Otive Igbuzor, PhD
African Centre for Leadership, Strategy & Development (Centre LSD)
Headquarters:Â Suite 27-28, Second Floor, Tolse Plaza, 4, Franca Afegbua Crescent,
Off J. S. Mariere road, Near ApoÂ Legislative Quarters, Abuja.
Niger Delta Office: No. 1 Amb. Ralph Uwechue Way,
Â Off Okpanam Road, Opposite Legislative Quarters, Asaba, Delta State.
E-mail: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
A KEYNOTE ADDRESS PRESENTED AT THE LAUNCH OF CHRISTIAN AID NIGERIA STRATEGY FOR NIGERIA: PARTNERSHIP FOR CHANGE ON 7TH FEBRUARY, 2013 AT CHELSEA HOTEL, ABUJA.
- 1.Â Â Â Â Â INTRODUCTION
The challenge of development and poverty eradication has attracted the attention of scholars, leaders and the international community over the years. Although different scholars have different perspectives on development, most students and practitioners of development accept that it must mean progress of some kind.[i] It is seen as a multi-dimensional process, one that changes the economy, polity and society of the countries in which it occurs. Amartya Sen sees development as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. According to him, development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or over activity of repressive states.[ii]Â In this conceptualization, freedom is central to the process of development and the achievement of development is dependent on the free agency of the people. For the people to be agents of their own development require advancement in five distinct types of freedom namely political freedoms; economic facilities; social opportunities; transparency guarantees and protective security.
Similarly, the 2010 human development report opined that human development is the expansion of peopleâ€™s freedom to live long, healthy and creative lives; to advance other goals they have reason to value; and to engage actively in shaping development equitably and sustainably on a shared planet. People are both the beneficiaries and the drivers of human development, as individuals and in groups.[iii] According to Pat Utomi, development simply put is discipline. It is about how discipline drives the human spirit to triumph over odds of poverty trap, physical geography, fiscal trap, governance, cultural barriers, geopolitics, lack of innovation and demographic trap.[iv] Kambhampati argues that development requires growth and structural change, some measure of distributive equity, modernization in social and cultural attitudes, a degree of political transformation and stability, an improvement in health and education so that population growth stabilizes, and an increase in urban living and employment.[v] Cowen and Shenton have argued that the modern doctrine of development was invented in the first half of the 19th century to control the social disruptions of poverty, unemployment and human misery caused by capitalism.[vi]
From the above, it is clear to us that even though there are different perspectives to development, there is a general consensus that development will lead to good change manifested in increased capacity of people to have control over material assets, intellectual resources and ideology; and obtain physical necessities of life (food, clothing & shelter), employment, equality, participation in government, political and economic independence, adequate education, gender equality, sustainable development and peace.[vii] However, the reality of the world today is that many countries are very poor and cannot meet their development needs. It has been documented that more than 1.2 billion people, one in every five on earth live survive on less that US $1 per day.[viii] Wealth is concentrated in the hand of a few people while the majority wallows in abject poverty. The UNDP in its 1998 report documented that the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the 48 least developed countries. Similarly, the 1000 richest people in the world have personal wealth greater than 500 million people in the least developed countries.[ix]
Robert Chambers aptly captured it when he wrote:
I am so angry at what has been done, and continues to be done, in our world. It is hard to believe that the nightmare is real. We seem trapped in grotesquely unjust systems, more and more dominated by power, greed, delusion, denial, ignorance and stupidity, fuelled by symmetries of terrorism and fundamentalisms.[x]
In a similar vein, Amartya Sen pointed out that:
We live in a world of unprecedented opulence, of a kind that would have been hard even to imagine a century or two agoâ€¦And yet we also live in a world with remarkable deprivation, destitution and oppression. There are many new problems as well as old ones, including persistence of poverty and unfulfilled elementary needs, occurrence of famines and widespread hunger, violation of elementary political freedoms as well as of basic liberties, extensive neglect of the interests and agency of women, and worsening threats to our environment and to the sustainability of our economic and social lives.[xi]
