WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Poll says 32% of Ukrainians open to territorial concessions for quick peace

Nearly a third of Ukrainians would accept some territorial concessions to Russia for a quick end to the war, a more than three-fold increase over the past year, although most still oppose giving up any land, a poll showed on Tuesday.

The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology said its poll of 1,067 people on Ukrainian-held territory from May 16-22 found that 32% would agree to some form of territorial concessions, up from just 10% a year earlier and 19% at the end of last year.

It said 55% of Ukrainians remain opposed to making any territorial concessions.

Nearly 29 months since its full-scale invasion, Russia occupies around 18% of Ukrainian territory, including the Crimean peninsula it seized in 2014. Kyiv's troops have been on the back foot this year facing a Russian offensive after their counteroffensive failed to make significant gains last year.

The survey did not ask those polled what territorial concessions they would be open to or how large they should be. KIIS said those polled did not necessarily see concessions as equating to recognising the territory as Russian.

"For example, some people are ready to postpone the liberation of certain territories until the future at a better time," KIIS said in a statement with its findings.

Russia in 2022 unilaterally declared it had annexed the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which it partially controls.

In remarks published alongside the survey, KIIS's executive director, Anton Hrushetskyi, said Ukrainians remained against the idea of reaching a peace settlement with Russia at any cost.

"It's ... important that in the context of possible 'concessions', Ukrainians are against 'peace on any terms'," he said.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

Iskander strike targets foreign instructors in Ukraine

A missile strike has destroyed a temporary deployment point housing Western instructors and mercenaries, the Russian Defense Ministry reported.

The Russian Defense Ministry has shared a video apparently showing a missile strike on a temporary deployment center near the city of Kharkov in Ukraine that supposedly housed Western “instructors and mercenaries.”

Some 50 foreigners are said to have been killed in the ballistic missile strike, which was conducted using an Iskander-M system, the ministry said, noting that the facility was located in Dergachi, a town in Kharkov region.

The strike comes as Moscow has repeatedly warned that any foreign military personnel operating in Ukraine are considered legitimate targets for Russian strikes and would be relentlessly eliminated.

Last month, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reiterated the threat as France hinted at officially sending its soldiers to Ukraine. “The fact is that any instructors who are involved in training the military of the Ukrainian regime do not have any immunity,” Peskov told reporters at the time, noting that “it doesn’t matter whether they are French or not.”

Earlier this month, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) declassified a report in which an agent claimed the French army was “concerned about the increased number of Frenchmen killed in the Ukrainian theater of military operation.”

Moscow’s forces had reported destroying another temporary deployment center for foreign fighters in Kharkov in January, killing what Paris reportedly estimated to be “dozens” of French citizens.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also recently stated that Western military trainers have “long been present” in Ukraine “under the guise of mercenaries” and has emphasized that they represent a legitimate target for Russia’s armed forces.

Reuters/RT

Nigeria and South Africa account for one-third of Africa’s economic production and have also spearheaded many of the continent’s peacemaking efforts over the past three decades, including the establishment of the African Union (AU). As I noted in my 2023 book The Eagle and the Springbok, Africa’s security and development rest heavily on the leadership of these two regional powers.

Nowadays, however, both countries are too preoccupied with domestic economic challenges and political turmoil to represent Africa’s interests effectively on the world stage. In Nigeria, President Bola Tinubu’s first year in office has been marked by a currency crisis and reports of the president’s ill health. In South Africa, the ruling African National Congress recently lost its majority for the first time since 1994, forcing President Cyril Ramaphosato form a unity government with the ANC’s main political rival.

As Africa’s most influential powers, Nigeria and South Africa have a relationship that is both cooperative and competitive. This partly reflects their distinct cultural identities. Nigeria, home to the world’s largest black population, is the continent’s most linguistically diverse country; South Africa is its most Westernized.

Although both countries remain beset by corruption and crime, their growth trajectories have diverged considerably in recent years. South Africa is set to become the continent’s largest economy this year, while Nigeria – which held the title as recently as 2022 – is projected to fall to fourth place, behind Egypt and Algeria.

