CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background to the Study

As evident from studies (Abioro, 2018; Ake, 2008; Agagu, 2007, Ihonvbere, 1989),the contact

African nations had and probably still keep with the western imperialism, not onlydistorted and

disarticulated the economy, it ensured its continued underdevelopment. On anational scale thus,

after the battle for self-governance that lasted between 1914 when theamalgamation of the north

and south protectorates took place, and the October 1960 when thestatus of political

independence was declared (note also is the fact that it took the nation another three years to

attain the republican status). Until till the present day (2022), the nationstill battle with not only

economic development issues but also governance relatedchallenges.

Radical scholars consistently blame the persistent economic challenges in Nigeria on the

structural deficiencies created as a result of thecountry’s colonial experiences (Ekpebu, 2020). In

short, they claim, and rightly so, that colonialismwas a system designed not only to exploit, but

also meant to keepAfrican countries, indeed, Nigeria in permanent vulnerable position of

underdevelopment. Ekpebu(2020) therefore castigated the colonial powers for their loot of

Africa’s abundant resources and strongly recommends restitutionfor the inestimable destruction

that colonialism had brought uponthe Africans over a period of 350 years (Igwe, 2019).

Despite the options of suicide or survival that confronts nations’ politically and economically,

especially in countries with history of forceful amalgamation like Nigeria, thenation has posed to

be the proverbial cat with more than nine lives. Having survived the firstmilitary coup of January

15, 1966 and the counter coup of July in the same year, itexperienced the civil war which

ravaged the land for over 30 months from 1967 to 1970. Italso witnessed the gruesome

1
assassination of the head of state in 1975, followed by anothermilitary takeover of 1983 that

truncated the second republic experience, several attempts athanding over power to civilian

regime in a moribund third republic that witnessed theannulment of June 12, 1993 presidential

elections and the eventual handover to civilian headof state in 1999, the nation has shown

commitment to staying together as a united people aswell as collective determination to fight

through to reach a developed nation status(Kolawole, 2007; Fawole, 2001).

Nigeria which is currently in the Fourth Republic has witnessed about 27 years ofcivilian rule

and 29 years of military regimes respectively. The factthat the current state of the economic

development in Nigeria has been driven by both typesof governments is well documented in the

theoretical literature.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Over the past five decades, Nigeria has been governed by both democratic and non-democratic

governments. The Nigerian military’s incursioninto politics in the country had been premised on

the failure of previousdemocratic governments to initiate, foster and sustain development

programs that could have brought about social and economic development.

However, the military regimes that had ruled the Nigerian state for about 30 out of its over 50

years as independent nation-state has also failed, on the most part, to establish the much expected

social and economic development. Economic development; in terms of improvement in the

living standards of the citizenry, is perhaps the basic expectation and reward for the citizens in

the social contract agreement between the governors and the governed. What, then, has been the

impact of governance on politics and economics in Nigeria from 1960 to the present?

Understanding the impact of governance on the Nigerian economy will provide real insight into

2
the gap which exists between the huge available national resources and the quest for

development in Nigeria.

Economists agree that governance is one of the critical factors explaining the divergence in

performanceacross developing countries. The differences of view between economists regarding

governance are to do first,with the types of state capacities that constitute the critical governance

capacities necessary for the accelerationof development and secondly, with the importance of

governance relative to other factors at early stagesof development. Consequently, since 2011-

2019, two different administrations have emerged in Nigeria (Goodluck Jonathan and

MuhammaduBuhari). Each of these administrations has exhibited and formulated governance

styles. According to Abioro (2018), the administration of Goodluck Jonathan witnessed some

governance improvements especially in the areas of enthronement of democratic ethos in the

country, economic improvement especially in the capital market, upstream and downstream

sector of the crude market, among others. Sadly, Musa (2017) argues that Goodluck’s

administration made some governance blunders which inturn affected the economic especially in

the areas of security (kidnapping, corruption, etc.). On the other hand, since 2015 when the

MuhammaduBuhari’s administration took over the helms of affairs in Nigeria, several arguments

have been made on this administration. Among them is Ibrahim (2021) who assert that “with the

vigour, expectations and promises of the incumbent government in 2015, one expect that Buhari

will change the narration of governance”. Hypothetically, Ibrahim (2021) and Asiegbu (2019)

contend that the Buhari’s government has been characterised as one without any clue of

governance. Its implication have been felt on the harsh economic reality, unabated killings, high

crime rate, etc which have spread across the country.

3
On this premise of arguments above, this study is saddled with the responsibility of

understanding the relationship between governance and economic development and by extension

engages on a comparative study of Goodluck Jonathan and MuhammaduBuhari in lieu of their

governance style and its impact on economic development in Nigeria.

1.3. Research Questions

The major questions that will guide this study include:

1. Istherea relationship between governance and economic development in Nigeria?

2. Did the Jonathan’s administration enthroned governance and facilitated economic

development in Nigeria?

