Indigenization, Development and Dependence in NigeriaMultinationals, the State, and Control of the Nigerian Economy by Thomas J. BierstekerReview by: Sakah MahmudAfrica Today, Vol. 33, No. 4, The Nigerian Economy: Critical Issues (4th Qtr., 1986), pp. 79-80Published by: Indiana University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4186390 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 10:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Africa Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:21:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Indigenization, Development and Dependence in Nigeria

Sakah Mahmud

Thomas J. Biersteker, MULTINATIONALS, THE STATE, AND CONTROL OF THE NIGERIAN ECONOMY (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. xvii + 344, $12.50 (paperback).

In this book, Biersteker's objective is 'to understand why economic nationalist programs like indigenization have been undertaken, how they have been implemented, and most important, what has changed as a result... Is development enhanced? Is dependence reduced?" (p. 8). Indigenization programs (like divestiture, or mandatory joint-venture programs) are measures which relatively less developed countries "in- terested in a rapid capitalist development have employed" in order "to increase local (state or private) participation in and control of significant economic enterprises or sec- tors in any economy" (p. 6). Thus such programs have become a major concern in the theoretical approaches of international political economy; the author identifies six of these, namely: conservative neo-classical realists, liberal internationalists, struc- turalists, "vulgar" dependentistas, "sophisticated" dependentistas, and classical Marxists. While space will not allow a review of the author's criticism of these approaches, it is his opinion that each of these theoretical approaches, taken separately, have "some deficiencies" in their treatment of indigenization programs. He therefore argues that an alternative analysis will have to be "a broader synthesis of theoretical perspectives..." (p. 50); however, he chooses to use the neo-classical and radical approaches as a guide (p. 49).

The book is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter reviews the theoretical approaches mentioned above, the next five chapters are empirical and historical, examining "the sources, objectives and the consequences of Nigeria's two-phased in- digenization program.. ." and the final chapter presents the author's "broader synthesis of theoretical perspectives... needed to accomplish the central objectives" of the book. Based on an extensive study of Nigeria's two attempts at indigenization, the jointly- led "local capital-state alliance" phase of 1972 and the "principally state led initiative" of 1977, the book offers a wealth of information and data (11 figures and 36 tables) gathered through interviews held in Nigeria with statesmen, businessmen and scholars, as well as officials of multinational corporations operating in Nigeria. The book thus provides information previously unpublished, and this is perhaps the major strength of the work as an important contribution in the field. As far as examining the "sources and objectives" of indigenization in Nigeria, and how they have been implemented, the book achieves this aim.

However, in terms of other questions raised earlier, conceming the consequences (results) of indigenization, the result is less striking. The reader is left with no clear answiers as to whether changes have taken place as a result of indigenization (the assess- ment of which the author admits is more difficult). The same problem is apparent in

Sakah Mahmud is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver. Before joining the program, he was a member of the Research Department at the Nigerian Institue of International Affairs, Lagos, Nigeria.

4th Quarter, 1986 79

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:21:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the assessment of control. Since control of the national economy is a central issue in the study, one expects a more elaborate treatment of this issue. The conclusion that Nigerians are 'in greater control..., but not enough" (p. 298) is to beg the question. In the author's summary of the consequences of indigenization, he observed that the local capital and state alliance initiative of 1972 resulted in the "consolidation of local capital in commerce" and "inequality" (which is expected since Nigeria was pursuing capitalist development) while the principally state led initiative in 1977 resulted in the "state control of finance", and 'evidence of local capital movement into productive areas" (figure 7.1, p. 286). Questions arising from the above then include: whose control should be translated into "control of the national economy" - the state's or local capital's or both? Also, how much control is needed in order to enhance capitalist develop- ment and lessen dependency? Finally, is it possible under the circumstance, to achieve such control? The problem arising from these questions is aggravated by the author's choice of a synthesis of the neo-classical and radical analyses. Though the author charg- ed that "most dependency and classical Marxist writers are trapped by their theoretical constructs into denying the possibilities of state-initiated programs" (p. 290) within a capitalist economy, his alternative approach does not present a different result. The major issue of concern to the dependency and classical Marxist theorists is not whether such initiatives are possible, but rather whether such initiatives are capable of leading those countries to achieve capitalist development. And this is the critical conclusion which the book failed to make from the study of Nigeria's indigenization programs.

Notwithstanding these later comments, Biersteker's book is a welcome contribu- tion to the continuing debate over the problems and prospects of development in the Third World. On the whole, this is a book to be recommended, not only for being well written and balanced, but for its wealth of information.

80 Africa Today

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:21:26 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions