THE SECOND NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF NIGERIA

Theoretically, development plans of any sort involve deliberate efforts on the part of government to speed up the process of social and economic development of a country. In some countries, such as the former Soviet Union with a socialist ideology, the development plan efforts were usually found to be rewarding, as the government was able to intervene directly and extensively in the lives of the people. Similarly, in other countries like the mixed advanced Western economies and many developing countries with a purely capitalist ideology, the economy is structured in such a way that though the interventionist role of the government is usually relatively small, there is always emphasis on the provision of a policy framework (i.e. through development plans) within which the economy and other sectors operate. What this means is that, in all areas of the economy, the need for a general framework in form of development plans cannot be overemphasized. General Yakubu Gowon launched the Second National Development Plan in 1970 on behalf of the Federal Government and the government of the then twelve states of the federation. It was launched shortly after the end of the war. Because it was a post-war development plan, its focus was on the reconstruction of a war-battered economy and the promotion of economic and social development in the new Nigeria. What this means, according to Olaniyi (1988:107), is that the philosophy of the plan was consequently influenced by the exigencies of the war, which include the building of a united, strong and self-reliant nation; a great and dynamic economy; a just egalitarian society; a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens; and a free and democratic society.
The essence of planning by government, therefore, is that it cloud make a conscious choice regarding the rate and direction of growth. The most logical interpretation of this is that the relative rates at which heavy industry, light industry, agricultural improvement, transport and commerce, housing and the like are to be pursued become a matter of conscious policy (Ayinla, 1998:21). It is therefore reasonable to say here that, through a national comprehensive plan, it will be possible to make rational decisions to achieve deliberate, consistent and well-balanced action towards socio-economic development and good governance.
          The successful implementation of many projects before and after independence and up to a point in the history of Nigeria as a nation was due substantially to the strategy of pursuing economic and social development through periodic national development plans. The history of development plans in Nigeria can be traced to the colonial era when the British Colonial Office mandated the colonies to prepare development plans for the disbursement of the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds in 1940. Thereafter, a body known as the National Economic Council was set up in 1955 to co-ordinate the nation’s growth in line with the recommendation of the World Bank Mission to Nigeria. This eventually led to the preparation of a National Development Plan for Nigeria in 1959.
          The main cardinal objectives of the 1959 Development Plan was the achievement and maintenance of the highest possible rate of increase in the standard of living and the creation of necessary conditions to this end. Since 1960 therefore, Nigeria has formulated and launched development plans which had made it possible for governments to articulate policies in the following areas: equitable distribution of income; increase in employment opportunities; improved social services; and efficient allocation of available resources to eliminate waste (Ayinla, 1998:41).
          Preparing and implementing development plans thus became one of the ways by which successive governments in Nigeria before and after the country’s independence have been trying to better the socio-economic and political conditions of Nigerian citizens. This is because the policies contained in such development plans touch on the various aspects of the society, which include the political, economic, educational, social and agricultural sectors (Olaniyi, 1998:104). Good as this may sound, in 1986; there was a gradual movement towards a cessation of national development plans in Nigeria. It is important to note that this has made the business of governance haphazard in the country. It is against this background that this paper sets out to examine the implications of neglecting development plans in Nigeria. In order to achieve this objective, the paper covers the following sub-areas: the history of development plans in Nigeria; the journey towards neglecting development plans in Nigeria; the implications of cessation of development plans on the mandate of democracy; and summary and recommendations.
The History of 2nd Development Plans in Nigeria.
          The history of the 2nd conscious planning for development in Nigeria can be traced to the colonial days. To be specific, it has its origin in 1946 when the colonial government introduced what it tagged “Ten Year Plan of Development and Welfare for Nigeria”. This was under the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. Under this 2nd historic Development Plan, a total planned expenditure of an equivalent of N110 million for a period of ten years was earmarked for the period starting from April 1, 1946 to March 31, 1956 (Ogunjimi, 1997:97). Analyzing the focus of the ten-year Development Plan, Ayo (1988:1) observes that the plan focused on building a transport and communication system, while little provision was made for industrial development. He notes further that this 2nd development plan was also selective in its focus on agriculture, as attention was concentrated on a limited range of cash crops, which include cocoa, palm products, cotton, groundnut and timber. An important conclusion which one can draw from the analysis given by Ayo is that the Colonial Development Plan for Nigeria was meant to serve the interest of the colonial masters rather than that of the colony (i.e. Nigeria).
