Analysis Tool Bar      +

Home > South-North Dialogue on Globalization Research > South-North Dialogue Paper Site Help | Site Map

Reconfiguring Economic and Human Development Related Globalization Research in Nigeria: Issues and Challenges

Akongbowa Bramwell Amadasun, Benson Idahosa University, Nigeria


Introduction

The most compelling reasons to improve the design and operation of globalization research in Nigeria and also to align the research interests of the North with those that obtain in Nigeria include the huge socio-cultural, socio-economic, and socio-political costs, as well as the policy implications associated with technology transfer, global trade and governance, and human development. The significant rise in poverty, sharp decline in middle-class living standards, and the increasing number of households experiencing a large decline in access to health, education, social services, and human capital development in Nigeria and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) call into question the role of, and imbalance in, globalization research between the South and the North. This is because policies governing these issues are largely formulated by Washington and Brussels based on facts emanating from a globalization research paradigm developed and ascribed to by researchers in the North.

Consequently, there is a need to pause and consider a genuine supraterritorial research collaboration between SSA (Nigeria included) and the North that would overcome this imbalance. The need for a new paradigm and architecture for globalization research has provoked many reform proposals that reflect different, even contradictory, views about the underlying problems and their solutions. The proposals lack a systematic approach to globalization research reform and fail to address situations or environments where the research premise neglects Nigerian or African social values and local culture and constraints, as well as legal and institutional changes.

Nigerian globalization research infrastructure faces immense resource constraints, along with challenges of focus and capacity, which have made it difficult to grow the globalization research enterprise. The university, the government sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play an overwhelming role in the generation of comprehensive research data and information. However, the dearth of timely, accurate, and comprehensive information on global activities has compounded the frustrating challenges that globalization poses to researchers in Nigeria and SSA. The challenge here is that while universities and research institutions are presumed to be the collectors, sorters, and analyzers of data, in Nigeria this is largely not the case. The reasons are: 1) resource constraints which have prevented universities from adequately funding research and/or marketing their research capabilities and capacities outside the academy; the non-linkage between, or mistrust of, the private and public sector in research outcomes emanating from the universities; and 3) the low remuneration of university teachers which has to some extent discouraged them from engaging in research, but if they do, they do so on a solo and commercial basis (charging exorbitant fees for themselves), and in circumstances that can lead to a breach of research ethics. What is more, data availability in the area of government finance and international trade, as well as cross-boarder informal trade remains rather poor. Most public data in Nigeria and other SSA countries are mere estimates because there are no systematic mechanisms for recording and compiling such data in the relevant sector or government agencies. Moreover, the available data or estimates have an unfortunate time lag (Odozi 1994). Generally, the problems with public statistics in relation to supraterritorial, social-technological, economic, and political transactions increase in magnitude as one moves down from federal to the state and local government levels. Needless to say, this most unsatisfactory state of affairs seriously constrains effective globalization research.

The Challenges of Globalization Research in Nigeria

Meeting the challenges and opportunities for optimal supraterritorial globalization research between Nigeria or SSA and the North requires consideration of how to put data analysis and management on the agenda of economic and human development related globalization research within the African (or Nigerian) context. It also demands that the following questions be addressed: How has globalization research been conceptualized in post-independence Nigeria? How have globalization research and intranational research linkages been conceptualized so far? How has the idea of intranational research evolved? How has an intranational research perspective been introduced into the analysis of global competition within the Nigerian or SSA context? How can global research collaboration and co-operation between the North and Nigeria (or the SSA) be strengthened for maximum effect or result, doing away with the North's hegemony? In addition, as Nigeria and SSA increasingly become integrated into the core of global political economy, the need to adopt internationally accepted research practices and priorities that make for effective global conceptualization of issues becomes fundamental.

