In any country, there can be no
meaningful economic growth without adequate human and natural resources. Human
capital is so important that in the Khartoum Declaration of 1988, it was
asserted that:
“…the human dimension is the sine qua non of economic recovery …no SAP or economic recovery
programme should be formulated or can be implemented without having at its
heart detailed social and human priorities. There can be no real structural
adjustment or economic recovery in the absence of the human imperative”
(Adedeji et.al. 1990: 390).
The concept of human capital refers to
the abilities and skills of human resources of a country, while human capital
formation refers to the process of acquiring and increasing the number of
persons who have the skills, education and
experience that are critical for
economic growth and development of a country (Okojie 1995:44). Human resources
are all embracing, that is, it is inclusive of persons who works now, or are
likely to be productively employed sooner or later. It is a continuum, a
continuing process from childhood to old age, and a must for any society or
enterprise that wishes to survive under the complex challenges of a dynamic
world.
Yesufu (2000: 321), in agreement with
this view, opines that “the essence of human resources development becomes one
of ensuring factors that the workforce is continuously adapted for, and
upgraded to meet, the new challenges of its total environment”. This implies
that those already on the job require retraining, reorientation or adaptation
to meet the new challenges. This special human capacity can be acquired and
developed through education, training, health promotion, as well as investment
in all social services that influence man’s productive capacities (Adamu, 2003)
In human capital development,
education is essential. Education is concerned with the cultivation of “the
whole person” including intellectual, character and psychomotor development. It
is the human resources of any nation, rather than its physical capital and
material resources, which ultimately determine the character and pace of its
economic and social development. Thus, human resources:
“constitute the ultimate basis for the wealth of nations. Capital and
natural resources are passive factors of production; human beings are the
active agents who accumulate capital, exploit natural resources, build social,
economic and political organization, and carry forward national development.
Clearly, a country which is unable to develop the skills and knowledge of its
people and utilize them effectively in the national economy will be unable to
develop anything else” (Harbison, 1973, p.3).
Education occupies an important place
in most plans for economic and social development. Whichever way one looks at
it, the education sector is important in human development as a supplier of the
trained manpower and it is a prerequisite for the accomplishment of other
development goals. Also, it is the main sector through whose national identity
goals and aspirations are given meaning and reality among the people.
Despite the importance of educational
institutions, Nigeria spends an almost insignificant proportion of her
financial resources on education. In Nigeria, education expenditure as a
proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) averaged 5.64 per cent between 1986
and 1990, compared to 5.84 per cent between 1999 and 2003. This performance
fell below those of other developing countries, which in 1960 and 1977 were
spending an average of 11.7 and 16.3 per cent of their total expenditure on
education respectively. The United Nations recommends that 26 per cent of the
total expenditure be devoted to education. Seychelles had committed 10.2 per
cent of its gross national product (GNP) to total education in 1985-87 and 8
per cent in 1995-97. Ghana allocates an average of 20 percent of its total
expenditure to education yearly. Between 1986 and 1992, Botswana spent 21 per
cent of her expenditure on education; Malaysia, 19 per cent; Kenya, 20 per
cent; Uganda, 15 per cent; and Nigeria, 5.23 per cent (Olaniyi and Adam, 2003).
Not only that education expenditure,
as a percent of total expenditure, falls in many developing countries,
including Nigeria, the budgetary allocations to the formal education system
also have the shape of an inverted pyramid in which secondary and tertiary
education receive more than four times as much public resources as primary
education. In many cases primary schools are starved of financing while
universities receive heavy subsidies. The majority of the population,
particularly the poor, may lack adequate educational facilities, or may find
that the opportunity cost of attending school exceeds short run private
benefits, while the children from middle and upper class backgrounds benefit
from comparatively generously financed university education.
Not only is this inversion of the
financial pyramid not equitable, it is also not efficient. Particularly in the
poorest developing countries, where primary education has been most neglected,
the social rate of return on investing in basic education is high4. In addition
to high returns, investing in primary education has the advantage of bringing
government closer to the people it serves while simultaneously giving people
greater control over their own lives and a basic institution of the communities
in which they live. Primary schools are easier for local communities (villages,
small towns, urban neighborhoods) to control than secondary schools, colleges
and universities. There is more opportunity for participatory development, for
the active involvement of people in education and hence from the community.
Despite this importance, it is
discovered that educational sector in Nigeria is poorly funded. One may ask:
why this poor funding in education? The explanation to this can be attributed,
among others, to excessive defence spending. There has not been a clear link
between public education expenditure and defence spending. While, Benoit (1973)
postulates that technical training is a vital element of military service which
augments the skill content of the existing labour force. Ball (1983) questions
the value of military induced training and education in a country where
unemployment is so high that the soldier will not be able to find gainful
employment at the termination of his military service. Whynes (1979) has
suggested that the military has an important role to play in dismantling social
rigidities by virtue of the fact that it is a progressive institution.
Moreover, military regimes are
sometimes perceived to promote the modernization of society which, in turn,
dispenses with its feudal and social obligatory system (Pye, 1972) and moves
towards a market-oriented, capitalist system which places a much greater
premium on enhancing the quantity and quality of human capital in society
(Roux, 1994).
Diamond (1990) also argues that
defence expenditure, by ensuring the maintenance of security and public order,
may be an essential precondition for healthy investment environment. However,
Arora and Bayoumi (1994) argue that reduction in world military spending would
offer significant long-term benefits for private investment and private
consumption, especially for developing countries. Depending on the structure of
country’s economy and the composition of her military expenditure, a reduction
in military spending may have positive welfare effects on the populace through
the primary impact of the reductions on national security (Olaniyi and Adam,
2003). In general, therefore, the defence sector may enhance the supply of
skilled labour, thereby alleviating an important growth constraint. Conversely,
however, it may compete for scarce human resources with the more productive
civilian economy, thereby compromising the overall productivity and efficiency
of the economy (Roux, 1994).