismanagement of resources and planning inadequacies made a country that embarked on indigenizing
enterprises in 1972 through 1977 to commence privatization and commercialization of those enterprises in less than twenty
years as a result of conditionalities from the Bretton Wood institutions. The country seems to have remained a pawn in the

301
chess game of these capitalist nations and their institutions. Notwithstanding that the Second National Development plan had
to be extended by one year to end in 1975 due to “its implementation which proved cumbersome for the bureaucrats”, Okoli
(2004:163) affirmed that “this plan very nearly succeeded where others failed in running its full course under one regime”.
He therefore canvassed for short-term (duration) plans.

THIRD NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Third (1975-80) National development plan also fell within the ‘oil-boom’ years, and in that era was seen as the largest
and the most ambitious ever launched (compared to the ones that preceded it). The national purposes stated in the Second
National Development plan were reaffirmed as they can be said to be long term in nature. The objectives include: Increase in
per capita income; even distribution of income; reduction in the level of unemployment; increasing the supply of high level
manpower, diversification of the economy; balanced development and indigenization of economic activities. The “initial
total expenditure for this plan was put at N30 billion over five years. Further adjustments put the total at N60 billion in 1980”
(Osifo-Whiskey, 1987:33).
The above stated objectives therefore enlisted the following:
- Research in agriculture on both food and cash crops for domestic feeding and export, and raw materials for
local industries;
- Research and development on livestock and veterinary;
- Special agricultural development schemes;
- Reviewing the credit requirement of Nigerian Agricultural and Cooperative Bank (NACB);
- Installation and building of terminal plants and stations;
- Rural electrification
- Development of some inland waterways on river Niger and Benue;
- Universal free primary education;
- Construction of 60,000 dwelling units in various locations in the country.

Inherent in the objectives of this plan was its incremental posture or seeming similarity with the preceding plan. The
intention of this plan was to curb inflationary trends and it suggested the country’s attainment of a high development level.
The search for a wider market which might be incidental to this plan witnessed the formation of ECOWAS as a sure strategy.
Nigeria spearheaded the building of the $27 million secretariat at Abuja, in addition to other contributions and activities in
ECOWAS. As part of the convergence criteria to accelerating a durable monetary union and ultimately regional integration,
Nigeria is expected to harmonize its fiscal, economic and legal policies (among others) with those of other member states (for
details, see Onah and Ibietan, 2009:17-32).

In a review of the Third National Development Plan, Onah (2006:57) building on Okigbo (1989) submitted that “agriculture
and social development schemes (education, housing, health, welfare etc) that have direct bearing on the living conditions of
the rural population (constituting about 70% of Nigerian population) received only 5 percent and 11.5 percent respectively of

302
the financial allocations contained in the plan”. These lean financial allocation to priority areas of the plan reflected “lack of
focus of the planners”.

The Third National Development Plan however achieved the following: GDP grew at an average rate of 5% per annum; the
manufacturing sector recorded the fastest growth with an average of 18.1% per annum; building and construction grew at
13.9%; Government services leaped at 17.7% and other services grew at 15.7%. However, the agricultural sector recorded a
negative growth of 2.1% per annum (Egonmwan and Ibodje, 2001:58). These authors noted that “most of the key projects
that were anticipated as foundation for self sustaining and dynamic growth were either not completed or could not take of”.
Examples of the projects included Ajaokuta Iron and Steel Complex; Aladja Direct Steel Reduction Plant; The Eleme
Petrochemical Complex; Oku-Iboku Newsprint Paper Mill; and the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plant at Bonny.

FOURTH NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Fourth (1981-85) National Development Plan like the ones before it reaffirmed the long term national objectives of the
preceding plan. Ijaiya and Usman (2000:2) corroborated that this “was also launched simply to consolidate the Third National
Development Plan… with much more commitment to petroleum resources”. The industrial policy objectives of this plan
were: promotion of export oriented industries; enhancement of local value-added through the development of small and
medium scale industries; local sourcing of inputs; improving the efficiency of government owned enterprises and acquisition
of technological skills. Other broad objectives included: increasing real income for all Nigerians; reduction in
unemployment; power generation and supply; refinancing and rescheduling the trade debts to pave way for international
transactions for only selected import; increasing food production and raw material to meet the needs of the growing
population; increasing the production of livestock and fish to meet domestic need and to make surplus for export;
development of technology for greater self reliance; and to increase or strengthen the country’s foreign exchange earnings.

