Advertisements
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Government economic policies are important benchmarks for gauging a country’s development. Since the eighteenth century, when Adam Smith produced his renowned book in which he was concerned with discovering the causes of nations’ wealth, his thesis and conclusions have been generally verified by later research that governments’ actions primarily impact nations’ wealth. Onya and Elemanya (2016) believe that “there is a complex web of link between a nation’s progress and the government’s economic views.” However, critics of this line of reasoning argue that using economic drivers to measure development is an outmoded paradigm and call for different yardsticks. The most prevalent is the human development index (HDI). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) publishes this on a regular basis in its Human Development Report. According to Odude, the HDI is a composite indicator that ranks nations based on their overall performance in three areas: life expectancy, education, and per capita GDP (in PPP dollars) (2017). In all of this, however, it is a government’s constitutional obligation to make the best judgments for the largest number of people of society.
Surprisingly, most, if not all, African nations are still struggling to achieve a high degree or level of socioeconomic development in their varied communities today. Although this failure has always been associated with external forces, which most of the time played a little part at the cost of forces or elements within, administrative leadership has been the opium that is more destructive to the growth and socioeconomic development of these nations. According to Johnson (2016), the most notable among them is the failure of administrative leadership in these nations to tap, start, and modify societies in accordance with the resources (both human and material) available within their geographical area. In other words, the type, character, and pattern of a society’s administration have a strong influence on its socioeconomic growth. According to National Bureau of Statistics data, almost 40% (82 million people) of Nigeria’s population live on less than $1 US per day, giving the country an awful reputation as the world’s new poverty capital. The recent increase in petrol pump prices and energy rates has raised concerns about Buhari’s intentions and goals, despite the government’s frequent assertions of taking steps to relieve poverty. Given the economic downturn experienced by many Nigerians as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic’s severity, the decision to eliminate the costly but popular petrol subsidy programme, as well as the programme for electricity tariffs, is deemed insensitive to the realities on the ground and, in general, an act in bad timing. This raises significant concerns about the patterns of decisions, actions, and feedback mechanisms implemented by this administration, as well as the contradiction they represent for the administration’s duty to combat poverty and achieve economic progress.
Statement of the Problem
The return of civil rule in 1999 gave Nigerian citizens high hopes that the new era of socioeconomic development and citizen welfare had arrived, but today these hopes have been dashed by high levels of poverty, unemployment, corruption, insecurity, and other factors that have deteriorated the country’s inferior social, economic, and well-being. For example, according to Freedom, Christian, and Temilola (2015), Nigeria is blessed with immense natural and human resources, enough to rank it among the world’s top 20 developed countries. It is also Africa’s greatest producer of oil and the world’s sixth largest producer of oil. However, these have not been translated or reflected in Nigerian individuals’ socioeconomic situations. Despite its enormous people and natural resources, Nigeria has had fourteen distinct administrations since independence, with their associated repercussions for the structure of socioeconomic growth and the well-being of residents across the country.
In Nigeria, the administrations of President Goodluck Jonathan and Mohammadu Buhari stand out as those that made obvious attempts to boost the country’s economy in recent years. Following in the footsteps of previous administrations, the Jonathan administration launched the transformation plan to serve as a guiding document for the country’s infrastructural and economic turnaround in five years (Cheto 2017). This strategy was developed in response to the need to reposition the country for rapid development in all vital areas of the economy while maintaining a firm foundation based on the rule of law (Adeyanju, 2017). To guarantee that the agenda’s goals were met, Jonathan formed and structured an economic management team of 28 famous technocrats led by Dr Ngozi Okonjo Iweala, the then Minister of Finance. The transformative agenda is said to have concentrated on three core theme areas: robust, inclusive, and non-inflationary growth, job creation and poverty reduction, and value re-orientation of Nigerians (Wakili 2015). Since its inception, many pundits have weighed in on the Good Luck Jonathan administration’s transformative agenda policies. According to Itah (2012), as cited in Odude (2017), the transformational agenda was a policy package aimed at tackling poverty, unemployment, insecurity, and overdependence on oil, consequently reforming and diversifying the economy for the country’s overall growth.