3. Has the Buhari’s administration reflectedindices of governance and economic

development in Nigeria?

1.4. Objectives of the Study

This study has both specific and broad objectives. The broad objective of this study is to examine

governance and economic development in Nigeria; a comparative analysis of the Jonathan and

Buhari administrations.

On the other hand, the specific objectives are to;

1. Examine the relationship between governance and economic development in Nigeria.

2. Evaluate ways did the Jonathan’s administration enthroned governance and facilitated

economic development in Nigeria.

3. Interrogate if there areindices or reflection of governance and economic development

underBuhari’s administration.

1.5. Basic Assumptions

1. That there is a relationship between governance and economic development in Nigeria.

4
 2. That in several ways Jonathan’s administration enthroned governance and facilitated

economic development in Nigeria.

3. That there are indices or reflection of governance and economic developments under

Buhari’s administration.

1.6. Justification of the Study

The justification of any research study to human endeavor is measured by its relevance to

solving human problems. The outcome of this study is expected to be beneficial to policy maker

to make the government to focus and invest on youth empowerment in order to promote the

development of the country. The study will also be educative as it will be reference for other

researchers especially on this field.

1.7. Definition of major terms

In the course of this study, the following terms will be clarified and used according to the

researchers’ discretion. Some of the concepts include; governance, development and economic

development.

Governance: Itis concerned with how a state is governed, about therules and practices according

to which governments and state powers as well as authority are exercised. By extension, it can

also mean theexercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage acountry’s

affairs at all levels.

Development:For the purpose of this study, we conceptualize development as the process

thatnecessitates a change which can be negative or positive to an already existing change.

Economic Development: In this study, economic development can be conceived as the

improvement in the lives of citizens, the reduction of inflation rate, reduction in the

unemployment rate and the unstable market economy.

5
1.8. Scope of the Study

For the sake of the scope of this study, it will focus its analysis on governance and economic

development in Nigeria; a comparative analysis of the Jonathan and Buhari administrations;

2010-2020.

1.9. Limitations to the Study

The major limitation that is likely to face this study includes inadequate understanding of the

items on the questionnaire and lack of cooperation on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the

items on the questionnaire will be properly explained to the respondents in order to ensure proper

understanding of the items on the questionnaire.

In addition to the above, the reason behind the conduct of the study will be explained to the

respondents and they will be assured of adequate secret of any information supplied. The last one

is that all the corrections, advice and suggestions of the supervisor will be taken into

consideration in order for the successful conduct of the research work.

1.10. Theoretical Framework

For the purpose of this study, our analysis isanchored onstructural-functionalism as postulated

byGabriel Almond. Thestructural-functional approach has come topolitics as an offshoot of

thesystems analysis.Functionalism as an approach dates back to thedays of Aristotle.

However,Monstesquieu give s it a proper shape bypropounding the theory ofseparation of

powers. The old theory offunctional analysis of thestructures of government was based upon

thetheory of separation ofgovernment into three organs, but in moderntimes, various new factors

suchas adult suffrage, political parties and change incommunication media havebrought a

number of new functions. In itsmodern form, the stress onfunctionalism is derived from

Anthropologicaland Sociological theories ofMalinowski and Radcliff-brown. It was adoptedby

6
Talcott parson and MarconLevy and it became a major framework ofanalysis in

Sociologicaldiscussion. Since the 1950’s, this mode ofanalysis has been gainingacceptance in

political science, particularly inthe field of comparative politics (Mahajan, 1988).

According to Mahajan (1988) the structuralfunctionalism focuses attentionon structure and

functions. He definestructures are patterned behavior and they need not be formalized and

located inconcrete institutions. Hesees functions as the relevant consequences ofactivity and

relevance istraced to the system of which the activitygenerating unit is an integralcomponent. In

structural-functional analysis,one identifies the important structures and then seeks to discover

theirfunctions.According to Varma (2003), a system is definedas an entity made up ofinters

connected and interrelated parts. In thistheory the society isunderstood to be an entity with

different partswhich has functions toplay. These parts are called sub-systems byDavid Easton

and structures byAlmond. Gabriel Almond (cited in Mahajan1988) defines the political systemas

a special system of interaction that existsuniversally in all societiesperforming the functions of

integration andadaptation by means ofemployment or threat of employment, of moreor less

legitimate physicalcompulsion. Legitimate force is the thread thatruns through the inputs

andoutputs of the political system, giving it itsspecial quality and itscoherence as a system”. The

political system in structural-functionalanalysis, are systemic whole that influence andare

influenced by theirenvironments. Their characteristic features arecomprehensiveness,inter-

dependence and the existence byboundaries. The basic unit ofstructural-functional analysis is

“role”, notindividuals. Theinteractions that characterize a political systemare “open system” in

thesense they engage in transactions with systemsoutside their boundaries andare influenced by

those transactions.