The total investment envisaged under this plan was N82 billion. Out of this amount, the public sector was to account for
N70.5 billion, while the share of the private sector stood at N11.5 billion. The planned investment was expected to generate
an annual GDP growth of 7.2%. The manufacturing sector had a projected average growth rate of 15% for the plan period.
The rate of growth was supposed to make a significant increase in the standard of living of the average citizen at the end of
the plan period. Egonmwan and Ibodje (2001:58) emphasized that “out of all the plans that had been launched since
independence, the Fourth plan which was the most ambitious in terms of size of the anticipated investment programme turned
out to be the least successful in terms of achievement”.

The Fourth national development plan was characterized by huge debt servicing which resulted from various foreign loans
obtained in the previous years; increased import bills amidst a drastic fall in crude oil export revenue. These factors no doubt
limited the scope of the objectives. This plan being the first to be drawn under presidential democracy appeared unique in the
sense that it elicited the participation of local governments.

303
The performance of this plan as economic indicators/indices showed, revealed negative growth in major sectors of the
economy in 1985 and other dismal results, however its achievements included the commissioning of the Oku Iboku
Newsprint paper project; Egbin Power station; Akure Airport; 87 telephone exchanges all over Nigeria, and an increase in
subscriber base from 188,000 in 1981 to 297,000 in 1985; increase in educational enrolment at all levels; improvement in
health care delivery; construction of thousands of kilometers of federal highways and rehabilitation/reconstruction of state
roads; implementation of Agricultural Development Programme (ADPs) in seventeen out of the nineteen states in the
federation; and others captured by Onah (2006:58-60) and Egonmwan and Ibodje (2001:58-60). Conclusively on this note,
the full expectations of the citizenry were far from being met.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES: STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMME

Obikeze and Obi (2004:242) attempted to articulate their discourse on Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) under the
caption of “Fifth National Development Plan”; Onah (2006:44) submitted with finality that “the idea of a Fifth National
Development Plan, mooted in the late 1980, never materialized”. The launch of the purported plan was postponed twice in a
row in 1987 and 1988. Instead of the plan were series of Integrated Development Initiatives which Okoli and Onah
(2002:163) referred to as rural development strategies such as Agricultural Development Scheme; National Accelerated Food
Production Programme (NAFPP); and Directorate for Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI).

The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was introduced on 26 September 1986 with the following objectives: To
restructure and diversify the productive base of the economy in order to reduce dependence on the oil sector and on imports;
to achieve fiscal and balance of payments viability over the period; to lay the basis for a sustainable non-inflationary growth;
and to reduce the dominance of unproductive investments in the public sector by improving public sector efficiency and
enhancing the growth potential of the private sector.

Osifo-Whiskey (1993:15) affirmed that SAP rested on a number of pillars namely: deregulation of the value of the naira
which was said to be over-valued; deregulation of interest rate which at SAP’s inception was below 10 percent; removal of
subsidies on government-provided goods and services. A corollary of the last pillar is the policy of privatization and
commercialization which was considered necessary on the dual account that government was already over-bloated and
unwieldy, and that by extension, its public enterprises and agencies were wasteful and inefficient.

A review of SAP showed that initially, it appeared that the programme was achieving its goals as it seemed to have
eliminated the corrupt import license system which crippled the manufacturing sector to a reduced performance of 25
percent; stimulated an initial rise in industrial production; and led to minimal starts in the exportation of agricultural produce.
With survey research tool of interview and secondary sources of data, Osifo-Whiskey (1993:15) reported that from a parity of
one dollar to one naira in early 1986, the naira crashed at N9.50k to a dollar on March 5, 1992 and succumbed (almost by
another 100 percent) to the dollar at N18.60k at the commencement of trading that same day. By early 1993, a dollar traded
for N43.00 in the black market and since then, nothing had remained the same again in the economy, with the dollar trading
for almost N150.00 today. With the deregulation of interest rates, a regime of interest rates as high as 45 to 50 percent was

304
ushered in, this grossly affected sourcing loans and doing business with financial institutions, the manufacturing and other
sectors could not survive, the economy was wobbling, unemployment and poverty rates increased as a result of this policy
option.

