Economist questions the impact of subsidy removal, naira flotation and rising business costs, arguing that economic growth figures must translate into improved living standards.
By Gozie Irogboli | Adapted by A1NEWS International
ABUJA, Nigeria — Economist, banker and public policy analyst Gozie Irogboli has criticised the economic reform programme of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration, arguing that its policies have failed to address Nigeria’s structural economic challenges, stimulate broad-based investment and improve the welfare of ordinary citizens.
In an opinion article titled “Still on the Economic Sabotage Dressed as Economic Reform,” Irogboli questioned the rationale behind the removal of petrol subsidies, the floating of the naira, increased taxation and government borrowing, contending that the measures have imposed significant pressure on businesses and households without delivering sufficient economic benefits.
He argued that genuine economic reform should improve productivity, strengthen institutions, encourage investment, promote competitiveness and establish social protection mechanisms for vulnerable citizens.
According to him, the current policy direction has yet to demonstrate these outcomes on a scale that ordinary Nigerians can feel.
Irogboli Questions the Substance of Economic Reforms
Irogboli maintained that the removal of petrol subsidies without first addressing domestic refining capacity, alongside foreign exchange reforms and other fiscal measures, has contributed to an unfavourable business environment.
He also raised concerns about government borrowing, fiscal discipline, off-budget expenditure, taxation and the management of public resources.
The economist argued that reforms should be guided by clearly defined objectives, implementation timelines and measurable outcomes.
He contended that policies presented as economic reforms risk losing public credibility when they fail to produce visible improvements in production, investment, employment and household welfare.
However, the assessment represents the author’s interpretation of the government’s economic programme. Establishing the overall impact of the reforms requires an examination of relevant economic indicators, policy outcomes and the contribution of individual measures to current economic conditions.
Multinational Companies and Concerns Over Business Confidence
A major component of Irogboli’s argument is the reported departure, restructuring and downsizing of multinational companies operating in Nigeria.
He claimed that approximately 20 multinational companies had closed their businesses and left the country since the Tinubu administration took office in 2023, while other international brands had reduced local manufacturing and shifted towards import-based distribution.
According to him, the development raises questions about the attractiveness of Nigeria’s investment climate, particularly where companies cite difficult operating conditions as reasons for reducing their presence.
Irogboli argued that economic reforms should encourage both domestic and foreign investment rather than create conditions that discourage businesses from expanding their operations.
He also questioned claims that the reform programme was attracting foreign direct investment, maintaining that investment figures should be assessed alongside company closures, capital movements, domestic production and employment trends.
Author Cites Job Losses and Capital Flight
Irogboli further argued that the departure and restructuring of multinational companies have contributed to job losses and capital outflows.
Citing estimates attributed to experts and local agencies, he claimed that the exit, restructuring and downsizing of multinational operations over the preceding three years had resulted in the loss of more than 20,000 direct jobs and approximately 100,000 indirect jobs across related sectors.
He also referenced a Vanguard report dated September 8, 2026, which he said estimated foreign portfolio withdrawals from Nigeria at ₦266 billion over three years.
Additionally, he cited a report by international wealth-tracking firm Henley & Partners, claiming that individuals moved approximately $1.5 billion out of Nigeria in 2025 alone.
The figures, as presented in his article, were used to support his argument that capital outflows and employment losses could undermine domestic production and weaken the benefits of economic growth.
The estimates require independent verification, including clarification of their reporting periods, definitions and underlying data, before they can be treated as established measures of the overall impact of the reforms.
Low Business Activity Raises Questions About Economic Growth
The economist also questioned whether reported economic growth adequately reflects conditions across Nigeria’s wider business sector.
He cited figures which he attributed to the National Bureau of Statistics, claiming that approximately 70 per cent of more than three million registered companies had failed to file annual returns over three years.
He further claimed that more than half of companies that filed returns reported no business activity, while over 400,000 dormant business entities had been deregistered by the Corporate Affairs Commission.
Irogboli also put industrial capacity utilisation at between 30 and 40 per cent, arguing that many businesses were operating below their installed production capacity.
These claims, he maintained, demonstrate the difficulties facing businesses amid high energy costs, expensive transportation, weak consumer purchasing power and other operating constraints.
