A Critical Assessment of Nigeria indigenization programs of 1972 and 1977
INTRODUCTION
This paper focused on the impetus behind economic nationalism, expropriation and decolonization in the context of Africa indigenization policy using Nigeria indigenization programs of 1970s as the tools for literary studies and assessment. From 1960s to 1980s most of the Africa indigenization programs designed to enable Africans control ‘commanding heights' in the national economy against the foreign dominions were bureaucratized and biased towards serving few domestic elites formed after independence. While in contrary, economic decolonization actions which took place in other third world continent of Latin America's against the foreign interlopers were taken in alliance with the labor movement, labor oriented political parties or groups representing mass insurrections. I consolidates over above argument as a prelude to fix the demands of this paper. The origin of indigenization programs in Nigeria is traced. The aim and objectives of their presence is discussed. And an assessment on their implementations and strategies would be a serious restoration for this paper to pass judgments over an abysmally low achievements recorded by the programs and why many of the anticipated goals failed, so as to blend future actions and policies that would aim at empowerment and development for Nigerians.
ECONOMIC NATIONALISM AND AFRICA INDIGENIZATION POLICY
Economic nationalism is perceived as a sentiment or principle arising from controls of economy conceived by people of a define origin, having same language, tradition, race, religion or living within same geo-political entity. The degree of this perception correlated with consciousness that had driven the strains over political independence of the newly nation-states. On international politics, economic nationalism as often been presented as a phenomenon belonging to the past. However, considering the expropriation of foreign property by the governments of Argentina and Venezuela, or the political battles in Zimbabwe about indigenization legislation. Shows that economic nationalism has not lost its potency and appeal in the populist political debates in developing and emerging countries (Business Daily, 2010; Economist, 2012). Most arguments thereon center on the activities of the Multinational Enterprises against the national economies in these days of globalization. In the underlying conception of economic nationalism, Economist scholar like Harry Johnson (1965), in his article posited economic nationalism as an economic program that seeks to extend the property owned by nationals so as to gratify the taste for nationalism. The approach to that domestic gratification signal a fight against liberal economy system under which transnational corporations operates as noticed by Harry. My argument here is that if truly ours in the globalization age is not about nation building. Nationalism in the third world nations had to seek resort to economic ideological means to fight a war worth fighting against the dominions of transnational corporations which operated across their borders at the expense of national interest. Johnson (1965) thought well over this matter in connection to my assertion "that investment in the creation of a middle class, financed by resources extracted from the mass of the population by nationalistic policies, may be the essential preliminary to the construction of a viable national state. Multinational corporations being the loggerhead of the opposing views of economic nationalists in defense of economic liberalization, are nothing today indirectly doing what the colonial masters had done directly to the third world nations. My view here correlate with Marxist perspective on multinational enterprises "as historically progressive agents of capitalism in the process of developing at international level" (Gilpin, 1987). In addition, the Marxists buttressed the real picture and objectives of the MNEs and the evil behind their presence in the national economy. The nature of multinationals as argued by Marxist is exploitation and maximization of profit at the lowest possible cost. Actually it is this feature that gave rise to multinational enterprises. So the idea of investing in foreign land is not vested on the interest to better the lots of the host nation but to exploit as much as is possible in order to develop the home country. Gilpin went as far as describing MNEs as a kind of imperial economic flag bearers when he described it as "euphemism for the foreign expansion of America's giant oligopolistic corporations". The point been made here is that America took lead in the race of neo-colonization in the guise of MNCs. Other countries are also involved in this neo-colonialism. Meanwhile, their existence to the third world national enterprises are decisive and destructive when considering their financial muscle, assorted technology and productivity in terms of quantities and qualities. Competitively, the national enterprises would be knocked down completely. It is from this perspective that African statesmen became conscious and decided to appropriate some aspect of the economy back to the hands of national enterprises. Second besides expropriation the African leaders followed the process of indigenization which is defined as the transfer of wealth out of the hands of the foreigner (often small or medium sized business) to local citizens. Nationalization and indigenization are often used interchangeably to the African context but not consistently applied. Often debatable to the explanation of Indigenization and nationalization regarding African countries, is ideologically inclined and characterized by the leadership charisma. While socialist countries of Africa adopted nationalization, the capitalist ones sought resort to indigenization. Finally, the impetus behind adoption of any process as concerned countries in Africa centers on market structure. A poorly performing market may call forth state intervention when, for example, entrepreneurial supply is low and local businessmen lack the resources to break into certain national markets. Because of high degree of competition, markets most likely to be controlled and owned by foreigners are those with high barriers to entry complex technologies, higher capital costs, and the need to operate on a large scale to be efficient. In most African countries, only governments can mobilize the requisite domestic resources needed to operate industries such as mining and heavy manufacturing, and they most likely to be nationalized. Conversely, many services, crafts and small-scale industries are less complex, and local entrepreneurs with more modest resources and skills can compete in them more effectively. However, it was in these contexts that Nigerian governments in 1970s deduced their capitalist structured indigenization programs. But going by their implementations it was ironical and directed towards serving politicians and their accomplices. It would not be proper to preempt the discussion. Above vignette is an overview of theoretical reasons behind economic nationalism in Africa and Nigeria specifically. While remaining parts of the paper will focused on historical evolutions of indigenization programs in Nigeria and evaluation.