There is no doubt that the challenges of development and poverty eradication are enormous. But in the last two decades, there has been a lot of discourse on what needs to be done to deal with the challenges. The UNDP has consistently argued that the Millennium Development Goals can be met if there is political will combined with good policy ideas which are then translated into nationally owned, nationally driven development strategies guided by good science, good economics and transparent accountable governance.[xii]
Nigeria, which was one of the richest 50 countries in the early 1970s, has retrogressed to become one of the 25 poorest countries at the threshold of the twenty first century.Â It is ironic that Nigeria is the sixth largest exporter of oil and at the same time host the third largest number of poor people after China and India. Statistics show that the incidence of poverty using the rate of US $1 per day increased from 28.1 percent in 1980 to 46.3 percent in 1985 and declined to 42.7 percent in 1992 but increased again to 65.6 percent in 1996. The incidence increased to 69.2 percent in 1997. The 2004 report by the National Planning Commission indicates that poverty has decreased to 54.4 percent.Â But by 2010, the poverty rate has increased again to 65.1 percent.Â Â Nigeria fares very poorly in all development indices.
In this keynote address, we discuss the challenges of development of Nigeria and Christian Aid contribution to addressing it through the partnership approach. But first, we draw lessons from the experience of development trajectory across the world.
- 2.Â Â Â Â Â GLOBAL LESSONS ON DEVELOPMENT
Over the past several decades, there are a lot of lessons that has been learnt which can help in accelerating the development of any society. In 1990, the United Nationâ€™s human development report focused on development and pointed out that people are the real wealth of nations. In 2010, the UN human development report reviewed the progress for the past two decades and made some conclusions that will be very helpful in the development of any nation. First and foremost, the report shows that human development is about sustaining positive outcomes steadily over time and combating processes that impoverish people or underpin oppression and structural injustice hence the principles of equity, sustainability and empowerment are important.[xiii] Secondly, the report shows that almost all countries of the world have progressed in human development measured by the human development index (life expectancy, schooling and income). Of 135 countries studied, only three-the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia and Zimbabwe- have a lower HDI in 2010 than in 1970.[xiv] Thirdly, the report shows that there is no significant correlation between economic growth and improvement in health and education. In other words, economic growth can occur without improvement in the health and education of citizens. In similar vein, there can be substantial improvement in the condition of citizens without fast growth with the right policy, innovation and citizen participation. For instance, the Indian State of Kerala, Costa Rica, Cuba and Sri Lanka attained much higher human development than other countries at their incomes. Fourthly, the report shows that institutions are a key determinant of human development. However, â€œthe policies and reforms compatible with progress vary widely across institutional settings and depend on structural and political constraints.â€[xv] In addition, the report argues that â€œmarkets are very bad at ensuring the provision of public goods, such as security, stability, health and education.â€[xvi] It therefore advocates regulation which requires a capable state as well as political commitment. Finally, the report opines that human development is not only about health, education and income-it is also about peopleâ€™s active engagement in shaping development, equity and sustainability, intrinsic aspects of the freedom people have to lead lives they have reason to value.[xvii]
- 3.Â Â Â Â Â CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA
The challenges of development in Nigeria are enormous. In recognition of the importance and enormity of development, governments especially in Africa gave a lot of prominence to development planning in the 1960s and 1970s. It has been documented that in Nigeria, right from the colonial period, development planning was viewed as a major strategy for achieving economic development and social progress, particularly, in the spheres of socio-economic infrastructures, industrialization, modernization, high rates of economic growth, poverty reduction, and significant improvements in living standards.[xviii] Three plans featured in the pre-independence era for the periods 1946-1956, 1951-1955 and 1955-1962. Over the 1962-1995 period, three major phases in the planning experience emerged, namely, the fixed medium-term planning phase (1962-1985), policy oriented planning (1986-1988), and three year rolling plan phase (1990 till date). [xix] Scholars have pointed out that the golden period of planning on the African continent, 1960s and 1970s, could not be sustained from the 1980s because of two major factors: failure of development planning to meet the high expectations of rapid growth and development; and the resurgence of liberalism and the implementation of short-term stabilization and structural adjustment programmes which are predicated on liberalization and deregulation. Meanwhile, these programmes that substituted for national development plans are counter plans which have failed to solve Africaâ€™s myriad of economic problems.[xx] This is why some scholars have referred to the 1980s and 1990s as the â€œlost development decadesâ€ for Africa.[xxi]