Instead of reversing Nigeria’s economic decline, Tinubu’s “Renewed Hope Agenda” has accelerated it. Having inherited a struggling economy with a national debt of $113 billionand 33% unemployment, Tinubu’s decision to remove fuel subsidies that kept gasoline prices low has triggered a massive cost-of-living crisis. Moreover, his administration’s attempt to float the naira by devaluing it has led the Nigerian currency to depreciate by roughly 70%against the US dollar over the past year.

These disastrous “shock therapy” policies, a misguided attempt to embrace economic orthodoxy, were initiated without much consultation or planning. After gasoline prices nearly tripled, inflation skyrocketed to 33%, and labor unions took to the streets, the government quietly reintroduced fuel subsidies.

Fearing widespread labor unrest, Tinubu’s administration also announced cash transfersof $54 over three months to the country’s poorest households. But with 40% of the population living in extreme poverty, and bread prices nearly doubling since 2023, these payments fell far short of what was needed.

To be sure, Nigeria lacks the funds to do much else. The government currently spends more than 90% of its revenue on servicing the national debt – six times what it spends on health and education – and the reintroduced fuel subsidies are projected to consume half of its annual oil revenues. Compounding these challenges, the country loses 400,000 barrels of oil per day to theft and vandalism.

At the same time, while the naira has depreciated by 40% against the dollar in the first half of 2024 – making it the world’s worst-performing currency – devaluation has failed to achieve the government’s stated goal of attracting foreign investment. Instead, multinationals like GlaxoSmithKline and Procter & Gamble have exited the country.

Tinubu’s struggles extend to his foreign policy. As chair of the Economic Community of West African States in 2023, Tinubu threatened to intervene in Niger following the country’s military coup, vastly overestimating Nigeria’s military capabilities. This resulted in an embarrassing retreat after Niger’s junta defied his ultimatum and, together with Mali and Burkina Faso, withdrew from ECOWAS.

Shortly after assuming office, Tinubu unveiled his “4D” foreign-policy doctrine: democracy, development, demography, and diaspora. But this framework seems to be more about alliteration than action. In September 2023, as part of his foreign-policy overhaul, Tinubu recalled all of Nigeria’s ambassadors. Ten months later, many of these posts remain vacant.

Despite Nigeria’s declining economic weight and political influence, many Nigerians continue to cling to the outdated notion of the country as the “giant of Africa.” Meanwhile, the kleptocratic political elite shows blatant disregard for the plight of ordinary citizens, imposing austerity measures while continuingto spend lavishly.

By contrast, South Africa seems to have adopted a more measured approach. Following the election’s stunning outcome, the ANC has formed a coalition government with the business-friendly Democratic Alliance (DA), which won just 4% of the black vote. Confronting an external public-debt burden of $158 billion and the world’s highest income inequality, Ramaphosa’s administration is rightly focusing on addressing the country’s electricity crisis, infrastructure challenges, and corruption.

But tensions are already emerging. While many within the ANC want to boost social-welfare spending, the DA has consistently opposed the ANC’s welfare policies. Indeed, many ANC leaders would have preferred a coalition with two left-leaning ruling party offshoots: former President Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

As political commentators have repeatedly warned, the “markets” – meaning South Africa’s white-dominated corporations and foreign investors – would punish any coalition that included the MK and EFF, owing to both parties’ support for nationalizing financial institutions and land expropriation. Moreover, the fact that the ANC has been in power for three decades without shifting to the left suggests that such a move was unlikely.

Having garnered 15% of the national vote, the 82-year-old Zuma remains a powerful political player. Notably, MK won Zuma’s home province of KwaZulu-Natal with 45% of the vote, while support there for the ANC dwindled to 17%.

In an unexpected twist, the ANC, DA, and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) managed to form a coalition, effectively excluding MK from the provincial government. Considering that MK won nearly as many seats as the next three largest parties combined, its exclusion could fuel instability in the traditionally volatile province, which is home to Sub-Saharan Africa’s largest port.

