OKOLIE, ALOYSIUS MICHAELS, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science
University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Abstract
The study evaluates the prevailing global trade practices and the implications for Nigeria’s development. We predicated our investigations on the basic propositions emanating from complex interdependency framework. Issues interrogated in the work include world trade organization and multi-lateral trade rules as well as its implications for development of African States. At the end of our study we noted among others that African states had not benefited much from the existing trade practices but remarked that the way out lies not in resigning self to fate but in improving the productive competitiveness of the national economy.
INTRODUCTION
Trade liberalization is one of the basic planks of contemporary globalization. It is usually associated with financial liberalization and investment. Meanwhile, globalization, as a historical global development process, is driven by seemingly “uncontrollable international financial market forces that are dominated by large trans-national companies that source, invest, produce and market wherever their own economic advantage dictates” (Thompson, 1997:161), It is therefore a purveyor of world movement of history itself.
As a corollary of the above, globalization process had existed and pre-dated human history. Thus beginning from the empire, chiefdom and feudal era, to the present political and economic order, globalization and its associated checklists had remained and persisted but continued to change in content and substance in line with changing pattern and character of the existing predominant mode of production. The point being made above is that globalization package existing in any given political economy tends to reflect and manifest the predominant production relations and the level of development of the productive forces.
Therefore, globalization, in its post cold war expression seeks to remove all national and cultural barriers to the free movement of international capital, and to secure for it privileged treatment within the economic domain of every country (Khor, 1998:2). The purveyors of contemporary globalization include: transnational corporations (TNCs); International Finance Institutions (IFIs); and governments of the industrialized capitalist countries. Their central idea about globalization is that it is “a process of’ freeing economies’, particularly so that trade between countries can take place more easily”.
By freeing economies, they mean dismantling all barriers to free movement of goods, services, labour and investment capital. In this case, capital becomes international capital with seemingly patent and unrestricted investment potentials. Thus in the words of O’Brien f 1992) the World is facing “the end of geography”. Indeed this has a lot of implications for global socio-economic and political regime. Among these is that the global market forces will now shape micro-economic policies of constituent states and survival of these states lie primarily on the competitiveness of national economies and the level of which the gains inherent in interdependence could be positively and optimally exploited.
Meanwhile, Kaplinsky (1999:109) noted that the world had passed through two major known theories of international trade: the theory of trade liberalization as propagated by Adam Smith, and the theory of trade protectionism, as advanced by Frederick list. However, when we interrogate the content and substance of the mercantilist and physiocratic schools in political economy, we shall see various strands, models and rationale for trade liberalization; and the material plank that informed the distinct prescriptions. We shall, however, not be saddled by the philosophical and ontological debate. The primary concern of the paper is to interrogate the relationship between trade liberalization and development agenda as it concerns Nigeria. We shall also evaluate the basic content of the term, development, with a view to understanding the possibilities or otherwise of achieving sustainable human and material development within the context of openness and unfettered trade practices.
Theoretical Perspective:
Several writings on the subject predicate their theoretical and methodological foundation on the political economy approach. Naturally, such studies anchor their analysis on the relationship between the sub-structure and the super-structure and indeed focus on interaction among social forces in the production of material wealth. Little or no effort was made to extend analysis beyond national frontiers to understanding the forces that propel global political economy. Indeed, the political economy explanatory family possesses the ingredients for understanding the inner workings of the global political economy but attention seemed to have been diverted away from these fundamental elements into aggressive, blemish and perhaps combative political analysis.
In fact the growing frustration among scholars from developing states, arising out of the declining material fortunes of their respective states impel most of them to use dependency theory as a ‘near permanent’ explanatory plank for appreciating discourses relating to the globalization package. Thus analytical vendetta against the West begin to characterize writings on globalization and “North-South relations”. Nevertheless, dependency theory attempts an understanding and explanations of socio-political and economic variables that reinforce underdevelopment by focusing on the historical circumstances surrounding underdeveloped countries. The proponents, include: Emmanuel (1992); Prebiseh (1950); Santos (1970); Baran (1967) Frank (1969) Amin (1973); Offiong (1980) etc. Their central proposition is that underdeveloped economies were not always and originally poor, but became impoverished through external disarticulation and distortion of the economic and political structure of the developed economies. Thus they maintain that the development of the advanced capitalist economies remains a direct consequence of the underdevelopment of “Third World economies”. However, their development condition and insistence on “delinking” serve as counterpoise to the precept of globalism and natural order which promotes gregarious relations, and interdependence; and progressively foist the elements on human race as universal inevitability. Besides, reliance on dependency explanatory model instigates defeatist and subjective analysis of rather objective situation and hence vitiates the natural interplay of micro-and macro forces at the global level. Thus, dependency explanatory framework is most unsuitable for the study.
