The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), introduced in Nigeria in 1986 under General Ibrahim Babangida, marked a decisive moment in the nation’s history. Guided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, SAP sought to restore economic stability through fiscal austerity, subsidy removal, and liberalisation. While it was conceived as an economic rescue strategy, its ripple effects extended deeply into social services, particularly education. Reduced state funding, the introduction of cost-sharing, and increased reliance on private provision transformed the system, leaving legacies still visible in Nigerian education today.
Background and Economic Context.
Nigeria’s adoption of SAP followed years of boom and bust. During the oil boom of the 1970s, government spending expanded massively, financing public sector growth and social programmes. The 1976 Universal Primary Education (UPE) scheme epitomised this optimism, as the state invested heavily in school construction, teacher training, and mass enrolment campaigns.
However, when global oil prices collapsed in the early 1980s, Nigeria’s heavy dependence on oil revenues proved disastrous. By 1985, foreign reserves had fallen sharply, external debt was rising, and the state could no longer sustain high levels of social spending. Economic decline had already started to erode the quality of public education, with overcrowded classrooms and shortages of materials.
In response, Babangida’s government turned to the IMF and World Bank for loans conditioned on reforms. The Structural Adjustment Programme demanded cuts in public expenditure, deregulation, subsidy withdrawal, and exchange rate devaluation—all of which directly affected education.
Educational Policy Shifts under Structural Adjustment Programme.
Reduction in Government Spending
Education bore the brunt of austerity. Federal and state governments slashed capital investment, maintenance budgets, and recurrent spending. Schools and universities experienced shortages of teaching materials, overcrowded classrooms, and crumbling facilities.
Introduction of Cost-Sharing
Unlike the subsidy-driven 1970s, Structural Adjustment Programme shifted costs onto families. Although tuition in federal universities remained officially free, government introduced “user charges” covering accommodation, utilities, registration, and exams. At secondary and primary levels, many states introduced levies and indirect charges that placed new burdens on households.
Growth of Private Sector Involvement
The fiscal crisis encouraged private participation in education. Private nursery, primary, and secondary schools expanded rapidly, particularly in urban centres where parents sought alternatives to deteriorating public schools. However, private universities did not emerge until 1999, when government policy officially allowed them. This shows that SAP’s legacy was indirect, laying the groundwork for privatisation rather than immediately producing private universities.
Immediate Impact on Access and Equity.
- Primary Education:National enrolments stagnated and, in some regions, even declined in the late 1980s, as many families could not afford levies, textbooks, and uniforms. Population growth meant more school-age children, but access did not keep pace. Dropout rates, especially in rural areas, rose sharply.
- Secondary Education:The imposition of levies and the rising cost of living disproportionately excluded children from poorer households, contributing to widening inequality.
- University Education:Withdrawal of subsidies meant the collapse of free feeding, transportation, and accommodation schemes. Student unrest became frequent, and strikes paralysed universities. Although tuition remained officially free, the costs of attending university rose substantially, effectively reducing access for low-income families.
- Gender Gaps:Families under financial pressure often prioritised boys’ schooling over girls’, reinforcing pre-existing inequalities and reversing some of the progress achieved during the UPE years.
Long-Term Consequences
- Deepened Dual System:Nigeria already had a divide between elite private schools and public schools before SAP, but the programme intensified this split. By the 1990s, quality education became increasingly tied to family income.
- Teacher Exodus:Declining salaries and poor conditions led to an exodus of skilled teachers and lecturers, both to other professions and abroad. This brain drain reduced instructional quality and institutional capacity.
- Infrastructure Decay:Budget cuts halted school construction and maintenance. Laboratories, libraries, and hostels deteriorated, creating a long-lasting infrastructure crisis.
- Entrenched Inequality: Structural Adjustment Programme reinforced socio-economic inequalities, ensuring that access to quality education became a privilege of wealthier households.
Contemporary Relevance.
The shadow of Structural Adjustment Programme still looms large. Although the Universal Basic Education (UBE) programme launched in 1999 sought to provide free and compulsory education up to junior secondary level, implementation has been uneven. Overcrowding, underfunding, and lack of materials remain pressing problems.
The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed these vulnerabilities. With few public schools equipped for digital learning, millions of children were excluded during lockdowns. This revealed how the underinvestment and structural weaknesses traceable to the SAP years left Nigeria’s education system unprepared for modern challenges.
Lessons and Policy Implications.
Nigeria’s SAP experience offers critical lessons:
- Economic reforms must safeguard social investments to avoid developmental setbacks.
- Expanding private education without adequate public provision entrenches inequality.
- Teacher welfare is vital: fair wages and professional development underpin quality education.
- Sustained investment in infrastructure and digital technology is necessary for equity and resilience.
Author’s Note
The Structural Adjustment Programme was an economic reform with unintended but profound educational consequences. It accelerated the decline of public education quality in Nigeria, deepened inequality, and left enduring structural challenges. Today, policymakers must confront this legacy, balancing economic management with investments that make education equitable and sustainable.
References:
Bamgbose, J. Ade. The Impact of Structural Adjustment on Education in Nigeria. UNESCO, 1991.
Obasi, I. N. Structural Adjustment and Education in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Policy and Strategy, 1997.
World Bank. Nigeria: Structural Adjustment Programme Review. Washington, D.C., 1994.