With Islamist terrorism on the rise and the United States, Russia, France, and China expanding their respective military footprints in Africa, the continent urgently needs strong leadership. But Nigeria and South Africa are unlikely to provide it. Constrained by domestic crises, Africa’s major powers have become hobbled hegemons.

Project Syndicate

I’ve had my fair share of imposter syndrome. As a first-generation college graduate, who also went to a historically Black college or university, jumping into the corporate world was a bit of a culture shock. I wasn’t sure at first if I belonged or how to fit in. 

Most people, at some point in their lives, feel the same way on their career journey, but according to Cava CEO Brett Schulman, that lack of confidence isn’t a fatal flaw.

Rather, self-doubt can be exactly what you need to become highly successful, he recently told Wondery’s “How I Built This with Guy Raz” podcast.

“I think we all have a little bit of imposter syndrome — which isn’t the worst thing in the world, because it doesn’t allow you to get overconfident and think that you’re invincible,” Schulman said.

Anxiety can keep some people from making a case for a promotion or volunteering to take on a big project at work. Others can find it motivating: If I’m not good enough yet, I just need to learn more, or focus on self-improvement.

“The more successful someone is, the more self-doubt they have, because that’s what drives them,” real estate mogul Barbara Corcoran said at Fiverr’s "Bridge the Gap" webinar last year. “I’ve never met a secure person who was a stellar star.”

If you find yourself succumbing to imposter syndrome, tap into your network of friends, colleagues and mentors who can speak to your abilities and give you the tools you need to succeed, Schulman recommended.

Since I graduated in 2021, I’ve done just that, leaning on my network for guidance and support. Looking back, I see that self-doubt pushed me to apply myself beyond what I thought I was capable of, and now I feel more confident every day. 

CNBC

• In Q1 2024, debt servicing consumed about 74% of Nigeria’s federal revenue, amounting to N1.31 trillion out of the N1.76 trillion retained revenue.  
• This financial strain highlights the government’s ongoing challenges in managing debt, despite a reduction in fiscal deficit and overall expenditures. 
• Alarmingly, the high debt service costs overshadow spending on essential sectors like personnel and capital expenditures, signalling a need for urgent economic reforms to sustain growth and development. 

 Debt service costs have consumed about 74% of the federal government’s retained revenue in the first quarter of 2024. 

This is according to the latest quarterly statistical bulletin from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).  

In Q1 2024, the federal government had a retained revenue of N1.76 trillion.

However, in the same period, debt servicing gulped N1.31 trillion, which is about 74% of the government revenue. 

This figure highlights the continuing financial strain on the government’s resources as it grapples with significant debt obligations

Only 29% of FG’s expenditures was for debt servicing 

Although debt servicing gulped 74% of the federal government’s revenue, it was only about 29% of the total expenditures for the period under review. 

While retained revenue was N1.76 trillion, an increase of 33.8% compared to the N1.32 trillion retained in the same period of 2023, there was a decrease in government expenditures by 12.9% from N5.28 trillion in Q1 2023 to N4.59 trillion by 2024. 

Just as there was a decrease in expenditures, there was also a decrease in fiscal deficit by 29% from N3.96 trillion in the Q1 of last year to N2.83 trillion in the same period this year. 

There was also a decrease in debt servicing spending by 33.5% from N1.97 trillion in Q1 2023, as debt servicing to revenue ratio was 149% in the first quarter of last year. 

Although there was a reduction in the ratio this year, the high percentage still shows the critical challenge of managing the country’s debt in a sustainable manner, as substantial portions of the revenue are directed towards servicing existing debts rather than development projects. 

Debt service costs overwhelm spending on personnel, capital expenditure 

The federal government spent more on debt servicing than it spent on personnel costs or capital expenditures. 

Personnel costs for Q1 2024 amounted to N1.15 trillion, an increase of 17.1% from the N978.11 billion spent in the same period last year. 

However, capital expenditure fell by 35.9% to N1.15 trillion in Q1 2024, from the N1.8 trillion recorded in the same quarter of 2023. 

