Cover StoryEconomyNews

NASRE: Economic Hardship, Charting a Path Forward

4 Mins read

In the labyrinth of Nigeria’s economic landscape, a pervasive wave of hardship has engulfed the nation, leaving its citizens navigating through soaring costs, diminished purchasing power, and profound lifestyle adjustments. The complex interplay of policy reforms, notably the removal of fuel subsidies and the unification of exchange rates, has ushered in a new era of financial struggle for many, creating a multi-faceted crisis that requires a comprehensive exploration.

For instance, Nigeria battles with a record high inflation rate of 28.92 per cent in December 2023 from 28.20 per cent in November, and a food inflation rate of 33.93 per cent, which is driven by increases in prices of staple food items such as Oil and fat, Meat, Bread and Cereals, Potatoes, Yam & Other Tubers, Fish, and Milk, Cheese, and Eggs.

In fact, latest global hunger index report has ranked Nigeria 109 out of 125 countries as one of the countries with the most hungry population in the world. The report, therefore, showed that Nigeria is below countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, DR Congo, North Korea, and Guinea.

The Human Impact

At the heart of this economic maelstrom are the stories of ordinary Nigerians, whose daily life is marred by a worsening financial situation despite earnest attempts to cut costs. Their plight mirrors the struggles of countless others facing the collateral damage of policy decisions.

The removal of the fuel subsidy in June 2023 acted as a catalyst, triggering a domino effect on the prices of goods and services. Families like Shakirudeen Bankole’s, who once enjoyed the ritual of preparing soup every week, now find themselves reducing such practices to once a month due to inflation’s relentless grip on grocery prices.

Government Policy Reforms Amplifying Hardship

The government’s decision to remove the fuel subsidy and unify the exchange rate, while well-intentioned, has created a perfect storm for citizens just recovering from the repercussions of a controversial naira redesign policy. The subsequent surge in prices has affected various sectors, from food and transportation to education and small businesses.

The Central Bank of Nigeria’s move to unify the forex exchange market aimed at transparency and investor confidence has inadvertently intensified pressure on the local currency. Manufacturers grapple with increased costs, and citizens face the harsh reality of adapting to a new economic normal.

Lives In Flux: Stories From The Ground

As voices from different regions echo similar hardships, lifestyle changes become inevitable. Nigerians all over the country narrate how the economic challenges have compelled their family to reduce their three square meals to two, emphasizing the pervasive impact on daily life.

Poultry farmer Namso Udoka highlights the struggle as the price of essential inputs like hybrid feed skyrockets, affecting both production costs and, potentially, the prices of eggs. Civil servants like Monday Ewaoche recount drastic adjustments – from cutting down on unnecessary expenses to choosing public transport over personal vehicles.

The Trickle-Down Effect

From the bustling markets of Kano to the mechanic parts workshops in Ladipo, the fabric shops in Abeokuta, the cry all over has been the negative impact of the economy on the market. The markets that have once bustling with activity are now eerily quiet due to reduced patronage.

Entrepreneurs have also expressed the ripple effect on their businesses. Increased fuel prices translate to higher production costs, forcing them to raise prices and, subsequently, face a decline in patronage.

Our Stand

As Nigerians continue to face the present unprecedented hardship, calls for a reevaluation of government policies and a plea for relief from economic hardships echo nationwide. The National Association of Social and Resourceful Editors (NASRE), therefore, emphasize the need for specific blueprints to address inflationary pressures and revitalize the economy.

To this end, we urge all arms of government to provide economic relief, emphasizing the commitment to delivering on promises despite the challenges. We also advocate for citizens’ involvement in security efforts and encourage unity to navigate these trying times.

In the face of adversity, Nigerians are resilient, adapting to the changing economic landscape while holding onto hope for a better tomorrow. The complexities of this economic crisis demand a comprehensive response, blending short-term relief measures with long-term structural reforms.

Immediate Relief Measures: Urgent steps must be taken to provide immediate relief to vulnerable populations. This includes targeted subsidies, social welfare programs, and food assistance to mitigate the impact of rising prices on essential goods.

Inclusive Policy Reevaluation: Government policies, especially those related to subsidy removal and exchange rate unification, require thorough reassessment. The inclusion of stakeholders from various sectors in policy discussions can help identify unintended consequences and inform more inclusive decision-making.

Economic Diversification: A strategic shift towards economic diversification is imperative. Investing in sectors where Nigeria has a comparative advantage, such as agriculture, can stimulate growth, create employment, and reduce dependence on oil revenue.

Infrastructure Development: Critical investments in infrastructure, particularly in transportation and power generation, can alleviate the burden on businesses and reduce production costs. Improved infrastructure enhances efficiency and competitiveness in the global market.

Empowering Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs): SMEs form the backbone of Nigeria’s economy. Providing targeted support, including access to affordable credit, skill development programs, and streamlined regulatory processes, can boost their resilience and contribution to economic recovery.

Transparent Communication: Building trust through transparent communication is crucial. Clearly articulating government policies, their objectives, and the expected impact fosters a sense of understanding among citizens, reducing uncertainty and speculation.

Conclusion: A Collective Journey

As Nigeria grapples with these multifaceted challenges, the path forward necessitates a collective effort, innovative solutions, and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the current hardships. Only through unity, collaboration between government and citizens, and strategic reforms can Nigeria emerge from these turbulent waters into a more prosperous and equitable future.

For further inquiries or comments, please contact NASRE secretariat:
Email: officialnasre@gmail.com
Phone: +234 [0] 907 545 7236
Website: nasre.ng

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
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 StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com