With differences in perception, peculiarities of environment, tools of research engagement, and the constraints and opportunities with which globalization research is conducted in Nigeria (or SSA) and the North in full view, critical evaluation should be given to the following questions:

  1. Has local intellectual property law taken social values and conditions into cognizance in providing a basis for the research divide? How can globalization research bridge this divide?
  2. Is there a genuine research environment that will allow parties from the North and the underdeveloped SSA to engage in or secure intellectual research transactions?
  3. Is there a local regulatory/supervisory framework that promotes a stable research culture vis-à-vis globalization research?
  4. Do legal and ethical rules matter for research outcomes and genuine supraterritorial research between the North and SSA?
  5. Will changing the details of specific legal and ethical rules affect or enable equal partnership in globalization research between the North and SSA?
  6. Is there a comprehensive framework within which all globalization research can engage, disengage, and/or offer a desired minimum level of service delivery that will yield balanced, productive outcomes that are free of the hegemonic position of the North or the disadvantaged position of the South?
  7. Is there an environment or framework that allows researchers and their institutes to engage in shared or integrated research?
  8. Is globalization research integrated in the national development plan and associated policies?
  9. Does the institutional research arrangement in place support a full research system? Such a system would consist of research institutions, observations, decisions, support operations, and funding organizations involved in producing usable knowledge and linking it to action in the field.
  10. What research networks are in place? How are they funded? How do they relate to one another or collaborate? For what purposes are they created?

A rigorous analysis of these questions will indicate the direction, processes, tools, structures, and depth that should be engaged to provide solutions to globalization research deficits and narrowing the North-South divide.

Constraints on Globalization Research in Nigeria

Globalization research architecture in Nigeria is weak. Apart from the ad hoc nature of the system for collecting and processing data, the mechanisms for doing so are outmoded and ineffective. Although some government ministries, agencies, and parastatals (particularly those in the fiscal and monetary transaction sector) have formal reporting and research arrangements, they appear weak and unable to contribute tangibly to globalization research. Moreover, what constitutes the research input and output are intentionally manipulated, pre-determined, and subject to political and bureaucratic dictates or conditionality, which are at variance with the tenets of good research; and thus not helpful to globalization studies.

In recent times, public policy has increasingly focused on public sector participation and state intervention in research (particularly macroeconomic research). This has resulted in a wide range of complimentary and opposing research requirements, as evidenced in the increasing scrutiny around, and complexity of, collecting, analyzing, and processing data and making deductions. These requirements fall into two categories: 1) those for making sound public policy (complimentary requirements); and 2) those for manipulating public interest (opposing requirements). Because of the inherent complimentary nature of the first group of requirements and the opposing nature of the second, NGOs, as an institution, have become a pressure group for ethics in public policy which is the product of government research that sometimes has a superimposed transnational character. Consequently, the questions and issues that need to be addressed are as follows (Falani 2002, with modifications):

The implications of the above for the South-North divide in globalization research include:

Response to William Coleman's Questions

  1. How has my own research addressed or focused upon globalization? My own research focuses on international economic and political organizations or programs and development issues and policies in Nigeria and SSA. It addresses macroeconomic and development issues from an African perspective, under-performing economic conditions, center-periphery growth or dependency strategy, and socio-political and socio-economic strife.
  2. In thinking about my own research and that of other colleagues that I know in my country, what are the most pressing research questions related to globalization? The most pressing research questions are: Who should dictate the parameters for the conduct of globalization research? Should it be Western donors and researchers from the North, or should it be ourselves, or the exigencies of time and environment, or all the above? How can we foster sustained research partnership on globalization between the academy, NGOs, government agencies, and the interested public? Should the research be limited to intranational, transnational, or sub-regional issues? How should research results or outcomes contribute to the cultivation, development, and dissemination of multidisciplinary stocks of supranational knowledge on economic and human development in Africa, and in particular, the development of deficient, debt ridden, poverty stricken, corruption, and mis-governance laden SSA? How can we create an active and multidisciplinary network of researchers on Africa's political economy and sustainable human development? How can research results or outcomes be communicated to policy-makers for the benefit of humankind? What tools, processes, and procedures should be engaged for effective collaboration and cooperation with researchers from the North as well as other researchers from the South including Asia and South America?
  3. Which of these questions would benefit most from systematic collaboration with colleagues outside my country on perhaps large projects? A number of the above questions would benefit from collaboration with colleagues outside my country.
  4. When scholars speak of globalization in my country what do they usually mean by the term? They generally mean activities that span boundaries particularly those that have a telling impact on Africa's socio-political and human conditions; activities that are imposed by Western interest in Nigeria's and Africa's development; economic and trading relationships between Nigeria (and Africa) and other nations or regions; and computer, information, and technological developments that span national boundaries.
  5. What are the principal obstacles faced by globalization studies researchers in my country when it comes to carrying out research and making it available to other scholars and to interested persons or the general public? One obstacle is the non-availability of appropriate media for the dissemination of research outcomes. Another is prejudice from Western scholars who have a bias for working with either Western-trained academics resident in Nigeria, or scholars that are resident in the North. This is particularly the case when scholars from my country attempt to get their work published in the United States or Europe. Other obstacles include funding constraints in terms of data and information gathering, analysis, and publishing of results; absence of journals devoted to globalization discourse; and lack of continuity in publication of journals, where ongoing or completed research can be serialized in the long term. Many of these obstacles might be addressed by greater cross-national research collaboration.
  6. When it comes to my country, is Appadura's (2000) analysis of differences in research approaches and research ethics across the world relevant and helpful or not? Yes. Appadurai's analysis is relevant and helpful.

