As Nigeria continues to grapple with its worst recession, two pressing concerns revolve around its struggle to diversify – the state of the local manufacturing industry and the level of government’s commitment towards industrialization.
Nigeria is sub-Saharan Africa’s largest economy which boggles my mind when I consider the abject decline in the real GDP, income, employment, manufacturing, and retail sales.
The Nigerian economy is chiefly governed by oil and natural gas. While the oil sector provides almost 30% of the GDP and accounts for 90% of the total export capacity, the manufacturing sector provides around just 4%.
The sector is undergoing industrial collapse. The Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) reported that 272 companies shut down in 2016, 50 of those were manufacturing companies. Other reports claim that more than 1,500 of the 2,500 registered manufacturing companies folded up while millions of employees have lost their jobs.
At the forefront of this decline is Nigeria’s reliance on oil and the failure to make hay while the sun was shining. This focus on oil derailed Nigeria’s progress to becoming an industrialized nation. The government’s recklessness is to blame for the industrial failure, such as power problems, infrastructural deficit, economic mismanagement, taxation discrepancies, policy uncertainty, weak investor confidence, restriction of foreign capital inflows, affixation to irrational importation, and, notably, the low income of consumers.
As commodity prices plummeted, the manufacturing sector has impressively emerged. Despite challenges, the huge demography and being the largest African market makes Nigeria ripe for investment. The United Nations had projected that Nigeria’s population will rise to 240 million by 2050. Also, Renaissance Capital and Frontier Advisory forecast that the country’s economy will grow to $1 trillion by 2025. These are signals of the potential of industrialization.
All that is needed to harness this potential is the willingness of the government to act. A robust manufacturing sector and a willful program for industrialization are equally crucial for the dream to be realized.
It is, therefore, unsurprising that the present government is jumping on the industrial horse to achieve economic reform that will replace the oil and gas with manufacturing and agriculture.
“My engagements with the organized and informal sectors has been mutually affirmative that we should work harder in partnership and disagree less, grow confidence with greater transparency by government, and accelerate actions rather than words, to build our capacities and secure development,” said Nigeria’s Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment, Okechukwu Enelamah, at the Nigeria &amp; Entrepreneurship Summit &amp; Honors in December.
Since then, however, not much has changed. Private businesses are still hindered by unfavorable laws. To this end, the National Assembly is working on legislative economic reform – with 30 bills, including the Petroleum Industrial Bill, Infrastructure Investment Protection and Regulation Bill, Railway Sector Reform Bill, and Tax and Revenue Law/Bill. If successful, such a revolution would be a shot in the arm for industrialization.
The hopes of entrepreneurs and local manufacturers are also bolstered by the Made in Nigeria campaign, which is receiving encouraging support from top to bottom. President Muhammadu Buhari has reassured Nigerians that his administration is working on enhancing the support of locally made goods as well as improving access to finance for small and medium-sized enterprises across the country.
Despite enduring hardship at the moment, Nigeria can be reassured that greater opportunities lie ahead.

