The World Bank/IMF and political doublespeak

The recent World Bank report painting a grim picture of Nigeria’s economic performance under the Buhari administration (2015-2023) stands in stark contrast to the same institution’s previous assessments and statements during that period. This apparent contradiction raises questions about the consistency and credibility of these Bretton Woods institutions and their analyses.

During President Buhari’s tenure, the World Bank and IMF consistently acknowledged his administration’s influence on Nigeria’s economic growth and the substantial changes achieved.

In 2019, the IMF noted Nigeria’s ongoing recovery from the 2014 oil price shock and 2016 recession, attributing it to higher oil prices, tight monetary policy, strides toward a unified exchange rate, increased international market access, and an improved business environment. These efforts were credited with supporting recovery, curbing inflation, and strengthening external buffers. The IMF’s 2020 Article IV consultation also highlighted Nigeria’s swift response to the COVID-19 crisis, while in 2021, they commended Nigeria’s exit from recession, with GDP growth reaching 3.6% despite pandemic challenges. In 2022, the IMF recognized further advancements in fiscal transparency and improvements to the business environment.

The World Bank similarly praised Buhari’s reforms, particularly in business climate improvements. In 2017, it recognized Nigeria’s progress in the Ease of Doing Business rankings, citing improvements in indicators like starting a business, construction permits, electricity access, and minority investor protections. Nigeria’s rank improved notably, climbing from 146th to 131st globally by October 2019, thanks to targeted reforms. The Bank’s “Africa’s Pulse” report in October 2021 forecasted a 2.4% growth driven by a recovery in the service sector, rising oil prices, and tapering OPEC quotas.
From 2018 to 2022, the World Bank’s “World Development Update” series acknowledged Nigeria’s achievements across sectors, including economic diversification, amid a 26% shrink in oil GDP from 2019 to 2021. The June 2022 report highlighted economic resilience and growth despite these challenges. In the “Rising to the Challenge” report (December 2022), the Bank further detailed Nigeria’s progress in digital economy growth, poverty reduction through social programs, power sector regulatory improvements, and tax base expansion, via digital reforms.

In its April 2023 World Economic Outlook report, the IMF maintained a 3.2% growth prediction for Nigeria’s economy in 2023. Despite facing challenges such as the COVID-19 aftermath, the Russia-Ukraine war, and rising inflation, Nigeria’s economy still achieved 3.0% growth in 2022. While the IMF anticipated a global economic contraction of 2.8% in 2023, Nigeria’s economy was projected to grow by 3.2%. Although the incoming administration inherited financial liabilities, Buhari’s government laid a solid foundation for growth, with a stable economy and substantial assets.

In April 2023, the IMF recognized Nigeria’s economy as “one of the most stable in Africa,” noting that improvements in infrastructure, investment opportunities, growth-oriented reforms, and a more favourable business climate had helped stabilise the country, despite global challenges like inflation, the Ukraine conflict, supply chain disruptions, and lingering post-pandemic effects.
The Buhari administration’s decision to maintain certain protectionist policies, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing, initially drew criticism from these institutions. However, these same policies later proved instrumental in building domestic resilience during global supply chain disruptions. The ban on forex for certain imports, though criticised by the IMF, helped conserve foreign exchange and stimulate local production.

It’s particularly noteworthy that under Buhari, Nigeria achieved an Agricultural revolution through the Anchor Borrowers Programme, Significant infrastructure development without excessive external borrowing, Diversification of the economy, reducing oil dependency, Implementation of the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP), Social investment programs that provide safety nets during economic challenges.
The current narrative by these institutions appears to align suspiciously with the new administration’s wholesale adoption of Bretton Woods prescriptions – floating exchange rate, removal of fuel subsidy, and aggressive liberalisation. Yet, these policies have thus far resulted in unprecedented inflation, currency depreciation, and economic hardship for ordinary Nigerians.

The question arises: Why are these institutions now rewriting history to discredit an administration that achieved significant milestones despite rejecting their orthodox prescriptions? The answer might lie in their institutional preference for the so-called market-led reforms over state-led development strategies, regardless of local contexts and outcomes.

The World Bank’s current criticism of Buhari’s oil sector policies particularly lacks context. During this period, Nigeria faced global oil price crashes, OPEC quota restrictions, and the need to maintain social stability through subsidies. Despite these challenges, the administration managed to maintain economic stability while investing in critical infrastructure.

The claim about GDP per capita decline also requires context. This period coincided with two global recessions, a pandemic, and oil price crashes – external shocks that affected many emerging economies. Despite these challenges, Nigeria maintained positive growth in many sectors, particularly agriculture and services.

Currently, despite following IMF/World Bank prescriptions to the letter, Nigeria’s economy faces severe challenges under the new administration. The Naira has depreciated drastically and dramatically, inflation has soared to unprecedented levels, and economic hardship has intensified – raising questions about the efficacy of these institutions’ preferred policies.
This apparent contradiction between their past praise and current criticism of the Buhari administration, coupled with their support for policies that are currently yielding negative results, suggests a need to critically examine these institutions’ analyses and prescriptions. It calls into question the agenda and the credibility of the World Bank. Nigeria and Nigerians should be wary of the Bretton Woods institutions the way Buhari was.

Nigeria’s experience under the Buhari and Tinubu administrations demonstrates that development strategies must be context-specific rather than one-size-fits-all prescriptions. While the Buhari administration’s approach may have had its challenges, its emphasis on homegrown solutions and strategic protectionism helped build resilience in critical sectors. President Tinubu should please reset the clock to 29 May 2023.

•Rabiu Yau Ahmed can be reached via [email protected]