As a constantly lubricating interdependent unit, the global political economy shall be better appreciated by the application of the basic propositions of complex Interdependent theory as developed by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. The theory refers to “the various, complex transnational connections (interdependencies) between states and societies” (Keohane and Nye 1977). They argue that such relations, particularly economic ones, were increasing; while those of military force and power balancing were decreasing (but remained important). In an anticipation of problems of cheating and relative gains, the theorists introduced the concept of’ regimes’ to mitigate anarchy and facilitate cooperation.
As a corollary of the above, the global political economy is presently driven by capitalist ideals, values and preferments. This is a direct consequence of the de-ideologization of the global order following the “seeming retreat1 of the socialist/communist ^interjections”. Emphasis has shifted from military build-up to economic consolidation. The lessons arising from the collapse of Soviet Union led most states to re-focus their development and survival agenda on economic competitiveness and interdependence, as contained in the neo-liberal globalization agenda, the Washington Consensus and propagated by the international financial institutions. Meanwhile, with provision of regime in World Trade Organization (WTO), the theory anticipates unequal gain and provided a platform for redress. What, however, is in contention is whether developing •.states is losing from the present order or otherwise and not whether a given state should participate in global regime. The world of man is a complete unit and the option left for constituent states is to improve their competitiveness and capacity to reap the bounteous potentials of the globalization package. Thus, opting out of the unit shall be strategically and economically suicidal and inadmissible.
Development and Trade Liberalization: Conceptual Analysis
Development:
Development is a very popular but often much
abused concept. Not only is opinion divided as
to its trite meaning, but also so much is said
and done in the name of “development” that,
like the peace of God, it can be send to pass all
understanding. Okoye in Nwosu(ed.) (1985:59).
The above is fundamentally true about the meaning and applications of the term. Hence, the concept has come to assume vastly different meanings to many scholars and political analysts. Generally, the term is used to describe the process of economic and social transformation within and across countries. Hence, Todaro (1992) defines development as “a multi-dimensional process involving the re-organization and re-orientation of entire economic and social systems.” He also remarked that development must represent the entire gamut of changes by which an entire social system, tuned to diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and social groups within that system, moves away from a condition of life widely perceived as unsatisfactory and towards a situation or condition of life regarded as materially and spiritually better.
Like most development economists, Todaro merely prescribed development conditions and ingredients but failed to highlight the primary element which stimulate and direct the course of societal development. As remarked by Okoye, in Nwosu (ed.) (1985:59).
Development should imply not simply an increase in the productive capacity or income- which may mean just growth without development-hut major n transformations in the socio-economic structures whose inequalities and rigidities resulting from outmoded systems of land tenure, administrative hierarchies and inadequate and elitist educational systems, have tended to inhibit all-sided and even development of many Third World Societies.
Although Okoye touched on the structural foundation of development efforts, he nonetheless stopped short at locating the prime agent of development which is man. Scholars like Cairncross 1961); Mabagunje (1981); Nnoli (1981); Ake (1996) etc had variously underscored the primacy of human factor in the process of development. They remark that the key to development lies in men’s ids, in the institutions in which their thinking finds expression and the play of opportunities on ideas and institutions. In consonance the above Nnoli (1981) defines development as “a dialectical phenomenon in which the individual and society interact with their phyysical, biological and inter-human environments transforming them for their own betterment and that of humanity at large and being informed in the process”.
Indeed, after an exhaustive and critical evaluation of earlier writings, we re-conceptualized the term to mean man-directed and stimulated socio-economic and political transformations of self and entire structure of a given political milieu to a comparatively low and present level to a higher qualitative and/or remarkably improved form. These self-generating and self-perpetuating innovations must necessarily involve structural transformations of the socio-economic and political spheres and lead to radical and sustainable redirection of science and technology, living conditions and patterns of governance and equitable re-distribution of societal wealth. In addition, it must have at its wake, improvements in productive potentials; remarkable change in man’s potentials and capacities to extend living and existential conditions to high and more qualitative form (also see Okolie, 2002: for elaboration of the definition).
