Is Nigeria really building the capacity to compete?

Nigeria’s local content policy has increased the amount of oil and gas activity taking place in the country, but the harder test is whether it is leaving behind companies, engineers, technology and intellectual property capable of competing without permanent protection. Local participation matters, but it is not the same as local capability. As Nigeria prepares the next phase of its industrial policy, the question should no longer be simply how much work is being done locally, but what Nigerian firms and workers can do independently because that work was done here. Nigeria has tried before to increase domestic participation through ownership. The Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decrees of the 1970s required foreign investors to transfer specified shares of their Nigerian operations to local partners. The policy increased Nigerian ownership, but did not reliably transfer the technical, managerial and market knowledge needed to build competitive enterprises. By 1995, the indigenisation framework had been replaced by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, which sought to encourage foreign investment. The lesson was not that Nigerian participation was misguided but that changing ownership was insufficient to create capability. The Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act of 2010 adopted a broader approach. It addressed local goods and services, employment, training, technology transfer, research and development and equity participation. Properly implemented, local content became more than a procurement policy. It became an instrument for industrial and human-capital development, using the scale of oil and gas expenditure to create opportunities for Nigerian firms and workers to acquire skills, technology and experience. Read also: Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans There have been measurable gains. The Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board says Nigerian content in projects it monitored rose from below five percent at inception to 61 percent in 2025, against a roadmap target of 70 percent by 2027. It also reports more than 50,000 direct jobs since the policy began. These gains are significant, but they raise a more important question: what does the 61 percent actually measure? If the figure largely captures local procurement, expenditure or activity, it does not necessarily show whether Nigerian companies have acquired the engineering expertise, technology and productivity to undertake increasingly complex work. That is where the policy needs to evolve. The government should publish a local capability scorecard alongside existing local-content targets, measuring whether Nigerian participation is moving up the value chain. The scorecard should track the proportion of high-value technical and managerial positions held by Nigerians, the value of engineering and intellectual property controlled by Nigerian firms, the number of technical personnel gaining internationally recognised certifications and moving into higher-skilled roles, and the proportion of complex projects executed without imported technical services. These indicators would reveal whether local content is creating durable capability rather than simply increasing domestic expenditure. Competitiveness outside the protected domestic market should be another test. A Nigerian company that survives only because regulations reserve contracts for it has achieved participation, but not necessarily competitiveness. Government should therefore track the number and value of contracts won by local firms in other African and international markets. Exporting engineering, fabrication, marine or technical services would provide stronger evidence that firms have acquired the quality, productivity and technology required to compete on commercial terms. Technology transfer also needs to become measurable rather than a compliance exercise. Companies benefiting from local-content preferences should submit specific plans identifying the technology, processes, intellectual property and technical skills Nigerian partners and employees are expected to acquire. Progress should be independently assessed annually. Where agreed technology-transfer or succession targets are repeatedly missed, access to future preferential opportunities should be reduced. Where firms demonstrate genuine capability building, the government should provide stronger incentives for them to undertake more complex work. Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

Nigeria has tried before to increase domestic participation through ownership. The Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decrees of the 1970s required foreign investors to transfer specified shares of their Nigerian operations to local partners. The policy increased Nigerian ownership, but did not reliably transfer the technical, managerial and market knowledge needed to build competitive enterprises. By 1995, the indigenisation framework had been replaced by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act, which sought to encourage foreign investment. The lesson was not that Nigerian participation was misguided but that changing ownership was insufficient to create capability. The Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act of 2010 adopted a broader approach. It addressed local goods and services, employment, training, technology transfer, research and development and equity participation. Properly implemented, local content became more than a procurement policy. It became an instrument for industrial and human-capital development, using the scale of oil and gas expenditure to create opportunities for Nigerian firms and workers to acquire skills, technology and experience. Read also: Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans There have been measurable gains. The Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board says Nigerian content in projects it monitored rose from below five percent at inception to 61 percent in 2025, against a roadmap target of 70 percent by 2027. It also reports more than 50,000 direct jobs since the policy began. These gains are significant, but they raise a more important question: what does the 61 percent actually measure? If the figure largely captures local procurement, expenditure or activity, it does not necessarily show whether Nigerian companies have acquired the engineering expertise, technology and productivity to undertake increasingly complex work. That is where the policy needs to evolve. The government should publish a local capability scorecard alongside existing local-content targets, measuring whether Nigerian participation is moving up the value chain. The scorecard should track the proportion of high-value technical and managerial positions held by Nigerians, the value of engineering and intellectual property controlled by Nigerian firms, the number of technical personnel gaining internationally recognised certifications and moving into higher-skilled roles, and the proportion of complex projects executed without imported technical services. These indicators would reveal whether local content is creating durable capability rather than simply increasing domestic expenditure. Competitiveness outside the protected domestic market should be another test. A Nigerian company that survives only because regulations reserve contracts for it has achieved participation, but not necessarily competitiveness. Government should therefore track the number and value of contracts won by local firms in other African and international markets. Exporting engineering, fabrication, marine or technical services would provide stronger evidence that firms have acquired the quality, productivity and technology required to compete on commercial terms. Technology transfer also needs to become measurable rather than a compliance exercise. Companies benefiting from local-content preferences should submit specific plans identifying the technology, processes, intellectual property and technical skills Nigerian partners and employees are expected to acquire. Progress should be independently assessed annually. Where agreed technology-transfer or succession targets are repeatedly missed, access to future preferential opportunities should be reduced. Where firms demonstrate genuine capability building, the government should provide stronger incentives for them to undertake more complex work. Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

The Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act of 2010 adopted a broader approach. It addressed local goods and services, employment, training, technology transfer, research and development and equity participation. Properly implemented, local content became more than a procurement policy. It became an instrument for industrial and human-capital development, using the scale of oil and gas expenditure to create opportunities for Nigerian firms and workers to acquire skills, technology and experience. Read also: Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans There have been measurable gains. The Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board says Nigerian content in projects it monitored rose from below five percent at inception to 61 percent in 2025, against a roadmap target of 70 percent by 2027. It also reports more than 50,000 direct jobs since the policy began. These gains are significant, but they raise a more important question: what does the 61 percent actually measure? If the figure largely captures local procurement, expenditure or activity, it does not necessarily show whether Nigerian companies have acquired the engineering expertise, technology and productivity to undertake increasingly complex work. That is where the policy needs to evolve. The government should publish a local capability scorecard alongside existing local-content targets, measuring whether Nigerian participation is moving up the value chain. The scorecard should track the proportion of high-value technical and managerial positions held by Nigerians, the value of engineering and intellectual property controlled by Nigerian firms, the number of technical personnel gaining internationally recognised certifications and moving into higher-skilled roles, and the proportion of complex projects executed without imported technical services. These indicators would reveal whether local content is creating durable capability rather than simply increasing domestic expenditure. Competitiveness outside the protected domestic market should be another test. A Nigerian company that survives only because regulations reserve contracts for it has achieved participation, but not necessarily competitiveness. Government should therefore track the number and value of contracts won by local firms in other African and international markets. Exporting engineering, fabrication, marine or technical services would provide stronger evidence that firms have acquired the quality, productivity and technology required to compete on commercial terms. Technology transfer also needs to become measurable rather than a compliance exercise. Companies benefiting from local-content preferences should submit specific plans identifying the technology, processes, intellectual property and technical skills Nigerian partners and employees are expected to acquire. Progress should be independently assessed annually. Where agreed technology-transfer or succession targets are repeatedly missed, access to future preferential opportunities should be reduced. Where firms demonstrate genuine capability building, the government should provide stronger incentives for them to undertake more complex work. Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

Read also: Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans There have been measurable gains. The Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board says Nigerian content in projects it monitored rose from below five percent at inception to 61 percent in 2025, against a roadmap target of 70 percent by 2027. It also reports more than 50,000 direct jobs since the policy began. These gains are significant, but they raise a more important question: what does the 61 percent actually measure? If the figure largely captures local procurement, expenditure or activity, it does not necessarily show whether Nigerian companies have acquired the engineering expertise, technology and productivity to undertake increasingly complex work. That is where the policy needs to evolve. The government should publish a local capability scorecard alongside existing local-content targets, measuring whether Nigerian participation is moving up the value chain. The scorecard should track the proportion of high-value technical and managerial positions held by Nigerians, the value of engineering and intellectual property controlled by Nigerian firms, the number of technical personnel gaining internationally recognised certifications and moving into higher-skilled roles, and the proportion of complex projects executed without imported technical services. These indicators would reveal whether local content is creating durable capability rather than simply increasing domestic expenditure. Competitiveness outside the protected domestic market should be another test. A Nigerian company that survives only because regulations reserve contracts for it has achieved participation, but not necessarily competitiveness. Government should therefore track the number and value of contracts won by local firms in other African and international markets. Exporting engineering, fabrication, marine or technical services would provide stronger evidence that firms have acquired the quality, productivity and technology required to compete on commercial terms. Technology transfer also needs to become measurable rather than a compliance exercise. Companies benefiting from local-content preferences should submit specific plans identifying the technology, processes, intellectual property and technical skills Nigerian partners and employees are expected to acquire. Progress should be independently assessed annually. Where agreed technology-transfer or succession targets are repeatedly missed, access to future preferential opportunities should be reduced. Where firms demonstrate genuine capability building, the government should provide stronger incentives for them to undertake more complex work. Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