This reduction in capital expenditure is concerning, as it suggests a cutback in investments in infrastructure and other long-term development projects. 

Capital expenditure is crucial for economic growth and development, and sustained reductions in this area could impede progress and affect the overall economic health of the nation. 

Nairametrics

Aliko Dangote, chairman of Dangote Industries Limited, has alleged some personnel of Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited, oil traders and terminals have opened a blending plant in Malta.

Dangote spoke at the house of representatives on Monday.

An oil blending plant has no refining capability but can be used to blend re-refined oil (a used motor oil that has been treated to remove dirt, fuel, and water) with additives to create finished lubricant products.

The billionaire said the areas of the blending plants are known.

“Some of the terminals, some of the NNPC people and some traders have opened a blending plant somewhere off Malta,” the chairman said.

“We all know these areas. We know what they are doing.”

Addressing the drop in diesel prices, the billionaire said the diesel produced locally at 650 parts per million (ppm) and 700 ppm is of better quality than imported fuel.

Dangote said many vehicle issues can be traced back to the “substandard” imported fuel.

He urged the leadership of the house of representatives to set up an independent committee to verify the quality of petrol available at filling stations.

“I want you to set up a committee that will come with every representative headed by your chosen honourable member to come and lead in taking samples from filling stations because I must tell you today that all the test certificates that people are busy floating around, where are the labs? Even if they have the labs, I can tell you they are fake certificates,” he said.

“The real one that you now know that they are right is to take from the filling station and also come and take from our production line. Now, you will be able to tell Nigerians that this is it.”

On Monday, the house of representatives joint committee on petroleum resources (downstream and midstream) launched a probe into claims that local refineries, including the Dangote Petroleum Refinery, produce inferior products.

The committee is also investigating the allegations that the international oil companies (IOCs) in Nigeria are frustrating the survivalof the Dangote refinery.

The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) and Dangote refinery have been embroiled in a dispute that began recently.

On July 18, Farouk Ahmed, the chief executive officer of NMDPRA had said local refineries, including the Dangote refinery, were producing inferior products compared to the ones imported into the country.

The oil regulator also accused Dangote of monopoly, claims which have been denied by the billionaire.

On Monday, Heineken Lokpobiri, minister of state petroleum resources (oil), intervened in the ‘ongoing issues’ after having a meeting with Aliko Dangote, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of Dangote Group and Farouk Ahmed, CEO of Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA).

Gbenga Komolafe, CEO of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), and Mele Kyari, group CEO of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) Limited were also at the meeting.

The Cable

The public spat between Aliko Dangote, Africa's richest man and owner of the Dangote Refinery, and various agencies of the Nigerian Federal Government has brought to the fore critical issues in Nigeria's industrial policy and business environment. This dispute, centered around crude oil supply, product quality, and allegations of monopolistic practices, reveals deeper challenges in Nigeria's quest for economic diversification and energy security.

Firstly, the failure of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) to fulfill its commitment of supplying 300,000 barrels of crude oil per day to the Dangote Refinery is a significant concern. This shortfall not only hampers the refinery's operations but also raises questions about Nigeria's ability to manage its oil resources effectively. The alleged premium pricing by International Oil Companies further complicates the situation, potentially undermining the refinery's economic viability.

The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority's (NMDPRA) controversial statements about the quality of Dangote Refinery's diesel are equally troubling. Such public declarations, especially if inaccurate, can severely damage the reputation of a new and strategically important enterprise. Regulatory bodies must exercise caution and ensure the veracity of their claims before making public statements that could impact investor and public confidence.

However, the government's stance against granting monopoly status to the Dangote Refinery is commendable. Given Dangote's history of market dominance in other sectors, maintaining a competitive environment is crucial for consumer protection and economic growth. The decision to continue allowing importation of petroleum products aligns with principles of free market economics and ensures supply diversity.