Trade Liberalization:
Liberalization of trade is one of the checklists of contemporary globalization. However, Thompson (1997:163) had noted that the internationalization of economic relationships was not new. He measured the extent of international integration of economies by focusing on the levels of trade relative to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the period between 1913 and 1993J and observed that the levels of integration on this measure for 1993 were similar to what they were in 1913. For Thompsoi therefore, liberalization of trade had persisted at the height of that Gold Standard Period.
Meanwhile, liberalization remains a complex of measure; aimed at reducing government involvement through policies privatization and deregulation, it, among others, implies the| elimination of laws and rules that were assumed to hinder competition in the market (Hout, 2006:10). Hout also remarked that the policies of privatization and deregulation, along with fiscal discipline, tax reform, unified exchange rates, and the abolition ol barriers to foreign direct investment were epitomized in the Washington Consensus. It may interest us to note that The Washington Consensus is the set of principles propagated by the international financial institutions and the US Treasury as the basis] for sound economic policies.
However, both Washington and the Post Washington Consensus derive their philosophical foundation from the neo-liberal | agenda. As noted by Scholte (2002:8):
Neo- liberal globalization, the origins of which are to be found in the Reagan/Thatcher revolution of the 1980s’ prescribes that the contemporary growth of global relations should be approached with Laissez- faire market economies through privatization, liberalization, and deregulation.
This can be understood as a politically inspired project to I limit the influence of the state on economic transactions. The embrace of libertarian prescriptions signaled the abandonment of Keynesian economic principles, which had emphasized regulation, – planning, and macro-economic management (Yergin and Stanislaw, 1998:141-149).
Thus, the second half of 1990s were marked by the seeming return of social democracy, however the year 2000 to present represent largely a sharp twist and dominance of political agenda rooted on neo-liberal agenda. Indeed the prevailing political agenda was dominated by neo-liberal policies aimed at welfare state retrenchment, privatization, and deregulation. The basic elements of the global political agenda are contained in the main governance issues discussed at the Progressive Governance Meeting of June 2000. The meeting launched the idea of a new international social compact aimed at a more inclusive and sustainable international division of wealth and opportunity (Progressive Governance network, 2000:3). The main governance issues singled out at the meeting were
- Strengthening of the multilateral trade system and enhanced market access for products from the least developed countries;
- Improvement of the institutional framework of financial markets and debt-relief for highly indebted developing countries;
- Prioritizing of direct effective development assistance;
- The development of new mechanisms, such as emissions trading, for sustainable development (Progressive Governance Network, 2000:3-4).
The aforementioned issues were primarily aimed at establishing a system of governance that would guard against the excesses of wealth concentration in certain parts of the world and the marginalization of other parts. It is therefore envisaged that trade liberalization would tendentiously promote skewed resource distribution but the central idea of globalization remains a historical inevitability. The present reform agenda of Obasanjo’s administration are in tandem with the precepts of globalization. However, the practice of promoting more of The Post Washington consensus by the administration naturally predispose the leadership to complementing government and the market in the reform agenda. Thus rather than emphasizing market driven economy, the Obasanjo’s administration promotes market driven forces that are regulated by governmental interjections. We shall evaluate the implications of this to sustainable development in Nigeria.
World Trade Organization and Multilateral Trade Rules
We have to reiterate that World Trade Organization (WTO) is one of the principal instruments of contemporary globalization. Others include the international financial institutions (specifically the Bretton Words Institutions) and Advanced Western Capitalist States. The WTO was established at Marrakesh, Morocco on April 15, 1994 following the signing of the Uruguay Round of Trade Agreements (URAS).
Indeed WTO replaced the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) as global regulator of rules and procedures of international trade. GATT was specifically a creation of the United States and her Western Industrialized allies who favoured the idea of free trade over promoting full employment policies. In fact the policy of free trade was dictated by a combination of political and economic considerations (Okolie, 1975:13). Thus countries joining in GATT had strong economic infrastructures which could withstand the competition of international trade. Given the above, developing states with comparatively low capacity in the competition could not benefit in the “free play concept”. Hence with few resources, the developing states had few “true” concessions to grant.
