THE NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT (NEPAD), AFRICAN PEER REVIEW

MECHANISM (APRM), AND THE CHALLENGES OF GOOD GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA.

Obi Emeka Anthony Ph.D.***

Introduction

The reality of the opportunities and challenges of an increasing globalised world, have
intensified the quest by states to move towards integrating their economies with those of
their neighbours, in order to create larger and more competitive regional economic blocs, that
would help them operate more as regional players.

The formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 can be seen as a clear
recognition by African leaders of the importance of regional or more correctly, African
cooperation. Though the OAU was not seen as being highly successful in terms of achieving its
set objectives, this did not deter African countries from forming more regional groupings. Thus,
today Africa has 14 regional integration groupings with two or more in almost all sub regions
(ECA 2005).

Arising from the failure of the OAU to achieve its aims which Arora (1984) attributes to
internal political rivalries, ideological differences and conflicting ties with major powers, African
leaders via the “Sirte Declaration” changed the organization to the African Union in 2002. In
(furtherance of the core objectives of the AU, two novel programmes were introduced. These
are the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) and African Peer Review Mechanism
(APRM).

Despite the high optimism that greeted the birth of the AU and its organs, there seem
not to be much difference. Africa still remains the poorest continent in the world today. Hunger,
poverty, diseases, wars and generally poor human living conditions are still prevalent in the
continent.

This study looks at the performance of both NEPAD and APRM with a view to evaluating
their impact on good governance. The study is divided into five sections including the
introduction. The second section is the theoretical framework which reviews the integration
theory on which the study is anchored and which is also the core issue in international
organizations. The third section will offer a review of both NEPAD and APRM. The fourth will
review the challenges and options facing the APRM while the fifth is the conclusion.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.

Integration Theory

International integration refers to the process by which supernatural institutions replace

national ones-the gradual shifting upward of sovereignty from state to regional or global
1
structures. The ultimate expression of this is the merger of many states into a single state or
ultimately into a single world government (Goldstein, 2003, p.379). It is further seen by Haas
(1958) as the “process whereby political actors in several distinct national settings are
persuaded to shift loyalties, expectations and political activities toward a new centre, whose
institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre-existing national states.”(p.16). The
integration theory is seen as having originated from functionalism. Functionalism according to
Diego (2006, p.3) is a theory of international relations that arose principally from the experience
of the second World War and a strong concern about the obsolescence of the state as a form of
social organization. Functionalists instead of agreeing with the realist view of self interest of
nation states as a motivating factor, rather focus on common interests and the needs shared by
states and non-state actors in a process of global integration, triggered by the erosion of state
sovereignty and the increasing weight of knowledge and hence of scientists and experts in the
process of policy making. In the functionalism theory, international integration, the collective
governance and interdependence between states develop its own internal dynamics as states
integrate in limited functional, technical and or economic areas. The functional theory was later
modified by scholars to be able to explain developments in Europe. This is referred to as neo
functionalism.

Neo functionalism argues that economic integration (functionalism) generates a political

dynamic that drives integration further. Close economic ties require more political coordination
in order to operate effectively and eventually lead to political integration as well- a process
called spill over (Goldstein 2003, p.380). Sinnot (1993) believes the theory of integration has
gone through three phases. These are Trans nationalism and neo functionalism, a second short-
lived phase characterized by an intense revisionism in the late 1960s and early 1970's and the
third contemporary phase or revival. In the first phase, sense of community was an essential
element, thus explaining why integration was defined as a matter of mutual consideration of
partial identification in terms of semi-images and interests, of mutually successful predictions of
behaviours and of cooperative actions in accordance with it(Deutsch et al; 1957, p.36). The
twelve conditions that were seen as essential to the process of integration include: mutual
compatibility of main values; a distinctive way of life; we values, institutions and habits of action
that mark the area off from major neighbours, unbroken links of social communication both
across territories and across strata; broadening of political elite, both in regard to recruitment
from wider strata and in regard to connections between strata, mobility of persons and a
multiplicity of ranges of communication and transition; and mutual predictability of behaviour
(Sinnot 1993.p.3).

