Revenue allocation must be on the basis of even progress and need (II)

CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK

Speech delivered by Chief Obafemi Awolowo as Federal Commissioner for Finance to the Conference of Finance Commissioners of the Federation in Kano on 23rd February, 1970.

IT is my advocacy, therefore, that we should embark on these schemes in every state without further delay. If we do, I am convinced that in a matter of fifteen years from now illiteracy and mass ignorance, as well as preventible diseases, would have become a thing of the past; and in twenty years from now, the present yawning, dangerous, and explosive educational gap between one part of the country and another would have been totally closed, putting all ethnic groups in Nigeria on equal footing with one another in educational and intellectual attainments. I would like to remark, however, that if education and health are not free at all levels, it will be difficult to devise a generally accepted formula for allocating revenue for these vital purposes, and to ensure equal progress among the states in education and health. In this event, the inequality which we want to eradicate, and the gap which we are anxious to close, will remain, and continue to poison inter-state and inter-ethnic relations.

A good deal of detailed calculations have been done by some experts on the financial effects of these schemes. It will, for instance, cost £8,000 to provide a health centre for a population of 10,000, and £4,000 per annum to run it. With the health facilities provided at this centre, preventable diseases will be wiped out and kept out, infant mortality will be reduced to the barest minimum, and the health of the people will be considerably enhanced. The only obstacle here, it will be seen, is not money but the lack of qualified personnel. We must train them, and begin to do so now.

It is also estimated that, on the very outside, the total recurrent cost of free education, over the next five years, will be £405m., whilst capital costs will be of the order of £150m. As against the recurrent cost, the anticipated combined recurrent revenue of the Federal and State Governments, on a conservative basis, is about £1,931m. The estimated recurrent cost of education thus forms 21 per cent of the estimated total recurrent revenue. As regards the estimated capital cost, I have no doubt at all in my mind that we can quite conveniently carry £150m, in our stride in the next periodic plan. I hasten to concede, before the point is raised, that the cost of education will certainly accelerate in the succeeding years. But so (if not much more so) will our GDP.

THE FOURTH IS MODERNISATION OF AGRICULTURE. In his contribution to the discussion on the paper entitled AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT submitted by Professor H.A. Oluwasanmi to THE CONFERENCE ON NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA which was held at Ibadan University in March, 1969, Professor Glenn Johnson said:

‘By 1985 GDP from properly managed agriculture would probably make up about one-third of the total as contrasted to 55 percent in 1966. Conservatively, that one-third, however, would be over twice as large as in 1966’.

In other words, by 1985, if properly planned and managed, agriculture should be able to contribute as much as £ 1,784m, to our GDP; that is, £179.4m, more than our total GDP in 1966. If a foreigner says that this target is possible, we would be doing ourselves much worse than injustice to say that it is not. Speaking for myself, I believe very much that more than this target is possible. Indeed, a private projection with which I am associated puts our GDP by 1985 at £5,618.4m., as compared with £5,353.4m, based on Professor Johnson’s projection. If it is assumed that one-third of the former figure is contributed by agriculture, this would result in £1,872.8m; that is, £88.4m’, more than Professor Johnson’s projection. But to achieve any of these ambitious targets, Nigeria’s agriculture must be modernised and mechanised in a bold and massive manner. We shall need to invest heavily in tractors, mechanical ploughs and ridgers, fertilisers, pest control, irrigation, research into high-yielding grains and seeds, cattle pastures and ranches, fishing trawlers, etc. It is only in the pursuit and attainment of these targets that our oft-repeated desire to increase the productivity, and so raise the standard of living, of our peasantry, evenly throughout the Federation, can be realised. So far as the evidence reveals, however, none of the states, by itself, can afford anything near the scale of investment required to realise our legitimate desire. And the problem is extremely urgent for all the States and for the country, without exception.

It may not, for instance, be generally recognised that just now the level of poverty amongst our peasants throughout the country is almost equally high, in spite of the false and imposing facades presented by the town and city dwellers in some states. The average per capita weekly expenditure on food in our rural areas is 4/- for the West, 3/4d for the East, and 3/5d for the North. Any arrangement, therefore, whereby all the States can equally, rapidly, and in concert develop their agriculture should be preferred to the present haphazard and uncoordinated individual efforts.

THE FIFTH IS RAPID INDUSTRIALISATION OF EACH STATE. The important point to stress here is that if agriculture is properly developed in every state, agro-allied industries will automatically emerge, and a number of manufacturing industries would follow in their wake. In such circumstance, each state would stand to benefit, and the present trend of uneven location of industries would disappear.

CONTINUES NEXT WEEK

READ ALSO: Revenue allocation must be on the basis of even progress and need