Furthermore, it should be clear to anyone that it is not his anatomical superiority or the climatic conditions under which he lives which make the British farmer or worker so much more productive than the Nigerian farmer or worker. No, not these. What makes the British farmer or worker more efficient and more productive than the Nigerian farmer or worker is the education and health of the former, the quantity and quality of the capital equipment he uses, and, where necessary, the efficiency of the management under which he works. Experiences of unassailable reliability have shown that if you give a Nigerian, or any other African for that matter, the same education, health, capital equipment, and efficient management, he will produce as much as any farmer or worker in any part of the so-called advanced countries. The more complicated the operation, and the more sophisticated the capital equipment, the greater the skill, mental alertness and resourcefulness, and physical fItness required.
In this era of ever-increasing scientific discovery and invention, th capital equipment required in all the sectors of the economy is becoming more and more sophisticated and complicated. But its mastery means greater productivity and a higher standard of living. It is for this reason that the so-called developed countries of the world are investing more and more in education of all kinds, more especially in scientific, technological, and professional education. Britain now spends as much as £30,000 to produce one scientist or technologist because it regard this class of people as the creators of its wealth. The United States of America spends more than Britain to produce a scientist 0r technologist. And it is because the USA pays the members of itself technostructure,’ to use one of Galbraith’s neologisms, better salaries and employs more sophisticated capital equipment in production that it now constitutes a disturbing brain drain on Britain to the tune of as many as 42 per cent of her young scientists and technologists. It is generally accepted that the productivity of an American worker is higher than that of a British worker.
Experiences have also shown that an educated manual labour or so-called unskilled worker is, other things being equal, more efficient and hence more productive than his illiterate an uneducated counterpart. .
In the light of these modern trends, the falsity or untenableness the contention of those who advocate industrialisation before education is visibly and tangibly exposed. But the historical of the contention should also be exposed.
In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, the capital equipment in use in the factories, compared with that now in use, was primitive, simple, and required little or no mental exertion operate it. The Agrarian Revolution, which had preceded to Industrial Revolution, had thrown and continued to throw off many people from the farmlands. They were an illiterate a unsophisticated lot; but they provided the type of cheap labour which fitted very comfortably into the mechanised manufacturing system then in vogue, as well as into the prevailing factory conditions. At that time in the late eighteenth century and for many years thereafter, education or literacy was not essential to the efficient operation of the crude machines in use in the factories; and the industrialiists themselves cared nothing about the education and health of their workers. There were so many people available for employment, any case, that premature and epidemic deaths did not create scare of labour.
Today, the position is different. In order to increase productive and enhance the levels of our living standards, as well as maint the parity of our currency with other currencies, modern quipment is necessary. But its economical utilization demands skilled and sophisticated operators. Otherwise, this equipment would be and the capital invested in it would be lost. The only alternative -n is to bring foreigners to operate such equipment, and pay them, mostly, in their own currencies, several times more than the indigenous c, operators.
Furthermore, the lesson which the history of industrialized Is countries in Europe and elsewhere has taught is that Industrial Revolution must be preceded by Agrarian Revolution. The greater the productivity of the farming population, the smaller the number of people required to produce food and raw materials, and the larger, the number of people thus made available for industrial and other economic activities. There is an obvious contradiction in the advocacy e of the industrial school of thought in Nigeria. In one and the same breath, they advocate industrialisation, as well as the compulsory return to land of the educated youth who have drifted into the urban areas in search of work. If Nigeria is to become truly industrialised, then our aim must be to reduce the number of people who work on the farmlands, by modernising and mechanising agriculture in such a way as to ensure that fewer and fewer farmers produce enough for the increasing food and raw-material requirements of the country. Some of the youth who have deserted the rural areas should certainly be sent’ back to the land.’ But they should be sent back to modern agriculture, not to primitive methods of tilling the land.
The rest of the youth should be absorbed in other productive and gainful employments.
In The People’s Republic, we have, repeatedly, stressed the extreme importance of land as the static cornerstone of all economic activities. It is the foundation on which all the intricate, mighty, and far-flung superstructure of modern economy is erected. In the words of Professor Arthur Lewis, if agriculture fails, industrialisation cannot succeed.
Granting then that education and health are essential to a high standard of economic proficiency, why make them free? Why not leave it to the parents to educate and provide for the health of their own children? At the secondary and post-secondary levels, it is suggested, scholarships may be awarded to the more brilliant amongst those pupils and students who are unable to pay their fees; and, for the rest of this class, why should some form of loans not be suffiCient?
and then