Over the years, the cost of government has
continued to rise, partly because of the benefits in-kinds the government
provides to public servants. These benefits largely a carryover from the
colonial era include highly subsidized electricity, water and telephone
facilities transport facilities, free medical services, etc. These have become
so large that little is left for capital projects. To check spring cost of
providing these benefits for all categories of public servants the new policy
was designed to stem the over rising annual outlay on benefits.
According to Njoku (2003), the
monetization policy is aimed at cutting down cost and wastages and equally
minimizes the rate of careless use of public facilities. He further stated that
with the new policy, there will be equitable computation of rights and
privileges, with government faithfully rendering to each that is his or her
due, in a manner that ensures that none is discriminated against for whatever
reasons.
Making his own submission concerning
the aims and objectives of monetization policy, Idonor (2003) assert that the
policy will expose rent scan especially in cities where government rent private
building as government quarters. He went further by re-asserting the backdrop
against which the policy (monetization) was initiated by stating thus:-
“Investigation
has also revealed the more painful is the fact that over 80% of all privately
owned houses presently being occupied by bubble (civil) servants actually
belong to top civil servants in the rank of directors and permanent secretaries
either serving or retired”.
Still commenting on the negative
effect of monetization, he further stated that these crops of public officers
have continued to use their proximity to the corridors of power to encourage
government to rent such houses as government quarters. It is also pertinent to
state here that not all those monies paid by government actually go to the
land-lords; the approving public officers have a share in the dubious deals.
Okolo (2003) posited that there are
other factors/forces other than monetization that will determine the prices of
land/rents. He further stated that monetization policy as a factor and if
implemented will actually bring down the rents in cities.
Aluko (2003) in his own view on the
aims and objectives of monetization posits that it involves a systematic and
immediate replacement of workers’ benefits with monetary payment. He further
stated that there are several reasons for the idea of monetization of fringe benefits.
If considered within the framework of state policy. According to him these
include among others:-
1.
Equitable
provision of amenities
2.
Efficiency in resources
allocation
3.
Independence of
beneficiaries
4.
Increased
productivity
5.
Save of
administrative cost
6.
Stability of
capital and budget
7.
Non-misuse of
government facilities.
Based on the above premise, the
monetization policy aimed at having net effect of reducing the cost of, and of
enhancing financial prudence in government. In
the language of Chief Ufot Ekaette, secretary to the government of the
federation then, “monetization will minimize waste, misuse and abuse of public
facilities” all these, he said we agree is a legitimate reasons for
monetization policy.