Feature/OPED
After the Capital Rush: Who Really Wins Nigeria’s Bank Recapitalisation?
By Blaise Udunze
By any standard, Nigeria’s ongoing bank recapitalisation exercise is one of the most consequential financial sector reforms since the 2004-2005 consolidation that shrank the number of banks from 89 to 25. Then, as now, the stated objective was stability to have stronger balance sheets, better shock absorption, and banks capable of financing long-term economic growth.
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), in 2024, mandated a sweeping recapitalisation exercise compelling banks to raise substantially higher capital bases depending on their license categories. The categorisation mandated that every Tier-1 deposit money bank with international authorization is to warehouse N500 billion minimum capital base, and a national bank must have N200 billion, while a regional bank must have N50 billion by the deadline of 31st March 2026. According to the apex bank, the objectives were to strengthen resilience, create a more robust buffer against shocks, and position Nigerian banks as global competitors capable of funding a $1 trillion economy.
But in the thick of the race to comply and as the dust gradually settles, a far bigger conversation has emerged, one that cuts to the heart of how our banking system works. What will the aftermath of recapitalisation mean for Nigeria’s banking landscape, financial inclusion agenda, and real-sector development?
Beyond the headlines of rights issues, private placements, and billionaire founders boosting stakes, every Nigerians deserve a sober assessment of what has changed, and what still must change, if recapitalisation is to translate into a genuinely improved banking system.
The points are who benefits most from its evolution, and whether ordinary Nigerians will feel the promised transformation in their everyday financial lives, because history has taught us that recapitalisation is never a neutral policy. The fact remains that recapitalization creates winners and losers, restructures incentives, and often leads to unintended outcomes that outlive the reform itself.
Concentration Risk: When the Big Get Bigger
Recapitalisation is meant to make banks stronger, and at the same time, it risks making them fewer and bigger, concentrating power and risks in an ever-narrowing circle. Nigeria’s Tier-1 banks, those already controlling roughly 70 percent of banking assets, are poised to expand further in both balance sheet size and market influence. This deepens the divide between the “haves” and “have-nots” within the sector.
A critical fallout of this exercise has been the acceleration of consolidation. Stronger banks with ready access to capital markets, like Access Holdings and Zenith Bank, have managed to meet or exceed the new thresholds early by raising funds through rights issues and public offerings. Access Bank boosted its capital to nearly N595 billion, and Zenith Bank to about N615 billion.
In contrast, banks that lack deep pockets or the ability to quickly mobilise investors are lagging. The results always show that the biggest banks raise capital faster and cheaper, while smaller banks struggle to keep pace.
As of mid-2025, fewer than 14 of Nigeria’s 24 commercial banks met the required capital base, meaning a significant number were still scrambling, turning to rights issues, private placements, mergers, and even licensing downgrades to survive.
The danger here is not merely numerical. It is systemic: as capital becomes more concentrated, the banking system could inadvertently mimic oligopolistic tendencies, reducing competition, narrowing choices for customers, and potentially heightening systemic risk should one of these “too-big-to-fail” institutions falter.
Capital Flight or Strategic Expansion? The Foreign Subsidiary Question
One of the most contentious aspects of the recapitalisation aftermath has been the deployment of newly raised capital, especially its use outside Nigeria. Several banks, flush with liquidity from rights issues and injections, have signalled or executed investments in foreign subsidiaries and expansions abroad, like what we are experiencing with Nigerian banks spreading their tentacles to the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Kenya, and beyond. Zenith Bank’s planned expansion into the Ivory Coast exemplifies this outward push.
While international diversification can be a sound strategic move for multinational banks, there is an uncomfortable optics and developmental question here: why is Nigerian money being deployed abroad when millions of Nigerians remain unbanked or underbanked at home?
According to the World Bank, a large number of Nigeria’s adult population still lack access to formal financial services, while millions of SMEs, micro-entrepreneurs, and rural households remain on the edge, underserved by traditional banks that now chase profitability and scale.