EVOLUTIONS OF NIGERIA INDIGENIZATION DECREE
The idea of indigenization programs in Nigeria could be traced back to 1946, when the colonial government established the Nigeria Local Development Board, to grant loans for Nigeria owned enterprises. In 1956, a national committee on Nigerianization of Business Enterprises was set up. The committee drafted their recommendations and concluded that foreign enterprises be barred from distributive trade, which was accepted by government and was never implemented properly. Why because Balewa government was heavily in harmony to the western interests. Demands for nationalization by charismatic leader whose government never came to being in the person of Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the opposition, therefore received little support. In fact, Okotie Eboh, Balewa's finance Minister, quickly brushed aside such demands "as irresponsible". Not surprisingly, the first National Development Plan made openly the preference of Government to help private indigenous businesses grow rather than expropriate foreign business interests. Balewa's overthrow in January 1966 brought into climax Nigerian civil war (1967-1970). Aftermath of the first republic, Gowon government continued to pursue an ‘accommodation' policy toward foreign capital, it became more and more concerned with the harmonization of foreign with local interests. In 1968 an Expatriate Quota Allocation Board was established. The objective of this policy was to maximize "the participation of Nigerians in the management of foreign businesses". Such a policy, if well enforced, had good potentials. At the very least it would help to ensure the development of competent local management and skilled labor by these foreign business interest. Given the prominence of labor among factors of production, the above program may have proved to be a robust developmental strategy. The policy could have been effective when considering the profitability of the Nigerian market and the fact that foreign businesses capital still remained untouched, presumably if government clearly stated measures to deal with non-compliance and they would have taken seriously into cognizance such local staffing requirements. Rather than modification of mechanism and implementation strategy for it to impact on indigenous development. Gowon government was deceived by the increasing oil revenue and decided to change direction. By 1970s, the government opted for the more extreme indigenization programs which was in line with the Second National Development Plan of 1970-1974. Second Development Plan introduced measures for the ‘accelerated' training of the local businessmen, the provision of advisory and training services and the improved flow of capital, technical and market information. The climax of these historical synchronizing processes came with the Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decrees of 1972 and 1977. Announcing itself as "the first real scientific approach to the complex problem of how to encourage and protect private Nigerian participation in the foreign dominated domestic economy". The NEPD of 1972 decreed the transfer of those businesses in the private sector which were believed to be within the competitive of indigenous expertise (schedule I, 21 Enterprises), and required a minimum Nigerian interest of 40 per cent equity in other businesses where Joint participation was still considered necessary (schedule II, 35 Enterprises), while the remainder (80 Enterprises) were allowed to continue to operate under full foreign control. Though, the intentions of Nigeria indigenization policies are defined clearly in their theories and the extent to which they were been put into operations to fit the expectations of Nigerians and better their lots would formed the remaining parts of this work.
