The federal government has raised concerns over the delay in rebasing Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), warning that it undermines policy effectiveness and compromises the reliability of economic data crucial for national decision-making.
Speaking during a webinar hosted by the Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG), themed “X-Raying the Data: Insights from the Rebased GDP Data”, Dr. Tope Fasua, Special Adviser to the President on Economic Matters, said the rebasing—last done in 2014—was long overdue.
He emphasised that GDP rebasing should be conducted every five years in line with global best practices, noting that the updated figures now capture emerging sectors such as e-commerce, digital content creation, modular refineries, the blue economy, and informal trade.
While the revised GDP significantly increases the economy’s reported size, Fasua suggested that it still underrepresents the true scale. “With all these new sectors factored in, our actual GDP could be closer to N500 trillion,” he said.
Fasua highlighted the rising impact of digital platforms like YouTube, Spotify, and other content-based services in driving economic activity—areas previously excluded from national data but now incorporated into the services sector.
He added that the larger GDP base provides room for a more accommodative monetary policy. With Nigeria’s debt-to-GDP ratio now around 40 percent—well below the ECOWAS threshold of 60 percent and the World Bank’s 70 percent ceiling—there is increased fiscal space.
According to him, this improved outlook could allow the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to consider reducing interest rates to spur industrial growth and support productive sectors of the economy.
However, he cautioned that the space created by the larger GDP should not be interpreted as a license for indiscriminate borrowing. He stressed that any increase in debt must be paired with improvements in tax policy and government spending. Recent tax legislation, he noted, is beginning to reduce the burden on small businesses and low-income earners, while redirecting obligations toward higher-income individuals and more profitable enterprises. Additionally, he pointed to tighter restrictions on tax waivers, which previously allowed undue benefits for powerful interests.
Fasua compared the GDP to a company’s balance sheet — a measure of borrowing capacity — but warned that this capacity must be used wisely. He called for the new economic data to be leveraged for structured development financing, not simply as a talking point or political win.
He also urged greater institutional collaboration among ministries, departments, agencies, and the private sector in data collection and sharing. Reliable and timely statistics, he argued, are critical for effective economic governance and policy coherence.
Yinka Babalola, Country Director Nigeria International Budget Partnership, took a more cautious view. While acknowledging the importance of accurate national statistics, she said the increase in GDP does not automatically improve the lives of everyday Nigerians. Rising economic numbers, she argued, do not mean food is cheaper, healthcare is better, or wages are higher.
She described GDP as a limited metric that must be interpreted alongside other indicators to assess true social progress. While the updated GDP may improve Nigeria’s fiscal metrics — for example, by lowering the fiscal deficit as a percentage of GDP — it does not directly generate additional revenues or improve expenditure outcomes.
According to Babalola, revenue mobilisation remains Nigeria’s most urgent fiscal challenge. Without better tax collection systems and broader coverage of the tax base, especially among middle- and high-income earners, the government risks relying too heavily on borrowing.
She also drew attention to what GDP figures often leave out — particularly unpaid care work, which disproportionately involves women, and the country’s growing inequality. These exclusions, she said, contribute to a distorted view of national progress and obscure the challenges facing the majority of citizens.
On the expenditure side, Babalola pointed to recurring issues with budget execution. She noted that many agencies fail to use their full allocations, not due to lack of need but because of weak capacity and poor project implementation. As a result, budget increases often fail to translate into real development impact.
To address this, Babalola called for greater transparency in procurement, increased citizen involvement in budgeting processes, and more effective legislative and audit oversight. She argued that simplified, accessible budget information would enable communities to monitor public spending more effectively.
Dr. Ekundayo Mesagan, Senior Faculty, Pan Atlantic University, welcomed the rebasing as a technical improvement that gives a more accurate picture of the economy’s structure. “The updated GDP figure has raised Nigeria’s per capita income from $800 to around $1,000.” Although he cautioned that this statistical shift does not imply a tangible improvement in living conditions.
Mesagan said the inclusion of sectors such as information and communications technology (ICT), entertainment, and real estate makes the economy appear more diversified — a useful development for sector-specific planning and policy targeting. With better data on where growth is occurring, he said, policymakers can develop more precise interventions, particularly in youth-driven sectors.
He advocated for a shift toward bottom-up economic planning that prioritises small businesses, informal enterprises, and emerging industries with strong employment potential. These segments, he argued, have a more direct impact on poverty reduction and household income growth.
Mesagan backed recent tax reforms that exclude businesses earning below N50 million annually from corporate income tax, calling it a positive step. He proposed additional fiscal incentives and tailored credit schemes for micro-enterprises and low-income producers, which often face structural barriers to growth.
He also urged policymakers to use the rebased data to improve poverty targeting and asset mapping, especially in underserved communities. According to Mesagan, accurate identification of vulnerable populations is key to ensuring that social intervention programmes are both efficient and impactful.
While recognising the importance of updated data, he warned against mistaking statistical improvements for actual progress. Until broader issues like food insecurity, joblessness, and service delivery are addressed, the figures remain largely cosmetic.
The consensus among the three experts is clear: the rebased GDP is a necessary statistical correction, but its real value will only be realised if it leads to meaningful policy change. Accurate data can help guide development, but without institutional reform, fiscal transparency, and inclusive planning, the benefits will remain largely on paper.