Of a truth, redirecting Nigerian capital to foreign markets may deliver shareholder returns, but it does little in the short term to advance domestic financial inclusion, poverty reduction, or grassroots economic participation. The optics of capital flight, even when legal and strategic, demand scrutiny, especially in a nation still struggling with deep regional and demographic disparities.
Impact on Credit and the Real Economy
For the ordinary Nigerian, the most important question is simple: will recapitalisation make credit cheaper and more accessible?
History suggests the answer is not automatic. The tradition in Nigeria’s bank system is mainly to protect returns, and for this reason, many banks respond to higher capital requirements by tightening lending standards, raising interest rates, or focusing on low-risk government securities rather than private-sector loans, because raising capital is expensive, and banks are profit-driven institutions. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), often described as the engine of growth, are usually the first casualties of such risk aversion.
If recapitalisation results in stronger balance sheets but weaker lending to the real economy, then its benefits remain largely cosmetic. The economy does not grow on capital adequacy ratios alone; it grows when banks take measured risks to finance production, innovation, and consumption.
Retail Banking Retreat: Handing the Mass Market to Fintechs?
In recent years, we have witnessed one of the most striking shifts, or a gradual retreat of traditional banks from mass retail banking, particularly low-income and informal customers.
The question running through the hearts of many is whether Nigerian banks are retreating from retail banking, leaving space for fintech disruptors to fill the void.
In recent years, players like OPAY, Moniepoint, Palmpay, and a host of digital financial services arms have become de facto retail banking platforms for millions of Nigerians. They provide everyday payment services, wallet functionalities, micro-loans, and QR-enabled commerce, areas traditional banks once dominated. This trend has accelerated as banks chase corporate clients where margins are higher and risk profiles perceived as more manageable. The true picture of the financial landscape today is that the fintechs own the retail space, and banks dominate corporate and institutional finance. But it is unclear or uncertain if this model can continue to work effectively in the long term.
Despite the areas in which the Fintechs excel, whether in agility, product innovation, and customer experience, they still rely heavily on underlying banking infrastructure for liquidity, settlement, and regulatory compliance. Should the retail banking ecosystem become split between digital wallets and corporate corridors, rather than being vertically integrated within banks, systemic liquidity dynamics and financial stability could be affected.
Nigerians deserve a banking system where the comforts and conveniences of digital finance are backed by the stability, regulatory oversight, and capital strength of licensed banks, not a system where traditional banks withdraw from retail, leaving unregulated or lightly regulated players to carry that mantle.
Corporate Governance: When Founders Tighten Their Grip
The recapitalisation exercise has not been merely a technical capital-raising exercise; it has become a theatre of power plays at the top. In several banks, founders and major investors have used the exercise to increase their stakes, concentrating ownership even as they extol the virtues of financial resilience.
Prominent founders, from Tony Elumelu at UBA to Femi Otedola at First Holdco and Jim Ovia at Zenith Bank, have all been actively increasing their shareholdings. These moves raise legitimate questions about corporate governance when founders increase control during a regulatory exercise. Are they driven by confidence in their institutions, or are they fortifying personal and strategic influence amid industry restructuring?
Though there might be nothing inherently wrong with founders or shareholders demonstrating faith in their institutions, one fact remains that the governance challenge lies not simply in who holds the shares, but how decisions are made and whose interests are prioritised. Will banks maintain robust internal checks and balances, ensuring that capital deployment aligns with national development goals? The question is whether the CBN is equipped with adequate supervisory bandwidth and tools to check potential excesses if emerging shareholder concentrations translate into undue influence or risks to financial stability. These are questions that transcend annual reports; they strike at the heart of trust in the system.