ROLLING PLANS (1990-1999) AND VISION 2010

After SAP, Nigeria resorted to the use of (ad-hoc) short-term instruments for economic management and as Daggash
(2008:35) asserted, the era of Rolling Plans (1990-1999) which he derisively tagged an era of “the Rolling stones that
gathered no moss”. He added that in a bid “to have a long term National Vision on which development could be anchored, a
bold attempt was made in 1996 to articulate a National vision document, the Nigeria Vision 2010”. This development effort
had the vision of transforming the Nigerian Nation by 2010 into “ a united, industrious, caring and God-fearing democratic
society, committed to making the basic needs of life affordable for everyone, and creating Africa’s leading economy” (Ugwu,
2009:203). The vision was to be achieved using a multi-tier medium term plans that are anchored on a fifteen year
perspective plan. The Rolling plans and Vision 2010 became unfortunately stillborn arising from what Egonmwan and
Ibodje (2001:64) captured as “the linkage between Vision 2010, the national Rolling plan and the annual budget seems not
clear”.

Under normal planning circumstances, the annual budget as the annual operational plan is expected to be linked with the
rolling plan, because the annual plan is the controlling plan which matches resources with possible achievements. A rolling
plan on a continuous basis takes into account new information, improved data and analysis, and incorporates periodic
revision into the planning machinery. Each revision takes a look at the future which is determined by the nature of factual
circumstances. Expectedly, a rolling plan contains a plan for the current year which includes the annual budget and foreign
exchange budget; a medium term plan (for 3 to 5 years) which can be changed yearly in line with the requirements of the
economy; and a perspective plan (for between 10-20 years) which presents yearly (broad) goals and an outline of forecasts
for future development. In essence, the annual plan is fitted into the same year’s medium term plan, and both are framed in
light of the perspective plan. Rolling plans help overcome the rigidities of the fixed five year plans.

The vision 2010 called for an urgent developmental paradigm shift and placed a duty on Nigerians attitudinally in order to
realize the targets/goals. It is doubtful if conscious efforts were made to disseminate these requirements to a wide spectrum
of the populace, and this has continued to be a noticeable snag in policy formulation with its attendant effects on
implementation and development initiatives.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY:

The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) offered Nigeria an opportunity to experiment
with medium-term economic development plan from 2004 to 2007. Onah (2006:46) posited that NEEDS focused “on wealth
creation, employment generation, poverty reduction and re-orientating values”. These goals, he corroborated can be realized
“by creating an environment in which business can thrive, government is redirected to providing basic services, and people
are empowered to take advantage of the opportunities which the plan will usher”. The strategies that will drive the above

305
goals are: reforming government and its institutions; growing the private sector; implementing a social character and value;
reorientation. The federal government had in turn encouraged States and Local Governments to adopt and adapt the NEEDS
document to suit its peculiar purposes, accordingly the equivalent of NEEDS in the states are called SEEDS, while in the
local governments, they go by the acronym LEEDS. In giving practical expression to the NEEDS programme, the federal
government was reported to have allocated large percentage of capital expenditure to healthcare, education, agriculture,
roads, water resources, power and security in the 2004 and 2005 annual budgets. With the usual allegation of unspent funds
being returned at the end of the year by Ministries, Departments and Agencies of government coupled with the monster of
pervasive corruption, allocating large percentage in budgets does not translate to faithful execution of programmes capable of
delivering services to the citizenry.

VISION 2020 AS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING INITIATIVE

As a development planning initiative, Vision 2020 aims at growing the size of Nigeria’s economy from its current position of
the 41st to the 20th best economy in the world by the year 2020, and to be the African financial centre of choice by that same
year (Ugwu, 2009:204). This programme is a carry over by the Yar’adua administration from the Obasanjo civilian
administration. It is said to be based on a proactive reaction to a 2001 Jim ‘O’ Neil thesis predicting “that if Nigeria and
some other developing countries, can mobilize their resources very well, it is expected that by the year 2025, Nigeria and
countries like Egypt would have joined the biggest twenty economies in the world”. (Ugwu, 2009:205).