THE AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NIGERIA ENTERPRISES PROMOTION DECREE 1972 AND 1977
The Nigeria enterprises promotion decree been in discussion as referred to as indigenization policy was promulgated with effect from 1972. The utmost aim of the decree was to give Nigerians the desired involvement in the commanding heights of the country's productive enterprises. Initially, the decree started with double schedule, Schedule 1&2. But as this went by, the decree was modified by Decree no3 of 1977. The modification provides for triple schedules of enterprises for better participation of Nigerians instead of the former double schedule. Among these triple schedules are listed below: ? Schedule one: This comprises of enterprises which are exclusively reserved for Nigerians. The Decree reserved the right of participation and ownership of all the items exclusively in this schedule without any foreign interference. Some of the items in schedule 1 includes: Advertising, public relation business, assembling of radios and television, bottling of alcohol drinks, baking of cake and bread, and among others. ? Schedule two: Comprises of enterprises in which native must have major interest at least 60% of equity interest. These include: Banking (Commercial Bank, Merchant Banks, Development Bank), basic iron and steel manufacturing, beer brewing, and clearing and forwarding agencies. ? Schedule three: In this part, Nigerians have at least 40% equity interest. its includes the following; fertilizer production, manufacturing of basic industrial chemicals, manufacturing of tobacco, and distilling and blending of spirits such as whiskey, brandy, ethyl alcohol, etc. To carry out the supposed plan in the end, after some shortcomings in its implementation the federal government took some emphatic steps to ensure the effectiveness of the program through the following measures: The Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industry (NBCI) was established. To provide necessary support financially; the Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (NIDB) was established to finance industrial projects and encouraged indigenous investors, also created was the Council for management education and training which was to manage the training of local businessmen, and among others. The objectives of the Decree. Nigerian enterprises promotion decree was aimed at meeting these listed objective. ? To create more employment for Nigerians. ? To enable Nigerians have greater control of their economy. ? To avoid foreign domination in order to prevent possible economic sabotage. ? To create greater opportunities for training indigenous personnel in the art of management. ? To maximize local retention of profits. The extent to which these yearning objectives has been achieved is next to the point of our discussion. Does the mass populace really benefited from the repertoire of this economic consciousness? If yes, to what considerable length? And what is the current situation of Nigeria as far as self-reliant economic activities, employment rate, and standard of living are concerned?
GENERAL ASSESSMENT TO NIGERIAN ENTERPRISES PROMOTION DECREE
Though, the projected aim and objectives of the Nigerian enterprises promotion decree was good and superb in its stated form. Often lamentable from the onset of its operation was that there is no clearly stated policy to sustain the foreign investors in adhering to the minimum staffing requirements. Persistently, its runs faulty since it was a Decree made by the military government imposed without wider consultations, though good but unconstitutional. Not minding its processes of establishments. The exercise did not markedly increase Nigeria control of its economy nor did Nigeria became economically self-reliant, even though, the effect on the localization of ownership was very impressive. Objectively, what the Decree achieved was to arrange an accommodation between indigenous and foreign capital; it reduced the chances of conflict and deepened the interest of the Nigerian leadership in capitalism. Often, this accommodation soon degenerated into a partnership that blindfolded the real indigenization purpose projected. One common problems noticed in Nigeria indigenization programs, and Africa generally, "is the tendency for African entrepreneurs to become a surrogates to the foreign enterprises in return for cash as a rewards or profitable business opportunities"; difficulties in moral and social leniency which lead in the creation of few wealthy people at the expense of the populace, difficulties in funds acquirement to streamline businesses which are affected by the decree, and moreover shortages of trained manpower to substitute people that lacks managerial skill and technical know-how. For example, in Nigeria "the Chairman of the Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Board, Minso Wadzama Gadzama, repeatedly complained the collusion of Nigerians with expatriate business to defeat the decrees". Apart from been a surrogate, even when Nigerians used their own money to buy the expatriate enterprises, they preferred profits than to control, by retaining the expatriate managers on ground in the assumptions that emphasizes on their performance and profits. That was even true to those supposedly strategic enterprises in which the government itself acquired controlling interest. Usually the government settled for a division of labor in which the Nigerian managers were the staff management specialists such as legal advisers, personnel managers, and company secretaries, while expatriates held line management positions such as finance manager, manager, production manager, and engineering manager. When going by official accounts, the contrary that was to be achieved. Was to compel the alien business community to move in to more capital-intensive and more technologically advanced production, particularly in manufacturing. The central objectives to the 1977 NEP Decree clearly made this known. Brigadier Shehu Yar'Adua, Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters, stated in 1976 that the "Objectives for the first phase of the indigenization exercise still remain valid for the Second phase…" while emphasizing on the items 1, 2, 3 of the highlighted objectives as a priorities to be vigorously pursued. Dr. A. Adedeji, the former federal commissioner of Economic planning, and one of the chief architects of the 1972 Decree. Clearly stated that "the primary purpose of indigenization is economic decolonization, the reduction of economic dependence and the achievement