The neo functionalists on their own restricted the main motives for integration to
integrationist elites, without according much weight or importance to public opinion. This led to
the second phase which was revisionist, where a lot of importance was accorded public opinion
in the process of integration, which (Sinnot, 1993) believes:

the key concept in this regard and one of particular contemporary relevance is
politicization” which involves “a broadening of the arena of participants, in which
political legitimizing decision-makers and broad political opinion became more heavily

2
 involved as integration decisions make heavier incursions upon national sovereignty and
the identitive functions of the states”(p.4).

The third phase which is quite recent involves different strands but also incorporates a
core concern for public opinion especially in this era of Democratization all over the world.

Regional Integration in Africa

Regional integration arrangement is a preferential (usually reciprocal) agreement among

countries that reduces barriers to economic and non economic transactions (Economic
Commission For Africa {ECA}, 2004 p. 9). At present, there are different types of regional
integration arrangements in the world . The ECA (2004) has listed six different forms that exist
today. They are:-

1. Preferential trade area- an arrangement in which members apply lower tariffs to imports
produced by other members than to imports produced by non members. Members can
determine tariffs on imports from non members.

2. Free trade area- a preferential trade area with no tariffs on imports from other
members. As in preferential trade areas, members can determine tariffs on imports from non
members.

3. Customs union- a free trade area in which members impose common tariffs on non
members. Members may also cede sovereignty to a single customs administration.

4. Common markets- a custom union that allows free movement of the factors of
production (such as capital and labour) across national borders within the integration area.

5. Economic union- a common market with unified monetary and fiscal policies, including a
common currency.

6. Political union- the ultimate stage of integration, in which members become one nation.
National governments cede sovereignty over economic and social policies to a supranational
authority, establishing common institutions and judicial and legislative processes-including a
common parliament. From the above, it is obvious that these different forms also pursue
different objectives, thus, it is those objectives that define the membership as states join groups
they believe have objectives that help them pursue their national interests.

The importance of these arrangements is clearly made manifest by the fact that “for all
the far reaching economic cooperative efforts at the global level, the degree of activity and
economic cooperation and integration at the regional level is even more advanced”. (El-Agrna
1999,as quoted in Rourke & Boyer 2003, p. 355). Though the activities of regional organizations
are diverse, while some are not even seen as performing very tangible functions, yet the very
existence of each organization represents the conviction of its members that compared to
standing alone, they can achieve greater economic prosperity by working together through
economic or even economic integration (Rourke & Boyer 2003, p. 356).

3
Benefits of Regional Integration

There are many benefits that can accrue to countries when they belong to regional
bodies. The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA,2004), has outlined some of these benefits
and they include:-

a. Regional integration can combine markets enabling firms to expand and markets to be
more competitive.

b. Regional integration arrangements can increase investment.

c. Regional integration can enhance the credibility and ensure the continuity of economic
and political reforms.

d. Regular political contact among members can build trust and facilitate cooperation,
including on security.

E. As a part of integration, countries are often required to update and improve their
legislative and regulatory frameworks.

NEPAD

The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), is a product of the merger of
plans developed for the economic development of Africa. The plans were; the Millennium
Partnership for the Africa Recovery Programme (MAP), which was championed by former
Presidents, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria and Abdelazz of
Algeria; and the OMEGA plan for Africa, which was developed by President Abduolaye Wade of
Senegal. At the OAU Summit in Sirte Libya in march 2001, where African Leaders established the
African Union (AU) to replace the OAU via the “Sirte Declaration”, they also agreed to merge
both plans.

However, before this time, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)
has developed a 'Compact for Africa's Recovery’ based on both plans and on resolutions on
Africa adopted at the United Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000. This was
submitted to the conference of African Ministers of Finance and Ministers of Development and
Planning in Algiers in May 2001 (Wikkipedia). It was this document that the OAU Assembly of
Heads of State and Government meeting in Lusaka in July 2001 adopted with the name of New
Africa Initiative (NAI). The G8 Leaders and other international development partners endorsed
the plan before the Heads of State and Government Implementation Committee (HSGIC) for the
project, renamed it the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) on 23 october 2001.
The AU ratified it in 2002.

The four primary objectives of NEPAD are: to reduce poverty, put Africa on a sustainable
development path, halt the marginalization of Africa and the empowerment of women. The
governance structures of NEPAD are

(1) The Assembly of the African Union (AU).

4
(2) The NEPAD Heads of State and Government Orientation Committee (HSGOC) and

(3) The NEPAD Steering Committee (SC).