It is expected that with positive economic management in countries like Nigeria, GDP growth for Nigeria will be larger than
that of Italy by 2015 and by this same Jim Neil’s (2007) calculation, Nigeria’s economy would have been equal to the present
first 20 economies of the world namely: Canada, Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark,
Norway, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Australia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil (Ugwu, 2009:205).
Building on Oyebode (2007) and Iluyomade (2008), Ugwu (2009) noted that some the benchmarks used in this statistics are
the economic indices of growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross National Product (GNP). Curiously, Ugwu
(2009) reported that Vision 2020 lacks properly outlined objectives, except for policy statements coming from some federal
government officials. Daggash (2008) who incidentally was Minister/Deputy Chairman of Nigeria’s National Planning
Commission averred that Vision 2020 has clear goals “which…include engendering peaceful, harmonious and a stable
democracy by FY 2020; sustenance of a sound, stable and globally competitive economy with a GDP of not less than $900
billion and per capita GDP of over $4000”. Other goals include provision of infrastructure services; a modern and vibrant
education system; health sector that supports and sustains a life expectancy of not less than 70 years; modern technologically
enabled agricultural sector; vibrant and globally competitive manufacturing sector with contribution to GDP of not less than
40%. Conclusively, Daggash said that the goals are achievable through the Cooperation and collaboration of all stakeholders.
The stakeholders including the Nigerian masses may not have been carried along in the planning process, yet their
collaboration/cooperation are required, what a joke?

The Nigerian government had proceeded to create National Council on Vision 2020 (NCV 2020) to provide leadership and
direction towards the attainment of the goals. The President is the chairman of this organ. National Steering Committee

306
(NSC) made up of seventy persons drawn from the public and private sectors to develop implementation guidelines,
monitoring and evaluation strategy; and developing a template for preparing the Vision 2020 strategic plan among others.
National Technical Working Group (NTWG) comprising a group of about 25 experts to undertake specific studies or research
data. Stakeholders Development Committee (SDC) made up essentially of government related institutions and agencies to
assist in mobilizing bottom-up strategic plans and ideas, based on guidelines approved by the National Council, to be fed into
the NV2020 plan.

The foundation upon which this plan was based portrays our planners as a group without direction. How can a National
Development Master Plan be based on an “untested thesis” or at best a hypothesis of a foreign economist? Out of the twenty
countries listed that Nigeria would purportedly compete with, which among them appear planless and unserious to enable
Nigeria displace her by 2020? In addition, the age-old and contested economic indices/indicators of development
fabricated/crafted by the Bretton Woods are thrown up as parameters. The Vision 2020 also follow the path of other plans by
presenting areas/issues to be covered in an omnibus manner without breaking it down into phases. The thesis or hypothesis
of Neil is also based on the assumption of prudent economic management which has been lacking in Nigeria for a long time.

OTHER PROGRAMMES
The Yar’adua administration had presented a Seven-Point Agenda to include tackling the problems of: Power and Energy;
Food Security and Agriculture; Wealth Creation and Employment; Transport Sector; Land Reforms; Security; Education.
These are supposed to be running alongside with the Nigerian version of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger by 2015; achieving universal primary Education by 2015; reducing child
mortality by two-third by 2015; improving maternal health by 2015; combating HIV/AIDs, malaria and other preventable
diseases by 2015; ensuring environmental sustainability between 2015 and 2020; and developing a global partnership for
development by 2015.

The Yar’adua Seven-Point agenda does not look coordinated and appear more of an administration’s mantra with more talk
and less action, and on virtually all points of the agenda cannot deliver qualitative services to Nigeria with a minimum of one
year to the terminal date of the administration. The MDGs are more like “goals from outside”, even though some of them are
achievable, the programme does not deserve any rigorous discourse under Nigeria’s development planning initiative.

REASONS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FAILURES IN NIGERIA

Various arguments have been adduced for the failure of development planning in Nigeria from 1962 to date. One of such
arguments is that development plans appear compatible with Western notion of development. Ake (1981) in Onah (2006:60)
averred that “development plans and development initiatives did not encourage the disengagement of Nigerian economy from
the exploitative structural links with Western capitalist economies”. This argument of disengaging from Western notion of
development was corroborated by Munroe (1992:148) thus: “this standard of measuring success is the source of much Third
World frustration as nations… This success trap will not bring true fulfillment or freedom, but greater bondage”.