Nigeria Needs Industrialization now

Decisions made by major rating agencies come and go. The more they change, the more they stay the same. Standard &amp; Poor’s has been the latest credit bureau to cut South Africa some slack, in not cutting the sovereign to a non-investment grade. Similar leniency has been shown by Fitch and Moody’s over the past 12 months. In the following year, they may however not be that patient, demanding more tangible progress with reforming the labor market, political cohesion and overcoming the challenges that poorly managed state-owned enterprises (SOEs) pose to economic growth.
Admittedly, no one likes being told what to do. That applies to decision makers in the public sector as well as in the private sector. South Africa continues to flirt with the makings of a recession, where another slip on the credit rating ladder could open up the possibility of borrowing funds from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). While this conjures up images of a bailout, it may not necessarily be as bad as it sounds. Loans come with prescribed conditions to them. The biggest will be boosting GDP growth to a more respectable level, from the lethargic level of 1% it appears destined to grow by over the next few years. The détente that was brokered this year between the government and leaders in the private sector, to halt a further slide in the country’s rating, is significant. It shows the two sides being poles apart on many things, but that the success of the economy is not the preserve of only one side.
Public-private partnerships (PPP) have emerged as a credible tool in meeting infrastructural development challenges, by harnessing the strengths of the private sector and government. The private sector provides technical know-how, management and finance for any key infrastructure project. The public sector offers security for private sector investment and also guides the PPP process through a legal and regulatory framework. A special purpose vehicle is established by the private sector, which raises a combination of debt and equity to finance the project. This structure is particularly important for SOEs; the financier will look more at this structure than it will at the cash-strapped public entity.
This framework is internationally recognized and respected. It encompasses a spending program of more than $58 billion, stretching over the following three fiscal years. Much success has already been seen with Africa’s largest PPP project –the Gautrain Rapid Rail Link, which came in around $1.7 billion. Renewable energy projects have also been successful.
However, the Infrascope project, financed by the World Bank to investigate how prepared and willing 15 African countries were to implement key PPPs, found that the process had challenges. Projects can be difficult to execute, legislative and regulatory processes can be tricky, and a high level of financial skill, sectoral knowledge and familiarity with the different structures which PPPs are needed. International investors also observe that bids have a large element of non-price factors, such as the promotion of black economic empowerment, job creation, socio-economic development and industrialization. Foreign bidders say that these local factors are too demanding and play a larger role than they should. Local stakeholders, such as trade unions, are also skeptical of PPPs, mistaking them for privatization of government assets and wary of the job losses which could accompany such projects.
It is not enough that South Africa’s GDP is growing by less than 1%, nor is it enough that reforms in the labor market have been insufficient to dent a 27.1% unemployment rate. It is also not sustainable that around half of South Africa’s population receives some form of welfare and dependency benefits.
How long it takes to rebuild the economy is difficult to say. It will take at least as long as the 33 consecutive months at which the annualized rate at which the South African Reserve Bank’s leading indicator has contracted.
Amid all the uncertainty, the one mantra which remains steadfast is that politics leads economics.

An Uneasy Partnership  That may be necessary

Where would we be without globalization? What if media was restricted to reporting within its own national boundaries? What if we all lived in isolation? It’s a scary picture and one where humanity would have not progressed as broadly as it has.
To fellow African entrepreneurs, I want to say one thing: the more you are exposed to, the bigger you can dream.
Industrialization progressed by further developing what had been done before. Only after working with renowned inventor Thomas Edison, could Nikola Tesla go on to create his own inventions.
Andrew Carnegie worked under the leading businessman, Thomas A. Scott. This mentorship allowed Carnegie to define an era by starting a generation of industrialists, pioneering the philanthropic movement, and becoming an epitome of self-development.
The key word here is exposure.
There are countless occasions where entrepreneurs only discovered their flair by observing other entrepreneurs or studying companies that transformed industries. Some even became competitors of their former employers.
Adrian Gore, the Founder of Discovery Holdings, was exposed to the dealings of the insurance sector early in his career. He worked for Liberty Life but resigned to build his own insurance company. Today, Discovery is the leading medical insurance company in South Africa.
Isn’t it surprising that many companies were started by entrepreneurs who thought they could do it better? Deciding to improve something can shape your destiny. Decisions like these act as the force that pushes us on in our lives.
Look at the former employees of PayPal – today known as the PayPal Mafia. After leaving the famous tech company, these individuals went on to found and fund other mammoth companies like LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, Tesla, SpaceX and they are not finished. At the moment, they are investing in Artificial Intelligence.
These gentlemen were exposed to a revolutionary business and they now all share a drive to change the world as we know it to a better world, one that they see in their minds.
Exposure can give you something other than experience, it can also get you through certain doors that were previously shut. Let’s look at two entrepreneurs; both are looking to seal separate deals. Entrepreneur X closes a $1.8 billion deal, while entrepreneur Y gets a $274,000 deal.
Both worked tirelessly to get these deals but the rewards are not the same. It is likely that entrepreneur X has been exposed to certain levels, while entrepreneur Y was operating independently. They might have both known about the $1.8 billion deal, but knowing about it does not mean you have access to it. You need to run in certain circles to get exposed to deals that involve other entrepreneurs in those circles.
What led Aliko Dangote to manufacturing? While trading commodities, he took note of the huge market in Nigeria and decided it was better to manufacture what he was importing.
Before founding Apple, a 12-year-old Steve Jobs landed a summer job at HP and the rest is history. It is this type of exposure that allows entrepreneurs to gravitate towards their destinies.
If you look at the rain, you will never plant. Get out there; attend conferences, travel to various countries, network with successful business leaders and read as much as you can. Whatever you are exposed to can only broaden your current view on the world around you.
By exposing yourself, you also expose your company to other markets and greater opportunities.
You can’t afford to stand idly by and wait for everything to fall in place. Business, and life, is a fight for territory – the moment you stop fighting for what you want, is the moment you will have lost.

