Let us decentralise security, revenues and expenditure.
Why not encourage the various states to compete among themselves for industry? Right now, they seem all to be competing ONLY for allocation of primary commodity revenues, principally crude oil, which are then consumed leaving nil for investment and economic growth.
May be the arrangement of public affairs should be changed such that the federal owns all the land in the country while each state owns the physical resources within its borders. Anambra can sell its coal/ores to metallurgists in China or in Ondo state. Lagos can sell its financial services / access to ports at commercially viable rates. The Niger Delta states can own their crude oil and trade with whoever they want. Kaduna investors can refurbish the refinery and petrochemical plant then sell refinates to Sokoto or Oyo states at market prices. If surrounding states impose toll gates (tariffs) on all roads, sea and air lanes leading to/fro Anambra, Lagos, ND or Kaduna, so be it. Hurray for private enterprise. As for Abuja FCT, it will probably develop a (commercially viable) lobbying industry as states, investors and market makers joustle to attract wealth benefits for their respective operations from federal regulators. All is well as long as such benefits improve general living standards and our competitiveness as a people. And the states that do not presently have mineral resources? Look to Lagos, Japan, Switzerland, Isreal or Somalia (without the war-mongering) for your economic models: Invest in enabling knowledge industries, assume neutrality, and you will (very likely) do well in the services sectors: discretion, logistics, leisure and communications.
The federal retains overall authority / power to enforce security, taxation or environmental controls but devolves responsibility / exercise to each state. What the federal loses in monopoly e.g on coersion by violent force, we will all gain in mutual self-interest e.g the making of each state more resistant to disgruntled elements within or without the body politic. Any state that thinks too insularly will face the consideration of its many neighbours, rather than the one federal. Same with the external aggressors who watch our current turpor, and wait.
Revenues should increase all round: [1] To the federal because all economic activity must necessarily occur through, around, over or under (federal) land. [2] To the states, who must compete to attract skilled and industrious workers as well as tax-paying and job-creating businesses, who in turn fuel their economic activity by organising private finance. [3] To the technically competent, who harvest the fossil fuel energy resources or harness the solar, wind or water energy resources so abundant in the country. [4] To the many currently listless unemployed or underemployed, who now find businesses competing for skills and knowledge, with resulting increases in living standards, choice of goods and services, and greater mobility of ideas, labour and capital. [5] To private investors, who now have an incentive to spend their gains on productive activities within the country rather indulge the 'we can always import it' economic empowerment and development strategists. The acquisitve-but-lazy cannot end up buying all the land in the country as the federal (i.e all of us) own it all. Some rent-seeking and horse-trading will occur, that's fine and fine-able.
Federal citizens can invest, work, reside or move freely across state boundaries and no state may expel any federal citizen from that state. Will the mineral-producing states export all their production across the Atlantic and import foreign manufactured produce in return? Producers can certainly grow rich, but it is not likely that they will commit economic secession. [1] For starters, the states with higher living standards will attract hordes of opportunity seekers. The federal taxes the exports, tariffs the imports, and pays close attention to minimum standards in matters of housing, wages, health, and environment. [2] Secondly, neighbouring states will try to develop processing and manufacturing facilities in order to improve their comparative advantages in regard to the producers. As quality of local manufactures improve to match or exceed import standards and new markets are created, so will demand grow. Comparative advantage is not viable in the 'classic' economic sense of "lowest cost producer". Rather, comparative advantage is in yield of highest marginal benefits (high profits, low costs, security of supply or markets, etc) to the producer. [3] Thirdly, neighbouring states will export their unemployed and disgruntled inhabitants across the porous boundaries into uncooperative rich states, who will soon realise their incentive to share the wealth.
All state and federal transactions should be denominated and conducted in the federal currency. That includes all external and internal borrowing, technical assistance, joint ventures, foreign direct investment, "monetised" foreign aid etc. The existing foreign-currency denominated external debt should remain federal responsibility. Tax-paying investors can register businesses (including banks) at state level. The businesses may operate across the nation. They pay federal taxes and pay business rates in the state of registration. Each bank can operate in at least three states (regional) or in all states (national), with appropriate levels of capitalisation. Banks pay federal taxes and pay business rates in each states of operations. So, states may compete to attract bank operations.
Land occupancy should be levied on a per sqm basis, and fallow land levied at higher rate than land that is registered as in economic use. Registered land may only be used for its registered purpose and that purpose should start within specified time frame. Registered land reverts to the state pool if it does not record investment returns within the time frames. No state may prevent squatters from occupying fallow land in that state. Squatters of five years residency should be eligible to claim occupany rights provided they can evidence economic use of such land.