of an increasing measure of self-reliance through internally located and self-sustaining growth". This official statement was in correspondent with General O. Obasanjo's view in a speech to members of the national Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies in Jos on 3rd Sept 1979. He stated that "meaningful development and transformation of our society can only be achieved through Self-reliant and Self-sustaining economic programs and policies…, he further argued the idea of self-reliant and self-sufficient nation as ideal closest to be pursed" . Then in reality, following the euphoria of the 1970s indigenization programs and other developmental directed policies. The fundamental question to be asked are; is Nigeria economically self-sufficient? If we are to consider the importation jamborees, happening now within the circle of Nigeria economy absolutely the NEPD programs is a failure. This was simply because there is no proper monitoring to its implementation and corruption lapses. Nigeria importation carnival is even celebrated to the extent of importing sands for sports media, tooth-picks, tin tomatoes and other junks let alone of talking about the manufactured goods and other assorted technologies. Accordingly, it has been argued that "while political self-determination is philosophically desirable as the inalienable right and ultimate goal of any country under foreign rule, what is needed to make it meaningful, and to translate available resources into national prosperity is a firm economic base". What is paramount to this argument as far as this contention is concerned, was failure of Nigerian government to translate the huge available human and mineral resources into national prosperity. Today Nigerians live below poverty line, unemployment rates hover annually, poverty remain unchallenged and Nigeria is yet featured as underdeveloped country in plenty. Agricultural programs and industrialization programs in Nigeria suffered the same faith of leadership recklessness which borders on corruption, policy reversal, underfunding and mismanagement which had altogether been the bane of implementation of indigenization programs. By way of summary, the sense of a need for indigenization became most compelling urge towards the end of 1960s and by 1970s it was promulgated by a Decree establishing Nigerian Enterprises Promotion as a kind of economic consciousness to freed Nigerians from the grip of foreign economic control just as the political nationalist consciousness in the early 1940s that gave rise to political independent. Having went through the lapses in the implementations of 1970s indigenization programs in Nigeria, it is pertinent to say neither the political independence did little to change the lives of the mass of the peasants and workers in the country nor the indigenization programs. Instead few elites were succeeded to enrich themselves in the indigenization programs. Given the audacious hope projected by the indigenization programs objectives to provide employment opportunities as part of the martial plan of the programs in 1970s, job creation in Nigeria has been inadequate to keep pace with the expanding working age population. The official unemployment rate has steadily been reported increasingly from time to time, from 12% in 2006 to 24% in 2011. Equally, the preliminary indications are that this upward trend continued to date. It is against this backdrop one may have concluded that the indigenization programs in Nigeria are nothing but failures.
CONCLUSION
Despites all the lapses discussed in the assessment page, the indigenization programs have made some welcomed achievements. It succeeded creating confidence on Nigeria investors by making available funds in a kind of investment loan to invest into national economy. In the area of foreign investment control Nigeria through the programs of indigenization did perform relatively better than other African countries in exception of South Africa, Nigeria has enjoyed the largest share of total Western Investment share in Africa. According to CBN reports, investment in the mining and quarrying industries accounted for about 47%, while in manufacturing and processing, which government was keen to encouraged, total investment accounted for only 21.2%. Empirically, I have investigated the extent of which 1970s indigenization programs succeeded in their implementations, their lapses and their far reaching effects on the lives of the ordinary Nigerians. To that extent I find out that most of the reasons why they failed to reach their projected goals borders on administrative recklessness, mismanagement, corruptions, policy reversal, favoritism, lack of proper monitoring and strictly defined measures to dealt with non-compliance. In this case, to blend the future policy formulators that would aim at empowerment and development in the Nigeria. I therefore make these recommendation. ? That policy should be accompanied by wider consultations ? That clearly defined measures should be taken to find defaulters wanted ? That such harmony with the foreign investors should have a definite time in the areas of division of labor ? That policy should aimed at betterment of the whole fabrics of the societies without discrimination ? That there should be consistency in the policies, irrespective of any administration and party manifestoes ? That there should be proper monitoring and constant supervision ? And lastly corruption should be averted from its process of implementation.
REFRENCES
Andreas, P. (n d). Explaining (With) Economic Nationalism: Working papers, (Online monograph), TIPEC Working paper 02/1.
Ankie, H. (n d). Indigenization and Foreign Capital: Industrialization in Nigeria. (Online monograph).
Chibuike, U. (2011). British Government, British Businesses and the Indigenization Exercise in Nigeria. Enugu, Paper prepared for Presentation at the ECAS 4 Conference (15-18): University of Nigeria Campus.
Claude, A. (1996). Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington D.C: The Brookings Institution.
Ezie, O. (et al), (2013). Multinational Corporations and the Nigerian Economy: Bingham University Nasarawa, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 4, ISSN: 222 – 6990.
Marcelo, B. (et al), (n d). Economic Nationalism in the Twentieth century. A Comparison: University of Illinois, (Online monograph).
Ismaila, M. (1985). The Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decrees (1972 and 1977) and Indigenization in Nigeria. University of Warwick Institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap.
