By Professor Emmanuel Onwioduokit
The central economic question is not whether Nigeria should compare itself with other countries, but whether such comparisons are being used intelligently to identify policy failures, understand differences in economic circumstances, and discover practical pathways to national prosperity.
International comparisons are indispensable instruments of economic management. To dismiss or ridicule them simply because they are used by a political opponent is to confuse the messenger with the analytical value of the message.
If Vice-President Kashim Shettima, during the inauguration of the APC Presidential Campaign Council, criticised Peter Obi’s use of international comparisons, the appropriate response is to examine the economic logic of the comparison, the validity of the evidence, and the lessons Nigeria can reasonably draw from it.
The fundamental principle is simple: other countries are not necessarily models to be copied, but they are valuable benchmarks from which to learn.
Why Shettima’s argument is economically unconvincing
Shettima’s criticism, reported on 14 October 2026, rests on a legitimate but incomplete proposition: Nigeria cannot simply transplant Bangladesh’s economic policies without accounting for differences in population, institutions and economic structure. He used the analogy of a size-36 shirt being expected to fit a size-52 frame.
The problem is that the impossibility of copying another country’s policies does not establish the uselessness of comparing countries. These are two entirely different propositions.
International comparison is not necessarily an argument for imitation. It is a method of identifying performance gaps, testing assumptions, evaluating policy alternatives and understanding why countries with different starting conditions achieve different development outcomes.
A country’s population may explain the scale of its challenges, but it does not excuse poor productivity, weak public services, inadequate infrastructure or ineffective management of public resources. Indeed, a large population can be an economic advantage when supported by human capital, industrial capacity and productive employment.
Six benefits of international comparisons in economic management
1. Benchmarking national economic performance
Comparisons help policymakers determine whether economic outcomes are satisfactory relative to what other countries achieve. Nigeria can compare Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia in manufacturing, exports, electricity access, poverty reduction and labour productivity. The objective is to identify performance gaps and investigate their causes, not to pretend that the countries are identical.
2. Learning from successful development strategies
Countries have different experiences with industrial policy, agricultural modernisation, export promotion, education, infrastructure and public-sector reform. Bangladesh’s garment industry, Vietnam’s export-oriented manufacturing and Malaysia’s industrial diversification provide useful questions for Nigerian policymakers: what institutional arrangements, investments and incentives enabled these outcomes, and which could be adapted to Nigeria?
3. Improving public expenditure and debt management
International comparisons can reveal whether a country is obtaining adequate development outcomes from its tax revenue, borrowing and public expenditure. Nigeria should ask why debt-financed spending does not translate sufficiently into productive infrastructure, employment and higher household incomes.
Comparisons of debt-service burdens, capital expenditure, revenue mobilisation and public investment efficiency can inform better fiscal decisions.
4. Measuring citizens’ welfare rather than celebrating aggregates
GDP growth, exchange-rate movements and lower inflation do not automatically mean that citizens are better off. Comparing real wages, poverty, food affordability, unemployment, access to healthcare and educational outcomes helps establish whether economic policies are improving living standards. This is particularly important when headline macroeconomic indicators improve while households continue to experience severe financial pressure.
5. Testing economic assumptions and policy choices
Comparisons help policymakers evaluate alternative approaches to exchange-rate management, energy pricing, social protection, agricultural subsidies and industrial development. Instead of relying exclusively on ideological conviction, governments can examine evidence from countries that adopted similar policies, including their successes, costs and unintended consequences.
6. Establishing measurable development targets
International benchmarks can help Nigeria set credible targets for electricity reliability, school completion, export diversification, productivity and poverty reduction. Without comparative standards, governments risk defining success by their own announcements rather than by measurable improvements in national welfare.
Bangladesh and Nigeria: What should actually be compared?
The comparison becomes meaningful when the indicators are properly selected and interpreted. Bangladesh is not a perfect template for Nigeria, but its experience offers useful lessons on manufacturing exports, employment, industrial development and integration into global markets.
These comparisons must use consistent data, comparable definitions and appropriate time periods. Differences in population, resource endowments, geography, political institutions and historical development must be controlled for as far as possible. A sound comparison distinguishes correlation from causation rather than assuming that one country’s success proves that a particular policy caused it.
The deeper macroeconomic issue: Nigeria must look beyond itself
Economic management is not an exercise in defending national exceptionalism. It is an exercise in finding the most effective means of achieving national objectives under specific constraints.
Shettima is right that policies cannot be transferred mechanically from one country to another. However, Nigeria’s distinctive circumstances make international comparisons more valuable, not less valuable. A country with complex developmental challenges needs a broader evidence base to understand what works, what fails and why.
Moreover, Nigeria’s size should be considered in both directions. A large population creates significant demands for infrastructure, public services and employment, but it also represents a potentially enormous domestic market, labour force and productive base. The relevant question is whether the country’s institutions and economic policies are converting that potential into prosperity.
The decisive test of economic management is not whether a policy is homegrown or foreign-inspired. It is whether the policy is evidence-based, fiscally sustainable, institutionally feasible and capable of improving citizens’ welfare.
At the APC Presidential Campaign Council inauguration, Shettima challenged Peter Obi’s international comparisons, arguing that Nigeria’s peculiarities cannot be ignored.  But the intellectually stronger response is to subject Obi’s statistics and conclusions to rigorous scrutiny, not to ridicule the act of comparison itself.
If Obi uses an inaccurate statistic, it should be corrected. If his interpretation overlooks a structural difference, that limitation should be demonstrated. If a policy that worked in Bangladesh would fail in Nigeria, the reasons should be established through economic analysis. None of these possibilities justifies rejecting comparative analysis as a tool of governance.
A country does not become exceptional by insisting that its circumstances are unique. It becomes exceptional by understanding those circumstances well enough to overcome them.
For Nigeria, international comparison should not mean importing another country’s economic model wholesale. It should mean identifying superior outcomes, investigating the institutions and policies behind them, adapting relevant lessons to Nigerian conditions, and measuring the results against clear national objectives.
The ultimate question for the APC administration is therefore not whether Nigeria is different from Bangladesh. Of course it is. The question is: what has Nigeria learnt from the world, what has it done with that knowledge, and w
hy have the benefits of its economic policies not yet translated sufficiently into improved living standards for ordinary Nigerians?
That is the economic question the country deserves to debate, and it demands evidence, not ridicule.