Aliko Dangote's reaction to these challenges, while understandable from a business perspective, is concerning. His threat to halt investments in Nigeria and the offer to sell the refinery to NNPC seem reactionary and could be interpreted as attempting to arm-twist the government. It's important to remember that Dangote's success has been significantly facilitated by Nigeria's large market and, most times, preferential government treatment.

The businessman's comments about doing the country a favour by investing are particularly ill-advised. No private entity, regardless of its size or influence, should position itself as indispensable to a nation's economy. Such rhetoric undermines the symbiotic relationship between businesses and the countries in which they operate.

This dispute highlights the delicate balance Nigeria must strike between encouraging large-scale private investments and maintaining a fair, competitive business environment. It also underscores the need for clear, consistent policies and transparent communication between the government and the private sector.

Moving forward, all parties involved should prioritize dialogue and collaboration. The government must address the crude supply issues and ensure regulatory fairness. Dangote, for his part, should recognize his responsibility as a major economic player and work constructively with authorities to resolve disputes.

Ultimately, this situation serves as a crucial test for Nigeria's industrial policy and business climate. How it is resolved will send a strong signal to both domestic and international investors about Nigeria's commitment to fostering a robust, fair, and growth-oriented economic environment.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Celebrated journalist and author Azu Ishiekwene is set to host a reading of his latest book, Writing for Media and Monetising It, on Wednesday, July 24. The event will take place at Rovingheights Bookstore in Area 11, Garki, Abuja, starting at 5 pm.

Moderated by Maupe Ogun-Yusuf, a top anchor at Channels TV, the reading promises to be an engaging session. Ishiekwene's book, which explores how content creators and journalists can better monetize their work, has garnered extensive praise since its public launch on June 26. It is currently available for purchase in several locations in Abuja and Lagos.

The event will offer Ishiekwene an opportunity to deepen his connection with readers, autograph copies, and discuss the book's core theme: securing better rewards for journalists' efforts. Prominent media personalities, including Dapo Olorunyomi, Publisher of Premium Times, have already expressed interest in attending.

Journalists from various Abuja-based media outlets, such as NATION, ThisDay, Vanguard, TRUST, PUNCH, Guardian, and LEADERSHIP, as well as those from the broadcast media, are also expected to be present.

For more information on Azu Ishiekwene and his works, visit www.azuishiekwene.com.

Israel declares two more Gaza hostages dead

Israel declared dead on Monday two more of its hostages being held in Gaza, as talks to secure a ceasefire deal that would include the release of some 120 captives there were set to resume later this week.

The Israeli military said it was still investigating the deaths in captivity of the two hostages, Yagev Buchshtab, a 35-year-old sound technician and Alex Dancyg, 76, a historian, who were abducted from their homes in kibbutzim near the border with Gaza during Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel.

An Israeli negotiation team was due on Thursday to set off to mediated Gaza ceasefire talks that would include the issue of hostages being released in return for Palestinian prisoners.

"Yagev and Alex were taken alive and should have returned alive to their families and to their country," the Hostage Families Forum said in a statement. "Their death in captivity is a tragic reflection of the consequences of foot-dragging in negotiations."

Dancyg also had Polish citizenship, and Poland's foreign ministry said it was saddened by his death.

"Poland will continue to demand the unconditional release of all the abductees from Gaza," the ministry said.

Israeli authorities have so far pronounced dead in absentia around a third of the hostages still held in Gaza.

Reuters

WESTERN PERSPECTIVE

Russia restricts entry to border areas in southern Belgorod region

Russia's southern region of Belgorod is restricting entry from Tuesday to 14 areas on the border with Ukraine that are subject to heavy attack from Kyiv's forces, measures that appeared to be part of a Kremlin strategy to set up a border buffer zone.

Belgorod Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov said the restrictions applied to the localities "where the pertaining operational situation is extremely difficult," according to the Interfax news agency.

The move follows on from the Kremlin's order to protect Russian territory from Ukrainian attacks and secure areas and facilities so they are beyond the range of Ukrainian fire.

Under the restrictions, outlined by Gladkov last week in a video posted on the Telegram messaging app, checkpoints are to be set up outside the localities, public transport is barred and anyone wishing to visit must advise local authorities in advance.