7
The view of Almond is that all political systemmust perform a set of tasksfor the sake of survival

and equilibrium. Thiscan be called the functionalrequirements of the systems. Thosefunctionscan

be performed by differentkinds of political structures in different politicalsystems. Those

caneven be performed by structures which are notformally regarded aspolitical.

Input Functions

According to Almond (cited in Mahajan, 1988)all political systems mustperform two sets of

basic functions viz., theinput functions and outputfunctions. The inputs functions are

politicalsocialization andrecruitment, interest-articulation, interest-aggregation and

politicalcommunication. Political socialization is thelearning process by whichpeople acquire

political beliefs, values andattitudes. It is the processby which individuals come to share a

commonorientation’ forward apolitical system. The political recruitmentfunction begins where

thegeneral political socialization functions ends. Itrecruits members of thesociety out of the

religious communities,classes, ethnic communities’skills. As regards interest-articulation

functionsinvolves the formulationof demands and their transmission from societyat large to the

politicalsystem. This function is performed by anumber of structure viz.,institutional interest

groups, non-associationinterest groups, anomicinterest groups and associational interestgroups.

As regards interestaggregation, it may be done by means of theformulation of general policiesin

which interests are combined,accommodated or otherwise taken accountof. The function of

articulation and aggregationoverlaps.

Output Functions

8
Mahajan posit that Almond made a three-foldclassification of governmental output function

which is associated withpolicy-making andimplementation. Three authoritativegovernmental

functions are rule-making,rule application and rule-adjudication.According to Anifowose and

Enenwo (1999)outputs are usuallyauthoritative decisions such as governmentpolicies, judicial

decisions,acts of parliament, etc., promulgated by theauthorities. Thisauthoritative output usually

affect thegovernment as outcomes and in turnexcite some form of feedback, that is, changesin

the intensity and volumeof demands and support from the environment.

The major argument of structural functionalisms that all systems havestructures which can be

identified and that thepart or element of thesestructures perform functions within the

systemwhich have meaning only interms of the working of the system. They aredependent on the

system as anactive entity for their existence, and are, in turn,linked in such a wayas to be also

dependent on each other for theiractivity. Accordingly, thetheory regards

comprehensiveness,interdependence and boundaries as thethree properties of the political

systems. Thus,they all function tomaintain the whole.

Application of the Theory

There is no doubt that the administrations of Goodluck Jonathan and MuhammaduBuhari fits

into this framework in view of the policies they made across various MDAs. Hence, it became

obvious to note that from this theory, it is argued that the success or failures of these MDAs

affected the economy which in turn gave/is giving the administrations criticisms. In other words,

(Abioro, 2018) summarized it that in the structural functional theory, any part of the

administration that isn’t up to its task, it will in one way or the other affect the other parts.

Therefore, this theory becomes necessary in investigating the issues associated with this study.

9
1.11. Organisation of the chapters

This study will be organized into five chapters. Chapter one introduces the study. Chapter two

will deals with the review of the literature. Chapter three of the study will focus on the research

methodology. Chapter four focuses on data presentation and analysis. Chapter five includes the

summary, conclusion and recommendations.

10
References

Abioro, T. (2018).Politics of Development in Nigeria (1999-2010); Mismanagement in

perspective.Ibadan , Ababa press ltd.

Agagu, A. (2007).Ake’s Treatise on African Political Economy: A New Window to the

Understanding of African Political Thought. In Agagu, A and Omotoso, F (eds.),
Selected Issues in African Political Thoughts, Benin Republic: l’instituteUniversitaire
SenouD’Afrique (IUSAF).

Ake, C (2008). Political Economy of Africa, New York, Longman Inc

Anifowose, R. and Enemuo, F. (1999).Element of Politics. Lagos: Sam/Roanusi Publications.
Ekpebu, A.V. (2020). Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD
Countries.Policy Paper.pp. 24.

Fawole, W (2001) Beyond the Transition to Civil Rule; Consolidating Democracy in Post-
Military Nigeria, Lagos, AMKRA Books.

Ibrahim, A. (2021). Rural Transformation and the distribution of Public Facilities in Nigeria: A
Case of Edu Local Government Area Kwara State. Journal of Human Ecology. 29(3),
171-179.
Igwe, O. (2019). Economic Development and Governance Pattern; understanding the nexus.
Research Report No. 36, Development Policy Centre. Owerri, Nigeria.
Ihonvbere, J (1989). The Political Economy of Crisis and Underdevelopment in Africa:Selected
Works of Claude Ake, Lagos: Jad Publishers Limited.

Kolawole, D. (2007) Military Rule and Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: 1966-1979, Abuja, Panaf
Publishing Inc.

Mahajan, V.D. (1988). Political Theory. New Delhi: RajendraRavindra Printers.

Musa, A. (2017). Government failures in development; an assessment of the Fourth Republic.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 4 (3): 9-23. World Rural observation 3 (2)–Science
Publications.

11