I t is fashionable for Nigerians who know, and those who utterly have no idea, what neo-liberal economic policies mean, to ask why the Federal Government and its economic policymakers adopt the bitter pill that the Bretton Woods institutions always recommend to poor African countries. Some like the idea, some others do not. But for the most part, arguments on both sides of the economic theory, or ideological divide, interrogate the matter from the point of view of government protagonists or antagonists.
Neo-liberalism is the new name for economic policies that emphasise market forces that deregulate markets and price control, remove trade barriers, introduce austerity measures and eliminate state control of the economy. Neo-liberalism includes privatization, or the half-way house commercialization, of state-owned enterprises, reduction of Big Government, free global trade, promoting consumer choice and a slew of uncomfortable economic policies that put citizens in dire economic straits, or a state of lack. The World Bank and its counterpart, the International Monetary Fund, claim that the purpose of these measures is to make the economies of the adopting countries more competitive, reduce their economic dependence on countries of the Economic North and devalue the currency of the “victim” countries in order to enhance their exports.
The World Bank is set up to provide finance, research, advice and aids to developing nations, while the IMF is supposed.