"Entry will be permitted only for male adults with strict rules: in armoured vehicles with military electronic equipment and in bullet-proof apparel and helmets, accompanied by servicemen or local officials," Gladkov said.

Gladkov did not explicitly say civilians were being evacuated, but said it was "unacceptable" to allow women and children in the restricted areas and all property would be kept under strict guard.

Ukraine has subjected Russia's southern border regions to daily shelling and drone attacks, particularly settlements on or near the border in Belgorod region.

Russian forces launched a cross-border incursion in May into areas of Ukraine's Kharkiv region across from Belgorod region and the military had taken control of several towns and villages.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has said in recent weeks that Kyiv's forces had stabilised border areas.

RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE

US-made HIMARS launcher get destroyed in Ukraine

The Russian Defense Ministry has shared footage purporting to show the destruction of another US-supplied Ukrainian HIMARS multiple rocket launcher system in a ballistic missile strike.

The system was discovered by a surveillance drone and was tracked to a hangar in the village of Novopetrovka, in Ukraine’s Nikolayev Region. The location was hit by a ballistic missile fired by an Iskander-M system, the Russian military reported on Monday, adding that the HIMARS and its crew had been destroyed. 

Drone footage of the strike showed the hangar being obliterated, with a secondary detonation, presumably in the launcher’s ammo stock, observed at the site.

The Russian military has consistently hunted high-value Ukrainian assets, including from the HIMARS family. Over the past few weeks, multiple launchers of this type have reportedly been destroyed, with some of the strikes captured in drone footage released by the Russian Defense Ministry.

HIMARS launchers have been long touted by Kiev as an ultimate long-range, high-precision weapon to strike Russian high-value assets such as command points or ammo stockpiles. However, Moscow has accused Ukraine of routinely using the systems to launch indiscriminate attacks on Russian territory, including on civilian targets.

Reuters/RT

Two hundred and thirty-four years ago, Adam Smith, a Scottish philosopher and political economist died on 17 July, 1790. Born in 1723, Smith is generally eulogised as the “Father of Capitalism,” “Father of Economics,” and for “putting economic development on the map as a subject for general analysis.”

The ‘founders’ of the United States (US) viewed his ideas as a critical work of national wealth, statecraft and societal development. Karl Marx benefited immensely from Smith’s ideas in the evolution of Marxism.

But since the late 1970s, neoliberal forces who claim to have Smith in their DNA, have turned economics upside-down and inside-out. They have mathmaticalised and statisticalised economics to make it appear scientific, but expelled the logic, orderliness, consistency, and predictability that makes mathematics and statistics scientific. Neoliberalism is more of abracadabra, mysticism, and witchcraft. It is not a problem-solving, but problem-aggravating ism.

Yet, it has emerged triumphant due to its application of crude and naked power. Neoliberalism was imposed globally through deceit and crude force. Its major forces, which control the international financial institutions – the United Nations, World Trade Organisation (WTO), amongst others – use these institutions to globalise neoliberalism. Like Fela Anikulapo’s song “Zombie,” it has only one way: “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism.

They further undermined subjects that seriously challenge the ‘intellectual’ bases of neoliberalism. These include the ‘Economic Doctrines/Thoughts,’ ‘Economic History,’ ‘Economic Sociology’ and ‘Political Economy,’ to which Smith paid tireless attention in his works. These were systematically wiped out from the curricular of tertiary education institutions. Yet, these were the subjects Smith organically interrogated in his books: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) (1759); An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (TWN) (1776); Lectures on Police, Revenue, and Arms (1763); and Essays on Philosophical Subjects (1795), amongst others.

Although Smith never used the term ‘development’, but in his TWN, he used ’improvement’ to connote ‘development.’ To him, development arose to manage the crisis brought about by the breakdown of subsistence economy, which is manifested in the emergence of division of labour (DOL). Development, to Smith, means the increase in the productive activities of a nation; growth of national wealth; and improvement in the standard of living of the citizenry.