This paper focused on the impetus behind economic nationalism, expropriation and decolonization in the context of Africa indigenization policy using Nigeria indigenization programs of 1970s as the tools for literary studies and assessment. From 1960s to 1980s most of the Africa indigenization programs designed to enable Africans control ‘commanding heights' in the national economy against the foreign dominions were bureaucratized and biased towards serving few domestic elites formed after independence. While in contrary, economic decolonization actions which took place in other third world continent of Latin America's against the foreign interlopers were taken in alliance with the labor movement, labor oriented political parties or groups representing mass insurrections. I consolidates over above argument as a prelude to fix the demands of this paper. The origin of indigenization programs in Nigeria is traced. The aim and objectives of their presence is discussed. And an assessment on their implementations and strategies would be a serious restoration for this paper to pass judgments over an abysmally low achievements recorded by the programs and why many of the anticipated goals failed, so as to blend future actions and policies that would aim at empowerment and development for Nigerians.
ECONOMIC NATIONALISM AND AFRICA INDIGENIZATION POLICY
Economic nationalism is perceived as a sentiment or principle arising from controls of economy conceived by people of a define origin, having same language, tradition, race, religion or living within same geo-political entity. The degree of this perception correlated with consciousness that had driven the strains over political independence of the newly nation-states. On international politics, economic nationalism as often been presented as a phenomenon belonging to the past. However, considering the expropriation of foreign property by the governments of Argentina and Venezuela, or the political battles in Zimbabwe about indigenization legislation. Shows that economic nationalism has not lost its potency and appeal in the populist political debates in developing and emerging countries (Business Daily, 2010; Economist, 2012). Most arguments thereon center on the activities of the Multinational Enterprises against the national economies in these days of globalization. In the underlying conception of economic nationalism, Economist scholar like Harry Johnson (1965), in his article posited economic nationalism as an economic program that seeks to extend the property owned by nationals so as to gratify the taste for nationalism. The approach to that domestic gratification signal a fight against liberal economy system under which transnational corporations operates as noticed by Harry. My argument here is that if truly ours in the globalization age is not about nation building. Nationalism in the third world nations had to seek resort to economic ideological means to fight a war worth fighting against the dominions of transnational corporations which operated across their borders at the expense of national interest. Johnson (1965) thought well over this matter in connection to my assertion "that investment in the creation of a middle class, financed by resources extracted from the mass of the population by nationalistic policies, may be the essential preliminary to the construction of a viable national state. Multinational corporations being the loggerhead of the opposing views of economic nationalists in defense of economic liberalization, are nothing today indirectly doing what the colonial masters had done directly to the third world nations. My view here correlate with Marxist perspective on multinational enterprises "as historically progressive agents of capitalism in the process of developing at international level" (Gilpin, 1987). In addition, the Marxists buttressed the real picture and objectives of the MNEs and the evil behind their presence in the national economy. The nature of multinationals as argued by Marxist is exploitation and maximization of profit at the lowest possible cost. Actually it is this feature that gave rise to multinational enterprises. So the idea of investing in foreign land is not vested on the interest to better the lots of the host nation but to exploit as much as is possible in order to develop the home country. Gilpin went as far as describing MNEs as a kind of imperial economic flag bearers when he described it as "euphemism for the foreign expansion of America's giant oligopolistic corporations". The point been made here is that America took lead in the race of neo-colonization in the guise of MNCs. Other countries are also involved in this neo-colonialism. Meanwhile, their existence to the third world national enterprises are decisive and destructive when considering their financial muscle, assorted technology and productivity in terms of quantities and qualities. Competitively, the national enterprises would be knocked down completely. It is from this perspective that African statesmen became conscious and decided to appropriate some aspect of the economy back to the hands of national enterprises. Second besides expropriation the African leaders followed the process of indigenization which is defined as the transfer of wealth out of the hands of the foreigner (often small or medium sized business) to local citizens. Nationalization and indigenization are often used interchangeably to the African context but not consistently applied. Often debatable to the explanation of Indigenization and nationalization regarding African countries, is ideologically inclined and characterized by the leadership charisma. While socialist countries of Africa adopted nationalization, the capitalist ones sought resort to indigenization. Finally, the impetus behind adoption of any process as concerned countries in Africa centers on market structure. A poorly performing market may call forth state intervention when, for example, entrepreneurial supply is low and local businessmen lack the resources to break into certain national markets. Because of high degree of competition, markets most likely to be controlled and owned by foreigners are those with high barriers to entry complex technologies, higher capital costs, and the need to operate on a large scale to be efficient. In most African countries, only governments can mobilize the requisite domestic resources needed to operate industries such as mining and heavy manufacturing, and they most likely to be nationalized. Conversely, many services, crafts and small-scale industries are less complex, and local entrepreneurs with more modest resources and skills can compete in them more effectively. However, it was in these contexts that Nigerian governments in 1970s deduced their capitalist structured indigenization programs. But going by their implementations it was ironical and directed towards serving politicians and their accomplices. It would not be proper to preempt the discussion. Above vignette is an overview of theoretical reasons behind economic nationalism in Africa and Nigeria specifically. While remaining parts of the paper will focused on historical evolutions of indigenization programs in Nigeria and evaluation.