Its secretariat is located at Midrand South Africa. In order to function effectively, NEPAD
has transformed its secretariat into an implementation agency known as the NEPAD agency, as a
result of its integration into the structures and processes of the AU due to the AU assembly’s
decision of the February 2010 14thAUsummit in Addis Ababa (http://www.nepad.org/npca).

The agency's focus are on the following areas

a) Agriculture and food security;

b) Climate change and natural resource management;

c) Regional integration and infrastructure;

d) Human Development;

e) Economic and corporate governance; and

f) Cross cutting issues of gender and capacity development.

In terms of finance, the agency is funded through the statutory budgets of Africa Union
Commission (AUC) voluntary contributions from member states, and additional budgetary
support from development partners and the private sector (http://www.nepad.org/npca).

AFRICAN PEER REVIEW MECHANISM APRM

The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), is a product of the African Union (AU)
Durban summit. It was at this summit that AU supplemented NEPAD with a Declaration on
Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance. It was subsequently established in
2003.

The objectives of the APRM are to:

Foster the adoption of policies, standards and practices that lead to political stability,
high economic growth, sustainable development and accelerated subregional and
economic integration through experience sharing and reinforcement of successful and
best practices including identifying deficiencies and assessment for capacity building.
(Http://aprm-av.org/about.aprm).

In terms of structure, APRM has the following bodies:

1. African Peer Review Forum---This is a committee of all participating member state’s

Heads of States and Government and is the APRM’s highest decision making organ.

2. APRM Panel of Eminent Persons---This is a panel of appointed eminent persons who

have the responsibility of ensuring that the mechanism’s independence, professionalism and

5
credibility. The appointed members serve for a term of four years, while the Chairperson is
appointed for a five year tenure.

3. APRM Secretariat---This is the administrative organ of the body which provides technical,
coordinating and administrative support services to the APRM.

According to the NEPAD document, the APRM process:

Can be seen as a voluntary governance section monitoring mechanism embedded in

NEPAD. The APRM is a mutually agreed programme voluntarily adopted by the member
states of the African Union to promote and re-enforce high standards of governance.
The peer review mechanism is a self monitoring mechanism. The APRM's core mandate
is to ensure that the policies and practices of participating countries confirm to the
agreed values in the four following focus areas: democracy and political governance,
economic governance, corporate governance and socio-economic development (NEPAD
2015).

Peer review according to Matholo (2003), is a systematic examination and assessment of

the performance of a state by other states (peers), by designated institutions or by a
combination of states and designated institutions. Its goal is ultimately to help the reviewed
state improve its policy making capacities, adopt best practices and comply with established
standards and principles.

The APRM process identifies four types of reviews:

1. The base review which will be carried out within eighteen months of a country becoming
a member of the APRM process.

2. A periodic review will take place every two to four years.

3. A member country can for its own reason ask for a review that is not part of the
periodically mandated reviews.

4. Early signs of impending political or economic crisis in a member country would also be
sufficient cause for instituting a review.

After ten years of its implementation, it has recorded some successes and still faces
numerous challenges.

On the positive side, the South Africa Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) report
believes that:

“The process has carved open political space, engendered national dialogue on
governance and fostered peer learning at many levels. It has highlighted common cross-
cutting issues-such as land use, electoral processes and managing diversity-that affect
all African countries to one degree or another. Reports have diagnosed impending
crises, even if their warnings went unheeded. Heads of state, citizens and development

6
 partners have sustained their interest in this innovative process and progress has been
encouraging.

On the other hand, the same report has noted that:

Yet the system faces significant challenges and mixed prospects. The APRM is not
unique among African institutions 'finding their way'. The process needs to be less
cumbersome for would-be-participants. Some of its procedures and rules have become
archaic and must be revised. A complex multi-stage, multi-actor process like the APRM
needs significant funding to operate. There must be more thought and systematic
planning around designing, implementing, reporting on and monitoring the NPOAs, as
well as how they relate to national development plans, poverty reduction strategies and
national budgets. Action programmes need to reflect Africa's priorities and agendas. It is
imperative for the mechanism as a whole to demonstrate clearly the value that it adds
and what has changed because of it. It needs to celebrate its success stories. Much
depends on the quality of leadership to consolidate these early gains and drive the
process into its next phases. A system promoting governance, accountability and
transparency must be exemplary in demonstrating these values in its actions.
Perceptions matter. And there is a need to share the remarkable lessons that this unique
exercise has generated, if the system is to continue to grow, learn and change.