The National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) identified the challenges to development in Nigeria to include among other things low per capita growth; inefficient, highly volatile and unsustainable public sector spending; domestic debt; low productivity; poverty; dysfunctional educational system and weak institutions.[xxii] Similarly, the draft of NEEDS 2 identified the challenges of development to include growth without employment;Â high level of poverty; poor infrastructure; poor energy situation; abuse of human rights, gender inequality; weak institutions; capacity constraints; weak monitoring framework; weak data management culture; slow development of the private sector; poor public sector performance; ethnic and religious conflicts; desertification; import dependency etc.[xxiii]
The United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) identified the fundamental constraint to Nigeriaâ€™s development to include institutionalized mismanagement of public revenue particularly from oil; institutionalized corruption and weak formal accountability; and a combination of â€œDutch Diseaseâ€ and institutionalized rent-seeking behavior that has undermined activity in non-oil areas of the economy (particularly agriculture and manufacturing), reducing non-oil sector economic growth, fueling unemployment and exacerbating poverty and conflict. [xxiv] But according to the Economic Commission for Africa, the biggest threat to Nigeria is its structural vulnerability-problems of governance, volatile oil prices, and ethnic tensions.[xxv]
Several scholars have written on the challenges to development in Africa. One of the most profound is that by Claude Ake who posited that:
Many factors have been offered to explain the apparent failure of the development enterprise in Africa: the colonial legacy, social pluralism and centrifugal tendencies, the corruption of leaders, poor labour discipline, the lack of entrepreneurial skills, poor planning and incompetent management, inappropriate policies, the stifling of market mechanisms, low levels of technical assistance, the limited inflow of foreign capital, falling commodity prices and unfavourable terms of trade, and low levels of saving and investment. These factors are not irrelevant to the problem, alone or in combination they could be serious impediments to development. However, the assumption so readily made that there has been failure of development is misleading. The problem is not so much that development has failed as that it was never really on the agenda in the first place. By all indications, political conditions in Africa are the greatest impediment to development.[xxvi]
From the above, it is clear that over the years, various scholars, organizations and institutions have documented the challenges of development in Nigeria. [xxvii] The challenges include among other things poor leadership; bad followership; poor strategy for development; lack of capable and effective state and bureaucracy; lack of focus on sectors that will improve the condition of living of citizens such as education, health, agriculture and the building of infrastructure; corruption; undeveloped, irresponsible and parasitic private sector; weak civil society; emasculated labour and student movement and poor execution of policies and programmes. As a matter of fact, the lived experiences of many Nigerians have turned them to experts of the challenges of Development in Nigeria.
It is important to point out that various theories have been propounded to explain the challenges of development and underdevelopment of Africa. These theories include classical theories; develop mentalist theories and Marxist theories.[xxviii] The classical theories argue that underdevelopment arise from rapid population growth, lack of comparative advantage, low savings and investment and low economic growth. The developmentalist theories point out that underdevelopment arises from market failure, unbalanced growth, poor linkages and inability to reach the â€œtake offâ€ stage for development. The Marxist theories argue that underdevelopment comes from exploitation by external and internal collaborators with negative impact from colonialism, imperialism, World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the general dependence of Africa on the developed world coupled with the stagnation and incorporation of Africa into the world capitalist system.
