REFORM TALKS with Enam Obiosio
Nigeria’s ambition to achieve a Human Capital Index (HCI) score of 0.60 by 2030 is commendable. However, I believe the real test of the federal government’s Human Capital Development Programme 2.0 (HCD 2.0) will be whether it improves the productivity, welfare and economic prospects of ordinary Nigerians.
For too long, development discussions have focused heavily on infrastructure, fiscal stability and macroeconomic indicators. These matter, but sustainable growth also depends on the health, education, skills and productive capacity of citizens. An economy cannot reach its full potential when millions of children lack adequate nutrition, struggle to acquire basic literacy or remain excluded from quality healthcare.
The World Bank’s 2020 HCI placed Nigeria at 0.36, indicating that a child born in the country could expect to achieve only 36 percent of the productivity potential associated with complete education and full health. UNICEF’s Nigerian Child 2025 Report further highlights the challenge, reporting that 54 percent of children aged zero to 17 live in multidimensional poverty, 40 percent of children under five are stunted and 10.2 million children are out of school.
These figures demand more than government assurances. They require effective financing, accountable implementation and sustained investment in people.
Public spending must deliver measurable outcomes
The Federal Government has rightly identified health, education, skills development and livelihoods as essential components of HCD 2.0. Its expanded approach recognises that human capital development involves more than enrolling children in school. They must learn, remain healthy and acquire the capabilities needed to participate productively in the economy.
However, the central question is whether public expenditure is delivering these outcomes.
I believe Nigeria must move beyond measuring success primarily through budget allocations, facilities constructed or participants enrolled in training programmes. These indicators matter, but they do not establish whether children can read and calculate, whether mothers receive quality healthcare or whether trained young people secure employment.
I urge federal and state governments to strengthen outcome-based budgeting and publish regular reports linking expenditure to improvements in service delivery.
Education spending should be assessed alongside literacy, numeracy, attendance and completion rates. Healthcare expenditure should be evaluated against immunisation coverage and maternal and child health outcomes. Skills programmes should demonstrate their contribution to employment, enterprise creation and earnings.
I think this approach would strengthen accountability and help governments identify programmes that deserve expansion, redesign or discontinuation.
However, performance assessments must account for differences in states’ fiscal capacity and development conditions. Governments should be held accountable for results without penalising states simply because they begin from a position of greater deprivation.
State implementation must address unequal deprivation
Human capital challenges vary across Nigeria. Some states face severe barriers to school access, while others struggle with poor learning outcomes, malnutrition, inadequate healthcare or limited employment opportunities.
The decision to encourage states to develop their own HCD plans is therefore sensible. Identical interventions cannot adequately address different social and economic conditions.
However, decentralisation alone does not guarantee effective delivery.
I believe the federal government and National Economic Council (NEC) should establish common minimum standards and measurable indicators while allowing states to determine interventions suited to their circumstances.
States should publish annual scorecards showing progress in immunisation, child nutrition, school attendance, learning outcomes and youth employment. These reports would enable citizens to assess performance, encourage constructive competition among governments and help policymakers identify successful interventions.
Local governments and communities must also participate meaningfully. They are often better positioned to identify why children miss school, why families struggle to access healthcare or why young people lack opportunities to apply their skills.
I urge the government to consider disparities in fiscal capacity when designing financial and technical support. States with greater deprivation may require additional assistance to meet national service standards.
The objective should not simply be to improve Nigeria’s aggregate human capital indicators. It should be to reduce the disparities that leave millions without the basic capabilities required for productive lives.
Human capital investment must survive political transitions
Human capital development requires consistency. Investments in nutrition, education, healthcare and workforce capabilities often take years to produce their full benefits. Yet changes in political leadership can disrupt programmes, alter priorities and weaken institutional continuity.
The proposal to encourage political parties to sign a compact recognising human capital investment as a national priority is worth pursuing. However, I think the compact must extend beyond a declaration of intent.
It should establish long-term priorities, measurable milestones, funding principles and transparent reporting obligations. Where appropriate, legislative and budgetary arrangements should protect essential programmes from arbitrary discontinuation.
I urge political leaders to recognise that investing in children’s health, education and skills is not the exclusive achievement of any administration. It is a national responsibility whose benefits extend across generations.
Nevertheless, continuity should not mean preserving programmes regardless of their performance. Successive governments must retain effective interventions, correct weaknesses and discontinue initiatives that fail to deliver results. Independent evaluation should inform these decisions.
Human capital development must also connect with the wider economy. Nigeria cannot adequately address youth unemployment through training alone if productive enterprises are not expanding and demand for labour remains weak.
I believe HCD 2.0 should be aligned with industrial development, entrepreneurship, private-sector investment and labour-market needs. Technical and vocational education should reflect employers’ requirements, while support for small businesses should create opportunities for trained workers to apply their skills.
Without this connection, Nigeria risks producing skilled young people who remain unemployed or underemployed.
Communication must lead to public accountability
The programme’s proposed campaign, “Invest in People. Build Nigeria”, offers a useful platform for public engagement. I believe Nigerians should understand the programme’s objectives, the commitments governments have made and how citizens can hold institutions accountable.
The media, civil society, businesses and community leaders can translate policy commitments into practical questions about schools, hospitals, nutrition and employment. However, public awareness must be supported by credible evidence. Communication cannot substitute for effective implementation.
Ultimately, I believe HCD 2.0 presents Nigeria with an important opportunity, but its success will depend on whether ambition is matched by adequate resources, institutional discipline and measurable results.
Nigeria must therefore judge human capital development not by the strength of its promises, but by the quality of life those promises deliver. Investing in people is not merely a social obligation. It is an economic necessity and one of the most consequential decisions the country can make about its future.