Therefore, the WTO was established to address the problems inherent in GATT and to promote trade rules that would strengthen interdependence among states. In theory, WTO is a member-driven organization as it respects the principle of one country one vote. However, as noted by Ozor (2006:16), in practice, no decision is ever brought to the WTO without prior consultation among the dominant Western industrialized states. As noted by Stiglitze (1998), if the USA will indicate strong objection to a proposal, it will not even be tabled for discussion in any of the organs of the WTO.
Meanwhile, decisions in the WTO are taken on the basis of what is called ‘negative consensus’ (for details, refer to Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement). Given the poor financial standing of most developing states, they are unable to maintain enough physical bodies in Geneva to attend all WTO meetings, and yet decisions arising therefore are binding on them. Moreover, the regime of rule based system’ rather benefits the Quad countries, and the transnational corporations. Besides, the mechanisms for settling disputes are skewed in favour of Quad countries. The developing states perceive the prevailing trading system as counterproductive and designed to deepen underdevelopment among the states. The cumulative effect of the growing dissatisfaction with the trading system contributed to the failure of WTO’s ministerial meeting in Seattle in December 1999.
Therefore, while the developing states are repeatedly calling for serious reform of the trading system and culture of decision-making in the WTO, the Quad countries are defiantly sustaining the prevailing order. From the above discussions, we can understand that developing states realize that they operate largely from a position of weakness and hence predicate their application of trade rules from the perceptive prism of economic nationalism. Thus, they attempt to implement the globalization precepts by complementing the market forces doctrine with government interjection.
This largely explains why the Obasanjo’s administration had substantially opened up the economy for foreign investment, financial and trade liberalization. (Obaseki, 2000:17-33). However, the administration at the same time limits the level of openness by intermittent government interventions by way of import and export restrictions of specific goods and commodities. It will not therefore be a misnomer to state that the present administration is more inclined to “Post Washington Consensus1 which, inter-alia, “rejects extreme market fundamentalism and sees government and markets as complements rather than substitutes” (Stiglitz, 1998:22). Therefore, while vigorously pursuing the deregulation and privatization policies, the government appears to be wary of unregulated market determinism. In our subsequent discussions we shall assess the impact of trade liberalization on development efforts in Nigeria,
The Implications of Trade Liberalization for Nigeria’s Development
Ours is a World of extremes. The poorest 40 percent of the World population- the 2.5 billion people who live on less than $2a day- account for five percent of global income, while the richest 10 per cent account for 5 4 per cent. Never before has the goal of abolishing poverty been within our reach: there are no longer any insurmountable technical resources or logistical obstacles to achieving it. Yet more than 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition … Despite a growing world economy and significant advances in medicine and technology, many people in developing countries are not reaping the potential benefits of globalization. UNDP(2006) Annual Development Report. Http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2006/0707 disparities.htm
The above citation captures the prevailing inequality in the global political economy. The report equally noted that countries with weak economic structures and institutions, low infrastructure and human development have less to gain from global markets. Particularly in the last twenty years, the unequal distribution of income (measured in Gini co-efficients) within many countries has grown worse. Indeed, Martens, in the UNDP Human Development Report (HDR, 2005) noted that 40 per cent of the World population receives only 5% of global income while 54 per cent of global income goes to the richest 10 per cent of the world’s population. In fact the HDR summarized its observations as follows:
- According to current trends, 827 million of the population will live in extreme poverty in 2015;
- 50 countries currently fall behind target in at least one Millennium Development Goal (MDG);
- A further 65 countries risk failing to reach at least one MDG by the year 2040;
- In 18 countries, the Current Human Development Index (HDI) is lower than it was in 1990, when the HDI was first produced. 12 of these countries are in Africa and the other 6 in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS); and.
- The 24 countries with the lowest HDI rating are all in Africa with Niger at the very end of the list.
The above confirms the findings of the numerous other investigations and reports which appeared on the subject in recent months (The Millennium Project Report 2005; Kofi Annan’s Report in Larger Freedom”, 2005; and UN Annual Report on the realization of the MDGs, 2005).