EVOLUTIONS OF NIGERIA INDIGENIZATION DECREE
The idea of indigenization programs in Nigeria could be traced back to 1946, when the colonial government established the Nigeria Local Development Board, to grant loans for Nigeria owned enterprises. In 1956, a national committee on Nigerianization of Business Enterprises was set up. The committee drafted their recommendations and concluded that foreign enterprises be barred from distributive trade, which was accepted by government and was never implemented properly. Why because Balewa government was heavily in harmony to the western interests. Demands for nationalization by charismatic leader whose government never came to being in the person of Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the opposition, therefore received little support. In fact, Okotie Eboh, Balewa's finance Minister, quickly brushed aside such demands "as irresponsible". Not surprisingly, the first National Development Plan made openly the preference of Government to help private indigenous businesses grow rather than expropriate foreign business interests. Balewa's overthrow in January 1966 brought into climax Nigerian civil war (1967-1970). Aftermath of the first republic, Gowon government continued to pursue an ‘accommodation' policy toward foreign capital, it became more and more concerned with the harmonization of foreign with local interests. In 1968 an Expatriate Quota Allocation Board was established. The objective of this policy was to maximize "the participation of Nigerians in the management of foreign businesses". Such a policy, if well enforced, had good potentials. At the very least it would help to ensure the development of competent local management and skilled labor by these foreign business interest. Given the prominence of labor among factors of production, the above program may have proved to be a robust developmental strategy. The policy could have been effective when considering the profitability of the Nigerian market and the fact that foreign businesses capital still remained untouched, presumably if government clearly stated measures to deal with non-compliance and they would have taken seriously into cognizance such local staffing requirements. Rather than modification of mechanism and implementation strategy for it to impact on indigenous development. Gowon government was deceived by the increasing oil revenue and decided to change direction. By 1970s, the government opted for the more extreme indigenization programs which was in line with the Second National Development Plan of 1970-1974. Second Development Plan introduced measures for the ‘accelerated' training of the local businessmen, the provision of advisory and training services and the improved flow of capital, technical and market information. The climax of these historical synchronizing processes came with the Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decrees of 1972 and 1977. Announcing itself as "the first real scientific approach to the complex problem of how to encourage and protect private Nigerian participation in the foreign dominated domestic economy". The NEPD of 1972 decreed the transfer of those businesses in the private sector which were believed to be within the competitive of indigenous expertise (schedule I, 21 Enterprises), and required a minimum Nigerian interest of 40 per cent equity in other businesses where Joint participation was still considered necessary (schedule II, 35 Enterprises), while the remainder (80 Enterprises) were allowed to continue to operate under full foreign control. Though, the intentions of Nigeria indigenization policies are defined clearly in their theories and the extent to which they were been put into operations to fit the expectations of Nigerians and better their lots would formed the remaining parts of this work.