It is necessary to analyse the Nigerian situation and apply these theories to the Nigerian situation. In our view, Nigerians must change course for the country to develop. We are of the view that what needs to be done to bring about development is known. It is clear to us that every society has the capacity to develop and people are the real wealth of a nation.[xxix]Â From past experiences, development scholars have concluded that while there are no silver bullets, some development approaches bring better outcomes. For instance, it has been proven that progress in health and education can drive success in human development. In addition, it has been shown that country factors such as policies, institutions and geography are important. Meanwhile, there is a lack of significant correlation between economic growth and improvement in health and education e.g. kerala in India, Costa Rica, Cuba and Sri Lanka attained higher human development than the countries at their income level.Â Similarly, experience has shown that markets are very bad at ensuring the provision of public goods such as security, stability, health and education and a capable, focused developmental state can help achieve development and the growth of markets. Nigerians must strive for the right kind of knowledge that can develop the country.
- 4.Â Â Â Â Â PARTNERSHIP FOR CHANGE
In the last three decades, the concept of partnership has emerged as the â€œnew big ideaâ€ in development discourses.[xxx]Â The concept of partnership is at the heart of development discourse across the world today. Most governments across the world are involved in one form of partnership or the other to bring about positive changes to their societies. For development to happen in many societies require political, economic, social and cultural changes. Partnership has been recognized as one of the approaches to make change happen. Bilateral and multilateral agencies, the World Bank, International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) and regional organizations including the African Union and the European Union, national and subnational governments across the world have all embraced the concept of partnership.
Partnership has been defined in various ways by different scholars. Partnership has been described as a collaborative relationship between entities to work toward shared objectives through a mutually agreed division of labour.[xxxi]Â It has also been described as the highest stage of working relationship between different people brought together by commitment to common objectives, bonded by long experiences of working together and sustained by subscription to common visions.[xxxii]
Development is a complex process requiring actions at both the strategic and practical levels. Partnerships are complex vehicles for the delivery of practical solutions on the ground and at the strategic level.[xxxiii]Â Partnership is characterized by cooperation or collaboration.
In the 1960s and 1970s, some scholars pointed out that poverty can be understood in terms of the non-existence of development.[xxxiv] Others argued that the act of development by some countries led to the perpetuation of underdevelopment in other countries leading to the emergence of partnership models to address the structural, political, economic, social and cultural causes of underdevelopment.
There are certain characteristics of partnership which include shared responsibility, reciprocal obligation, equality, mutuality and balance of power, accountability, joint decision making, mutual respect, trust and transparency.
The development of a â€œglobal partnership for developmentâ€ is one of the eight millennium development goals adopted at the United Nations Millennium Declaration by leaders across the world in 2000 to address the problem of poverty and promote sustainable development. The other goals are eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat AIDs, malaria and other diseases and ensure environmental sustainability.
The partnership approach to development was further endorsed by the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005), The Accra Agenda for Action (2008) and the Busan Partnership for Development Effectiveness (2011). The Paris declaration lays out a practical, action-oriented roadmap to improve the quality of aid and its impact on development. The Paris Declaration outlines the following five fundamental principles for making aid more effective:
||1. Ownership: Developing countries set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions and tackle corruption.
2. Alignment: Donor countries align behind these objectives and use local systems.
3. Harmonisation: Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures and share information to avoid duplication.
4. Results: Developing countries and donors shift focus to development results and results get measured.
5. Mutual accountability: Donors and partners are accountable for development results.
In 2008, the Accra Agenda for Action (AAA, 2008) took stock of progress and set an agenda for accelerated advancement towards the Paris targets. It proposed three main areas for improvement namely ownership, inclusive partnerships and delivering results:
- Ownership: Countries have more say over their development processes through wider participation in development policy formulation, stronger leadership on aid co-ordination and more use of country systems for aid delivery.