The above empirically demonstrates that the majority of the world’s populations are not enjoying much benefit from the neo -liberal system of growth and development. Particularly the prevailing global trade rules have made the whole idea of trade liberalization an albatross on the neck of developing economics. Thetwo major areas which made global inequality more elastic are in:
- The practice of escalating tariffs or what could be technically called “perverse tax” on the poor; and
- perennial decline in commodity prices. The above particularly skew benefits arising from liberalization of trade practices in favour of advanced capitalist economies. Indeed, African Stats are the worst victims. In this regard, the findings of Calamitsis are empirically illustrative:
- In sub-saharan Africa, the income gap relative to the advanced economies had widened and per capita incomes in a number of countries have actually dropped in absolute terms;
- There has been erosion of Sub-Saharan Africa’s share of World trade, even for its traditional commodity exports, while foreign direct investment in the region has generally remained at very low levels;
- Social conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa are the poorest in the world;
- Poverty has assumed alarming proportions in an increasing number of African countries, shattering lives, and posing a major threat to future economic growth and development (Calamitsis, 2002: 10; Aninat, 2002: 4-8; Walkins, 2002,25-28;citedinOgbeideandAghahowa(2005: 350).
As a component unit of the Sub-Saharan bloc, Nigeria is not. insulated by the prevailing incidence of poverty and underdevelopment. With remarkably weak and uncompetitive economic structure, and institutions, outlandish infrastructural and human development programme, and institutionalized political corruption, life of most citizens could be described as nasty, brutish and miserable. Table 1 below is very instructive.
TABLE 1: Selected Social Indicators
| Sub-Sector | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 I/ | 2004 2/ |
| A. Education | |||||
| 1. Adult literacy Rate | 57.0 | 57.0 | 57.0 | 57.0 | 57.0 |
| 2. No of Pupils per Primary School | 528.0 | 543.0 | 545.0 | 498.0 | 428.0 |
| 3. No. of Pupils per Teacher (Primary) | 54.0 | 56.0 | 55.0 | 53.0 | 52.0 |
| 4. No of Pupils per Secondary School | 985.0 | 789.0 | 6S5.0 | 595.0 | 505.0 |
| 5. No of Pupils per Teacher (Secondary) | 41.0 | 40.0 | 50.0 | 38.0 | 31.0 |
| 6. No of Students per School (Tertiary Institutions) | 2,932.0 | 2,840.0 | 2,681.0 | 2,437.0 | 1,941.0 |
| 7. Percentage of Females in Educational Institutions (i) Primary (ii) Secondary (iii) Tertiary | 49.0 46.0 45.0 | 51.0 47.0 45.0 | 51.0 48.0 45.0 | 53.0 43.0 43.0 | 53.0 43.0 43.0 |
| 8. Number of Educational Institutions (1) Primary (ii) Secondary (iii) Tertiary | 48,860.0 8,275.0 144.0 | 49,343.0 8,275.0 142.0 | 47,694.0 8,351.0 178.0 | 52,815.0 11,918.0 202.0 | 65,627.0 13,333.0 215.0 |
| 9. Numberof Enrolments at School (i) Primary (ii) Secondary (iii) Tertiary | 24,895,446.0 6,359,449.0 1,032,873.0 | 27,384,991.0 6,995,394.0 1,136,160.0 | 29,575,790.0 7,485,072.0 1,249,776.0 | 26,292,370.0 7,091,376.0 1,274,772.0 – | 28,144,967.0 6,745,186.0 417,281.0 |
| 10. Federal Government | 56,568.2 | 62,567.1 | 69,033.8 | n.a | n.a |
| Budget | |||||
| Allocation to Education | |||||
| (=N= | |||||
| million) | |||||
| 11. Percentage of Annual | 8.7 | 7.0 – | 7.9 | n.a | n.a |
| Federal | |||||
| Budget | |||||
| B. Health and Nutrition | |||||
| 1. Population per Physician | 24,020.0- | 22,223.0 | 20,562.0 | 19,172.0 | 19,745.0 |
| (No.) | |||||
| 2. Population per Nursing | 3,048.0 ‘ | 2,959.0 | 2,873.0 | 2,789.0 | 2,872.0 |
| Staff | |||||
| (No.) | |||||
| 3. Population per Hospital | 3,104,0 | 3,014.0 | 2,926.0 | 2,841.0 | 2,925.0 |
| Bed | |||||
| (No,) | |||||
| 4. Life Expectancy at Birth | 54.0 | 54.0 | 54.0 | 54.0 | 54.0 |
| (Years) | |||||
| 5. Children Immunization | |||||
| (i) Fully Immunized | 72.7 | 73.3 | 75.0 | 80.0 | 80,0 |
| (Overall) | 72.4 | 72.7 | 73.0 | 75.0 | 75.0 |
