At the just concluded 65th annual conference of the Nigerian Economic Society (NES) in Abuja, one of the highlights of the annual ritual was the conferment of the 2024 Distinguished Economic Service Award on seven eminent Nigerians. And yours sincerely is one of the awardees. This is one award that holds a fundamental significance among all the other ones I have been conferred with. And the singular reason is that this conferment articulates a significant plank in my institutional and governance reforms campaign in Nigeria. That plank insists that there is an intellectual component in the imperative of institutional reform that demands a collaborative engagement between professionals and academics/intellectual. This is because a crucial part of the diagnosis of reform failure in Nigeria is the failure to understand that reform itself has an intellectual and theoretical basis that many reformers are not aware of. We deride theories as if they have no practical import. There is no one engaging with Nigeria and her development dynamics that would not get involved in conversation with economics and economists. This is why associations like NES and the National Economic Summit Group (NESG) are critical to the understanding of Nigeria’s governance and economic predicaments, and how we can find a way or ways out of the woods.

I deeply appreciate Prof. Adeola Adenikinju, president of NES and the entire governing council for this unquantifiable honor. It is an honor I would never have expected, but one I am delighted about so much. That my essentially basic understanding of the economic and developmental component of institutional reform is noticed by an erudite association is no mean feat. My reflection on this critical award therefore enables me to connect my conversations and collaborations with economists and economic discourses with my institutional reform agenda. And all these come together around the trajectory of the mentoring experience I had with the late Prof. Ojetunji Aboyade, great economist, erudite scholar and president of the NES from 1973 to 1974, and indeed my townsman and a singular influence on my professional and intellectual maturation. Those who understand my relationship with Aboyade—the fact that I literally grew up in his formidable but mentoring shadows at Aáwé and in the presidency—would immediately understand why I had no choice in my reverence for economists.

Under the tutelage of Aboyade, my entry point into the public administration scholarship was through public policy implementation research, which had the likes of Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky as the key pioneers. Their groundbreaking 1973 book, Implementation, grounds implementation studies as a subfield of public policy research. Indeed, from that book, I began to notice early in time the role that politics and policymaking play in facilitating a near-seamless implementation process in administrative reforms. Most significantly, the authors insisted that the evaluation of policies and their implementation are two different issues that must not be conflated. As a young researcher, I immediately saw the sense in seeing implementation, according to Pressman and Wildavsky, as “the ability to forge subsequent links in the causal chains so as to obtain the desired results.” Hence, once this causal chain involved in implementation is longer necessary, the more complex the implementation becomes. Or, in the case of Nigeria—as I would eventually see, the longer the implementation chain, the more definite it becomes that bad politics has intervened.

With this as my starting point, it was not too long for me to make a research entry into the discursive space of institutional economics, and the relationship between institutions and the capacities they generate in economic actors that lead to innovation, performance and productivity. The theoretical relationship and disagreements between the old and new institutionalism, especially on the compatibility of individual agency and social structure eventually would play a deep role in articulating the emergence of the managerial revolution that backstopped the new public management (NPM) movement around which the global public administration praxis was designed. The NPM is the managerial attempt to unseat the bureaucratic stasis that has kept the Weberian system ineffective, inefficient and unproductive. Indeed, within the Nigerian administrative context, it has made it quite difficult to birth a developmental state.

The idea of the developmental state clearly serves as the focal point for an ongoing conversation between economists and institutional reformers. The idea of the developmental state tasks the public service system on the need to achieve the efficiency that will operationalize democratic governance to deliver infrastructural development for the citizens. Thus, to achieve economic development, such a state must first be oriented towards institutional reforms that bring the structures and institutions to capability readiness.

From the vantage point of my research into institutional reforms and development policy management, it was so easy but unnerving to work out the historical trajectory as well as the administrative dynamics that facilitated the series of aborted transitions, policy somersaults, the conception-reality gap, the motion-without-movement development hiccups that translate into protracted state and governance failures in Nigeria. And we see the basis of these failures in the (non)performance of the Nigerian economy and the debilitating effects on Nigerians. It therefore should come as no surprise that the role of economists in the Nigerian predicament became all the more heightened. This is where I think my experience as the directing staff coordinating the public policy executive education component of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) remit for three years was so professionally fulfilling. That professional status brought me close to the economic and policy sides of understanding the Nigerian predicament as well as the connection with my expertise in institutional reform. I had the opportunity to facilitate at once policy conversations and discourses around critical issues of the fundamentals of public policy, the public policy design and formulation process, policy implementation and decision science, policy evaluation and tracking, the political undercurrent of policy decision-making, as well as policy exploration and scenario projection that factor the VUCA (vulnerable, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) administrative environment into the urgency of building a twenty-first-century policy architecture that the Nigerian state requires to achieve democratic service delivery.

All the above therefore makes the theme of the NES 65th annual conference—“Socio-Economic Development in Nigeria: Imperatives, Implications and Impacts”—all the more fundamental given the present state of the Nigerian economic change management challenges. The conference theme is ready-made as the instigating forum that could have served some brainstorming and learning context for the PBAT governance and economic teams. It was especially a grand tutorial for me as a member of that team in terms of the analyses, forecasting and incisive critiques around the implementation possibilities and prospects of delivering the Renewed Hope Agenda from the perspectives of Nigerian economists. There are two crucial takeovers that my attendance at the NES Conference brought out into very stark relief.

One, it has now become imperative that government needs an ongoing and consummate engagement with Nigerian experienced economists and other intellectuals and experts. This becomes critical, especially with regard to the near absence of a political economy framework that could have served as the analytical and technical perspectives for articulating and sequencing the two major policies of the federal government, namely, the removal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the naira. While these two policies have a sound basis, they are flawed in terms of change management detailing and technical correctness, and their disruptive consequences could have been averted with the benefit of deep economic intelligence and the possible analytical frameworks and policy instruments that competent policy analysis could have been provided for risk analysis, mitigation and management. Here, we already begin to see how the implementation chain—and the possibility of success—is already compromised. Policy implementation and impact cannot just be the result of just policy correctness. On the contrary, it must reflect a dynamic and holistic and not a partial understanding of Nigeria’s economic structure and predicaments.

Two, we have to deal with the critical disjuncture that is playing out between the Renewed Hope Agenda and the policy implementation detailing of the government. We cannot ever hope to make that agenda work if the policies that would empower it are out of joint in terms of implementation sequence. The implementation of policies raises the crucial issue of those for whom the policies are meant in the first place. Thus, if, as democratic governance demands, these policies are meant to be people-oriented, then it implies that the change management strategy must be fashioned in a way that puts the people at the centre without necessarily yielding to unreflective populism. For example, to achieve a reasonable buy-in by Nigerians, the change vision and objectives must embed much more inclusive instruments which are however strategically communicated to Nigerians.

While receiving the award, it dawned on me that I have been drawn into the circle of a wider reform cohort that would further challenge my understanding of what it takes to articulate, track and evaluate institutional reforms in Nigeria. I am very glad for this incorporation, and the opportunity it affords me to sharpen my learning capacity and keep the discussion on the future of the Nigerian state in the right direction.

Olaopa, a Professor of Public Administration, is the Chairman, Federal Civil Service Commission, Abuja