The conclusion is self-evident: sending a family of five $50 per month over six months will not make any significant change in that family despite whatever model you may have there. So, it is refreshing that a World Bank report has confirmed what many of us felt was a waste of resources and time: “Despite the earnest efforts to uplift vulnerable populations, the study revealed that the cash transfer program fell short of significantly improving household consumption or boosting women’s employment opportunities.”
As I argued when we began this mindless policy, Nigeria can help those families if we focus on setting up clusters which will guarantee 24/7 electricity for cold rooms in each local government. In other words, if you use the money transferred to a few “lucky” citizens to build some cold rooms which can serve communities, you will reduce poverty by reducing post-harvest waste.
In the Igbo Nation, there is a season called “unwu” [famine], and it is the period between the planting of yams and before they get to maturity for harvest. Due to lack of storage means, historically, that period was considered a time of limited food options. Of course, that is not the case as we now have packaged food and other food options which were not available in ancestral Igbo.
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
My point is this: inadequate storage facilities is one of the reasons we have massive hunger in farming communities in Nigeria. If we focus on that root cause over the preferred handouts of commonwealth to a few, Nigeria will be on a path of fixing the real issue. Yet, this is not to say that governments cannot provide targeted support to families, but I do think that fund transfer should not be the main vector, if we desire to see meaningful impacts, on these initiatives.
The conclusion is self-evident: sending a family of five $50 per month over six months will not make any significant change in that family despite whatever model you may have there. So, it is refreshing that a World Bank report has confirmed what many of us felt was a waste of… pic.twitter.com/XO7RX5MaU5
— Ndubuisi Ekekwe (@ndekekwe) May 9, 2024
World Bank Research Reveals Limited Impact of Nigeria’s Cash Transfer Program
---
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA (Jun 3 - Sep 2, 2024), and join Prof Ndubuisi Ekekwe and our global faculty; click here.
World Bank gave Nigeria $800 million loan to do cash giveaways, and now it’s saying the scheme has limited impact. Does it mean that WB will forego the loan or is Nigeria meant to repay, since it’s a misadventure? That is a good place to start from, no one should be distracted by non essentials.
How did we arrive at sending cash to people in a non productive economy? We keep yammering on inflation, yet we deliberately create inflation via our thoughtless practices. What is clear is that both our advisers (WB and IMF inclusive) and managers are mischievous and fraudulent, because they always set out to do what benefits them, while framing it as though it’s for the benefit of the masses. This is what fraud typifies.
Why is it difficult for Nigeria to fund production as against consumption? Fund production of foods and distribute the foods to poor households, you have achieved two things simultaneously: job creation and inflation reduction. When you give cash and food prices increase, the cash will buy very little, no jobs created, and hunger remains with poor households.
Again, we have a mechanism to grow food without largely paying for labour here. Those over 300k youths for NYSC, make it part of the service year, and you win.