Why Monetary Policy Underperforms in Nigeria: A Structural Political-Economy Analysis, by Idris Olugbesan, PhD

Introduction

Nigeria’s contemporary macroeconomic landscape is characterized by an intricate interplay between stabilization efforts administered by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the deep structural constraints embedded in the country’s political economy. While orthodox macroeconomic theory presumes that prudent monetary tightening can anchor expectations, stabilize prices, and safeguard external balances, this assumption presupposes institutional coherence, security of life and property, and flexible, responsive productive structures. In Nigeria, however, monetary policy unfolds in an environment marked by acute insecurity, fiscal dominance, fragmented markets, and severely impaired supply chains.

The result is a persistent tension between technocratic ambition and structural possibility: monetary policy strives to deliver stabilization, yet its real-sector transmission is obstructed by forces beyond the monetary domain. The macro–micro–nano chain—the pathway through which national stabilization reforms diffuse into firm productivity and ultimately household welfare—remains structurally fractured. This article interrogates this tension through an integrated political-economy lens, arguing that insecurity, capital-flow asymmetries, and structural rigidities impose binding constraints that attenuate the efficacy of contractionary monetary instruments and generate uneven welfare outcomes.

Theoretical Framework: Political-Economy Macromonetary Transmission in Fragile States

A robust analysis of Nigeria’s monetary-policy environment requires a theoretical scaffold that integrates three strands of scholarship: (i) structuralist macroeconomics, (ii) political-economy models of state fragility, and (iii) heterogeneous-agent transmission mechanisms.

Structuralist economists argue that inflation in developing economies is predominantly cost-push, arising from infrastructural deficits, supply-chain bottlenecks, insecure agricultural zones, and import dependence. Within this paradigm, monetary tightening has limited power to suppress inflation when price pressures originate outside credit markets or aggregate demand. Nigeria’s inflation pathology—driven by logistics failures, energy constraints, and geopolitical insecurity—fits squarely within this framework.

State fragility theory posits that insecurity distorts investment incentives, erodes state capacity, inflates risk premiums, and undermines economic coordination. In such settings, private actors anticipate policy inconsistencies and operational hazards, thereby truncating the effectiveness of formal macroeconomic instruments. Monetary policy, in this context, becomes performative rather than transformative—projecting commitment to stability without generating deep structural effects.

Modern monetary theory highlights that macro-policy interventions propagate unevenly across sectors and households due to differences in balance sheets, market power, and vulnerability to shocks. In Nigeria, firms with access to government securities benefit from high yields, while SMEs struggle with credit constraints. Households dependent on food staples—most sensitive to insecurity and supply-chain disruption—experience inflation differently from urban, higher-income groups.

Together, these frameworks underscore that Nigeria’s monetary-policy outcomes cannot be interpreted solely through orthodox lenses; they must be situated within a political economy marked by insecurity, fiscal dominance, and market concentration.

In classical macroeconomic models, the Monetary Policy Rate (MPR) is an instrument that influences credit expansion, investment patterns, and aggregate demand. In Nigeria, however, the MPR operates not as a neutral, elastic lever but as a constrained signaling device. The structure of the financial system—dominated by risk-averse banks with a strong appetite for government securities—dilutes the interest-rate channel.

Commercial banks allocate disproportionate resources to risk-free, high-yielding treasury instruments rather than productive lending. This preference is amplified by costly information environments, weak creditor enforcement, and pervasive uncertainty. Thus, the transmission from tighter monetary policy to lower inflation is mediated by a banking sector that prioritizes portfolio safety over real-sector intermediation.

Additionally, the contractionary MPR elevates nominal yields and temporarily improves the attractiveness of naira-denominated assets for foreign portfolio investors. Yet this effect is shallow in its developmental impact, as it does not catalyze new industrial capacity or stimulate diversified production. The monetary signal may anchor expectations in financial markets, but it does little to address the real-sector constraints that impede job creation and output expansion.

Nigeria’s pervasive insecurity—manifesting in insurgency in the northeast, banditry across the northwest and north-central regions, piracy in the Niger Delta, and secessionist agitations in the southeast—constitutes a structural risk premium that materially reshapes investment behavior.

Investors confront high operational risks, unpredictable disruptions, and escalating costs of logistics and insurance. This induces a premium on short-term, liquid investments, rendering long-term committed capital—particularly FDI—exceptionally scarce.

The divergence in investment behavior is stark:

Nigeria’s insecurity profile systematically depresses FDI, even when macroeconomic indicators appear favorable. As a consequence, the nation experiences recurrent surges of “hot money”—capital that inflates short-term liquidity yet exits at the slightest sign of instability, exacerbating exchange-rate volatility.

Monetary tightening—via higher MPR, elevated CRR, and assertive OMO operations—contributes to temporary exchange-rate stabilization by attracting FPI and limiting excess liquidity. In an import-dependent economy like Nigeria, FX stability is crucial, given the high pass-through from exchange-rate depreciation to domestic prices.

Yet this stabilization is fragile. Portfolio inflows are reversible, and their stabilizing power wanes when confronted with persistent structural inflation. Nigeria’s inflation, as empirical evidence consistently shows, is driven by:

Thus, monetary tightening, in isolation, cannot durably suppress inflation whose roots lie in non-monetary structural constraints. Without parallel reforms in security, logistics, and production, stabilization efforts will remain cyclical and superficial.

Even when macroeconomic indicators exhibit signs of stabilization, Nigerians seldom experience commensurate improvements in welfare. This macro–micro–nano disconnect is symptomatic of a political economy where structural impediments dilute the distributive effects of stabilization.

Food inflation—driven by insecurity and logistical strain—disproportionately affects low-income households whose consumption baskets are concentrated in essentials. Even if headline inflation decelerates, the cost of basic commodities continues rising, eroding real purchasing power.

Firms face both high borrowing costs and elevated operational risks. The combination discourages investment, suppresses expansion, and accelerates layoffs—especially in SMEs and labor-intensive industries.

High yields on government securities benefit wealthy asset holders while excluding poorer households. This exacerbates inequality and entrenches a dual-speed economy: a financially buffered elite and a vulnerable majority exposed to inflationary pressures and job insecurity.

Effective macroeconomic stabilization should diffuse across the economy in a cascade:

Macro Level

Stable prices, predictable FX conditions, and credible policy signals reduce uncertainty for firms.

Micro Level

Firms expand production, increase hiring, and invest in capital deepening.

Nano Level

Households experience improved purchasing power, access to credit, educational attainment, and overall welfare.

In Nigeria, insecurity destroys this transmission pathway. Even with macro-level improvements, firms cannot scale operations amidst kidnappings, vandalism, and disrupted logistics. Households, in turn, face elevated prices, unstable incomes, and limited economic mobility.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Security-Backed Structural Complementarities

Nigeria’s high-MPR regime yields limited stabilization benefits but remains insufficient to generate inclusive development. Monetary policy is not the binding constraint; insecurity, structural rigidities, and fiscal dominance are.

For monetary policy to evolve from a stabilization mechanism into a development catalyst, Nigeria must undertake:

Only through such integrated reforms can monetary policy meaningfully transmit gains from the macro sphere to firms and, ultimately, to the welfare of Nigerian households.

Nigerians can now invest ₦2.5 million on premium domains and profit about ₦17-₦25 million. All earnings paid in US Dollars. Rather than wonder, click here to find out how it works.

Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.