The main objective of the 2nd National Development Plan, was the achievement and maintenance of the highest possible rate of increase in the standard of living as well as creating the required conditions for the achievement of the above-stated objective. The objectives of development plans that later followed the 1959 plan were the same. Indeed, with the various plans, the country was able to articulate policies that directly touched on the lives of common people in the country.
         The federal and regional governments were able to achieve this much in spite of the crisis because, during the period, the annual capital budgets operated within the development plan framework. They were employed as the main instrument of control and allocation of development resources (Ogunjimi, 1997:98). This was in itself made possible by the existence of a development plan which provided guidelines for meaningful and co-coordinated development during the plan period despite two political crises.
April 1975 to March 1980. Ayinla (1998:86) describes this plan as a watershed in the evolution of economic planning in Nigeria. It was a unique development plan because, apart from its huge initial investment of about N30 billion (which was later revised to N43.3 billion), extensive consultations with the private sector of the economy were made in the course of its preparation.
The cardinal objectives of this plan were also part of its uniqueness. Such objectives include increase in per capital income during the plan period; more even distribution of income; reduction inn the level of unemployment; diversification of the economy; balanced development; and indigenization of economic activities. As laudable as the objectives of this development plan were, the implementation was adversely affected by the change of government in July 1975, barely three months after the plan was launched. In particular, the change of government led to a reappraisal of some of the cardinal objectives as contained in the plan. Here, more emphasis was placed on those projects which were thought to have direct effects on the living standard of the common man. Sectors that were thus given priority included agriculture, water supply, housing and health (Olaniyi, 1998:108).   
          In the same way that the tradition of five-year development plan was jettisoned by the Babangida administration, the idea of rolling plan was also shelved in 1996 by General Sani Abacha for Vision 2010, which was launched on September 18, 1996. The programme was to systematically improve the quality of life of Nigerians in fourtheen years (Ogunjimi, 1997:107). Although not directly related to the transition programme, the work of Vision 2010, a 250-member committee of private-sector representatives, government ministries, academics, journalists, traditional rulers, trade union leaders and foreign businessmen, among others, inaugurated by General Abacha on November 27, 1996, was similarly intended to move the country forward. The committee was chaired by Chief Ernest Shonekan, who headed a short-lived Interim National Government in 1993 before Abacha seized power (Jukwey, 1996).
          Vision 2010 submitted its final report to General Abacha on September 30, 1997. The committee reportedly recommended “large-scale deregulation of the Nigerian economy”, the release of political detainees and rigorous compliance with the transition programme (Jukwey). In his October 1, 1997 National Day address, Abacha promised to introduce the measures required to begin the programme’s implementation immediately, in the firm belief that successive administrations will carry it to a successful conclusion with the support of Nigerian people and friends of the nation (National Day Address, 1997). The fear of Vission 2010 members that their recommendations would not be implemented were justified. Funds for the capital projects budgeted for the first half of 1997 were only released in September, bringing investment in infrastructure and the economy  in general to a virtual halt. Massive lay-off of federal and states’ employees throughout the country had caused significant hardship. Pervasive of “failed bank”  and “failed contract” tribunals, which seemed to have been designed to target potential opposition supporters rather than crack down on “illegal deals”.
          From my discussion so far, it can be seen that the military intervention in 1966 and its subsequent prolonged rule in Nigeria become the genesis of truncating the process of adhering to 2nd national development planning as a strategy for economic and social development (Fika, 2004). What the nation has inherited in the absence of well-articulated development plans are budget frauds, road contract scandals, oil scams and unchallenged or unchecked high level of financial corruption at all level government in Nigeria. It is, however, imperative to note here that since the re-commencement of democratic government on May 29, 1999; the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo has begun a series of bold economic and political reforms to put the country back on a sound economic and political footing.
          The British Council (1993) regards democracy as symbolizing “good government”. It sees government as simply the framework of institutions and functionaries or officials that the state uses in running its affairs. A good government is regarded as good if it provides a responsive governmental and state administrative framework that facilitates good governance. Although good governance and economic development must be longer-term goal than good government, the former will be achievable without the latter. Therefore, good government would, in practice, mean:
v A legitimate and representative government following democratic elections.
v An accountable administration and a responsive government characterized by free-flowing information, separation of powers, effective internal and external auditing, low levels of corruption and nepotism, competent officials, realistic policies and low defence expenditure.
v Governmental respect for human rights, as indicated by freedom of religion and movement, impartial and accessible criminal justice system, and the absence of arbitrary government power (Oshionebo, 2004:306).