All these measures may well distribute land into the control of persons with incentive to profit from its economic use. Our aim is not wealth redistribution or income growth, but rather to build on the industriousness of people willing to improve their lives. Our policies should catalyse, release and sustain the spirit of competitive enterprise and the performance-based work ethic in our people. Suitabley encouraged, they will incorporate the efficiencies of scientific thought and technological tools into their enterprises - if only they know how. If Africans are to survive the global competition we face from others, we will need to embrace, to master, and to improve on the ways of intelligent enquiry, application of knowledge, on timeliness, and on due attention to detail. There are also bad habits to lose. It is unintelligent to submit uncritically to any authority, whether celestial or temporal. It is equally unproductive to expect others to sweat, bleed or toil for our leisure. The engineer who braves the high seas or the scientist who dares breathe noxious fumes. The investor who buys our deliquent bonds or the farmer who wakes at dawn and rests after dusk. These are people taking risks so that they may earn rewards for themselves. Sharing such rewards with lazy, wasteful and high-living rent-seekers does not appeal to their sense of fair trade. Neither will our appeals to tradition, forgetfulness, observance of fatuous religions, or tardiness when the time comes to pay for their cunning, capital, goods and services. Imported technologies cannot help our understanding unless we dismantle, reassemble and improve on what we get. Likewise, to depend on foreign technicians or capital is to court permanent economic damage. Anybody will be deemed mad who helps a supine market to gain economic sovereignty.
Accordingly, the education curriculum should be restructured to emphasise general competency in the vocational application of knowledge sciences and technologies at secondary school level. This recognises the fact that many people do not proceed in formal education beyond the secondary school certification. The institutions of higher learning may exercise minds further with academics, abstractions and research aimed at acquiring, and adapting to local industry, the world's knowledge in every field of endeavour, irrespective of the ingenuity, origin, patent, or might of protector: all knowledge belongs to the world. In time, we too will contribute our innovations to the world to improve upon.
The current structure of economic opportunities is flawed. It induces paralysis in enterprise. It destroys personal initiative. It rewards corruptive behaviour. It is damaging our competiveness with other peoples of the world. We need to carefully consider the lessons African history offers from such a flawed structure. Slavery of African people continues in the world today in all aspects of our lives. It will not stop until we can compete in all aspects and then ensure it is unprofitable to continue. The proposal is to have a flexible yet robust superstructure that can extend to accomodate more or fewer states; merger or devolution of state or federal authorities; expansion or collapse of business enterprises. Competition is risky.
These unrefined words are just a few thoughts on getting African land and people back to work.
Refinements welcome. Send email to: iyaalata@netscape.net or post your comments below
Remi-Niyi Alaran writes on enterprise and social capital.
Copyright (c) ALARAN DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, 2005
You may copy, transmit, or otherwise use this document provided the copyright notice is attached
Why not encourage the various states to compete among themselves for industry? Right now, they seem all to be competing ONLY for allocation of primary commodity revenues, principally crude oil, which are then consumed leaving nil for investment and economic growth.
May be the arrangement of public affairs should be changed such that the federal owns all the land in the country while each state owns the physical resources within its borders. Anambra can sell its coal/ores to metallurgists in China or in Ondo state. Lagos can sell its financial services / access to ports at commercially viable rates. The Niger Delta states can own their crude oil and trade with whoever they want. Kaduna investors can refurbish the refinery and petrochemical plant then sell refinates to Sokoto or Oyo states at market prices. If surrounding states impose toll gates (tariffs) on all roads, sea and air lanes leading to/fro Anambra, Lagos, ND or Kaduna, so be it. Hurray for private enterprise. As for Abuja FCT, it will probably develop a (commercially viable) lobbying industry as states, investors and market makers joustle to attract wealth benefits for their respective operations from federal regulators. All is well as long as such benefits improve general living standards and our competitiveness as a people. And the states that do not presently have mineral resources? Look to Lagos, Japan, Switzerland, Isreal or Somalia (without the war-mongering) for your economic models: Invest in enabling knowledge industries, assume neutrality, and you will (very likely) do well in the services sectors: discretion, logistics, leisure and communications.
The federal retains overall authority / power to enforce security, taxation or environmental controls but devolves responsibility / exercise to each state. What the federal loses in monopoly e.g on coersion by violent force, we will all gain in mutual self-interest e.g the making of each state more resistant to disgruntled elements within or without the body politic. Any state that thinks too insularly will face the consideration of its many neighbours, rather than the one federal. Same with the external aggressors who watch our current turpor, and wait.
Revenues should increase all round: [1] To the federal because all economic activity must necessarily occur through, around, over or under (federal) land. [2] To the states, who must compete to attract skilled and industrious workers as well as tax-paying and job-creating businesses, who in turn fuel their economic activity by organising private finance. [3] To the technically competent, who harvest the fossil fuel energy resources or harness the solar, wind or water energy resources so abundant in the country. [4] To the many currently listless unemployed or underemployed, who now find businesses competing for skills and knowledge, with resulting increases in living standards, choice of goods and services, and greater mobility of ideas, labour and capital. [5] To private investors, who now have an incentive to spend their gains on productive activities within the country rather indulge the 'we can always import it' economic empowerment and development strategists. The acquisitve-but-lazy cannot end up buying all the land in the country as the federal (i.e all of us) own it all. Some rent-seeking and horse-trading will occur, that's fine and fine-able.