Regional Disparity in Lending: Lagos Is Not Nigeria
One of the persistent criticisms of Nigerian banking is regional lending inequality. It has been said that most bank loans are still overwhelmingly concentrated in Lagos and the Southwest, despite decades of financial deepening in this region; large swathes of the North, Southeast, and other underserved regions receive disproportionately smaller shares of credit. This imbalance not only undermines inclusive growth but also fuels perceptions of economic exclusion.
Recapitalisation, in theory, should have enhanced banks’ capacity to support broader economic activity. Yet, the reality remains that loans and advances are overwhelmingly concentrated in economic hubs like Lagos.
The CBN must deploy clear incentives and penalties to encourage geographic diversification of lending. This could include differentiated capital requirements, credit guarantees, or tax incentives tied to regional loan portfolios. A recapitalised banking system that does not finance national development is a missed opportunity.
Cybersecurity, Staff Welfare, and the Technology Deficit
Beyond balance sheets and brand expansion, there is a human and technological dimension to the banking sector’s challenge. Fraud remains rampant, and one of the leading frustrations voiced by Nigerians involves failed transactions, delayed reversals, and poor digital experience. Banks can raise capital, but if they fail to invest heavily in cybersecurity, fraud detection, staff training, and welfare, the everyday customer will continue to view the banking system as unreliable.
Nigeria’s fintech revolution has thrived precisely because it has pushed incumbents to become more customer-centric, agile, and tech-savvy. If banks now flush with capital don’t channel a portion of those funds into robust IT systems, workforce development, fraud mitigation, and seamless customer service, then the recapitalisation will have achieved little beyond stronger balance sheets. In short, Nigerians should feel the difference, not merely in stock prices and market capitalisation, but in smooth banking apps, instant reversals, responsive customer care, and secure platforms.
The Banks Left Behind: Mergers, Failures, or Forced Restructuring?
With fewer than half the banks having fully complied with the recapitalisation requirements deep into 2025, a pressing question is: what awaits those that lag? Many banks are still closing capital gaps that run into hundreds of billions of naira. According to industry estimates, the total recapitalisation gap across the sector could reach as much as N4.7 trillion if all requirements are strictly enforced.
Banks that fail to meet the March 2026 deadline face a few options:
– Forced M&A. Regulators could effectively compel weaker banks to merge with stronger ones, echoing the consolidation wave of 2005 that reduced the sector from 89 to 25 banks.
– License downgrades or conversions. Some banks may choose to operate at a lower license category that demands a smaller capital base.
– Exits or closures. In extreme cases, banks that can neither raise capital nor find a merger partner might be forced out of the market.
This regulatory pressure should not be construed merely as punitive. It is part of the CBN’s broader architecture of ensuring that only solvent, well-capitalised, and risk-prepared institutions operate. However, the transition must be managed carefully to prevent contagion, protect depositors, and preserve confidence.
Why Are Tier-1 Banks Still Chasing Capital?
Perhaps the most intriguing puzzle is why some Tier-1 banks, long regarded as strong and profitable, are aggressively raising capital. Even banks thought to be among the strongest, such as UBA, First Holdco, Fidelity, GTCO, and FCMB, have struggled to close their capital gaps. UBA, for instance, succeeded in raising around N355 billion toward its N500 billion target at one point and planned additional rights issues to bridge the remainder.
This reveals another reality that capital is not just numbers on paper; it is investor confidence, market appetite, and macroeconomic stability.
One can also say that the answer lies partly in ambition to expand into new markets, infrastructure financing, and compliance with stricter global standards.
However, it also reflects deeper structural pressures, including currency depreciation eroding capital, rising non-performing loans, and the substantial funding required to support Nigeria’s development needs. Even giants are discovering that yesterday’s capital is no longer sufficient for tomorrow’s challenges.
Reform Without Deception
As the Nigerian banking sector recapitalization exercise comes to a close by March 31, 2026, the ultimate test will be whether the reforms deliver on their transformational promise.