- Inclusive partnerships: All partners – including donors in the OECD Development Assistance Committee and developing countries, as well as other donors, foundations and civil society – participate fully.
- Delivering results: Aid is focused on real and measurable impact on development.
It also emphasized the need to build the capacity of countries to manage their own future and ensure sustainability.
In 2011, the Busan Partnership for Development Effectiveness agreed framework for development cooperation that embraces traditional donors, South South cooperation, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), CSOs and private funders. It further emphasized the principles ofÂ ownership of development priorities by developing countries, focus on results, inclusive development partnership and transparency and accountability to each other. Among other things, the actions to be taken from Busan include inclusion of new actors on the basis of shared principles and differential commitments; improving the quality and effectiveness of development cooperation; increasing ownership, results and accountability; transparent and responsible co-operation; promoting sustainable development in situations of conflict and fragility; partnering to strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability in the face of adversity; promoting the role of private sector in advancing innovation, creating wealth, income and jobs and combating corruption and illicit flows.
- 5.Â Â Â Â Â THE ROLE OF CHRISTIAN AID
International Development partners operating in Nigeria have roles to play to in overcoming the challenges to development in Nigeria. First, they will need to provide more and better aid to Nigeria. There is no doubt that aid spent well would make a lasting difference to the lives of millions of people across Nigeria who live in extreme poverty and see their basic rights â€“to education, safe water and healthcare violated daily.[xxxv]Â It has been documented that in order to make adequate progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Nigeria for instance will require additional external financing .[xxxvi] Even if the resources in the country are used effectively there will still be challenges in meeting the challenges of development. Â Meanwhile, Nigeria is seriously under aided. According to the World Bank, in 2005, Nigeria received only US $2 per capita in ODA compared to the average for Africa of US $28 per capita.[xxxvii] But according to the European Union, in 2005, Nigeria received per capita aid of about $4 compared to $35 for Malawi, $32 for Ghana and $46 for Senegal.[xxxviii]Â It is therefore necessary for development partners to increase their level of aid toNigeria. This is particularly important asNigeria hosts the third largest number of poor people in the world afterChina andIndia.
Apart from the volume of aid, there is the need to increase the quality of aid not only to Nigeriabut all over the world. It has been estimated that roughly half of global aid is â€œphantom aidâ€, that is, it is not genuinely available to poor countries to fight poverty. [xxxix] Phantom aid is aid provided by donors to meet their own priorities; spent on technical assistance from their own countries; allocated according to donor commercial and strategic priorities; tied to goods and services from the donor country; double counted as debt relief; or lost through cumbersome and poorly co-ordinated procedures and systems. Similarly, it has been estimated that at least quarter of donor budgets is spent on technical assistance, on consultants, research and training.[xl] This is despite a growing body of evidence- much of it produced by donors themselves and dating back to the 1960s- that technical assistance is often overpriced and ineffective, and in the worst cases destroys rather than builds the capacity of the poorest countries.
