Tag: Bringing theories

By Agbo Agbo

As noted in the first part of this piece, theories are a fundamental aspect of scholarship because they help explain phenomenon. An aspect that further brings the importance of theories to bear is the economy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economist, Daron Acemoglu and the Harvard University political scientist, James A. Robinson powerfully articulated their theory in a remarkable book, “Why Nations Fail: The Origin of Power, Prosperity and Poverty.” In this book – which I have read severally and recommend to readers, – there are theories that don’t work. Organisations like the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have forced African countries in the past to apply theories which they turn around to say weakened the economic foundation of these countries.

Acemoglu and Robinson wrote that African nations are poor today because their policies were anchored on wrong theories that informed their national visions. Any national leader that allows such theories and adopts policies based on them will make his nation poor, have high unemployment, bad governance, human rights violation and all the other challenges that African leaders and states are facing. To them, it is not an issue of race, colour or even geographical location. It is basically the application of wrong theories.

If a nation or continent is always forced by others or the so called international “donour” or “development” agencies or institutions to follow certain kinds of theories in their policy prescriptions, they will of course remain with their challenges, or the challenges may even worsen over time. So, until the theories themselves and therefore, the policy visions and prescriptions are changed, the situation will never change.

There are two ways to look at this. According to Dr. Dan Mou in his book Without Vision the People Perish: Confronting Public Policy Challenges to African States and Leaders, it is not an issue of lack of technology or capital etc., as important as these may seem to the uninitiated in the politics of underdevelopment and the development of underdevelopment. It is purely an issue of politics and political economy. Solve this first, and the other problems of technology, capital, extension services and similar technical issues, will definitely take care of themselves or be made to do so without further delay.

He reasoned that if it was an issue of capital, Nigeria for instance, with all her billions of dollars from oil would never have been suffering the same challenges with the other resource starved small African nations. Surprisingly, most African countries are rich in key minerals and other relevant natural resources. So their current common challenges come from elsewhere – politics and political economy.

Acemoglu and Robinson make this point cogently when they state: “Because there is no consensus (on theories and policies), what rules society ends up with is determined by politics: who has power and how this power can be exercised…that’s why our theory is about not just economics but also politics. It is about the effects of institutions on the success and failure of Nations – thus the economics of poverty and prosperity; it is also about how institutions are determined and change even when they create poverty and misery for millions – thus the politics of poverty and prosperity.”

They added: “The bottom of the world income distribution paints a sharp and distinctive picture as the top. If you instead make a list of the poorest thirty countries in the world today, you will find almost all of them in sub-Saharan Africa. They are joined by countries such as Afghanistan, Haiti and Nepal, which, though not in Africa, all share something critical with African nations …”

I was privileged to listen to Prof. Robinson in 2015 during the 70th commemorative lecture of Wema Bank in Lagos. Rather than speak on why nations fail, he delivered a lecture on “Why Nations Succeed.” Just like in their earlier book, he argues that the key differentiator between countries is “institutions.” Nations thrive when they develop “inclusive” political and economic institutions, and they fail when those institutions become “extractive” and concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of only a few.

So, why is Nigeria and most of Africa poor? From his perspective, Robinson said Africa is poor because it has suffered from a long history of “extractive economic and political institutions.” This, according to him, are part of deeply rooted historical processes which reveal the slow development of centralised political entities compared to Eurasia. The negative impact of the slave trade, which had a devastating institutional impact in Nigeria, the “extractive nature” of colonial rule and the legacy of colonialism since independence equally formed part of why we are poor.

He raised two salient and age old questions: Why is it that some parts of the world are much richer and more successful economically than other parts of the world? What can poor countries do to make themselves richer? To answer these simple, yet complex questions, he proposes a theory based on differences in economic and political institutions. “Institutions” are defined as the rules (both formal – written laws and the constitution – and informal – like social norms) that structure economic, political and social life and generate different patterns of incentives, rewards, benefits and costs.