Some of the concerns in the minds of Nigerians today will be to see a system that supports inclusive growth, equitable credit distribution, world-class customer service, and resilient financial intermediation. Or will we see a sector that, despite larger capital bases, still reflects old hierarchies, geographic biases, and operational friction? The cynic might say that recapitalisation simply made big banks bigger and empowered dominant shareholders.
But a more hopeful perspective invites stakeholders, including regulators, customers, civil society, and bankers themselves, to co-design the next chapter of Nigerian banking; one that balances scale with inclusion, profitability with impact, and stability with innovation. The difference will be made not by press releases or shareholder announcements, but by deliberate regulatory action and measurable improvements in how banks serve the economy.
For now, the capital has been raised, but the true capital that counts is the confidence Nigerians place in their banks every time they log into an app, make a transfer, or deposit their life’s savings. Only when that trust is visible in everyday experience can we say that recapitalisation has truly succeeded.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: bl***********@***il.com
By Ejiye Jimeta Ibhawoh
When the NBS rebased the Consumer Price Index in February 2025, and headline inflation fell overnight from 34.80% to 24.48%, yields compressed, and fixed income rallied. A question that should have been straightforward became almost impossible to answer: what is cash actually earning in Nigeria after inflation?
We know what the commentary said. Statistical fix or economic illusion. Cost of living still high. Basket weights shifted. All true, all well-covered. But nobody did the obvious next thing: build the bridge between the old series and the new one, then show what a continuous 15-year picture of Nigerian real returns actually looks like. We did.
The problem with two CPI series
The old NBS CPI ran from a November 2009 base, 740 items weighted by the 2003/04 Nigeria Living Standards Survey. The new methodology uses a 2024 average base, 934 items, and 2023 weights. Food and non-alcoholic beverages dropped from 51.8% to 40.1%. Restaurants and accommodation surged from 1.2% to 12.9%. A 13th COICOP division was added (Insurance and Financial Services). That alone tells you how much the consumption basket has shifted.
These are legitimate improvements. Nigeria’s spending patterns have genuinely changed since 2009. Nobody disputes that.
The problem is continuity. NBS published no officially chain-linked historical series. The old index ends in December 2024. The new one picks up in January 2025. Month-on-month rates don’t match across the boundary. Stops & Gaps documented a particularly egregious discontinuity: the rebased index implies prices fell 12.3% in a single month in December 2024. The largest actual single-month decline since 1995 was 3.5%.
For anyone maintaining a time series (pension fund benchmarking, fixed income attribution, real return measurement), the data is broken. Every analyst in Lagos knows this. Most shrugged and moved on.
Chain-linking: what we built and why
We followed the IMF CPI Manual, Chapter 9, for linking series across base-period changes. December 2024 is the overlap month where both old-base and new-base CPI levels exist. The chain-linking factor comes out at 0.11523. We rescaled the entire old series onto the new base.
The result: 204 continuous monthly CPI observations from February 2009 to January 2026. One hundred and ninety-one back-tested months on the old base, spliced to 13 live months on the new base. No interpolation. No estimation. Month-on-month rates are preserved through the splice point, and every calculation is reproducible from published NBS and CBN data.
We paired this CPI series with CBN 91-day T-bill stop rates from primary auctions to construct the VNG-CRR, the Venoble Nigeria Cash Real Return Index. Two inputs per month. NBS CPI level. CBN stop rate. Fisher equation. All compounds into an index.
The headline: over 204 months, Nigerian cash earned +9.48% annualised in nominal terms and −5.48% annualised in real terms. This is consistent, cumulative, and structural purchasing power destruction.
Put it differently. N1 million placed in 91-day T-bills in February 2009 would be worth roughly N4.7 million as of January 2026 in nominal terms. Adjust for what that money can actually buy, and the real value is closer to N380,000. The T-bill investor multiplied his digits and shrank his wealth.
