Of entrepreneurship and Nigeria’s high poverty rate

The year 2020 sneaks in on us like a stealth black hawk. It sounded so distant ten or five years ago when it became the synonym for magic. “House for all by 2020, food for all by 2020” were buzz and magic phrases many years ago. But here we are! However, it appears the theurgy of 2020 would be fulfilled when “The Economists” ranked Nigeria as the topmost country with entrepreneurial activities. Nigeria and Zambia topped the list. Surprisingly, African and South American countries occupy the top 9/10 positions, while countries like Canada were lowly ranked.

While it is pleasant that African countries topped some lists other than those of poverty and crimes, it is mystifying that a rich country like Canada has fewer entrepreneurial activities than Nigeria and Zambia. Nigeria is, no doubt, a “poor country.” The percentage of deprivation in Nigeria is about 46%, with over 80million people below the poverty line, whereas less than 10% of Canadians are poor. By poverty, we mean the absence of decent subsistence.

Poverty does not just have an ethical implication, but it also assaults the ground of being human, that is, human dignity. There is that “incomparable worth of the human person” that poverty assails. (John Paul II,1995). The fact that the human person is irreducible to the limitedness of his/her immediacy (which means that his/her immediacy or temporality should not restrain his/her universality) implies that any temporal situation that does not respect his/her irreducibility is not worthy of him/her.

The irreducibility of the human person to his/her immediate temporality and the unworthiness of some temporal circumstances is grounded in the logic of the human person as Imago Deo. The daily experiences, the biological, mental, and spiritual makeup of the human person indicate that they have an origin beyond themselves. To live above the poverty line is not just access to biological survival but access to the economic possibility that speaks to the dignity of the human person. This is why shelter, clothing, and feeding are not luxuries; they are material goods that differentiate the human person from non-rational animals. Decent living (not luxury) is a requirement for being human. (Mary Hirschfield,2018).

What explains 40% of entrepreneurial activities being co-existent with 46% poverty prevalence in Nigeria? There are few ways of making sense out of this economic absurdity. Firstly, we can question the economic computation method that has continued to use utilitarian mathematic aggregate for economic development. This method measures the aggregate values of products, services, utilities, and use it as a sign of development or underdevelopment without serious accountability for the values, absence of fulfillment of the excluded “minority.” For example, GDP hardly accounts for the level of capability of individuals in the suburbs. It often concentrates on measurable values inaccessible areas. As such, it is not difficult to see real poverty in countries with high GDP; the US and Chile are good examples.

Secondly, if those entrepreneurial activities are necessitated by survival rather than expansion, activities would not immediately translate to subsistence. Hence, the so-called developing countries will still be ranked poor despite pleasant ratings in entrepreneurial activities. These excuses account for the reasons high entrepreneurial activities have not generated economic solvency in Nigeria.

So far, Nigeria has not developed a poverty measuring scale that could account for every detail. As such, our computation has been more general without respect for details. Activities that benefit some or many are often interpreted as benefitting all. Our measurement has been so utilitarian that we dispense with results that do not fit into the expected frame, whereas it is the responsibility of our body politics to account for ALL.

Our sense of development is corporatism. That is, investment by large companies is understood as a quick economic fix that will trickle down from top to bottom. But this has not been the case since we have opened our market to corporations. While the free market is important to any economic galvanization, it is also not that free when corporations are the “invisible hands” determining the nature of the market.

It was exciting for many Nigerians when the big malls like Shoprite irrupt into the Nigerian market. But we have not accounted for the number of small-scale businesses (stores) that were lost and absorbed by Shoprite. The loss of small- scale stores to big malls means that the owners of those businesses would need to transfer merchandizing. Let us hypothesize that about 20 small stores closed in Ibadan, and their owners learned new skills like barbing, farming, etc. It means activities will increase in the barbing and farming sectors but not necessarily job fulfillment and  economic solvency for those former store owners.

How do we measure development? I share the inspiration of Amartya Sen that the GDP calculations (and other utilitarian scales) despite how good they are, have reduced developmental measurement to income which is supposed to be a mean. And income in itself is not an evidence of fulfillment. As such, it becomes difficult to measure development through GDP, becausewith its aggregates, it ignores some factors essential for development. Moreover, the humongous figure that makes the news has not been to the benefit of all. As such, our poverty index is still high. This is since we have reduced development to the activities of corporations and multinationals without policies to protect small and local businesses. In short, our brand of capitalism does not account for all, it leaves many people behind.

Entrepreneurial activities presuppose the concreteness and transcendental qualities of their actors since action presupposes an “acting person.” However, actions have values and moral significance. They are either good or bad. Even inactions are either good or bad, depending on the moral quality they generate. So, to have massive entrepreneurial activities without their corresponding values are consequences of administrative inactions.Many Nigerians are poor, not due to insolence but because policies on development “invisibilize” the person in favor of utilitarian aggregates.

Reverend Father Olokunboro writes from University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN via [email protected], www,areopagusinclinations.org

Leave a Reply