Introduction
In 1960, Nigeria stood at the dawn of independence with remarkable potential. It was Africa’s most populous country, rich in natural resources, home to a vibrant cultural tapestry, and strategically located on the Gulf of Guinea. By most economic and political estimates, Nigeria was poised to become one of the leading lights of the developing world. It had a GDP comparable to that of Malaysia, per capita income ahead of India, and was on par with countries like Indonesia, Brazil, and even South Korea in key economic indicators.
Fast forward to 2024, and the story takes a different turn. While some of Nigeria’s peers have leapt forward, transforming into global manufacturing hubs, digital economies, or innovation-driven welfare states, Nigeria’s progress has remained largely elusive. The nation still battles with poverty, infrastructural decay, high unemployment, policy inconsistency, and widespread insecurity. This article takes a comprehensive, historically grounded look at the systemic and strategic missteps that have hindered Nigeria’s economic development over the last six decades, while exploring lessons that can steer its future course.
The Starting Line: Nigeria and Its Peers in 1960
In 1960, Nigeria was not just hopeful, it was promising. Agriculture formed the backbone of the economy, contributing over 60% to GDP and accounting for the bulk of exports. Cocoa, groundnut, palm oil, and rubber dominated international markets. With the discovery of oil, the country appeared destined for prosperity.
Other countries at a similar level included:
- Malaysia (also agrarian with tin and rubber exports)
- Indonesia (emerging from colonial occupation with similar socio-economic structures)
- India (gaining momentum with centralized planning)
- Brazil (marked by inflation but undergoing industrialization)
- South Korea (recovering from war, but not yet an industrialized economy)
These nations all faced their own challenges, from ethnic division and political instability to poverty and global economic pressures. Yet, over time, most of them were able to move from low-income to middle or even high-income status.
Oil Dependency and the Dutch Disease
Nigeria’s economic trajectory shifted dramatically with the commercial discovery of crude oil in Oloibiri in 1956. By the 1970s, oil had overtaken agriculture as the mainstay of the economy. Oil wealth created a false sense of security, and instead of reinvesting windfalls into infrastructure, education, and industrial diversification, the country became overly dependent on oil rents.
This led to what economists term the “Dutch Disease”, where resource booms lead to neglect in other sectors due to overvaluation of the currency and rent-seeking behavior. Manufacturing stagnated, agriculture declined, and productivity across sectors dropped.
Countries like Malaysia, in contrast, discovered oil around the same period but chose a more diversified path, investing oil revenue into education, public health, and export-driven manufacturing. By the 1990s, Malaysia had transitioned into a semi-industrial economy with a robust tech sector.
Political Instability and Military Rule
Nigeria’s post-independence history is marred by coups, civil war (1967-1970), and three decades of military rule. This created a governance vacuum and nurtured a culture of impunity that is still prevalent today. The country experienced policy changes with each regime, which in great measure discouraged long-term investment and planning.
While countries like South Korea also experienced authoritarian regimes, their leadership focused on economic transformation through export-led growth, literacy expansion, and technological adoption. Nigeria, by contrast, experienced widespread corruption, poor governance, and the decadence of the ‘permanent government,’ a.k.a., the civil service.
The military era particularly eroded institutional capacity and civic trust, while Nigeria’s developmental vision became trapped in cycles of political upheaval and policy somersaults that led the country into the present mess.
Institutional Weakness and Corruption
Perhaps one of the most persistent barriers to Nigeria’s growth has been endemic corruption and weak institutions. Transparency International ranks Nigeria poorly on global corruption indices. Public procurement is riddled with inefficiencies, and public office often becomes a gateway to personal enrichment.
This culture of corruption undermines everything from infrastructure delivery to investor confidence. Moreover, weak judicial systems mean contracts are difficult to enforce, property rights are insecure, and bureaucratic inefficiencies are rampant.
By comparison, nations like India invested heavily in institutional frameworks. Despite its democratic complexity, India nurtured credible electoral systems, a relatively independent judiciary, and a professional civil service. Brazil implemented anti-corruption initiatives and robust fiscal monitoring tools, particularly in the 2000s, to regain investor confidence.
Demographic Explosion without Human Capital Development
Nigeria’s population has grown from 45 million in 1960 to over 220 million in 2024. While a young, vibrant population should be an asset, it has become a liability due to poor investments in education, health, and job creation.
According to UNESCO and World Bank data, Nigeria has some of the highest out-of-school rates globally. Infant and maternal mortality remain stubbornly high. Youth unemployment is above 40%, and brain drain continues to affect sectors like healthcare and engineering.
Countries like Indonesia and India faced similar demographic growth, but invested heavily in primary education, technical skills training, and rural health programs. South Korea achieved near-universal literacy within three decades and positioned itself as a leader in education by the 2000s. Wither Nigeria?
Infrastructure Deficits and Power Crisis
Despite being Africa’s largest economy by GDP size, Nigeria’s infrastructure is critically underdeveloped. Power generation remains below 6,000 MW for over 200 million people. Poor roads, ports, and railway systems continue to limit internal trade and foreign investment.
In contrast, Brazil invested in energy independence through hydroelectric projects. India liberalized its telecoms and transportation sectors, unleashing a digital revolution. Malaysia and South Korea built world-class infrastructure as part of industrial policy packages.
Without functional infrastructure, Nigeria’s SMEs cannot scale, digital adoption is hampered, and regional competitiveness diminishes.
Policy Inconsistency and Economic Volatility
Frequent policy reversals have plagued Nigeria’s economic reforms. From import bans to currency controls, subsidy regimes to trade liberalization, the country has oscillated between opposing economic ideologies.
Monetary policy has often been reactive, with multiple exchange rates encouraging arbitrage. Fiscal policy has lacked discipline, with excessive debt accumulation and over-reliance on volatile oil markets.
Countries like India and Indonesia implemented phased liberalization strategies. They maintained macroeconomic discipline, diversified exports, and built resilient central banking systems. Nigeria’s policy unpredictability has created an environment of uncertainty that stifles investment as over ten MNC has divested in the past 10 years to the chagrin of all.
Insecurity and Social Fragility
Widespread insecurity is a key reason for Nigeria’s developmental stagnation. From the Boko Haram insurgency in the North-East to farmer-herder conflicts and kidnapping epidemics in the South, insecurity has disrupted education, investment, and agricultural productivity.
In contrast, Indonesia quelled separatist movements and prioritized national unity through cultural integration and economic inclusion. Brazil’s social welfare programs, though flawed, helped reduce urban violence by addressing root causes.
Nigeria must adopt a comprehensive approach that combines security enforcement with socioeconomic development.
Missed Industrialisation and Technological Leapfrogging
Perhaps Nigeria’s most significant strategic blunder was missing the window of opportunity for industrialization during the 1980s and 1990s. While peers embraced export-led industrial policy, Nigeria remained focused on extractives. We are not unaware that this period was marked with military dictatorship and the struggle by pro-democracy groups to force military to return the country to party politics. Furthermore, the military leaders of those days were ambitious types such as IBB and Abacha who were planning to transmute into civilian presidents through tricks and turns. So, instead of governance, Nigeria was struggling for political relevance in the comity of nations. It was within this window that South Korea built global brands in electronics and automotive. Malaysia became a hub for semiconductors. India exported IT services globally. So, Nigeria leaders then failed woefully to develop an industrial base or transition into high-value services.
With the digital age now unfolding, Nigeria risks missing yet another leapfrogging opportunity unless it invests in digital infrastructure, STEM education, and innovation ecosystems. I don’t know whether we ever learnt from history because other nations are already investing in digital infrastructure. Healthcare and education, we are already seeing the movement and hearing the echoes of the 80s and 90s with leadership focusing on the next elections, rather than being allowed to govern and lead with vision and clarity into the next phase.
Pathways to Redemption: Learning from the Past, Acting in the Present
I would like to submit that despite the bleak outlook, Nigeria’s potential remains intact because the country still holds vast human capital, natural resources, and a growing tech-savvy youth population. So, I am of the opinion that unlocking this potential requires deliberate reform across five key pillars:
- Governance: Strengthen institutions, uphold the rule of law, and enforce anti-corruption frameworks.
- Human Capital: Invest in universal education, vocational training, and primary healthcare.
- Economic Diversification: Move from oil dependency to agriculture, manufacturing, and digital services.
- Infrastructure and Energy: Implement the Electricity Act and National Infrastructure Plan with urgency.
- Social Cohesion and Security: Address root causes of conflict and build inclusive national identity.
READ ALSO: EXCLUSIVE: ASUU president blows hot, says honeymoon with Tinubu-led govt over
Conclusion
In the year 2025, can we say Nigeria is a nation at a crossroads because her 64-year journey since independence is a story of missed opportunities, but not of permanent failure. The comparison with peers like South Korea, Malaysia, and Brazil is not to shame, but to awaken our leaders to the urgent call to build this nation. In my mind, it reveals what could have been, and more importantly, what still can be more reflective than ever.
We know that development is not a linear path; it is shaped by leadership, vision, and collective action of all, the leadership, opposition, and the populace. As Nigeria stands at a critical juncture of history becoming 65 in October, the next decade will be critical as the country afford not to turn governance to benefit majority of the citizens. The decisions made now will determine whether the country breaks free from its developmental inertia or remains trapped in cycles of underachievement.
I think that the time for rhetoric has passed, and the time for bold, accountable, and inclusive action is now. Nigeria’s destiny is not written in oil, poverty, or mismanagement—it is waiting to be reclaimed through strategic leadership and the will to do things differently, and become an eldorado for doubters, while building a nation that we can be proud of in Africa and globally.
Prof. Sarumi is the Chief Strategic Officer, LMS DT Consulting, Faculty, Prowess University, US, and ICLED Business School, and writes from Lagos, Nigeria. He is also a consultant in TVET and indigenous education systems, affiliated with the Global Adaptive Apprenticeship Model (GAAM) research consortium. Tel. 234 803 304 1421, Email: leadershipmgtservice@gmail.com.