Why this matters now
Start with pension fund allocation. Nigeria’s pension assets reached N26.66 trillion as of October 2025. Roughly 60% (c.N16 trillion) sits in FGN securities. If the annualised real return on government paper has been negative for 15 consecutive years, what does that mean for 10 million contributor accounts? The OECD flagged this in its 2024 pension report using 2023 data. Pension funds in Nigeria, Angola, and Egypt, where more than half of assets sit in bills and bonds, delivered negative real returns. PenCom raised equity limits in February 2026: RSA Fund I from 30% to 35%, RSA Fund II from 25% to 33% and while this is indeed a step in the right direction, it is not enough.
Then there is the visibility problem. Under the old methodology, a 91-day bill at 18% against 34.8% inflation was obviously underwater. Under the new CPI, the same bill at 15% against 15.15% inflation looks like a break-even. Did real returns improve, or did the statistical agency change the yardstick? In our view, both. Inflation has genuinely decelerated: monthly CPI growth dropped below 1.0% for several consecutive months in H2 2025. But the rebase also flatters the comparison by c.10 percentage points. Without a continuous series, you cannot separate the two effects.
And the sign has flipped. This is not speculation. From August 2025 through January 2026, the VNG-CRR recorded six consecutive months of positive real returns. January 2026 was the strongest at +4.39% real. Month-on-month CPI fell 2.88% while the nominal T-bill return was 1.38%. The real index climbed from
984 to 1,027, above its inception base of 1,000 for the first time.
After 15 years of negative returns, real returns have turned positive. Whether that holds is the question nobody can answer yet.
What we do not know
We don’t have a strong view on the persistence of the disinflation trend. The December 2025 CPI base effect is messy. The rebased December 2024 level was set at 100, which creates arithmetic distortions in year-on-year comparisons as that month rotates out. Headline YoY inflation could spike artificially in December 2025 data even if underlying prices remain stable. Anyone anchoring allocation decisions to year-on-year headline numbers will get whipsawed.
We also cannot tell you whether the new CPI basket accurately captures the cost-of-living reality for the median Nigerian. Restaurants and accommodation at 12.9% may reflect urban middle-class spending in Victoria Island and Wuse. It does not reflect what a civil servant in Kano or a smallholder farmer in Benue pays for food and transport. The CPI measures what it measures. It is not a cost-of-living index. That distinction matters more than most post-rebase commentary acknowledged, and it is the gap a continuous real return series is designed to fill.
The allocation question
Here is what the data does tell you. Over 204 months, the real return hurdle rate (what an alternative investment must beat just to match cash in purchasing-power terms) has been low. Negative, in fact. Any asset class generating positive real returns has beaten cash. Equities: the NGX ASI returned 51.19% in 2025. Real estate in Lekki and Abuja CBD. Dollar-denominated instruments accessed through NAFEM. All cleared the hurdle.
With real yields now positive, the calculus shifts. Cash is no longer guaranteed wealth destruction. But 15 years of compounded losses do not reverse in six months. The real index is at 1,027. It needs sustained positive real returns to recover the purchasing power lost over the prior decade.
For pension fund administrators and asset managers, the implication is straightforward: measure everything against the real return on cash. Not nominal yields. Not headline inflation. The actual, chain-linked, continuously compounded purchasing-power return. If your portfolio is not beating that number, you are losing money regardless of what the nominal statement says.
Why independent benchmarks matter
Nigeria has the largest economy in Africa and the largest pension assets on the continent. Its data infrastructure for institutional investors is among the weakest. South Africa has inflation-linked bonds, a real repo rate published by the SARB, and a mature index ecosystem. Nigeria has a CPI series with a structural break and no official chain-linked alternative.
The gap is not in analytical capacity. There’s no shortage of Nigerian research firms producing excellent work. The gap is infrastructure. Auditable, rules-based benchmarks that any market participant can verify.
Not commentary. Not opinions about what inflation feels like. Published, reproducible numbers.
