Finance

Probing the ‘Catechism’ of Economic Diversification

3 Mins read

From Kayode Abdulazeez, Ilorin

A diversified economy is that which  has  different revenue streams and provides nations with the ability for sustainable growth. Diversification provides nations with the security and reliability that they need should  one economic revenue stream  fail as currently being witnessed in Nigeria.

Now that Nigeria’s economy has gotten  to the dire straits  where all the three tiers of government are now faced with the challenge of  paucity of funds to meet basic obligation, the rallying cry of diversification has become a national anthem.

It is no longer news that more than  27 states  are owing salaries and pensions while capital projects are bearing the brunt of the times.

The crash in oil prices and the wanton destruction of oil facilities has led to the reawakening about the futility of relying on oil revenue stream.

To some incurable optimists among government officials at federal, state and local government levels, the lost revenues will be recouped in due course.

This  category of people find it difficult to think out of box and face the reality of genuine economic diversification.  To a few others, the current fiscal crisis is  sufficient signal that all is never going to be the same again and their effort towards diversifying the economy is already giving them result. No doubt,  diversification needs to be pursued with greater vigour by federal, state and local governments.

Of course,  responding to the mood of the times, President Muhammadu Buhari  has been preaching the message of economic diversification even at  international fora, pledging that  his administration would take urgent steps to restructure Nigeria’s economy by encouraging new investments in mining, agriculture and manufacturing.

At a reception in his honour by the Communist Party of China, Buhari said that Nigeria would welcome the support of the Chinese government, foreign investors and local businesses in efforts to diversify the nation’s economy.

A statement issued by a presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu, highlighted the thinking of the administration  and stating unequivocally that the diversification of the Nigerian economy was long overdue as continued reliance on crude oil exports had always made the economy vulnerable to shocks.

“This time we will be more deliberate. The government and businesses will be involved,’’ Buhari had said in the statement.

The statement also reported  the Secretary of the Communist Party and  Governor of  Guangdong Province, Mr Hu Chinhua, as pledging  that the region would support the implementation of all the bilateral agreements reached with the Chinese government during Buhari’s visit.

It  added that Buhari also visited the Sino-Singapore Knowledge City in Guangzhou “which showcases advancements by China in medical, science and technological inventions.’’

The era between 1970 and 1976 represented the first oil boom when the Federal Government went on  a spending spree and increased salaries of workers.

Unsurprisingly,  Nigerian workers asked for free everything until the 1980s when the price of oil went down briefly and government launched the platitudes of  diversification of the economy, a move which was jettisoned again  when oil prices  rose again particularly between 2009 and 2014 when oil hovered around  $100 per barrel for almost five years.

The benefits of economic  diversification are clear for any serious and progressive government to embrace.  Nigeria  today ranks among the most richly endowed nations of the world in terms of natural, mineral and human resources.

Nigeria has a variety of both renewable and non-renewable resources, some of which have not yet been effectively tapped.

Solar energy, probably the most extensive of the underutilized renewable resources, is likely to remain untapped for some time while  the vast reserves of natural gas produced with crude oil had  yet to be fully utilized  with the country’s highly entrepreneurial, hard-working,  and largely youthful population of over 70 million people.

Nigeria also contributes over 70 percent of the West African sub-regions’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nigeria is favourably-positioned geographically and not susceptible to the natural disasters many other countries are prone to. Even more, Nigeria is  rich in intellectual capacity, with many Nigerians at home and abroad distinguishing themselves among the best in the world in various areas of endeavour.

Furthermore, Nigeria has over 34 discovered solid minerals, including significant uranium deposits, abundant arable land and over 44 exportable commodities. With such an abundance in human and natural resources, Nigeria really should be one of the most diversified and competitive countries in the world.

It is, however,  unfortunate that diversification  is a subject matter the Federal Government has been reciting as a catechism – ‘thou shall not depend on oil alone,’  a catch phrase it had been bandying for  four decades.

Now that  the reality has come to light, each tier of the government must now put on its thinking cap to do the needful in meeting the deluge of promises made to the electorate.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a general interest Magazine with its headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s Capital.
Articles
Related posts
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryDevelopmentEconomyFinance

Ethical Health Finance Has Emerged As A Compelling and Distinctly Nigerian Response to a Long-standing National Challenge - Dr. Usman Gwarzo

5 Mins read
Nigeria’s healthcare system stands at a critical crossroads. Despite decades of policy reforms, donor interventions, and repeated commitments to Universal Health Coverage,…
BankingBusinessCover StoryEconomyFinanceNews

Fidelity Bank Grows Gross Earnings by 46% to ₦748.7 billion for H1 2025

1 Mins read
Fidelity Bank Plc has announced its audited financial results for the half-year ended 30 June 2025, demonstrating resilience and sustained growth across…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com