THE CHALLENGES AND OPTIONS FACING APRM

In it’s more than one decade of existence, the APRM has faced and is still facing many
challenges. These include: the voluntary nature of its accession to membership, political
commitment, role of civil society, evaluation parameters, funding, implementation of the
NPOAs, monitoring & evaluation, ownership of NEPAD/APRM, and lack of sanctions for non
implementation among others.

THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF ACCESSION IN APRM.

The APRM is a governance self monitoring system within the framework of NEPAD which
is the economic blue print of the AU. As an initiative that promises to help put Africa on the
path of development after many decades of stagnation, all African nations are supposed to take
NEPAD and its organs seriously. APRM was a product of the realization that no serious
development can take place in Africa without good governance. Unfortunately, because of the
voluntary nature of its membership, many AU members have refused to join APRM. The AU has
54 members but only 33 are part of the APRM, leaving out 21 countries. This means that about
40% of AU members are not involved in APRM. This number is too high to be ignored because
assuming that the APRM mechanism is able to drive good governance in 33 states involved,
while the other 21 states are left behind, Africa cannot be said to be doing well. There is
therefore the urgent need to review the voluntary nature of the APRM in such a way that all AU
members who jointly own NEPAD should also be part of the APRM to make it have a pure
continental and not selective reach.

7
POLITICAL COMMITMENT

To be able to achieve its goal, there is need for African leaders to be committed to the
pursuit of these goals. Unfortunately “demonstrable political will and commitment at the
highest level of government constitutes a major challenge to the APRM implementation
process” (Asante 2009,p.1) .”Thus, the leadership must first affirm its belief in the vision and
strategic import of the APRM process in fostering good governance, and must also subscribe to
the APRM shared ideas and values of an accountable, participatory and transparent pan- African
Vision”(p.1). Without this vision and commitment, the APRM may like other integration efforts
in Africa remain a pipe dream or at best record minimal success.

FUNDING

The problem of funding is one that can be seen from three stand points, in the first place
the different countries need to adequately fund the focal point/governing council or
commission as to equip them well to handle the implementation process very well. However for
many APRM members, resource constraints have not made this very possible. Secondly,
resources are also needed to ensure that the mandates of the APRM are properly funded in
order to achieve results; a situation where members rely on donors to fund the programme is
not good enough because it creates the problem of ownership, which is the a serious issue. If
Africans claim that they own the APRM, they should also show that by funding it. When it is
externally funded, it creates the problem of donor conditionality and imposed evaluation
parameters. There is therefore the need for member countries to accept the challenge of
funding the APRM process so as to be able to claim ownership. Though this is difficult in the
light of scarce resources but it is not impossible if the will is there.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NPOAs

The APRM ends with the publication of the Country Review Report. This report identifies
areas of weaknesses with which the reviewed country is supposed to address through the
National Programme of Action (NPOA). This poses two sets of challenges. These are to ensure
that (a) the NPOA implementation is carried out without creating parallel government
programmes (b) in the spirit of local ownership; the NPOA should be managed and led by the
African countries themselves. The second set of challenges have to do with (a) costing of the
NPOA which can be difficult especially for activities that span over a considerable period of time
and therefore would require national capacities to plan and budget for NPOA activities; (b)
integration of the NPOA with the existing national processes and plans such as the PRSP to
produce one simple national development document; and (c) dividing the NPOA, through the
work or technical teams into short, medium and long-term phases to facilitate ease of
implementation (Asante 2009). What the above just requires is that the APRM implementation
should be integrated into the development plans of members, while the capacity of governing
councils or commissions should be boasted to a level that they can handle challenges arising
from handling the NPOA.

According to Corrigan (2015), the APRM process has found it easier to examine the
problems that countries face than to come up with actionable solutions. He also believes that

8
two important factors hamper analysis of the APRM process. First is an apparent reluctance to
explore political influence that can dictate success or failure, raising a difficult question: who
gains and loses from development options. Second, an absence of precise information, leading
to important phenomena not being taken into account. The reports of six countries: Ghana,
Rwanda, Kenya, South African, Nigeria and Benin indicate that problems of unemployment,
access to land, weak educational systems, gender discrimination, and poor health care systems
and external dependency (over reliance on donors). He concludes that extensive hurdles to
development in Africa remain visible offshoots of unstable economies, the existence of a
survivalist mentality, cultural and traditional practices, absence of skills, corruption and a lack of
political will.

