Can a nation truly claim to be developing when poverty has become so commonplace that it no longer provokes outrage? That question has become increasingly difficult to ignore. It resurfaced as I reflected on Emeritus Professor J. Afolabi Falola’s inaugural lecture, The Poor We Have with Us Always, delivered at Bayero University, Kano, in 2017. Although the lecture served as the catalyst for these reflections, Nigeria’s present realities make the conversation even more urgent. Poverty is no longer simply an economic statistic. It has become a defining feature of our national experience and perhaps the greatest indictment of our development model.
For more than six decades, successive governments have promised to eradicate poverty. New agencies have been established. New intervention programmes have been launched. New committees have been inaugurated. Billions of naira have been appropriated. Yet poverty continues to expand while prosperity remains increasingly concentrated. This paradox should force policymakers to pause. Is the problem a shortage of programmes, or is it a shortage of coherent thinking? Have we become more committed to announcing policies than to understanding why previous ones failed?
The first mistake Nigeria continues to make is treating poverty as a problem of income rather than a failure of systems. Poverty is not merely the inability to earn enough money. It is the inability to access opportunities. It is a farmer unable to transport produce because roads have collapsed. It is a child denied quality education because of where she was born. It is a graduate equipped with certificates but disconnected from the skills demanded by the labour market. It is an expectant mother whose greatest risk is not childbirth itself but the absence of functional healthcare. Poverty is ultimately a reflection of institutions that have failed to expand people’s choices.
That failure becomes most visible in rural Nigeria, where development has too often been treated as charity instead of strategy. Rural communities continue to produce the food that sustains urban Nigeria, yet they remain among the least served by public investment. Roads deteriorate. Extension services disappear. Irrigation schemes underperform. Storage facilities remain inadequate. Young people migrate because villages no longer provide economic opportunity. Every neglected rural community eventually becomes an urban problem through food inflation, unemployment, insecurity and uncontrolled migration. The future of Nigerian cities cannot be separated from the future of Nigerian villages.
Nigeria’s development conversation also suffers from a dangerous obsession with projects instead of institutions. Governments proudly commission roads, bridges and buildings, but institutions that maintain those investments receive far less attention. A borehole without community ownership soon becomes abandoned. A health centre without trained personnel becomes an empty structure. A school without qualified teachers becomes merely another building. Development is sustained not by infrastructure alone but by institutions capable of managing infrastructure long after ribbon-cutting ceremonies have ended.
Another uncomfortable reality is our persistent culture of policy discontinuity. Every administration arrives determined to distinguish itself from its predecessor. Existing programmes are renamed, restructured or quietly abandoned irrespective of their effectiveness. National development becomes trapped in a cycle of perpetual reinvention. Countries that transformed themselves economically did not achieve progress by repeatedly discarding their institutions. They improved them. Development is cumulative. Nations advance by learning from previous successes and failures, not by constantly returning to the starting line.
Equally troubling is our tendency to celebrate expenditure instead of outcomes. We often measure success by the size of budgets, the number of projects announced or the volume of funds disbursed. Citizens, however, evaluate government differently. They ask whether schools have improved learning outcomes. They ask whether hospitals save lives. They ask whether farmers earn better incomes. They ask whether young people can find decent work. Public spending is not development. Improved human welfare is.
Community participation remains one of Nigeria’s most underutilised development assets. Across the country, communities have historically built schools, maintained local roads, supported health facilities and mobilised collective action long before development agencies arrived. Genuine development flourishes where citizens become co-creators rather than passive beneficiaries. Government should therefore strengthen local initiative instead of replacing it. Sustainable progress grows from partnerships that respect local knowledge, shared responsibility and community ownership.
Development partners must also rethink their approach. Too often, project success is measured by implementation schedules, procurement milestones and expenditure reports. Communities judge success differently. They ask whether poverty has declined, whether livelihoods have improved and whether opportunities have expanded. Development should not be evaluated by how much money is spent but by how many lives are permanently transformed. Projects may conclude according to schedule while development itself remains unfinished.
Nigeria also needs to redefine the role of agriculture within its national development strategy. Agriculture should no longer be viewed merely as food production or seasonal intervention. It should be understood as the foundation of rural industrialisation, employment generation, export diversification and national resilience. Every investment in rural roads, agricultural research, irrigation, storage, processing and market access strengthens not only farmers but the broader economy. Rural prosperity is not a social obligation. It is an economic necessity.
Above all, Nigeria must rediscover the importance of institutions. Strong institutions outlive governments. They preserve policy continuity, inspire public confidence and ensure accountability. They reduce dependence on personalities and transform governance into a predictable system rather than an uncertain experiment. Countries that achieve lasting development do not simply elect visionary leaders. They build institutions capable of producing good outcomes regardless of who occupies public office.
Ultimately, the challenge confronting Nigeria is neither a lack of resources nor a shortage of ideas. It is whether we possess the courage to abandon short-term politics for long-term nation-building. We need fewer policy announcements and more policy learning. We need fewer intervention programmes and stronger institutions. We need to replace governance by improvisation with governance by evidence. Professor Falola’s lecture title leaves us with a profound national question. Must the poor always be with us? The answer will not be found in another policy document. It will be found in whether Nigeria finally chooses continuity over convenience, institutions over personalities, productivity over patronage and human dignity over political expediency.