Nigeria is partly where she is because of the “negative institutional legacies of colonialism” which created colonial institutions, such as agricultural marketing boards. Colonialism also created an arbitrary state system which has led to political conflicts, instability and dictatorship. Colonial authorities, he noted, also created “gate-keeper states which were only interested in ruling rather than in developing the countries and these have left a path dependent legacy.” The political authoritarianism of the colonial state is therefore a direct source of the authoritarianism that has plagued Africa to date. Colonialism thus created and shaped identities and cleavages in dysfunctional ways that still plague us.

The “extractive political institutions” that was in place for a better part of our post-independence period took the form of military dictatorship which led to a weak state unable to raise taxes, enforce law and control violence as is evident with the Boko Haram insurgency and the spate of kidnappings and armed banditry/robbery. This weak state is at its best creating monopolies for the politically connected. But as expected, the result has been economic decline.

So, what is he proffering to change the tide? The broader evidence is the need to move towards “inclusive” institutions. “Our framework emphasises that this is not a technocratic economic problem, this is a political problem. Focus first on developing inclusive political institutions and the economics will sort itself out. All countries which now have inclusive institutions historically had extractive institutions. How did they change them? We emphasize the emergence of a broad coalition which pushes for and underpins inclusive institutions.”

Citing two of the world’s richest men – the American Bill Gates and the Mexican Carlos Slim – Robinson said the difference between the two is clear. One is an entrepreneur while the other is a monopolist. “Both men are remarkable people, but their energies were channeled in different directions by the different institutional environments in which they live. In the US innovation is the way to make great wealth. In Mexico, innovation is less well rewarded than monopolies because there are so many barriers to entry.”

These two examples and approaches have varying degrees of impact on society. Bill Gates, who established Microsoft, created huge “positive externalities” generating far more wealth than his income.

On the other hand, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that Carlos Slim’s monopolies reduced Mexican income by US$70bilion, far more than his fortune.

Behind these differences, he pointed out, is politics. The American approach is “inclusive” because it creates incentives, level playing fields and a rule of law based on universal principles. The political institutions deliberately allow broad participation, pluralism? and placing constraints and checks on politicians.

In so doing, it creates powerful forces towards economic growth by encouraging investment (because of well-enforced property rights), harnessing the power of markets (better allocation of resources, entry of more efficient firms, ability to finance for starting businesses etc.) and generating broad-based participation, especially in education and investment in new technology and “creative destruction”. This is not the case in Mexico.

By Agbo Agbo

A fundamental aspect of scholarship is the use of theories to explain phenomena. Theories provide frameworks for asking research questions, interpreting information, and uncovering the deeper meanings and stories associated with an event. A theory explains how some aspect of human behaviour or performance is organised, thereby enabling us to make predictions about that behaviour. In essence, theories help us understand where we are making it the topography of our strategic map, determining our starting point and our destination.

How will our society look like if the theories that are safely “locked up” in our universities and institutions suddenly come to town? I believe it is high time we begin advocating for some of these theories to be brought to “town” to assist citizens understand why things are the way they are in the country and globally.

The components of theory are concepts and principles. A concept is a symbolic representation of an actual thing while a principle expresses the relationship between two or more concepts or constructs. In the process of theory development therefore, one derives principles based on one’s examining/questioning how things/concepts are related. Concepts and principles serve two important functions: they help us to understand or explain what is going on around us. They also help us predict future events – tantamount to filling in the gaps.

Many people think that theories don’t have practical applications, but this is not true. The purpose of theory is practice. If reality were a dot-to-dot picture, a theory would be a way to connect a set of data dots. However, varying theories connect different data dots in different ways resulting in a wide variety of pictures and practices. This therefore makes a theory the foundational belief about how the world works.

Each of us has a philosophy, ideology, and political line – ways of comprehending the world and responding to the situations we find ourselves in. Our theories may not always be coherent or rational but we hold them whether we acknowledge that fact or not. But in the scholarly realm, theories are far deeper because they bring clarity to everyday event. However, most of the theories we know or read about are often “locked up” within the four walls of our institutions.

One good thing about theory is that it constantly changes and not permanent or fixed; they are constantly being constructed because in every situation we use theory to see patterns and tendencies, to discern potential trajectories (insofar as that’s possible) and to decide on appropriate responses and strategies. We use theory to determine on any given day whether it’s better to feign compliance, to take up arms, or to stay in bed with the blankets over our heads.