| (ii) Tuberculosis (%) | 75.3 | 67.1 | 70.0 | 75.0 | 75.0 |
| (iii)DPT(%) | 72.5 | 61.0 | 68.0 | 80.0 | 80.0 |
| (iv) poliomyelitis (%) | 70.4 | 92.3 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 90.0 |
| (v) Measles (%) |
| 6. Health Institutions | |||||
| (i) Primary Health Care | 10,149.0 | 10,393.0 | 15,266,0 | 17,012.0 | 17,752.0 |
| (ii) Secondary Health | 936.0 | 982.0 | 1976.0 | 2,418.0 | 2,509.0 |
| Care | 51.0 | 51.0 | 219.0 | 221.0 | 221,0 |
| (iii) Tertiary Health Care | |||||
| 7. Federal Government | 17,581.9 | 35,422,0 | 40,741.1 | 40,741,1 | 40,741,1 |
| Budget | |||||
| Allocation to Health | |||||
| (=N=miIlion) | |||||
| 8. Percentage of Annual | 2.7 | 3,9 | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.7 |
| Federal Budget |
CBN Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the Year Ended 31s‘December 2004; 165
Meanwhile, the present administration is responding very positively to the demands of “openness” and Washington Consensus prescriptions. Thus” with the monetization, privatization and devaluation policies vigorously being pursued and implemented by Obasanjo’s administration in line with the IMF and World Bank’s dictates, Nigeria is remarkable inclined to the globalization precepts. Table 2 below demonstrates increasing level of trade between Nigeria, and the rest of the world. Indeed much of our exports are from the oil sector, while non oil sector accounts for a large chunk of the imports.
TABLE 2: Visible Trade(Naira Million)
| Item | 2000 | 2001 2002 | 2003 1/ | 2004 2 | |
| Imports | 985,022.39 | 1,371,409.10 | 1,457,091.43 | 1,507,422.81 | 1,638,353.67 |
| Oil sector | 220,817.69 | 239,416.27 | 266,738.19 | 380,997.82 | 303,952.80 |
| Non-Oil Sector | 764,204.70 | 1,131,992.83 | 1,190,353.24 | 1,126,424.99 | 1,334,400,87 |
| Exports | 1,945,72131 | 2,001,230.79 | 1,882,668.21 | 2,924,134.94 | 3,143,800.62 |
| Oil Sector | 1,920,900.38 | 1,973,222.22 | 1,787,622.08 | 2,829,042.40 | 3,030,065.29 |
| Non-Oil sector | 24,822.93 | 28,008.57 | 95,046.13 | 95,092.54 | 113,735.33 |
| Total Trade | 2,930,745.70 | 3,372,639.89 | 3,339,759.64 | 4,431,557.75 | 4,782,154.29 |
| Oil Sector | 2,141,718.07 | 2,212,638,49 | 2,054,360.27 | 3,210.040.22 | 3,334,018.09 |
| Non-Oil Sector | 789,027.63 | 1,160,001.40 | 1,285,399.37 | 1,221,517.53 | 1,448,136.20 |
| Balanceof Trade 3/ | 960,700.92 | 629,821.69 | 425,576.78 | 1,416,712.13 | 1,505,446.95 |
| Oil Sector | 1,700,082.69 | 1,733,805.95 | 1,520,883.89 | 2,448,044.58 | 2,726,112.49 |
| Non-Oil Sector | -739,381.77 | 1,103,984.26 | 1,095,307.11 | 1,031,332.45 | 1,220,665.54 |
| Average Exchange Rate(N/$) | 101.7 | 111.9 | 121.0 | 129.4 | 133.5 |
1/ Revised
2/ Provisional
3/ A positive figure indicates a surplus while negative figureindicates a deficit Source: Central Bank of Nigeria, 2004:168
Indeed Table 3 is even more revealing, see table 3 below showing imports by major groups:
TABLE 3: Imports by Major Groups (Naira Million)
| IMPORT GROUP | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003/1 | 2004 2/ |
| Consumer Goods | 447,200.16 | 621,932.28 | 662,846,58 | 672,404.08 | 756,849.38 |
| Durable | 36,670.41 | 50,998.47 | 54,353.42 | 55,857.63 | 58,699.90 |
| Non Durable | 410,529.75 | 570,934.11 | 608,493.16 | 616,546.45 | 698,189.48 |
| Capital Goods and Raw Material | 53,867.16 | 745,362.29 | 789,873.58 | 829,496.46 | 576,596.23 |
| Capital goods | 242,829.69 | 338,079.16 | 358,516.43 | 350,057.39 | 390,170.69 |
| Raw Materials | 292,037.47 | 407,283.13 | 431,357.15 | 479,439.07 | 486,425.54 |
| Miscellaneous | 2,955.07 | 4,114.23 | 4,371.27 | 5,522.27 | 4,908.06 |
| Total | 985,022.39 | 1,371,409.10 | 1,457,091.43 | 1,507,422.81 | 1,638,353.67 |
| Average Exchange Rate | 101.65 | 111.9 | 120.97 | 129.97 | 133.50 |
1/ Revised
2/ Provisional
Source: Central Bank of Nigeria, 2004:169
While the amount spent on imported consumer goods continued toescalate between the periods 2000 to 2004; much of the resourceswere directed at non-durable consumer goods. Moreover, the amountof money spent on raw materials progressively outweighs same spenton capital goods. The implication of the above are:
- the economy is consummate in orientation and not particularly productive;
- Not much have been done to explore and exploit the abundant raw materials;
- Comparatively little amount is spent on capital goods thereby undermining industrialization and associated competitiveness and economic viability;
- Much of exported commodities are agricultural products that are susceptible to declining world market prices.
As a consequence of the above, the economy is far from being competitive. Against the pre-requisites of trade liberalization Nigeria flaunts a weak and inchoate economic structure whose productive potentials have been sacrificed in favour of personalized feudalistic economic and political patronage.
Our primaryconcern in this paper was not to plunge into the merits and demerits of trade liberalization as it concerns Nigeria development. The debate had long been resolved. Our principal contribution is that the principles of complex interdependence have made it expedient for Nigeria to join the fray. We have reasoned beyondautarky and delinking to accepting the true fact of global political economy situation which is that survival, development and self reproduction demand that Nigeria participate in the prevailing global production and exchange of material values. Therein lies the light in the tunnel. However, the economic structure must be made more productive and competitive while the political sphere must be more responsive accountable and committed to sustainable human development. We had earlier demonstrated that Nigeria and most developing economies had not benefited much from the globalization package, however we still noted a reverse of the present scenario lies more in improving national economic policies than in global trade practices.
CONCLUSION
We interrogated the basic elements of trade liberalization and how these impact on Nigerian development. We adopted the basic principles of complex interdependence and re-conceptualized the concept of development. We underscored the fact that Nigeria, like most developing economies, has been reeling under the excruciating pains of skewed global trade rules which put the economy in a highly disadvantaged position. Particularly, we highlighted that the current economic reform measures are evidence that the country is adopting development prescriptions of the “Post Washington Consensus” and thus noted that these could only stimulate sustainable development if successive administrations make the economy more productive and competitive by strengthening the economic structure and emphasizing consolidated industrialization measures.Arising from the foregoing, we conclude that building our development strategies within the intellectual orbit of dependency persuasion tantamount to wallowing in obsolete intellectualism. The way out lies in imbibing the precepts of interdependence and hence enhancing human development and competitiveness.
REFERENCES
Ake, C. (1999) Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Amin, S. (1973) Accumulation on a WorldScale. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Aninat, E. (2002) “Surmounting the Challenges of Globalization”, Finance and Development, Vol. 38, No. 4. Washington: DC: IMF Publications, December.
Baran, P. (1967) The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Cairncross, A.K. (1961) “International Trade and Economic Development”. EconomicaVol. 28, No. 109.
Calamities, E.A. (2002) “The Need for Stronger Domestic Policies and International Support”. Finance and Development, Vol. 38 No. 4 Washington, DC: IMF Publications, December.
CBN (2004) Annual Report and Statement of Account for the Year £#^J.?7i/December2004. www. Centbank.org.
Frank, A.G. (1969) Capitalism and Under development in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Hout, W. (2006) “The Only Game in Town? European Social Democracy and Neo Liberal Globalization”. International Politics and Society (2). Pp 9 – 26.