307
As a corollary of the above, it has also been argued that the pattern of development in Nigeria creates social problems of
hunger, mass unemployment and social inequalities. Another factor is the idea of conceiving development planning as a “big
push strategy” which attempts to do everything in one plan. This hampers development efforts as resources are overstretched
and little or nothing is achieved in the process. Furthermore, Institutional/structural inconsistencies and discontinuity have
been adduced as explanatory factors in plan failures. Governments are scored high on promises, but lacking in delivery and
succeeding governments are not committed enough in continuing and completing plans/programmes of their predecessors.
This explains what Okoli and Onah (2002) referred to as the high turnover of development plans and littering the nation with
uncompleted projects.

Yet another factor is financial constraints: Although development plans are generally financed through multiple sources live
domestic taxation; other sources of internally generated revenue; external reserves; private (domestic) sources and loans, it
has been argued that these are not always adequate to fund plans. And to that extent, finance is a major explanatory factor in
the failure of development planning initiatives and efforts. Other factors include: Inadequacy of professional planners due to
institutionalized framework for planning; Plan indiscipline and unnecessary partisanship; poor or inadequate feasibility
studies in planning; lack of comprehensive statistics; Erratic and conflicting government policies manifesting in
contradictions in areas of planning; lack of essential inter-ministerial and inter disciplinary coordinating machinery; lack of
proper project monitoring and revision of plans; Abuse of office/corruption by public officials; High inflationary rate and
geometric growth in population defeating the essence of economic forecasting in plan formulation and implementation; and
political instability during military regimes created uncertainty and retarded various projects articulated in development
plans.

CONCLUSION
The quest for development in most countries characterized as least developed countries, Nigeria inclusive has occupied the
front burner in most national discourses. Successive governments have indicated desire to transform the country be it in
terms of provision of infrastructure, human capacity development and even in the realm of social cum political development.
In this wise, Nigeria has experimented with several development plans from pre-independence era till date, yet the needed
Transformation has continued to elude its citizenry inspite of the robust plans. It is with a view to putting issues in
perspective, that the present paper succinctly attempts a conceptual discourse of Nigeria’s development planning experience
cum development initiatives from1962 till date.

In this wise, the efforts at implementation of development by various administrations were analysed and can be generally
rated as fair when results are compared with plan goals and objectives. Support for this assertion lies in the fact that the
Nigerian state is characterized by widespread poverty; massive unemployment; social and physical infrastructural decay;
hunger/food insecurity; illiteracy; low-capacity utilization; neglect of rural areas; insecurity of lives; Urban Congestion and
other problems that several development plans were targeted at. Yet the problems remain unabated. Also glaring, is the
dependent character (consciously or otherwise) of the Nigerian state and successive governing elites who constitute
appendages of Western countries and international finance institutions. As a corollary, the poor quality of leadership has

308
manifested in very tragic results for development planning initiatives in Nigeria. Given this situation, development in
Nigeria has become somewhat elusive inspites of the fact that the country is blessed with abundant material and human
resources. In order to reverse, the trend, it is the contention of these writers, that development policy somersault and
proliferation of development plans will do the country no good. It is further opined that a conscious and disciplined
approach to plan implementation protected from political manipulation and undue interference is the desired antidote that
could bring about the much needed quest for a people-oriented development agenda. that will meet the needs and aspirations
of Nigeria in tune with the millennium development goals. In this respect, certain specific recommendations are proffered if
the expected development desires of the citizenry are to be met within the shortest time.

RECOMMENDATIONS
This paper strongly recommends a multi-sector approach to planning and implementation of public sector programmes and
policies. Through this, the disconnection between planners and plan beneficiaries can be bridged. Harmonization of
development programmes and initiatives is also seriously advocated to enable plans operate as a whole rather than isolated
and scattered ideas which make implementation a herculean task.

The paper canvasses massive re-training and attitudinal re-orientation for the leadership and governing elites of the country.
This will make them imbibe the requisite skills and traits in effective governance, and it has the potential of arresting the
phenomenon of poor leadership that has been confronting the country. The necessary political will required of the leadership
to enable them galvanize plan implementation and actualise set goals is also recommended.