Advertisements
Contrarily, the success of the opposition party, the All Progressive Party (APC), during the 2015 presidential election in Nigeria, on the other hand, prepared the scenario for the emergence of a new President in Nigeria. The election of President Muhammadu Buhari signalled the beginning of a new economic policy based on transformation. The core of the change agenda is founded on the idea that Nigeria’s economy and infrastructure are in a state of decay and require general transformation to flourish. According to President Buhari, who spoke at the National Economic Council retreat, Nigeria needed massive reform to see comprehensive economic and infrastructure growth. He added that greater attention must be placed on restoring peace and security, generating employment, reducing poverty, and combating corruption in order for his government to recover the economy (Vanguard,21st March 2016). To make these reforms, the president went on to explain the need of investing in agriculture, power, education, manufacturing, housing, and other economic areas in order to diversify the economy. However, observers have panned the economic measures more than they have praised them. Johnson (2016) dubbed Buhari’s economic plans the “Height of Foolishness,” saying that such measures were guaranteed to fail due to their reliance on Venezuela’s exchange policy and China’s failing market policy. According to him, the rules are unfriendly to investors and would cause some to exit the Nigerian market. Ezekwesili (2016) has also criticized the same economic approach, calling it “archaic” and “opaque.” She stated that the current government’s command and control programme would not only foster tremendous corruption and abuse of power, but would also make life more difficult for the poor.
Although there are several literature and independent studies on both Jonathan and Buhari’s administration, little attention have been paid to a comprehensive comparison of the two administration with regards to status of the economy during the Jonathan and Buhari’s administration. Upon this backdrop, the researchers seeks to present a comparative analysis of the Nigerian economy under president Goodluck Jonathan administration and president Mohammadu Buhari administration with reference to level of unemployment, poverty, insecurity, education.
 Objective of the Study
The broad objective of this study is to present a comparative analysis of the Nigerian economy under president Goodluck Jonathan administration and president Mohammadu Buhari administration. Specifically, the study seeks to:
1. To find out whether unemployment was high in President Goodluck Jonathan administration than in  President Mohammadu Buhari administration.
2. To determine whether poverty rate was high in President Goodluck Jonathan administration than in  President Mohammadu Buhari administration.
3. To establish whether insecurity was high in President Goodluck Jonathan administration than in  President Mohammadu Buhari administration.
4. To ascertain whether education was given prominence in President Goodluck Jonathan administration than in  President Mohammadu Buhari administration.
Research Hypotheses
The research is guided by the following hypotheses
HO1: Unemployment rate is lower in President Mohammadu Buhari administration. than it was during President Goodluck Jonathan administration
HO2: Poverty rate is low in President Mohammadu Buhari administration. than it was during President Goodluck Jonathan administration
HO3: Insecurity level is low in President Mohammadu Buhari administration. than it was during President Goodluck Jonathan administration
HO4: Education quality is not low President Mohammadu Buhari administration. than it was during President Goodluck Jonathan administration
 Significance of the Study
Findings from the study will be relevant to federal government, policy makers and stakeholder in the Nigeria political space. The result of the study will enlighten federal government on the need to give prominence to socio-economic development issues such as unemployment, education, security relation and poverty alleviation programme. The outcome of the study would enable policy makers and stakeholder in the Nigeria political space to design appropriate economic policies aimed at reviving the economy from its downtime and as well gain support for the effectiveness of the programme. Additionally, the findings of the study will enable Nigeria political parties in the 21st century to stick to execution of their campaign promises and not only to use as device mechanisms for electioneering and campaigning in other to influence the voting pattern of the masses. Finally, the findings of this study will contribute to the sustainable national and economic development in Nigeria and serve as reference material to student and scholars who wishes to conduct further studies in related topic.
Scope of the Study
The scope of this study border comparative analysis of the Nigerian economy under president Goodluck Jonathan administration and president Mohammadu Buhari administration with reference to level of unemployment, poverty, insecurity, education witnessed during the both administration. The study covers Jonathan administration of 2011-2015 and Buhari administration 2015-2022
Limitation of the Study
Like in every human endeavour, the researchers encountered slight constraints while carrying out the study. The significant constraint was the scantiness of literature on comprehensive data covering  Jonathan administration of 2011-2015 and Buhari administration 2015-2022.  Thus much time and organization was required in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature, or information and in the process of data collection. Also the study is limited in period as the study covered only the general campaign period in Nigeria between Jonathan administration of 2011-2015 and Buhari administration 2015-2022. Therefore findings of this study cannot be used for generalization for other years of administration pioneered by the two president which creates a gap in scope and gives room for further studies.
Advertisements