EVALUATION PARAMETERS

Despite APRM's glowing report about improvement on democracy, the third edition of
African Governance Report (AGR 111) (2014) a joint report of the Economic Commission for
Africa (ECA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Insists that as elections
become more regular in Africa so has intolerance of diversity. According to the report:

Elections have become combustive tools in the electoral process in some African
countries with debilitating consequences for the management of diversity in Africa, as the
mobilization of sectarian identity, regional, gender and religious forces are undertaken
especially at election periods to win votes (ECA 2014) .

The ECA Southern Africa office Director, Said Adejumobi, observed at the launch of the
report that elections:

Rather than bring us together, be an exercise in fun fare and create social harmony and
cohesion; elections largely splinter us apart, create divisions and antagonisms, polarize society,
exacerbate our differences and generate conflicts (ECA 2014).

The above goes to show the problem with evaluation parameters, because while
periodic elections that appear free and fair may be seen as an indicator that democracy is
deepening in the continent, the country involved may be getting more divided with inflamed
ethnic passions and antagonisms. The last 2015 general elections in Nigeria is a very good
example. Thus, while the elections were hailed as being free and fair, it became clear that
religion and ethnicity more than any other factor played the leading role in determining the
outcome. Nigeria is therefore much more divided today than it has ever being in the preceding
period. Though our democracy is seen to be deepening, through successful periodic elections,
the last elections “largely splinter us apart, create divisions and antagonisms, polarize society,
exacerbate our differences and generate conflicts”.

THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS (CSOs) IN THE APRM

The role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in the APRM is very well recognized. This is
because:

9
 In most African countries, populations lack access to information regarding key public
processes, institutions and decision making which hamper their ability to interact with
or act on strategic development initiatives. Civil society as an intermediary comes in to
occupy the space between the citizen and the state, providing much needed agency and
promoting social accountability (ECA 2013).

Thus, Article 22 of the APRM memorandum of understanding mandates member states

to ensure the participation of all stakeholders in the development of NPOA, including trade
unions, women, youth, private sector, civil society, rural communities and professional
associations.

However, despite this recognized role of CSOs in APRM, they have been facing many
challenges. First, in some African countries, the CSOs do not have an independent hand in
nominating representatives to APRM structures, thus leading to the government appointing the
ones that are malleable. Secondly, in many African countries, the law regulates the character of
civil society and imposes conditions for their recognition, registration and operation. The
government uses this to filter out radical associations that are critical of its activities which may
also represent the masses most. In the end, it's only these legally registered associations that
represent civil societies in the APRM. Thirdly, there is the problem of capacity constraints. The
NPOA processes are very demanding, since it requires technical, financial and human resources
which many CSOs in Africa do not have. This poses a serious challenge to their participation in
the process.

These challenges could be addressed by APRM insisting on an independent nominating

process where the government is not involved thereby allowing the CSOs to nominate their
preferred representatives to APRM structures. Also, since the civil society occupies the space
between the state and the citizen, it is not right that government should determine through
stringent registration conditions those that should be allowed to operate. Since the core
concern of the APRM is the enthronement of good governance and this cannot be possible
without civil society, one of the conditions for member countries should be the existence of an
unfettered civil society. For the CSOs themselves, there is need for capacity building and linkage
programmes with others in more developed countries in other to get themselves equipped for
the onerous task involved in the APRM process.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

To be able to conduct objective assessment of countries, there must be reliable data on

the different dimensions that are being assessed. However, as Asante (2001) has noted “many
APRM countries suffer from poor statistical information and inadequate personnel to interpret
raw data”. For a country like Nigeria where census figures are highly disputed, leading to the
country not having any acceptable census since independence in 1960, it is almost impossible to
come up with any accurate data in any measured dimension. For instance, the country's
population is put at between150 to 170 million people. Even if this range is accepted, there is
serious disagreement about their spatial distribution in the country. Thus, measuring
dimensions like poverty or literacy in Nigeria is not very easy. The starting point for any genuine

10
assessment would be having accurate data that the assessment team would rely on. When this
is not available then, the outcome of the assessment cannot truly be said to be reliable. It is
therefore apt to believe that 'institutional capacity building at the level of data processing is
thus considered to be an important element towards the improvement of the APRM process”
(Asante 2009), while countries like Nigeria without an acceptable census can be assisted by the
African Union in this regard.

THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS

One contentious aspect of the APRM is the issue of sanctions for non-compliance. The
APRM has none. It only relies on peer pressure on each other during the process.

The participating countries of the APRM believe that peer pressure exercised on each
other during the process will be enough to elicit compliance from members; because there is
neither legally binding sanctions nor enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance. While this
may prove effective, Mathoho (2003,) insist that there is still skepticism about how far African
leaders are prepared to put pressure on their peers; as the number of states that are reluctant
to participate in the APRM testifies to this. There is therefore an urgent need to put in place
some form of incentives for participation that can encourage compliance and at the same time
deter non-compliance.

REFERENCES

Amin, S. (1971). Neo-colonialism in West Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Ake, C. (2001). Democracy and development in Africa. Ibadan; Spectrum Books Ltd.

Ake, C.(1996). Is Africa democratizing? CASS Monograph No. 5. Lagos: Malthouse Press
Ltd.

Ake, C.(1981). Political economy of Africa. England: Longman Group Ltd.

Arora, P. (1964). The great debate: Theories of nuclear strategy. New York: Dout!e Day and
Company.

Deng, F. (1998). The challenges of leadership in African development Ota. Nigeria: ALF

Deutsch, K.W. (1957). Political community and the North Atlantic area. New York. Green wood

Diego, C. G. (2006). International integration theories. ITEM-SAL August

Economic Commission for Africa. (2004). Assessing regional integration in Africa.

Addis Ababa: ECA

11
Frank, G, (1969) Latin America: Underdevelopment or revolution. New York: Monthly Review
Press.

Goldstein, G. S.(2003). International relations. New Delhi: Pearson Education.

Haas, E.B. (1958). The uniting of Europe. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ihonvbere, J. (2003). The Nigerian state as obstacle to federalism: Towards a new constitutional
compact for democratic politics. In Gana, A. T. and Egwu, S. G. (Eds), Federalism in Africa
(pp.187-212). Asmara Eritrea: Africa world press Inc.

Mayaki, I. (2012) NEPAD: 10 years and counting. New African Magazine Accessed June 11
2013, in http://www new africanm- agazine. Com /feature5 /economics/nepad-10-years-and
counting.

Mbeki, M. (2005). Underdevelopment in sub-saharan Africa: The role of the private sector and
political elites. Accessed May 10 2013,in http.///www.cato.org/publications

Obi, E. A. (2005). Reconstructing the meaning and tenets of development in E. A. Obi, A. M.

Okoli and O. S. Obikeze, (Eds.). State and Economy. Onitsha: Bookpoint Ltd.

Obi, E, A. (2005). Political economy of Nigeria. Onitsha: Bookpoint Education Ltd.

Obi, E.A., Ozor, C.O. & Nwokoye, A.N. (2012). International Organizations and institutions.
Onitsha: Bookpoint Educational Ltd.

Okigbo, P. N. C. (1993). Essays and national philosophy of underdevelopment (Vol 4)

Enugu: Forth Dimension Publishers

Okowa, W.T (1997). Oil, systemic corruption, abuldstic capitalism and Nigerian development
policy. Portharcourt: Paragraphics

Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe underdeveloped Africa. London: Bogle Onyeture

Rourke, J. T. & Boyer, M. A. (2003). International relations on the world stage. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Sinnot, R. (1993a) Theory and the internationalization of governance: Bringing public opinion
back. Paper prepared for the final plenary Http:/www.nepad.org/economic and
corporate governance/African-peer-review- mechanism/about.

SIIA Round table: The African peer review mechanism- progress and prospects. Occassional
Paper Mo 59 Governance and APRM programme April 2010.

Socio-economic problems facing Africa: insights from six APRM country review reports Torence
Crrigan. PRM-Org/blog/soci-economic-problems-facing-africa-insights-from-six-aprm-country-
review reports. (Http://aprm-av.org/about.aprm).

12
***Obi, E.A. (2017). The new partnership for African development (NEPAD), African peer review
mechanism and the challenges of good governance in Africa .In E.A. Obi, A.M.
Okolie, & S.O. Obikeze (Eds). State and economy: Interrogating the role of
the state in the development process( 2nd ed). Onitsha: Bookpoint Ltd.

13