THE AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NIGERIA ENTERPRISES PROMOTION DECREE 1972 AND 1977
The Nigeria enterprises promotion decree been in discussion as referred to as indigenization policy was promulgated with effect from 1972. The utmost aim of the decree was to give Nigerians the desired involvement in the commanding heights of the country's productive enterprises. Initially, the decree started with double schedule, Schedule 1&2. But as this went by, the decree was modified by Decree no3 of 1977. The modification provides for triple schedules of enterprises for better participation of Nigerians instead of the former double schedule. Among these triple schedules are listed below: ? Schedule one: This comprises of enterprises which are exclusively reserved for Nigerians. The Decree reserved the right of participation and ownership of all the items exclusively in this schedule without any foreign interference. Some of the items in schedule 1 includes: Advertising, public relation business, assembling of radios and television, bottling of alcohol drinks, baking of cake and bread, and among others. ? Schedule two: Comprises of enterprises in which native must have major interest at least 60% of equity interest. These include: Banking (Commercial Bank, Merchant Banks, Development Bank), basic iron and steel manufacturing, beer brewing, and clearing and forwarding agencies. ? Schedule three: In this part, Nigerians have at least 40% equity interest. its includes the following; fertilizer production, manufacturing of basic industrial chemicals, manufacturing of tobacco, and distilling and blending of spirits such as whiskey, brandy, ethyl alcohol, etc. To carry out the supposed plan in the end, after some shortcomings in its implementation the federal government took some emphatic steps to ensure the effectiveness of the program through the following measures: The Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industry (NBCI) was established. To provide necessary support financially; the Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (NIDB) was established to finance industrial projects and encouraged indigenous investors, also created was the Council for management education and training which was to manage the training of local businessmen, and among others. The objectives of the Decree. Nigerian enterprises promotion decree was aimed at meeting these listed objective. ? To create more employment for Nigerians. ? To enable Nigerians have greater control of their economy. ? To avoid foreign domination in order to prevent possible economic sabotage. ? To create greater opportunities for training indigenous personnel in the art of management. ? To maximize local retention of profits. The extent to which these yearning objectives has been achieved is next to the point of our discussion. Does the mass populace really benefited from the repertoire of this economic consciousness? If yes, to what considerable length? And what is the current situation of Nigeria as far as self-reliant economic activities, employment rate, and standard of living are concerned?
GENERAL ASSESSMENT TO NIGERIAN ENTERPRISES PROMOTION DECREE
Though, the projected aim and objectives of the Nigerian enterprises promotion decree was good and superb in its stated form. Often lamentable from the onset of its operation was that there is no clearly stated policy to sustain the foreign investors in adhering to the minimum staffing requirements. Persistently, its runs faulty since it was a Decree made by the military government imposed without wider consultations, though good but unconstitutional. Not minding its processes of establishments. The exercise did not markedly increase Nigeria control of its economy nor did Nigeria became economically self-reliant, even though, the effect on the localization of ownership was very impressive. Objectively, what the Decree achieved was to arrange an accommodation between indigenous and foreign capital; it reduced the chances of conflict and deepened the interest of the Nigerian leadership in capitalism. Often, this accommodation soon degenerated into a partnership that blindfolded the real indigenization purpose projected. One common problems noticed in Nigeria indigenization programs, and Africa generally, "is the tendency for African entrepreneurs to become a surrogates to the foreign enterprises in return for cash as a rewards or profitable business opportunities"; difficulties in moral and social leniency which lead in the creation of few wealthy people at the expense of the populace, difficulties in funds acquirement to streamline businesses which are affected by the decree, and moreover shortages of trained manpower to substitute people that lacks managerial skill and technical know-how. For example, in Nigeria "the Chairman of the Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Board, Minso Wadzama Gadzama, repeatedly complained the collusion of Nigerians with expatriate business to defeat the decrees". Apart from been a surrogate, even when Nigerians used their own money to buy the expatriate enterprises, they preferred profits than to control, by retaining the expatriate managers on ground in the assumptions that emphasizes on their performance and profits. That was even true to those supposedly strategic enterprises in which the government itself acquired controlling interest. Usually the government settled for a division of labor in which the Nigerian managers were the staff management specialists such as legal advisers, personnel managers, and company secretaries, while expatriates held line management positions such as finance manager, manager, production manager, and engineering manager. When going by official accounts, the contrary that was to be achieved. Was to compel the alien business community to move in to more capital-intensive and more technologically advanced production, particularly in manufacturing. The central objectives to the 1977 NEP Decree clearly made this known. Brigadier Shehu Yar'Adua, Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters, stated in 1976 that the "Objectives for the first phase of the indigenization exercise still remain valid for the Second phase…" while emphasizing on the items 1, 2, 3 of the highlighted objectives as a priorities to be vigorously pursued. Dr. A. Adedeji, the former federal commissioner of Economic planning, and one of the chief architects of the 1972 Decree. Clearly stated that "the primary purpose of indigenization is economic decolonization, the reduction of economic dependence and the achievement