Image this: You’re behind the wheel of a automotive, dashing down a highway with out a care on this planet. Do you actually need to know the intricacies of inside combustion engines to drive? After all not. However, let’s not neglect, the very automotive you’re driving—and your skill to drive it—is deeply rooted within the data of mechanics and engineering. You belief that those that constructed the automotive understood how every thing works, even if you happen to, the driving force, don’t. With out that foundational data, you’re simply sitting in a machine, hoping it doesn’t break down mid-journey. Now, let’s take this analogy to Nigerian policy-making: The driving force is the policymaker, and the automotive is the financial system. It’s fairly easy: with out a deep understanding of the foundational philosophical parts of financial doctrine, coverage choices are nothing greater than driving blindfolded.
As my undergraduate Economics professor, AbdulGaniyu Garba, insightfully put it in his essay, “An Essay on the Philosophy and Methodology of Economics,” the policymaker—very similar to a automotive driver—depends on the doctrines of economics to navigate their means. However what if these doctrines aren’t grounded in a stable understanding of justice, ethics, or human well-being? What if these doctrines are mere technicalities, regurgitated with out an oz of philosophical reflection? Welcome to the fashionable financial policymaking conundrum, particularly in Nigeria.
Financial doctrines are sometimes handled as the final word handbook for understanding the world and crafting efficient insurance policies. In any case, it’s simple to consider that financial theories primarily based on information and empirical proof are all you might want to make sound choices. Nonetheless, very similar to driving a automotive with out understanding the mechanics that energy it, policymaking with out a philosophical basis is sure to finish in catastrophe. It’s all too frequent to see Nigerian policymakers counting on “obtained financial doctrines” with out ever questioning the epistemological and moral assumptions that underpin these doctrines. What occurs when the instruments we’re utilizing to craft coverage fail to account for deeper moral questions, comparable to equity and justice? Nicely, you get insurance policies that, whereas technically sound, fail to truly serve the folks they have been designed for. The Social Funding Programme in Nigeria, anybody?
Proof-Primarily based Coverage: A Noble, But Inadequate Aim
Let’s speak evidence-based coverage for a second, since that’s the bread and butter of recent economics. The mantra of the day is that if the numbers add up, the coverage is stable. We use econometric fashions, causal identifications, and cost-benefit analyses to craft insurance policies. However right here’s the kicker—those self same instruments, as magnificent as they’re for drawing neat conclusions, fail miserably once we attempt to reply deeper questions on morality and justice. It’s like assuming that you may construct an ideal, sustainable automotive with out ever understanding the rules of steadiness and engineering.
Take for example the best way Nigerian policymakers body insurance policies round financial progress. They rely closely on empirical information, typically ignoring the philosophical underpinnings of equity or fairness. The shortage of philosophical coaching within the schooling of policymakers—mixed with a considerably lazy reliance on financial principle—has led to insurance policies that usually overlook vital moral implications. Let’s not neglect {that a} coverage’s effectiveness isn’t simply measured by the variety of folks it serves, however by the justness of its outcomes. How, then, can we outline justice with out delving into philosophical discourse? Are we making assumptions about what’s “simply” primarily based on handy financial fashions, with out absolutely realizing that equity, in its true sense, shouldn’t be one thing that may be diminished to mere information?
The crux of the issue lies within the disconnect between financial instruments and the philosophical ideas that ought to information their use. As Garba notes in his essay, economics is a device—a method to an finish. However that “finish” is formed by the deeper philosophical questions of what we, as a society, consider is simply. And let’s not child ourselves—financial fashions don’t reply questions like: “What’s equity?” or “What can we owe to future generations?” They only don’t.
The Bridge Between Proof and Ethics
To take the analogy additional, if economics is the automotive, then philosophy is the gasoline. One can not operate optimally with out the opposite. Policymakers could have entry to all of the technical instruments and econometric fashions, however except they’ve obtained coaching in philosophy, they’re flying blind. How else can they deal with questions like: What’s the position of the federal government in making certain justice? Or how can we steadiness freedom with fairness? These will not be questions that may be answered by merely working numbers by means of a mannequin. These are philosophical questions that require philosophical instruments.
Take into account Amartya Sen’s flute analogy, which superbly encapsulates the essence of coverage dilemmas. Simply as a flute participant should steadiness competing calls for to create lovely music, a policymaker should steadiness conflicting social values—freedom, fairness, justice—to create insurance policies that replicate the society’s broader ethical imaginative and prescient. That steadiness can’t be achieved by means of financial principle alone. And but, many financial policymakers in Nigeria—and past—have turn out to be so enamoured with the technicalities of their craft that they fail to ask themselves: Are we doing what’s proper? Not simply what’s environment friendly.
The Pressing Want for Philosophy in Nigerian Public Coverage
Therein lies the elemental concern with Nigerian financial policymaking. The relentless pursuit of knowledge and proof has fostered an mental atmosphere the place policymakers have more and more uncared for the significance of philosophical reflection. This absence of normative and or moral consideration has a direct and damaging impression on the standard of insurance policies produced. As I can personally attest, after years of finding out economics, I got here to comprehend that whereas instruments like cost-benefit evaluation and causal identification are important for assessing the effectiveness of a coverage, they can’t deal with the extra profound, elementary questions. Questions comparable to: How can we outline equity within the context of coverage choices?
It’s not sufficient to easily analyse information and run fashions; we should critically query the assumptions behind them. These assumptions form the insurance policies we create, but too typically they go unquestioned. We should ask ourselves: What values inform our evaluation? Are we assuming that financial effectivity alone ought to be the tenet? Or are we additionally prioritizing fairness, justice, and human dignity in our decision-making processes?
Insurance policies will not be simply numbers and financial fashions; they replicate the values that form our society. What we prioritize—whether or not it’s justice, equity, or fairness—should be fastidiously thought of within the policymaking course of. Relying solely on proof and information ignores the deeper moral questions that outline how we construction our world. The complexities of human society can’t be diminished to spreadsheets; they’re rooted within the competing beliefs and values that form folks’s lives. This deeper reflection should be a central a part of how we design insurance policies that have an effect on actual folks.
If we proceed to miss these moral issues, we danger perpetuating ineffective and unjust insurance policies. These insurance policies, very similar to a automotive missing an understanding of its mechanics, will inevitably fail when most wanted. With out philosophical perception, we’ll hold crafting choices that cater to slim pursuits whereas ignoring the broader rules of justice, equity, and dignity. However hey, who wants morals once we’ve obtained information, proper? In any case, that’s labored so nicely for us previously, hasn’t it?
