Malaysia holds lessons for Nigeria, writes UCHE UWALEKE During a recent academic study tour of key financial institutions in Malaysia with some of my Ph.D students from Nasarawa State University, Keffi, I had the opportunity to visit Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM), the Central Bank of Malaysia, where senior officials made presentations on the Bank’s mandate and institutional framework. What particularly caught my attention was the positioning of sustainable economic growth as the ultimate objective, with monetary stability serving as an important means towards achieving that broader objective. I was equally struck by the emphasis placed on enhancing the financial well-being of households and businesses as one of the Bank’s strategic thrusts. These aspects of the Malaysian framework prompted me to reflect on what Nigeria might learn from a central banking model that appears to place monetary stability within a broader developmental conception of economic policy. The Malaysian experience therefore offers Nigeria an opportunity to revisit a fundamental question about the role of a central bank in a developing economy: should monetary stability be regarded essentially as an end in itself, or as one of the instruments through which the broader objective of sustainable economic growth and improved economic welfare can be achieved? The question is not whether monetary stability matters; it unquestionably does, because stable prices are indispensable to investment, savings, production and household welfare. The more important question is whether a developing economy such as Nigeria should expect its central bank to remain largely focused on monetary stability while leaving the pursuit of sustainable economic growth almost entirely to the fiscal authority. It has been argued that the real issue for Nigeria is not the formal scope of the Central Bank of Nigeria’s mandate but the quality of coordination between monetary and fiscal authorities. There is considerable merit in this argument. Monetary policy does not operate in isolation from fiscal policy, and every significant monetary-policy decision has implications for government debt-servicing costs, business financing, household borrowing, investment and productive capacity. Fiscal policy, in turn, affects inflation, liquidity conditions, exchange rates and the effectiveness of monetary policy. It is therefore difficult to envisage a successful economic policy framework in which the monetary and fiscal authorities operate as though they inhabit entirely separate economic universes. However, while coordination is necessary, I do not believe it is sufficient. The critical question is how such coordination should be institutionalized and sustained beyond the personalities or policy preferences of particular administrations and central-bank managements. Coordination is essentially a process, whereas a statutory mandate establishes an institutional obligation. If sustainable economic growth is not expressly recognized within the legal framework governing the CBN, there is a risk that successive managements of the Bank will concentrate overwhelmingly on those objectives that are most clearly articulated in the law and regard broader developmental concerns as secondary or discretionary. This is why I believe that an amendment to the CBN Act of 2007 deserves serious consideration. I submit that the CBN Act should explicitly recognize sustainable economic growth as an overarching objective, while retaining monetary and financial stability as indispensable conditions for achieving it. Such an amendment would not mean transforming the CBN into a development agency, asking it to substitute for the fiscal authority, or giving it a licence to sacrifice price stability whenever growth becomes politically desirable. Rather, it would establish a statutory framework within which the CBN is expected to consider how its monetary and financial policies can contribute to productive capacity, investment, employment and the financial well-being of households and businesses. There is an important distinction between giving the CBN responsibility for development and giving it a responsibility to contribute to development; it is the latter that I am advocating. The experience of the United States is instructive in this regard. The Federal Reserve operates under a dual mandate that includes price stability and maximum employment, demonstrating that recognition of broader economic outcomes within a central bank’s statutory framework does not necessarily undermine monetary-policy credibility or central-bank independence. If a highly developed economy with deep and sophisticated financial markets can accommodate broader economic objectives within its central-bank framework, there is little reason to assume that a developing economy such as Nigeria must necessarily confine its central bank to an exceptionally narrow co
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