Nothing was Achieved  by Being Idle

Philanthropy is entering what some economists and academics believe is another golden age. Previously, there were booms in giving in Renaissance Europe, 18th-century Britain, the Victorian era, and during the age of industrialization in the 19th-century.
It is hardly surprising, considering how the number of millionaires has increased across the world. But inequality remains widespread. Besides the fact that giving makes one feel good for various reasons, it also makes business sense.
“Philanthropy in Africa, strateg-ically pursued, will contribute to broad-based growth, which creates markets, which in turn enables commerce. How could it not make good business sense?” says Jane Wales, who is the CEO of the Global Philanthropy Forum (GPF).
<div id="attachment_5881" style="width: 310px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-5881" class="size-medium wp-image-5881" src="/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FWA-2013-Dec-Jan-024-026-CA-Phil-001-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />Mona T Brooks |</div>
Besides opening up markets, many philanthropists are able to provide risk capital for social innovation where governments and businesses are averse to go. John D. Rockefeller, who was one of the first philanthropists in the United States (US), was key to helping eradicate yellow fever and hookworm.
A contemporary example is Eli Broad, whose Broad Foundation is sponsoring medical research in human genomics to revolutionize clinical medicine and make that knowledge freely available across the globe.
“Philanthropy is not and should not be about sure bets. It should include a very healthy dose of risk taking. In fact, in an era of 24-hour news cycles, snap judgments, and the tyranny of quarterly reports, one could argue that the philanthropic sector is the only societal actor that can take risks, withstand short-term setbacks and make long-term investments in the social good,” says Wales.
In the US, philanthropy and charities are encouraged through massive tax breaks. This is very different in Africa, where there is little legal framework for philanthropy. However, there is a push by philanthropic organizations, such as the Kenya Community Development Foundation, for governments to adopt policies that are favorable for philanthropy.
But what is philanthropy? The most common definition is that it is a humane act aimed at creating a better life. So how do we value human life?
Acclaimed philosopher Peter Singer believes that if we were forced to put a price tag on human life, we would say it is in the millions.
He then goes onto to argue that we are all created equal, “at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life”.
This is especially true for many Africans, who continue to live in abject poverty and survive on handouts.
But its not all doom and gloom. This picture is changing, albeit it painfully slowly in some areas. Philanthropy is gaining momentum in Africa, and it is not only international do-gooders who are helping communities uplift themselves in a sustainable way.
Africans are increasingly becoming involved in philanthropic projects, with the belief that we should be driving the broad-based growth on the continent.
In South Africa, the tax regime is slightly more beneficial. Currently, donations to public benefit organizations are deductible up to 10% of an individual’s taxable income in the year the donation is made.
But the South African Revenue Service (Sars) has noted that large donations are discouraged, because donations in excess of the limit cannot be carried over. It is now looking at allowing donations in excess of 10% of taxable income in any given year to be rolled over as allowable deductions in subsequent years.
According to Nedbank’s Giving Report II, which surveys the giving practices of high-net worth individuals in South Africa, respondents highlighted insufficient tax benefits as a reason for not being philanthropic.
“In 2012 a total of 29% of donors (104) said they would give more if there were more tax perks for giving. This is almost double the 15% of respondents in 2010 who said that changes to the tax regime would influence their giving behavior.”
The Private Philanthropy Circle (PPC), an independent forum of individual philanthropists, is in the process of preparing a formal submission to Sars and the National Treasury on amending the tax regime.
“We believe that tax legislation that promotes philanthropy through benefits or relief for the establishment and growth of philanthropic foundations (institutionalized giving) will ultimately encourage and ensure the sustained strategic support of civil society. Likewise, the non-profit sector would benefit from a more enabling environment for their donors a well,” says PPC member Amanda Bloch. The forum wants a number of changes, including an increase in the upper limit of 10%, the lengthy turnaround times at the Tax Exemption Unit to be addressed, and a clarification from Sars on gifts in kind and services donated, such as time, skill and effort.
Many types of philanthropy are practiced around the world and they all have varying benefits.
“Impact investing”, which aims to achieve financial and social environmental gain at the same time, is becoming more popular. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft and one of the greatest philanthropists of our time, is an advocate for program-related investments (PRIs).