That is what we built the VNG-CRR to provide. Two inputs. One equation. One index. Updated monthly.
Methodology published. Data downloadable. Every calculation is auditable against source data. All are completely free to the public.
The CPI rebase broke the data. We built the unbroken picture because nobody else did. Whether NBS eventually publishes its own chain-linked series, or the market continues relying on independent providers, says something about where Nigeria’s capital market infrastructure actually stands. We do not think anyone in Abuja is losing sleep over it, but maybe they should be.
E.J. Ibhawoh is the founder and CEO of Venoble Limited, an investment intelligence and capital management firm for African markets. He is a FINRA-qualified capital markets professional with a background spanning investment banking, trading, and software development.
By Abba Dukawa
Nigeria stands today at a painful and defining crossroads in its security journey. Across the nation, families live with growing fear as insecurity spreads—kidnappings, banditry, and terrorism have become harsh realities in too many communities. These threats do not respect state boundaries. Organised criminal networks move across states, leaving ordinary citizens feeling exposed and abandoned.
Nigerians are facing intertwined challenges. The anger is no longer whispered in private—it is now spoken openly with frustration and worry. Another pressing issue confronting Nigerians is the renewed debate over the creation of state police. When will the federal government strengthen the effectiveness of its security agencies? How much longer must communities endure this uncertainty?
At the same time, another urgent debate rises from the hearts of the people. In the face of this deepening crisis, should state governments be allowed to establish their own police forces to protect their citizens? Or will Nigeria continue to rely solely on a centralised system that many believe is struggling to respond quickly enough to local threats?
These are not just political questions. They are questions of safety, dignity, and the right of every Nigerian to live without fear. The nation is waiting, hoping for bold decisions that will restore trust, strengthen security, and protect the future of its people. State police cannot be the answer to these pressing issues that bedevil federal security agencies.
Recently, the President appealed to the leadership of the National Assembly to consider constitutional amendments that would create a legal framework for state police, arguing that such reform is necessary to address Nigeria’s worsening security challenges. The fragmented policing structure could complicate efforts to combat crime effectively.
Reigniting the debate over state police comes as no surprise, given that he has long been seen as an advocate for the idea since his tenure as Governor of Lagos State. He supported the concept then and has continued to promote it as President. Many Nigerians, particularly in the South-West, have long called for state police as a means to address the country’s growing insecurity. Despite the constitutional considerations, discussions around state police continue to evoke strong emotions nationwide.
How will state police address security breaches committed by local militias or vigilante groups such as the OPC in the Southwestern states? What actions would state police take regarding the Amotekun group, which is openly endorsed by Southwest governors, if it were to commit serious violations of the rights of citizens, especially those from other parts of the country? How quickly have the proponents of state police chosen to erase from memory the horrific atrocities the OPC inflicted on the Northern community in Lagos in February 2002? The scars of that tragedy are still raw, yet some behave as though it never happened—as if the pain and the lives lost meant nothing. It is a bitter betrayal of justice and our collective conscience.
Reintroducing this issue at a time when the federal security apparatus is already strained shows a lack of sensitivity. Proponents overlook that Section 214(1) clearly states there is only one police force for the federation, the Nigeria Police Force and no other police force may be established for any part of the federation. The section does not permit the establishment of state police. Policing is on the Exclusive Legislative List, meaning only the federal government can create or control a police force.
Even today, the Nigeria Police Force, under the centralised command of the Inspector-General, faces accusations of harassment and intimidation of the weak and vulnerable citizens. If such problems persist under federal control, imagine the risks of placing police authority under state governors, who already wield significant influence over state and local structures.
Implications For The State Police Structures In The Hand Of The State Governors
I must state clearly: I do not support the establishment of state police—at least not at this stage of Nigeria’s development. Our institutions remain fragile, and introducing such a system carries significant risks of abuse. History offers reasons for caution: the Native Authority police of the past were often linked to political repression and misuse of power.
