The penchant of the Economist to run down Nigeria
The Economist seems to always want to create initial discomforts for Nigerian governments and policymakers, and then start to correct the negative impressions that it had created.
The Economist recently published its Global Liveability Ranking for 2016. On the index, Lagos ranks 138th, making it the third worst city to live in out of 140 cities surveyed. In fact, Lagos has not ranked more than one notch better on the index since 2011.
This ranking of Lagos in a liveability study of the world's cities is counter-intuitive; it just doesn't make sense to anyone who truly knows the world. Except for the well-known antics of the Economist – which is really the subject of this article – one would have just dismissed the methodology of its survey as flawed. Indeed, it is flawed, as the profile of Lagos will highlight.
Lagos is a city of opportunities. It is the largest non-sovereign market in Africa, and home to Africa's richest man, Aliko Dangote. Lagos is a magnet and a melting port. The city continues to attract economic migrants and investors from different parts of Nigeria, Africa and around the world. In a world in which young people constitute the majority, access to economic opportunities is a driver of liveability for a city.
Lagos is relatively safe. No major natural disaster has occurred in the city in decades. In contrast to many cities of the world that have the scale of Lagos' diversity, economic activities and population, cases of mass killing based on whatever motivation are very, very uncommon in Lagos.
If it were a sovereign, its GDP of $90 billion (2014), discounting the informal sector, makes the sub-national economy the seventh largest in Africa. The Lagos State government is well-funded with tax revenue as a result of the dominance of the private sector in the economy of the state. The combination of a decent tax revenue accruing to the Lagos State government and a vibrant private sector ensures appreciable levels of investments in services, including private provision of essential utilities like electricity and water. The bottom line is that the services are available, one way or another.
By any measure, Lagos is not so stagnant that it would remain rooted in just about the same position at the bottom of any credible global liveability index. Since 2011, the government of Lagos State has built several roads, upgraded healthcare and educational facilities, invested in security, recreational parks and several other facilities that support private sector development and happy living by residents. By the sheer resources of the Lagos State government and that of the private sector, more likely Lagos would have surpassed several other cities in investments that sustain liveability.
The truth of the matter is that the Economist is given to Nigeria-bashing. Like its peer Western media, and in spite of changing times, the London-based publication remains fixated on a pejorative reportage of Nigeria and Africa. But they particularly fancy casting Nigeria in a bad light for reasons that are both insidious and imperialistic. It is either Nigeria is “fantastically corrupt” or hopelessly underdeveloped. This cohort pretend to be experts on a country and a continent they scarcely know first-hand, presumably because it is not liveable. Inevitably, therefore, they often make the wrong calls.
Years ago, the Economist declared Africa “the hopeless continent.” But with the advent of the last commodity super-cycle, when several African economies started to “emerge”, the Economist was bold enough to make a retraction. It then declared Africa “a hopeful continent.” Rather than this reversal serving a note of caution to this iconic publication of the world, the Economist probably developed a stratagem for business engagement with Africa out of this boo-boo.
A hopeful Africa is a place for business for the Economist. It was very common in the last decade to, perhaps, last year, find the publication's business development staff, majorly skimpily cladded ladies originally from Eastern Europe in the hallways of Ministries, Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria and some State Governments including Lagos, selling exorbitantly-priced advertising and advertorial proposals. While the Economist continued to portray Nigeria as a country of people living below the poverty line of less than $2 per day, it was selling advertisement at more than five times the local rates to the Nigerian MDAs. But then, I am used to the heads of corporate communication of such agencies complaining about value delivery, as their adverts or advertorials are either tucked in the ROP pages or processed for 'special' or 'limited' editions of the Economist that seldom get circulated outside Nigeria.
The Economist seems to always want to create initial discomforts for Nigerian governments and policymakers, and then start to correct the negative impressions that it had created. Therefore, when Nigerian Finance Minister, Kemi Adeosun, was appointed last year, the Economist targeted her for derision, claiming she was “poorly qualified for the job.” But a year later, the same publication wrote of Adeosun: “a tenacious finance minister, Kemi Adeosun, has told skint governors that they must make their finances public before they receive a second federal bailout. She has struck thousands of ghost workers off the public payroll. Her “treasury single account” may be the biggest coup of all. It replaced a labyrinth of government piggy banks, giving Nigeria more control of its earnings. Financiers reckon that it could serve as a lesson to others in West Africa as well. The continent's most famously corrupt country might yet teach others a thing or two about transparency.”
This effusion of praise on Adeosun for her performance is as pretentious as the negative portrayal of her by the same publication a year earlier. Nigerians know that the initiative for the implementation of Treasury Single Account in Nigeria is not Adeosun's. Neither are we convinced that the zealot, wholesale implementation of the policy as directed by President Muhammadu Buhari serves the best interest of the economy. To be faithful to Adeosun is to state accurately what her initiatives are as finance minister (there are a few of them) and correctly mark the boundaries of what she has been able to achieve. But this would be difficult for a publication that judges things from afar or publishes a PR piece as an independent write-up.
Having to re-characterise a senior policymaker of a foreign government within ten months should make a publication to be sober. But the Economist is set in its ways. But if, as it seems, its credibility stands apart from its inconsistent reportage on Nigeria, the Economist should nevertheless be mindful of the damage it does to the country by its initial soon-to-change negative reports. A more objective and contextual reporting on the country will be more helpful than its flip-flopping, and that does not foreclose patronage.
Those of us in the local media are often frustrated by the tendency of the Nigerian authorities to give significant media attention and patronage to our foreign counterparts. But the reality is that the patronage of foreign media is important. The likes of the Economist have built close affinity and respectability with the Western investors that developing countries like Nigeria need to come and invest. At the time of the Economist's U-turn on Adeosun, Nigeria was preparing for a Eurobond issue. A positive portrayal in the Western media can lower risk perception and consequently yield on the bond. A negative portrayal would do the opposite and probably more. It is a matter of responsibility for these publications to not take too much advantage of their influence.
The Lagos State government of Akinwunmi Ambode seems to be disinclined to take up issues with the Economist for the negative ranking of the state on the liveability index. This is a legacy of former Governor Babatunde Fashola, who was known to withstand media blackmail; either local or foreign. While this would mean that Lagos could remain rooted at the bottom of the index, the appropriate response is for the State Government to continue to invest in physical and social infrastructures, and more broadly support the prosperity and happiness of Lagos residents. In any case, all the cities of the world have their dark sides.
As a long-term strategy, it is important for the Nigerian government to help nurture independent local publications with inclinations for attaining world-class standard and global reach. This will help in engaging the international investment community, while diluting the impact of the Western publications that are disinclined to change from their pejorative portrayal of our country or imbue blackmail into their business process.
While the Economist continued to portray Nigeria as a country of people living below the poverty line of less than $2 per day, it was selling advertisement at more than five times the local rates to the Nigerian MDAs.