On February 19, last year at 5.30pm, 110 schoolgirls aged 11-19 were kidnapped in a dramatic fashion by Boko Haram militants from the Government Girls Science and Technical College Dapchi-Bulabulin, Yunusari Local Government of Yobe State.

The unfortunate and embarrassing event led to buck passing between the former Yobe state governor, the military and the police. Ex-governor Ibrahim Gaidam had insisted that the military and the defence headquarters should be held responsible because they ordered the withdrawal of troops from Dapchi town shortly before the attack and abduction of the schoolgirls. According to him, Dapchi town has been peaceful and never witnessed such an incident until barely a week after the military withdrew the troops from the town.

“If the soldiers had been on the ground, the attack on the town and subsequent abduction of the schoolgirls would not have happened…” He was quoted as saying. Days later, the military through Col. Onyema Nwachukwu, Operation Lafiya Dole spokesperson, agreed that it redeployed troops from the town “to reinforce troops in Kanama area following attacks on troops’ location at the Nigerian-Niger Republic border.” But “Dapchi town was formally handed over to the police division located in the town.” In a swift reaction, the Yobe State Commissioner of Police, Sumonu Abdulmaliki, said in a statement that there was no time the military handed over Dapchi town to the police.

So, what went wrong in Dapchi? Theory will assist in answering this critical question. In a paper: “National Security, Good Governance and Nation Building: Foundations for Effective and Inclusive Policing” Dr. Dan Mou, a national security expert provided a clear perspective through his model theory.

According to him, there are varieties of national security systems or architectures. First is the captured national security system (CNSS) or architecture: under this system, it is argued that the dominant interests of a given social cleavage or a set of them in that society have taken control of the state security apparatuses, so that the national security policy and objectives are influenced by the elite group. According to him, it is a common security architecture or system that operates in most nations, in different degrees, including in Nigeria,

Next is the autonomous national security system (ANSS) or architecture: this is said to exist where the state security apparatuses are operating independently of the dominant elites or classes in that society. National security policy and its apparatuses are more rational and objective in carrying out state policy, implementation and security policies that concern/cater for all its citizens.

There is yet a second broad approach; the organizational determinant categorisation of national security systems or architectures: segmentary national security System (SNSS) or architecture; Coordinated national security system (CNSS) or architecture; and Integrated national security system (INSS) or architecture.  The three key distinguishing words are segmentary, coordinated and integrated.

The eminent national security scholar pointed out that with the exception of South Africa and Libya (during Gaddafi), all other African countries (including Nigeria) have adopted the segmentary security system or architecture even though the degree of application varies from one country to the other.

“In Nigeria, for instance, under the administration of former Presidents Shehu Shagari and Jonathan administration, the military and other security agencies all operated separately with little coordination and integration between them and other security agencies.  The same appears to be the case now even with the present President Muhammadu Buhari Administration.  This became more visible in their different strategies and operations regarding the control of the Herdsmen and Farmers conflicts and clashes all over the Nation, but especially in the North Central Zone of Nigeria.  In the event of any security threat, as was the case with the Herdsmen and Farmers clashes, therefore, these services reacted differently, with little coordination and integration of their efforts.

“Despite President Buhari’s personal commitment, political will and allocation of a lot of resources, Boko Haram is still to be completely wiped out.  The limit of the segmentary national security system or architecture, the SNSS, in my view, is also partly what is hindering the successful conclusions of the military/national security operations throughout the country, including the failure to address decisively the Herdsmen and Farmers conflicts, all over the nation.”

Citing a further instance, he noted: “instead of the armed forces coordinating efforts, with the Nigeria police force and other security agencies, they always order the Nigerian police force, even the Police Special Terrorist Units, to withdraw before they start their own operations, as it was the case with the “Cat Race” operation “Ayem a Kpatuma” in the North Central, particularly Benue State.”

With his theory we can piece together what actually went wrong in Dapchi. From the analysis, it may not have been the commanders involved per se, but the model of national security in operation in the country. Other lapses he noted with this model include not allowing for proper coordination of the national security efforts of the various services and security agencies. Another fundamental drawback of this strategy is that it “allows room for ‘blame shifting’ when it is shown in the case of an actual security lapses that the entire security defence programme failed to yield good results.”