The machineries/institutions for gathering data for planning require strengthening or total overhaul. A weak data base
presents an unrealistic plan, therefore efforts should be made to enhance data accuracy and reliability through effective
instruments and personnel. Also, membership of the Joint Planning Board needs to be broadened to include civil society
groups and other sectors in order to widen representation and obtain comprehensive input for plan formulation and
implementation.

Further more, this paper advocates that the requisite Inter-ministerial/departmental and agencies coordinating machinery be
strengthened for effective plan monitoring, evaluation of policies and implementation of programmes. In addition the Anti-
graft war should be pursued with vigour and without selection. This has the potency of exposing corrupt public office
holders and ensuring that justice is not only done, but seen to be upheld, thus serving as deterrent to potential offenders. This
can assist in redressing the elite role or complicity in resource mismanagement and corruption in the country.

309
REFERENCES
Akinrinade, S. (1987) “Structural Adjustment: Is SAP the Magic Wand?” Newswatch (October 5)
page 61-64

Amucheazi, E. C. (1980) Readings in Social Sciences: Issues in National Development. Enugu:

Fourth Dimension Publishers.

Arno, G. (1977) Modern Nigeria. London: Longman Supply Ltd.

Daggash, M. S. (2008) “Why Nigeria Needs a National Development Master Plan”. Vanguard
(October 14) page 35-36.

Dibie, R. (2000) Understanding Public Policy in Nigeria: A Twenty-first Century Approach

(Nigerian Edition) Lagos: Mbeyi & Associates (Nig.) Ltd.

Egonmwan, J. A. and Ibodje, S.W.E (2001) Development Administration: Theory and Practice.
Benin City: Resyin (Nig.) Company Ltd.

Ezekiel, M. E. (1987) “Indigenization: Nigeria for Nigerians”. Newswatch (October 5) Page 39, 41.

Ijaiya, G. T. and Usman, A. L. (2000) “Development in Disarray: An overview of the Nigerian

Experience”, in Usman, A. L. and Ijaiya, G. T. (eds.) Selected Essays on the Contradictions of Economic Development
Theories in Nigeria. Ilorin: Haytee Press & Publishing Company Ltd.

Jhingan, M. L. (2007) The Economics of Development and Planning. Delhi: Vrinda

Publications (P) Ltd.

Munroe, M. (1992) In Pursuit of Purpose. USA: Destiny Image Publishers Inc.

Obikeze, O. S. and Obi, E. A. (2004) Public Administration in Nigeria: A Developmental Approach.

Onitsha: BookPoint Ltd.

Okoli, F. C. (2004) Theory and Practice of Public Organizations: A Book of Readings. Enugu: John
Jacob’s Classic Publishers Ltd.

Okoli, F. C. and Onah, F. O. (2002) Public Administration in Nigeria: Nature, Principles and
Application. Enugu: John Jacob’s Classic Publishers Ltd.

Omonubi, R. (1987) “Oil: Oil, Oil, Where Is Naira?” Newswatch (October 5), pg. 55-56

Onah, F. O. (2006) Managing Public Programmes and Projects. Nsukka: Great AP

Express Publishers Ltd.

Onah, R. C. and Ibietan, O. I. (2009) “Democratic Stability and Regional Economic Integration: The
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Experience”, in Nigerian Journal of Public Administration and
Local Government, UNN. Vol. XIV, No. 1 (September) Page
17 – 32.

Osifo- Whiskey, O. (1987) “Economic Planning/Management: Top Speed in the Slow Lane”.
Newswatch (October 5) page 32-33.

Osifo- Whiskey, O. (1993) “The Economy: A Headache fit for a King”. Tell (June 21) Page 14 – 16.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

310
Ugwu, C. E. (2009) “The Imperatives of National Development Programmes Harmonization in Nigeria:
Vision 2020, Millennium Development Goals and Seven Point Agenda”, in Nigerian Journal of Public Administration and
Local Government (UNN) Vol. XIV, No. 2, page 200 – 216.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

Jide Ibietan: Department of Public Administration, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria

OghatoR Ekhosuehi: Institute of Public Administration & Extension Services, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria

311