Finally, the approach of development partners to work in Nigeria should be such that would lead to overcoming the developmental challenges. Several studies and reports indicate that the challenges include among other things mismanagement of public revenue, institutionalized corruption, weak formal accountability, poor economic management, poverty in the midst of plenty and poor provision of services especially to the poor and excluded.[xli] Development partners have a great role to play in overcoming these challenges. However, the amount of money brought by donors to Nigeria is so small that it will have very little impact if it is to be used to provide services directly. It has been documented that:
Nigeriaâ€™s federal overall annual budget (for 2006) is about 1.9 trillion naira, which is equivalent to 11.9 billion euros or about 91 euros per capita. State and local government together receive about the same again, meaning the total budgets must sum to over 20 billion euros. All these budgets are based on a benchmark price of $35, whereas the actual price is around $70, meaning over 40 billion euros per year is available to the Nigerian government, to be spent or saved. In 2005, annual donor funding to Nigeriawas running at about $400-$500million: less than 1 percent of government revenues.[xlii]
Despite the little amount from donors compared to government revenues, as the European Union has argued, donors should not be dismissed as an important factor because their funding is insufficient.[xliii] They can advance an approach that will help to overcome the challenges to development by funding catalytic projects that would help to increase transparency and accountability, empowerment of citizens to hold public officials accountable and building of structures and institutions that are sound, effective, professional and culturally valid.[xliv]
Christian Aid Nigeria has produced a strategy to guide its operations from 2012-2017.Â The Strategy is anchored on Partnership for Change. The strategy recognizes that â€œmost of Nigeriaâ€™s wealth is held by tiny economic and political elite, while power lies within both formal institutions and the informal structures of familial and ethno-religious patronage.â€ (p.5). It also points out that â€œthe misuse of oil revenue, widespread corruption and other questionable practices have stifled development in Nigeria.â€ (p.5). It underscores the fact that â€œrapid growth over the past decade has been matched with increasing inequality and poverty.â€ (p.5).
It is important to note that Christian Aid has been working in Nigeria since 2003. It has touched lives of over one million people through its Strengthening Community Health and HIV programme; provided education to on malaria prevention and distributed 930,000 bed nets to more than 475,000 households; provided support to over 15, 000 Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) and caregivers and built the capacity of several citizens and organisations to claim their rights and hold government accountable. Over the past decade, Christian Aid has built a â€œreputation in Nigeria as an organization which respects its local partners, delivers quality and cost effective programmes and is willing to learn from, and share its learning with others.â€ (p.6).
ChristianAid believes in the partnership approach and Christian Aid Nigeria strategy for 2012-2017 is titled Partnership for Change. It is anchored on a theory of change to build a movement for change to challenge and change the system and structures that perpetuate poverty, inequality and injustice. It will implement several strategies including gender analysis and gender sensitive programming; empowerment of poor people (especially women and girls) to engage meaningfully in their own development; strengthening civil society to act as counterweight to government and private sector and power analysis, policy analysis, advocacy, campaigns and communications.Â It is expected that implementation of the strategy will lead to the desired change and we will have â€œa just, equitable, and peaceful Nigerian society, in which poverty has been eradicated and every person is empowered to live life in all its fullness.â€ (p.7)
In our view, the Christian Aid Nigeria strategy is timely and relevant. The approach is well thought out and grounded on Nigerian political economy and experience, and will contribute to overcoming the challenges of development in Nigeria.
Let me end this keynote address by congratulating the management, staff and partners of Christian Aid Nigeria for this very important, relevant and timely strategy. But I must point out that as Ralph Stayer counseled, leaders can design wonderful strategies, but the success of the organisation resides in the execution of those strategies. I challenge the management and staff of Christian Aid to ensure that there is a well thought out implementation plan and the right kind of staff and partners to implement this strategy. We look forward to celebrating the achievements of this strategy in 2017.
- 6.Â Â Â Â Â CONCLUSION
The challenges include among other things poor leadership; bad followership; poor strategy for development; lack of capable and effective state and bureaucracy; lack of focus on sectors that will improve the condition of living of citizens such as education, health, agriculture and the building of infrastructure; corruption; undeveloped, irresponsible and parasitic private sector; weak civil society; emasculated labour and student movement and poor execution of policies and programmes. Development partners can contribute to overcoming the challenges to development in Nigeria and accelerate the development process by supporting catalytic programmes that will bring about the required change. It is important that development partners do not engage in much of direct provision of services but catalyzing the change process.
The Christian Aid Strategy titled Partnership for Change is well thought out and grounded on the political economy and experiences of Nigeria. It is very relevant and timely. If well implemented, the strategy will contribute immensely to the development of Nigeria.
[i] Kambhmpati, U. S. ( ), Development and the Developing World.Uk, Polity Press
[ii] Sen, A. (2008), Development as Freedom.Oxford,OxfordUniversity Press.