Reform Approaches and the Way Forward

In the past few years, concern has arisen over the highly fragmented and North-dominated nature of globalization research and its implications for policy development and implementation (Appadurai 2000). Consequently, a campaign has been mounted for equitable South-North partnership in globalization research. With respect to economic and human development related globalization research this campaign might adopt one or more of the four proposed ways forwards:

  1. Mainstreaming Approach: In order to integrate North-based globalization studies with those of Nigeria (or SSA), new proposals are needed for integrating institutions and research networks (including NGOs into existing and preferred international research networks.
  2. Global Governance Approach: A global governance approach would emphasize the importance of non-governmental research actors as key players in the field of globalization research. NGOs, transnational corporations, trade unions, and the epistemic community should be prominent among these actors. This would result in a postmodern globalization research framework and infrastructure that could replace the common state-centric view with a more private individual or sector-centered one.
  3. Upgrading Approach: The proposition here is that steps should be taken to strengthen the already existing globalization research infrastructure/institutional framework. This would entail broadening funding, human resource capital, and so on.
  4. Specialized Agency Approach: This approach favours the creation of a specialized agency for the conduct of globalization research. But what is controversial is whether a group of specialized agencies or a single, super organization is needed.

Beyond these ways forward, indications remain that infrastructure for macroeconomic and human development related globalization research in Nigeria and SSA is weak, especially when compared to that of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), European countries, the North American countries (United States and Canada), and Japan. Consequently, advancing globalization research in Nigeria also requires:

In view of the above, and given the importance of such research as a tool for national economic growth and human development, it is imperative, in order to guarantee a sound, reliable, credible, and acceptable research architecture, that:

In evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed supraterritorial research structure or reforms it is important to:

In Nigeria, macroeconomic and human development policy transformation relies on a very few institutional arrangements (both local and international), comprising academic and government institutions, private research operations, and NGOs. However, for an integrated supraterritorial macroeconomic and human development research enterprise that can effectively contribute in both the national and global interest, institutions and infrastructures need to be built and to evolve in concert with existing institutions. These institutions "must foster the development of capacities ranging from rapid appraisal of knowledge and know how needs, in specific field situations through global operations observation and reporting system to long term integrated research…" (Falani 2002, citing Robert. W. Conel). New infrastructural needs should be met through the design and installation of research systems for internal users in the various research centres and institutions. These should be configured to link internal users to internally and externally generated information. In addition, institutions with capacities to access and disseminate research findings or information globally can be designed and established. Networking institutions should provide information on research outcomes and assist the review and building of research capacity and capabilities, in order to generate continuous interest among participants and ensure sustainability. Falani (2002, citing Ejiogu) observes that such networks should:

Conclusion

Approaches to macroeconomic and human development related globalization studies, and the local conditions in which they take place in the North and the South, have implications for policy and practice. This raises the issue of whether North-dominated research should be allowed to impose and selectively prescribe a unidirectional focus for the South. If so, a true and well-balanced supraterritorial research agenda will be difficult to attain. This is because the infrastructure for globalization studies is weak and uncoordinated. Consequently, efforts must be geared toward the development of a conceptually and operationally holistic supranational economic and human development research paradigm as a prerequisite for a more effective and satisfactory North-South research collaboration. Such collaboration should continue to ask: Where are we? Where should we be? Should effective planning, execution, and management shift focus in globalization research in the short and long term?

Works Cited

Appadurai, Arjun. 2006. The right to research. Globalisation, Societies and Education 4 (2): 167-77.

Falani, Michael O. 2002. International and research infrastructure for sustainable science in Africa. The Nigeria Social Scientist 5 (1): 4-10.

Odozi, V.A. 1994. Opening Address at the Third CBN Zonal Research Units Annual Conference, Ogun State, Nigeria, 2-4 July 1994.

Contents



Glossary Terms