Supporters argue that state police would bring law enforcement closer to local communities and improve response to crime. However, there are serious concerns rooted in Nigeria’s social realities.
Nigeria is a diverse nation with multiple ethnic and religious sentiments. If recruitment into state police forces becomes dominated by particular groups, minority communities may feel marginalised or threatened.
State police could deepen divisions and weaken public trust. State-controlled Police could also become instruments of political intimidation, especially during election periods, potentially targeting opposition figures, critics, and journalists.
Financial capacity is another major concern. Establishing and maintaining a professional police force requires substantial investment in training, equipment, salaries, welfare, and infrastructure. Many states already struggle to pay workers and provide essential services. How, then, can they adequately fund a state police? The likely outcome is poorly trained, under-equipped personnel—conditions that often foster corruption and inefficiency.
Even under federal oversight, Nigeria’s police system struggles with weak accountability and abuse of power. Transferring these weaknesses to the state level without safeguards could have severe consequences.
A poorly structured state police force could become loyal to governors rather than the Constitution, serving political interests rather than citizens’ interests. For these reasons, introducing state police, even with the constitutional amendment, could create more problems than it solves. Sustainability, accountability, and adherence to constitutional principles are critical and will likely be violated
Nigeria must strengthen law enforcement while protecting citizens’ rights and preserving national unity. Mr President, please reconsider your decision on state police. Nigerians want a strong, effective, and unified police force, not one that risks further dividing a system already struggling to meet its constitutional obligations.
Dukawa can be reached at ab**********@***il.com
By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh
China’s investments in Africa have primarily been in the agricultural sector, reinforcing its support for the continent to attain food security for the growing population, estimated currently at 1.5 billion people. With a huge expanse of land and untapped resources, China’s investment in agriculture, focused on increasing local production, has been described as highly appreciable.
Brazil has adopted a similar strategy in its policy with African countries; its investments have concentrated in a number of countries, especially those rich in natural resources. It has significantly contributed to Africa’s economic growth by improving access to affordable machinery, industrial inputs, and adding value to consumer goods. Thus, Africa has to reduce product imports which can be produced locally.
The China and Brazil in African Agriculture Project has just published online a series of studies concerning Chinese and Brazilian support for African agriculture. They appeared in an upcoming issue of World Development. The six articles focusing on China are available below:
–A New Politics of Development Cooperation? Chinese and Brazilian Engagements in African Agriculture by Ian Scoones, Kojo Amanor, Arilson Favareto and Qi Gubo.
–South-South Cooperation, Agribusiness and African Agricultural Development: Brazil and China in Ghana and Mozambique by Kojo Amanor and Sergio Chichava.
–Chinese State Capitalism? Rethinking the Role of the State and Business in Chinese Development Cooperation in Africa by Jing Gu, Zhang Chuanhong, Alcides Vaz and Langton Mukwereza.
–Chinese Migrants in Africa: Facts and Fictions from the Agri-food Sector in Ethiopia and Ghana by Seth Cook, Jixia Lu, Henry Tugendhat and Dawit Alemu.
–Chinese Agricultural Training Courses for African Officials: Between Power and Partnerships by Henry Tugendhat and Dawit Alemu.
–Science, Technology and the Politics of Knowledge: The Case of China’s Agricultural Technology Demonstration Centres in Africa by Xiuli Xu, Xiaoyun Li, Gubo Qi, Lixia Tang and Langton Mukwereza.
Strategic partnerships and the way forward: African leaders have to adopt import substitution policies, re-allocate financial resources toward attaining domestic production, and sustain self-sufficiency.
Maximising the impact of resource mobilisation requires collaboration among governments, key external partners, investment promotion agencies, financial institutions, and the private sector. Partnerships must be aligned with national development priorities that can promote value addition, support industrialisation, and deepen regional and continental integration.
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn