The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) had, during the campaigns, made some bold promises: They promised to offer free meals to Nigerian pupils. They also promised to pay N5,000 to the most vulnerable persons in our society, among other commitments. These promises arguably resonated with the youths and the generality of Nigerians.
The elections are over and APC has conveniently emerged as the ruling party at the centre. For majority of Nigerians, it is time for the party to redeem its promises. But ‘a free lunch’ is a contentious issue. Its antithesis is encapsulated in the ubiquitous phrase: There is no such thing as a free lunch.
This aphorism historically crept into the American leisure and hospitality industry during the 19th century. Among other writers, its economic import was vigorously enunciated by the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, through many of his thought-provoking lectures and writings. It was even adopted as a title of his book, published in 1975.
In 1977, Friedman emphatically declared to members of Israeli Knesset Finance Committee in Jerusalem that: “There is no such thing as a free lunch…”
In the mainstream economic thought, it is a phrase that tends to suggest latent costs and trade-offs in choices and decision-making.
The quintessential questions within the ambit of the social schemes that APC offered are: What are the ‘hidden/real costs’ associated with these schemes? What would the APC government at the centre sacrifice and spend less on – as a result of these social schemes? Which of the programmes and priorities would be given up, to fund these schemes? Is it safe to assume that the derivable benefits from these schemes would outweigh the political, social and economic sacrifices? Which of the economic agents would make the ultimate sacrifices and bear the costs of these schemes? How would the schemes be funded sustainably? Would they be funded by a combination of taxes, oil proceeds and cost savings?
If the savings are expected from the removal of the downstream oil subsidies, then, how much specifically would be channelled to these schemes? And how much would be applied to other possible schemes to mitigate against the discontents that could stick out from the removal of the subsidies? Is it even possible to sustainably offer these social schemes without consistently moving the production frontiers of the Nigerian economy outwards for a period of time? By offering these schemes, are we not inadvertently preparing ‘free meals’ for ‘special interests’ as arguably seen in the downstream oil sector?
These questions are pertinent – considering that the present state of the economy, as the APC (party) has severally argued, is not in the best of conditions. Neither has the country built the requisite critical mass of economic successes nor governance structures that could make the implementations of these schemes less problematic.
Nigeria has large number of pupils in schools. Feeding these children even at a discounted price, with the usual slacks that are associated with government initiatives, could be staggering.
How do we even determine and establish the rightful beneficiaries? Is it even in the interest of the country to feed pupils amid dilapidated school buildings and facilities? Is it in the interest of the country to offer free meals to Nigerian pupils at the expense of improving their literacy and numeracy skills?
Is it not better to invest part of these funds in the training and re-training of our teachers, and making sure that our children, especially those from disadvantaged regions, are exposed to basic and qualitative education?
On the N5,000 payment to the most vulnerable in our society, there are also questions: Who is qualified to benefit from this? Since, a significant percentage of Nigerians fall into this group, what yardstick would be used to determine the actual beneficiaries? How do we insulate politics from the identification process? How do we ensure that the real beneficiaries are not fenced off because of the usual conflicting interests of the enablers of such schemes?
Could this particular scheme not surreptitiously promote a culture of dependency and entitlement among Nigerians? Are we not indirectly subsidising consumption?
Is it not better for the funds to be pooled together in addition to other intervention funds and transparently channelled to schemes that would empower Nigerians – to become innovative, productive, entrepreneurial and competitive?
Nigerians are hardworking people. What is needed is a transparent policy that would encourage our people to become creative, to unleash their entrepreneurial skills.
There is no doubt that the essence of these schemes is to promote some form of social justice. But doing this at the expense of the country’s long term social and economic prosperity is double jeopardy.
Besides, the recent outcomes of some of these social schemes in some states in Nigeria are regrettably discouraging.
As altruistic as it appears, it is seemingly not sustainable for the government in Nigeria to attempt to assume the role of a ‘big uncle’.
Well-meaning Nigerians need a government that would make ‘big uncles’ out of them through the protection of its people. This is in addition to creating an enabling environment for free competition, innovation, industry and entrepreneurship.
Besides, considering the dwindling revenues, volatile oil prices and uncertain economic landscape, these schemes could constitute a political and an economic booby-trap for the government at the centre.
APC rode into power through the ‘change’ mantra. It will be disappointing if the party ‘short-changes’ itself and Nigerians as a result of its own internal contradictions and some misguided ‘social and economic fantasies’. God forbid!