THEORETICAL
LITERATURE
Several
of the issues in the financing of education in Nigeria are embedded in the
virtually endemic problems of fiscal federalism— in particular, the so-called
vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances. The first of these deals with the
balance between financial responsibilities and financial resources at each
level of government: federal (or central), state and local. The second deals
with equity across the sub units of each specific level of government such as
state or local governments.
In
Nigeria, since Independence, the search for appropriate mechanisms and formulae
for minimizing each set of imbalances has been particularly problematic. For
instance, between 1960 and 1991, sixteen changes were made to the Constitution
in attempts to resolve these issues. First, primary school enrolments are
part
of the allocation formula for distributing centrally collected revenues across
states. Second, the education sector typically consumes a significant share of
state and local government re sources. And third, the financial responsibility
for primary education across levels of government has never been fully
resolved. Over the past fourteen years in particular, the sources and modalities
for funding this level of education have undergone significant changes.
Following a recent Supreme Court ruling, yet another set of arrangements is
required.
While
much attention in the past forty years in Nigeria has been given to the issues
of horizontal imbalances (particularly between states), less has focused on
whether the revenue allocation arrangements are sufficient to minimize vertical
imbalances and to allow each level of government to perform the
responsibilities allocated to it. In the education sector where, in spite of
some overlaps, the major financial responsibility for each separate level lies
with a different tiers of government, it is relevant to ask whether the
vertical allocation criteria allow for the provision of ‘appropriate’ funding
for the education system as a whole and for each individual level of the
system. The current debate on this issue, such as it is, is based on very
little information. There is, for instance, no credible estimate of the total
amount of public expenditure which is spent by the Federal, state and local
governments on education and hence of the sources, levels, trends and
distributions across the various educational levels.
This
lack of information on education expenditure nationally and for individual states
has several other implications. For instance, there is little basis on which to
assess issues such as:
·
Whether the financial effort in this
sector has been increasing or decreasing in terms of real expenditures or as a
share of public expenditures or of national income;
·
The distribution of expenditures
across the various educational levels either nationwide or in individual
states;
·
The relative importance of each level
of government in funding education;
·
The nature, level and importance of
vertical and horizontal imbalances as they affect the education sector, and the
levels of efficiency and equity of public expenditures in the sector which
would provide a quantitative basis for arguments in favor of expanding or
re-allocating expenditures;
·
The future public expenditure
requirements, nationally or by state, as the existing enrolment pressures in
the system evolve naturally or are encouraged;
·
Unit costs of each level across states
or of different levels within states;
·
The expenditures which households make
in both government and private educational institutions, and the reliance on
these at different levels and in different states.
Finally, it is not possible to compare the
levels and patterns of education expenditures in Nigeria with those in other
countries. In UNESCO and World Bank publications, for example, educational
expenditure data for Nigeria are either totally omitted or are recorded for the
Federal Government alone (UNESCO, 2000; World Bank, 2001).