Development, he argued, occurs in a “natural order” and in an “unnatural and retrograde order.” The first occurs naturally, instinctually, spontaneously, and independently of human intentions. It began from agriculture, on to manufacturing and, then international trade. It first arose from the countryside to the towns, which it supplied with the “means of subsistence, and the materials of manufacture.” Thus, it predated and preceded towns.

Smith preferred this order because it is less risky. The landlord’s land is “under his view and command, and his fortune is much less liable to accidents… The capital of the landlord… is fixed in the improvement of his land… (which) seems to be as well as secured as the nature of human affairs can admit of.”

The second is the opposite of the first and was brought by human interference. Yet, Smith argued, that the “unnatural and retrograde order” has contributed to development. For example, that international trade widens the market, expands productivity, increases profits, sharpens competition, develops DOL/technology, grows the national wealth, and improves citizens’ welfare.

Production and the reproduction of wealth are, therefore, central to Smith’s doctrine on development. Despite this, he posited that the capitalists, if unchecked, will disrupt societal development. First, that their desperation to acquire monopoly position restraints free competition; reduces the employment of productive labour; negatively affects the quality of commodities; discourages commerce; kills initiative; and decreases state revenue.

Secondly, that monopoly profits adversely affect the mobility and allocation of resources; destroys the initiative and frugality of the capitalists; hinders their incentive and capacity to earn; retards capital accumulation; negatively affects the wealth of nation; and disastrously disturbs societal development.

Thirdly, that capitalists’ payment of low wages affects workers’ health, obstructs industrial peace; decreases labour productivity; and stagnates the development of DOL/technology. Therefore, he posited, the interests of capitalists are: “always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the general public.”

Smith, accordingly, recommended that: “The proposal of any law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public and, who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”

Smith advocated that individuals should be encouraged to pursue their legitimate business, but not at the expense of society. For, society: “cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another.” Therefore, individuals must control their do-or-die desperation for profit, otherwise the state must administer social justice.

Man, he wrote, must: “humble the arrogance of his self-love, and bring it down to something which other men must go along with.” For: “In the race for wealth, and honours, and preferements, he may run as hard as he can, and strain every nerve and every muscle, in order to outstrip all his competitors. But if he should jostle, or throw down any of them, the indulgence of the spectators is entirely at an end. It is a violation of fair play, which they cannot admit of.”

Smith opposed state participation in economic enterprises. Rather, he advocated that the state should focus on providing security, justice, and orderly development. It should particularly create a conducive atmosphere for free enterprises to exist, facilitate the perfect operation of the market, and encourage the development of DOL/technology. Free competition, he argued, allows the attainment of modest wealth, and makes it difficult for the capitalists to easily amass great wealth, without alertness, creativity, drive, innovation, and industry.

But Smith equally advocated that the state must ensure workers are well paid because they are the creators of wealth. The payment of poor wages, he argued, affects workers’ health; disturbs industrial peace; reduces national wealth; and obstructs development.

In contrast, the payment of “liberal” wages gives workers additional incentives to work dedicatedly; build a healthy, industrious labour force; improve their standard of living; produce and reproduce a healthy working class; and increase the wealth of nation.

Smith was for the integrated development of agriculture, manufacturing, and trade, in which the capitalists and workers grow and develop. Not so neoliberalism, which focuses on capital at the expense of labour. In contrast to neoliberalism, he was for the flourishing of free enterprise, not super monopoly capitalism.

He argued for “liberal” wages, while neoliberalism is against the payment of living wages, except when workers threaten the system. Neoliberalism is for cowboy capitalism, while Smith was for a state that is capable of disciplining and, does discipline, all classes. Neoliberalism is for a state which doggedly stands for monopoly capitalism.

Neoliberalism is far deadlier in underdeveloped countries, where it is wreaking havoc like Ebola.

** Ahmed Aminu-Ramatu Yusuf worked as deputy director, Cabinet Affairs Office, The Presidency, and retired as General Manager (Administration), Nigerian Meteorological Agency, (NiMet). Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.