of an increasing measure of self-reliance through internally located and self-sustaining growth". This official statement was in correspondent with General O. Obasanjo's view in a speech to members of the national Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies in Jos on 3rd Sept 1979. He stated that "meaningful development and transformation of our society can only be achieved through Self-reliant and Self-sustaining economic programs and policies…, he further argued the idea of self-reliant and self-sufficient nation as ideal closest to be pursed" . Then in reality, following the euphoria of the 1970s indigenization programs and other developmental directed policies. The fundamental question to be asked are; is Nigeria economically self-sufficient? If we are to consider the importation jamborees, happening now within the circle of Nigeria economy absolutely the NEPD programs is a failure. This was simply because there is no proper monitoring to its implementation and corruption lapses. Nigeria importation carnival is even celebrated to the extent of importing sands for sports media, tooth-picks, tin tomatoes and other junks let alone of talking about the manufactured goods and other assorted technologies. Accordingly, it has been argued that "while political self-determination is philosophically desirable as the inalienable right and ultimate goal of any country under foreign rule, what is needed to make it meaningful, and to translate available resources into national prosperity is a firm economic base". What is paramount to this argument as far as this contention is concerned, was failure of Nigerian government to translate the huge available human and mineral resources into national prosperity. Today Nigerians live below poverty line, unemployment rates hover annually, poverty remain unchallenged and Nigeria is yet featured as underdeveloped country in plenty. Agricultural programs and industrialization programs in Nigeria suffered the same faith of leadership recklessness which borders on corruption, policy reversal, underfunding and mismanagement which had altogether been the bane of implementation of indigenization programs. By way of summary, the sense of a need for indigenization became most compelling urge towards the end of 1960s and by 1970s it was promulgated by a Decree establishing Nigerian Enterprises Promotion as a kind of economic consciousness to freed Nigerians from the grip of foreign economic control just as the political nationalist consciousness in the early 1940s that gave rise to political independent. Having went through the lapses in the implementations of 1970s indigenization programs in Nigeria, it is pertinent to say neither the political independence did little to change the lives of the mass of the peasants and workers in the country nor the indigenization programs. Instead few elites were succeeded to enrich themselves in the indigenization programs. Given the audacious hope projected by the indigenization programs objectives to provide employment opportunities as part of the martial plan of the programs in 1970s, job creation in Nigeria has been inadequate to keep pace with the expanding working age population. The official unemployment rate has steadily been reported increasingly from time to time, from 12% in 2006 to 24% in 2011. Equally, the preliminary indications are that this upward trend continued to date. It is against this backdrop one may have concluded that the indigenization programs in Nigeria are nothing but failures.
CONCLUSION
Despites all the lapses discussed in the assessment page, the indigenization programs have made some welcomed achievements. It succeeded creating confidence on Nigeria investors by making available funds in a kind of investment loan to invest into national economy. In the area of foreign investment control Nigeria through the programs of indigenization did perform relatively better than other African countries in exception of South Africa, Nigeria has enjoyed the largest share of total Western Investment share in Africa. According to CBN reports, investment in the mining and quarrying industries accounted for about 47%, while in manufacturing and processing, which government was keen to encouraged, total investment accounted for only 21.2%. Empirically, I have investigated the extent of which 1970s indigenization programs succeeded in their implementations, their lapses and their far reaching effects on the lives of the ordinary Nigerians. To that extent I find out that most of the reasons why they failed to reach their projected goals borders on administrative recklessness, mismanagement, corruptions, policy reversal, favoritism, lack of proper monitoring and strictly defined measures to dealt with non-compliance. In this case, to blend the future policy formulators that would aim at empowerment and development in the Nigeria. I therefore make these recommendation. ? That policy should be accompanied by wider consultations ? That clearly defined measures should be taken to find defaulters wanted ? That such harmony with the foreign investors should have a definite time in the areas of division of labor ? That policy should aimed at betterment of the whole fabrics of the societies without discrimination ? That there should be consistency in the policies, irrespective of any administration and party manifestoes ? That there should be proper monitoring and constant supervision ? And lastly corruption should be averted from its process of implementation.
REFRENCES
Andreas, P. (n d). Explaining (With) Economic Nationalism: Working papers, (Online monograph), TIPEC Working paper 02/1.
Ankie, H. (n d). Indigenization and Foreign Capital: Industrialization in Nigeria. (Online monograph).
Chibuike, U. (2011). British Government, British Businesses and the Indigenization Exercise in Nigeria. Enugu, Paper prepared for Presentation at the ECAS 4 Conference (15-18): University of Nigeria Campus.
Claude, A. (1996). Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington D.C: The Brookings Institution.
Ezie, O. (et al), (2013). Multinational Corporations and the Nigerian Economy: Bingham University Nasarawa, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 4, ISSN: 222 – 6990.
Marcelo, B. (et al), (n d). Economic Nationalism in the Twentieth century. A Comparison: University of Illinois, (Online monograph).
Ismaila, M. (1985). The Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decrees (1972 and 1977) and Indigenization in Nigeria. University of Warwick Institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap.
Source...