By
Arthur Agwuncha Nwankwo
The phrase “robbing Peter to pay Paul” is not new
to us. It was in 1661 AD that Peter Heylyn in his Ecclesia Restaurata sought to
explain the origin and import of this phrase. Though his attempt has been
punctured severally by other etymologists, the phrase suggests a calamitous
sequence of events where, before the Reformation, taxes had to be paid from the
treasury of St. Peter’s church in Rome to defray
the running costs of St. Paul’s church in London. At this time, the
lands of Westminster upon which St. Paul’s church stood had become so
dilapidated and badly run by Bishop Thirlby, that there was almost nothing left
to support its dignity. Originally it referred to neglecting the Peter tax in
order to have money to pay the Paul tax. In its proper context, this phrase
simply means solving one problem in a way that makes another problem worse.
 |
| *Dr. Arthur Nwankwo |
When this type of approach is adopted in managing
the economy of a state the outcome is always disastrous especially for
countries with teething economic problems. That is what I call casino or
lottery economy and no country makes progress in this type of scenario. Even
Adam Smith, variously referred to as the father of economics did not prescribe
this type of voodoo economics despite the fact that some modern economist have
interpreted his economic model as laissez-faire economics because of his
insistence that the best policy by which a state can manage its economy was to
leave the economy to the free play of market forces.
Evidently, the interpretation of Smith’s postulations
as laissez-faire economics could be linked to his polemics against what he
called mercantilism, which was based on the principle of “robbing Peter to pay
Paul”. One important role of the government in managing the economy is to
provide the institutional framework required for competitive markets to
function. In other words, a well-structured political system should be able to
provide a secure framework for the market system to work efficiently.
More broadly, the role of the state is to protect
the members of society, both as participants in market transactions and in
their private lives, from violence and invasion from other societies and
oppression by other members of society. A good reading of Adam Smith’s Wealth
of Nations will reveal that although well-functioning markets are good for
society, individual producers might well find it in their individual interests
to limit competition by entering into “conspiracies against the public”.
Therefore, an important role for government is to design an economic system
that as far as possible discouraged the creation of private cartels and
monopolies. Buhari’s economic management policies since he came on board are
deficit on this principle.
I recall vividly that one of the numerous campaign
promises by Buhari is that his administration would pay every unemployed
Nigerian the sum of N5000 every month as welfare package pending such a time
the person will be gainfully employed. At the time the promise was made and
now, I have always maintained that this promise is neither feasible nor
achievable for several reasons. I have read from the papers that Jigawa state
government has slated March this year for the commencement of disbursement of
this money to the unemployed and the poorest youths in the State.