[iii] UNDP (2010), The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. New York, United Nations Development Programme
[iv] Utomi, P. (2006), Why Nations are Poor.Lagos, Centre for Applied Economics,LagosBusinessSchool.
[v]Kambhampati, U. S.(2004), Development and Developing World. Uk, Polity Press.
[vi] Cowen M. P. and Shenton, R. W. (1996), Doctrines of Development.London, Routledge
[vii] Igbuzor, O (2005), Perspectives on Democracy and Development. Lagos, Joe-Tolalu & Associates.
[viii] United Nations Development Report (UNDP) (2003), Millennium Development Goals: A Compact among Nations to end Human Poverty. Oxford University Press.
[ix] Shetty, Salil (2005), Millennium Declaration and Development Goals: Opportunities for Human Rights in International Journal on Human Rights, Year 2, Number 2.
[x] Chambers, R. (2005), Ideas for Development.London, Institute for Development Studies.
[xi] Sen, A. (2008), Op cit
[xviii] Obadan, M. I. (2003), National Development Planning and Budgeting in Nigeria: Some Pertinent Issues. Lagos, Broadway Press Limited.
[xxi] Cheru, F. (2002), African Renaissance: Roadmaps to the Challenge of Globalisation. London, Zed Books.
[xxii]Â National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) (2004). Abuja, National Planning Commission.
[xxiii] National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy- 2 (NEEDS-2) (2007). Abuja, National Planning Commission.
[xxiv] Heymens, C and Pycroft, C. (2004), Summary Report of Drivers of Change, DfID Unpublished report. Cited in World Bank (2005), World Bank Group Strategy for the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Partnership with the Department for International Development (UK) (2005-2009).
[xxv] Economic Commission for Africa (2002), Economic Report on Africa 2002: Tracking Performance and Progress. Addis Ababa, Economic Commission for Africa.
[xxvi] Ake, C. (2001), Democracy and Development in Africa. Ibadan, Spectrum Books Ltd
[xxvii] Igbuzor, O (2009), Challenges of Development in Nigeria. Lagos, Robitos Alliance Publishers Ltd; National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS)(2004). Abuja, National Planning Commission and Nigeria Vision 20:2020 Economic Transformation Blueprint. Abuja, National Planning Commission.
[xxviii] Cypher, J. M. and Dietz, J. L. ( 1997), The Process of Economic Development. London, Routledge.
[xxix] UNDP Human Development Report, 1990
[xxx] Kayizzi-Mugerwa, S. (1998), Africa and the donor community: from conditionality to partnership, Journal of International Development, 12, pp 219-225
[xxxi] World Bank, Partnership Group, Strategy and Resource Management, Partnership for Development: Proposed Actions for the World Bank. Discussion Paper, May 20, 1998. P.5
[xxxii] Mohiddin, A (1998), Partnership: A new buzz word or realistic relationship? Development 41 (4) pp 5-12
[xxxiii] World Bank Partnership Group Op. cit
[xxxv] ActionAid International (2006), Real Aid 2: Making Technical Assistance Work
[xxxvi] Country Partnership Strategy (2005). World Bank Group Strategy for theFederalRepublic ofNigeria in Partnership with theÂ Department for International Development (UK)
[xxxvii] Country Partnership Strategy (2005) Ibid .
[xxxviii] European Union (2006), Nigeria CSP Issues paper
[xxxix] ActionAid International (2006), Real Aid 2 Op. Cit
[xl] ActionAid International (2006) Ibid
[xli] Country Partnership Strategy (2005), Op. Cit ; National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) (2004) and ActionAid InternationalNigeria (2004), Country Strategy Paper (CSP): Fighting Poverty in the Midst of Plenty.
[xlii] European Union (2006) Op Cit
[xliv] Igbuzor, O. (2005), Op Cit