Instead of giving money away through grants, PRIs allow philanthropic foundations to make investments as loans or equity stakes, hoping to regain them at a later stage, plus a reasonable rate of return.
The Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation’s $400 million investment program encourages employees to weigh up the social and financial returns involved in proposed projects.
In 2009, non-profit social investment fund Root Capital was chosen as the foundation’s first PRI. The organiz-ation is expanding opportunities for 500,000 rural households in Africa with an investment of $10 million and a $4 million grant. It is being used to extend access to credit, financial management training, and global market opportunities for small and growing rural businesses.
As privatization and the scramble for Africa’s mineral wealth continues, some philanthropic organizations and academics believe there are new opportunities to harness these resources for the public good.
Lester Salamon, a director at the Institute for Policy Studies at John Hopkins University in the US, argues for what he calls “Philanthropication thru Privatization (PtP)”. Basically, it is the phenomenon of capturing, in charitable endowments, at least some of the proceeds of the sales of state-owned enterprises or common-use resources underway around the world.
In one study, Salamon says that more than 500 endowed, independent charitable foundations have been created or enriched during the privatizations, and together they control assets of $128 billion.
The African Grantmakers Network believes PtP will help to prevent the continent’s civil society from relying solely on external funding. An example cited is the Newmont Ahafo Dev-elopment Foundation in Ghana. It was formed in 2008 when Newmont Ghana Gold Limited and the Ahafo Social Responsibility Forum pledged to support community development programs near the mine.
The company contributes $1 per ounce of gold produced and 1% of net profits from the mine to the foundation. In turn, the foundation supports economic empowerment, infrastructure development and sports and social amenities.
Becoming financially self-sufficient and not over reliant on aid and donors is not to be scoffed at. But just how many good deeds can be done when the overwhelming leitmotif of the initiative is driven by profit? Surely a case can be made that profit would, in most instances, trump philanthropy?
Whatever the method of benevolence, Africans are stressing that it needs to be sustainable. Earlier this year, GPF launched its most recent regional affiliate, the African Philanthropy Forum (APF).
Its aim is to contribute to the expansion of strategic philanthropy by Africans in Africa by seeking to address the underlying causes of a given problem. Put differently, don’t give a handout; give a hand up.
“But it would be a mistake to assume that strategic philanthropists ignore such inputs as instinct and intuition. It would also be a mistake to assume that deep in their hearts they are not in search of a ‘silver bullet’ that will solve all. It’s human nature to be impatient in one’s search for a better world. And that’s a good thing,” says Wales. APF’s members define philanthropy broadly to encompass all private means of financing the social good – from grants and microfinance to investments in enterprises that provide goods, services and income-generating opportunities for the poor. Some put their companies to the service of social goals, pursuing what is known as a ‘shared value’ or ‘inclusive business’ strategy.
APF believes the next wave of philanthropic innovation will come from the continent. The forum’s impressive membership includes Nigerians Tony Elumelu and Hakeem Belo-Osagie. Elumelu wants to rewrite Africa’s story by leveraging markets in a strategy he refers to as ‘Africacapitalism’, while Belo-Osagie supports a number of higher-education institutions and philanthropic funds to advance education and build leadership skills among young Africans.
Other members are South Africans Hylton and Wendy Appelbaum, who support a variety of causes, and Benin’s Angelique Kidjo, who promotes the empowerment of women and girls.
One of Africa’s most well-known couples involved in philanthropy is mining magnate Patrice Motsepe and his wife, Precious Moloi-Motsepe, who is a key player in Africa’s fashion industry. They made headlines earlier this year when they announced that they would donate half of their wealth to their foundation, which is involved in a number of initiatives to uplift communities.
The Motsepes join the likes of Gates and US business magnate Warren Buffet, who started the Giving Pledge, which encourages the super-rich to donate at least half of their wealth to charities.
Although the super-rich are often criticized that their philanthropic efforts are in part motivated by self-interest, their impact on making changes for good cannot be scoffed at.
As Albert Einstein so aptly put it: “It is every man’s obligation to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what he takes out of it.”

Tag: Industrialization

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

Nigeria Needs Industrialization now

An Uneasy Partnership That may be necessary

Nothing was Achieved by Being Idle

The value of philanthropy