However, company filing compliance, deregistration and industrial capacity utilisation are distinct indicators. They do not, individually or collectively, establish the overall direction of gross domestic product without additional evidence.
The figures cited in the article would therefore require verification against the relevant official datasets and reporting periods.
High Operating Costs Squeeze Small Businesses
Irogboli argued that the economic difficulties facing smaller enterprises deserve greater attention in assessments of Nigeria’s economic performance.
He pointed to mechanics, welders, carpenters and other informal-sector operators as examples of businesses affected by rising energy and transportation costs and declining consumer purchasing power.
According to him, economic activity in sectors such as oil, telecommunications and banking may generate wider commercial activity, but performance in those sectors alone does not necessarily demonstrate broad-based economic development.
He maintained that the informal sector’s performance is particularly important because a substantial share of Nigerians depends on small businesses and informal employment for their livelihoods.
The economist argued that economic policies should therefore be evaluated not only by aggregate growth figures but also by their effects on employment, household incomes, local production and the survival of small enterprises.
Shadow Economy and the Challenge of Illegal Activities
Irogboli also raised concerns about the size of Nigeria’s informal and underground economic activities, identifying corruption, organised crime, kidnapping for ransom, drug trafficking, gambling and other illegal operations as activities that could undermine legitimate economic development.
He cited estimates attributed to the United Nations Development Programme and other institutions, placing the country’s shadow economy above ₦50 trillion, equivalent to between 55 and 58 per cent of gross domestic product.
The author argued that growth in illegal economic activities cannot be treated as a positive development because it may undermine public revenue, legitimate businesses, security and institutional accountability.
However, the informal economy and the illicit economy are not interchangeable concepts. Informal businesses may operate legally despite not being fully registered or taxed, while illicit activities involve conduct prohibited by law. Any assessment of their respective contributions requires clear definitions and reliable data.
Irogboli Challenges the Emphasis on IMF and World Bank Assessments
The economist also questioned the weight given to economic growth assessments published by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
He argued that positive growth figures do not necessarily establish that economic reforms are improving the welfare of the population.
Irogboli further criticised policy approaches that, in his view, place excessive emphasis on increasing tax revenue, removing subsidies and reducing expenditure on social services without adequately investing in domestic production and the development of Nigeria’s natural resources.
He maintained that tax incentives, productive investment and the development of underutilised resources could help stimulate aggregate demand, create employment and expand the country’s productive capacity.
His position is that Nigeria’s economic strategy should reflect the country’s development challenges, including widespread poverty, infrastructure deficits and the availability of natural resources that remain insufficiently developed.
The author’s criticism of the Bretton Woods institutions reflects his policy interpretation. Determining the effects of their recommendations would require examining individual programmes, their objectives and their measurable outcomes.
Economic Growth Must Translate Into Development
Irogboli’s central argument is that economic growth and economic development should not be treated as synonymous.
While growth measures an increase in economic output, development encompasses broader changes in living standards, productivity, employment opportunities, infrastructure, access to essential services and the reduction of poverty.
He argued that growth becomes less meaningful to citizens when its benefits fail to translate into improved household welfare and wider economic opportunities.
According to him, the government should prioritise infrastructure, natural-resource development, a more competitive business environment and social welfare alongside measures intended to stabilise public finances.
He also called for policies that reduce production costs, improve access to foreign exchange, address energy constraints and strengthen the productive capacity of domestic businesses.
For Irogboli, the ultimate test of reform is whether it improves the economy’s ability to generate jobs, support businesses and raise living standards.
Conclusion: Debate Over the Direction of Nigeria’s Economic Policy
Irogboli concluded that the Tinubu administration’s economic programme has yet to address several structural challenges, including high business costs, infrastructure gaps, weak domestic production and the welfare pressures facing ordinary Nigerians.
He argued that reforms that discourage investment or fail to stimulate productive activity cannot deliver sustainable economic development, regardless of the growth figures reported.
His intervention adds to the debate over how Nigeria should balance fiscal adjustments, monetary reforms, investment promotion and social protection.
The broader policy question is whether the government’s reforms can generate sustained improvements in productivity, employment, business confidence and living standards.
Answering that question requires more than political claims or isolated economic indicators. It demands transparent data, independent assessment and a clear examination of whether reported growth is translating into measurable improvements in the lives of Nigerians.
Leave a Reply