The essence of democracy, therefore, is to provide an organizational platform to tap the potential endowments of society so that opportunities will be generated for an all-round development (Oshionebo, 2003). For a democratic dispensation to perform competently enough to be adjudged “a good, honest government” (Galbraith, 1999) which is essentially “a pivot for responding to citizen expectations” (Cohen, 1995), the government must exercise state power and authority in the context of what Oshionebo (2002) describes as the institution that facilities effective performance appraisal of the policies, programmes and activities of government
          Nigeria’s development reports since independence eloquently point out the link between good governance and societal development. According to these reports, Nigeria is abundantly blessed with enormous human and natural resources that should translate to a decent standard of living. With a population of over 120 million, Nigeria is the most populous country in African and the eleventh in the world (Oshionebo, 2004:304). In spite of these blessings, the poor performance of the Nigerian economy in many sectors is very evident. The real sector (manufacturing and agriculture) is performing rather poorly. While the country still imports a lot of the agricultural produce for consumption, the capacity utilization in industry is around 400/0. The country’s per capita income which was as high as $1,281.4 in 1980, declined continuously to its lowest level of $240.0 in 1992; it stood at around $250.0 in 1995 and at $270.0 in 1997; roughly the same figure as in 1972 (Obadan and Odusola 1999). That figure is still below $300 as at today.
          These predicaments are no doubt manifestations of neglecting the practice of having development plans, which denies the country the required blueprints for development.
The present administration has made concerted efforts at redressing the various crises and reviving the economy, but the fact remains that in the year 2000, the economy “neither  improved nor deteriorated significantly but was static and still low-income, low-growth, with distortions in several areas”. Indeed, President Olusegun Obasanjo made reference to the static nature of the economy while presenting the 2001 Appropriation Bill to the National Assembly in November 2000 when he started, “for this government and most Nigerians, our hard-won democracy is yet to translate into significant improvements in our lives (Taiwo, 2001).
          What this means is that the level of development in Nigeria today does not match the level of resources available. This is a result of a high level of corruption, which lack of adequate resource utilization for development has made possible. No society can achieve anything near its full potential if it allow corruption to become a full-blown cancer as it has been in Nigeria.
The implication of this is that the practice of reading the annual budget without anything to show for it has eroded public trust in government and undermined the rule of law. It has also weakened the effectiveness of governance at all levels. More importantly, it has hindered economic growth as the nation’s resources meant for development are plundered in an ineffective manner.

CONCLUSION
          In conclusion, this paper has demonstrated the cardinal objectives of development planning in Nigeria to the colonial era when the British Colonial Office mandated the colonies to prepare development plans for the disbursement of the Colonial Development and Welfare Funds in 1940. The paper also reported that the setting up of a body known as the National Economic Council thereafter, to co-ordinate the nation’s economic growth in line with the recommendations of the World Bank Mission to Nigeria in 1955, eventually led to the preparation of a National Development Plan for Nigeria in 1959.
It has been shown that at a point around 1986, there began some signs of inconsistency in the implementation of development plans, which ultimately led to a total abandonment of the tradition of having development plans. This has been found to be one of the major factors militating against good governance in Nigeria, the business of governance began to be haphazardly conducted, while the quality of life began to decline.
Finally, for the 2nd development plans to lead to good governance, the rules and regulations governing the conduct of government activities must be widely known and understood. In order words, there is the need to develop the culture of transparency in the running of government as an enterprise. To this end, the bureaucratic processes in Nigeria should be developed to facilitate effective governance. This can be done by removing the bureaucratic red tape, which often undermines good governance via policy implementation as embedded in development plans.
REFERENCE
Aboyade, O. (1983). Integrated Economics: A study of Development Economics. London: English Language Book Society.
Ayinla, M. A. (1998). Essays on planning and Budgeting Systems in Nigeria. Ilorin: Berende Printing and Publishing Company.
Ayo, E. J. (1988). Development Planning in Nigeria. Ibadan: University Press Plc.
Boeninger, E. (1991). “Governance and Development: Issues and Constraints. “Processing of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economic, The World Bank

0 Comments