Federal citizens can invest, work, reside or move freely across state boundaries and no state may expel any federal citizen from that state. Will the mineral-producing states export all their production across the Atlantic and import foreign manufactured produce in return? Producers can certainly grow rich, but it is not likely that they will commit economic secession. [1] For starters, the states with higher living standards will attract hordes of opportunity seekers. The federal taxes the exports, tariffs the imports, and pays close attention to minimum standards in matters of housing, wages, health, and environment. [2] Secondly, neighbouring states will try to develop processing and manufacturing facilities in order to improve their comparative advantages in regard to the producers. As quality of local manufactures improve to match or exceed import standards and new markets are created, so will demand grow. Comparative advantage is not viable in the 'classic' economic sense of "lowest cost producer". Rather, comparative advantage is in yield of highest marginal benefits (high profits, low costs, security of supply or markets, etc) to the producer. [3] Thirdly, neighbouring states will export their unemployed and disgruntled inhabitants across the porous boundaries into uncooperative rich states, who will soon realise their incentive to share the wealth.
All state and federal transactions should be denominated and conducted in the federal currency. That includes all external and internal borrowing, technical assistance, joint ventures, foreign direct investment, "monetised" foreign aid etc. The existing foreign-currency denominated external debt should remain federal responsibility. Tax-paying investors can register businesses (including banks) at state level. The businesses may operate across the nation. They pay federal taxes and pay business rates in the state of registration. Each bank can operate in at least three states (regional) or in all states (national), with appropriate levels of capitalisation. Banks pay federal taxes and pay business rates in each states of operations. So, states may compete to attract bank operations.
Land occupancy should be levied on a per sqm basis, and fallow land levied at higher rate than land that is registered as in economic use. Registered land may only be used for its registered purpose and that purpose should start within specified time frame. Registered land reverts to the state pool if it does not record investment returns within the time frames. No state may prevent squatters from occupying fallow land in that state. Squatters of five years residency should be eligible to claim occupany rights provided they can evidence economic use of such land.
All these measures may well distribute land into the control of persons with incentive to profit from its economic use. Our aim is not wealth redistribution or income growth, but rather to build on the industriousness of people willing to improve their lives. Our policies should catalyse, release and sustain the spirit of competitive enterprise and the performance-based work ethic in our people. Suitabley encouraged, they will incorporate the efficiencies of scientific thought and technological tools into their enterprises - if only they know how. If Africans are to survive the global competition we face from others, we will need to embrace, to master, and to improve on the ways of intelligent enquiry, application of knowledge, on timeliness, and on due attention to detail. There are also bad habits to lose. It is unintelligent to submit uncritically to any authority, whether celestial or temporal. It is equally unproductive to expect others to sweat, bleed or toil for our leisure. The engineer who braves the high seas or the scientist who dares breathe noxious fumes. The investor who buys our deliquent bonds or the farmer who wakes at dawn and rests after dusk. These are people taking risks so that they may earn rewards for themselves. Sharing such rewards with lazy, wasteful and high-living rent-seekers does not appeal to their sense of fair trade. Neither will our appeals to tradition, forgetfulness, observance of fatuous religions, or tardiness when the time comes to pay for their cunning, capital, goods and services. Imported technologies cannot help our understanding unless we dismantle, reassemble and improve on what we get. Likewise, to depend on foreign technicians or capital is to court permanent economic damage. Anybody will be deemed mad who helps a supine market to gain economic sovereignty.
Accordingly, the education curriculum should be restructured to emphasise general competency in the vocational application of knowledge sciences and technologies at secondary school level. This recognises the fact that many people do not proceed in formal education beyond the secondary school certification. The institutions of higher learning may exercise minds further with academics, abstractions and research aimed at acquiring, and adapting to local industry, the world's knowledge in every field of endeavour, irrespective of the ingenuity, origin, patent, or might of protector: all knowledge belongs to the world. In time, we too will contribute our innovations to the world to improve upon.
The current structure of economic opportunities is flawed. It induces paralysis in enterprise. It destroys personal initiative. It rewards corruptive behaviour. It is damaging our competiveness with other peoples of the world. We need to carefully consider the lessons African history offers from such a flawed structure. Slavery of African people continues in the world today in all aspects of our lives. It will not stop until we can compete in all aspects and then ensure it is unprofitable to continue. The proposal is to have a flexible yet robust superstructure that can extend to accomodate more or fewer states; merger or devolution of state or federal authorities; expansion or collapse of business enterprises. Competition is risky.
These unrefined words are just a few thoughts on getting African land and people back to work.
Refinements welcome. Send email to: iyaalata@netscape.net or post your comments below
Remi-Niyi Alaran writes on enterprise and social capital.
Copyright (c) ALARAN DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, 2005
You may copy, transmit, or otherwise use this document provided the copyright notice is attached
No comments:
Post a Comment