Kaplinsky, R. (1999) “Is Globalization All it is Cracked up to Be”. Thelnstituteof Development Studies (IDS). Vol. 30. No. 1.
Keohane, R.O. and Nye, J. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (2nd ed.) Boston: Little Brown.
Knor, M (199%) “The Economic Crisis in East Asia, Causes, Effects, Lessons.
Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network. Knor, M. (2000) Globalization and the South. Some Critical Issues Ibadan: Spectrum Books.
Mabogunje, A.L. (1981) The Development Process: A Spatial Perspective. New York: Holmes andMeier Publishers.
Nnoli, O. (1981) Path to Nigerian Development. Dakar: CODESRIA.
Nwosu, E. J. (ed.) (1985) Achieving Even Development in Nigeria. Problem and Prospects. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers.
Obaseki, PJ. (2000) “Globalization and the Nigerian Economy”. CBN: Economic and Financial Review. Vol. 38, No. 2 Pp. 17 -33.
O’Brien, R. (1992) Global Financial Integration: The End of GeographyLondon: Printer/RHA.
Offiong, D. (1980) Imperialism and Dependency. Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers.
Ogbeide,U and Aghahowa, J.O. (2005) “Nigeria and Globalization: Opportunities and Potential Risks”, in D,A Briggs (ed.) Nigeria in World Politics: Trends and Challenges. Essays in Honour of Major Gen. Joseph NanvenGarba. Kuru: NIPSS.Pp 341-357.
Okolie, A.M. (2003) “Globalization and the Challenges of Development of Nigeria’s Political Economy”, in Otoabasi Akpan Umana(ed.) The Art and Sciences of Politic: Essays in Honour of AlhajiGhali Umar N’Abba. PortHarcourt: Footsteps Publishers.
Okolie, C.C. (1975) International Law Perspectives of the Developing Countries. Lagos: Nok Pub Ushers.
Ozor, C.O. (2006) “Africa’s Economic Development and the Challenges of Trade Liberalization”. Journal of International Politics and Development Studies. Vol. 2, No. 1 January/June Pp. 13-24.
Prebisch, R. (1950) The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principal Problems. New York: UN Economic Commission for Latin America.
Progressive Governance Network (2000) The Berlin Communique: Progressive Governance for the 2T’ Century. Retrieved from http://www.policy-network.net/php. August 25.2004.
Santos, D. (1970) “The Structure of Dependence” American Economic Review, 60, 2.
Scholte, J.A. (2002) The Sources of Neoliberal Globalization. Paper for the_UNRISD Project Improving Research and Knowledge on Social Development in International Organizations. Geneva: UNRISD. Retrieved from http://www.unrisd.org. August 4,2004.
Stlglitz, J.E. (1998) An Agenda for Development in the Twenty-First Century, in Boris Pleskovic and Joseph E. Stiglitz (eds.) Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, 1997Washington, DC: World Bank. Pp. 17-31.
Tandon, Y. (1998) “Globalization and Africa’s Option”. AAPS Newsletter,\q\. 3.No. I.January-April.
Thompson, G. (1997) “Globalization and the Possibilities for Domestic Economy Policy”. International Politics and Society,Vol2.Pp 161-171.
Todaro, M.P. (1992) Economics for a Developing World: An Introduction to Principles, Problems and Policies for Development (3rd ed.). London: Longman Group,
UNDP (2005) Human Development Report. International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid, Trade and Security in an unequal World. New York: UNDP, http:hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/
UNDP (2006) Annual Development Report http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2006/0707 disparities.htm.
UN- Secretary General (2005) “In Large Freedom: toward development, Security and Human Rights for All”. New York:/undoc. A/59/2005 from the 21s1 of March 2005. www.un.org/largerrreedom/
United Nations (2005a) Report on the World Social Situation. The Inequality Predicament. New York: U.N. www.un.org/esaVsocder/rwss/.rwss.fatm
United Nations (2005b) The Millennium Development Goals Reports. New York: UN. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/ptd/MDG%.
Waltkins K, (2002) “Making Globalization Work for the Poor”. Finance and Development, vol 39, no 1. Washington D.C: IMF Publications, March.
Yergin, D. and Stanislaw, J. (1998) The Commanding Heights: The Battle between Government and the Marketplace that is Remaking the Modern World. New York: Simon and Schuster.