There have been measurable gains. The Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board says Nigerian content in projects it monitored rose from below five percent at inception to 61 percent in 2025, against a roadmap target of 70 percent by 2027. It also reports more than 50,000 direct jobs since the policy began. These gains are significant, but they raise a more important question: what does the 61 percent actually measure? If the figure largely captures local procurement, expenditure or activity, it does not necessarily show whether Nigerian companies have acquired the engineering expertise, technology and productivity to undertake increasingly complex work. That is where the policy needs to evolve. The government should publish a local capability scorecard alongside existing local-content targets, measuring whether Nigerian participation is moving up the value chain. The scorecard should track the proportion of high-value technical and managerial positions held by Nigerians, the value of engineering and intellectual property controlled by Nigerian firms, the number of technical personnel gaining internationally recognised certifications and moving into higher-skilled roles, and the proportion of complex projects executed without imported technical services. These indicators would reveal whether local content is creating durable capability rather than simply increasing domestic expenditure. Competitiveness outside the protected domestic market should be another test. A Nigerian company that survives only because regulations reserve contracts for it has achieved participation, but not necessarily competitiveness. Government should therefore track the number and value of contracts won by local firms in other African and international markets. Exporting engineering, fabrication, marine or technical services would provide stronger evidence that firms have acquired the quality, productivity and technology required to compete on commercial terms. Technology transfer also needs to become measurable rather than a compliance exercise. Companies benefiting from local-content preferences should submit specific plans identifying the technology, processes, intellectual property and technical skills Nigerian partners and employees are expected to acquire. Progress should be independently assessed annually. Where agreed technology-transfer or succession targets are repeatedly missed, access to future preferential opportunities should be reduced. Where firms demonstrate genuine capability building, the government should provide stronger incentives for them to undertake more complex work. Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

That is where the policy needs to evolve. The government should publish a local capability scorecard alongside existing local-content targets, measuring whether Nigerian participation is moving up the value chain. The scorecard should track the proportion of high-value technical and managerial positions held by Nigerians, the value of engineering and intellectual property controlled by Nigerian firms, the number of technical personnel gaining internationally recognised certifications and moving into higher-skilled roles, and the proportion of complex projects executed without imported technical services. These indicators would reveal whether local content is creating durable capability rather than simply increasing domestic expenditure. Competitiveness outside the protected domestic market should be another test. A Nigerian company that survives only because regulations reserve contracts for it has achieved participation, but not necessarily competitiveness. Government should therefore track the number and value of contracts won by local firms in other African and international markets. Exporting engineering, fabrication, marine or technical services would provide stronger evidence that firms have acquired the quality, productivity and technology required to compete on commercial terms. Technology transfer also needs to become measurable rather than a compliance exercise. Companies benefiting from local-content preferences should submit specific plans identifying the technology, processes, intellectual property and technical skills Nigerian partners and employees are expected to acquire. Progress should be independently assessed annually. Where agreed technology-transfer or succession targets are repeatedly missed, access to future preferential opportunities should be reduced. Where firms demonstrate genuine capability building, the government should provide stronger incentives for them to undertake more complex work. Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

Competitiveness outside the protected domestic market should be another test. A Nigerian company that survives only because regulations reserve contracts for it has achieved participation, but not necessarily competitiveness. Government should therefore track the number and value of contracts won by local firms in other African and international markets. Exporting engineering, fabrication, marine or technical services would provide stronger evidence that firms have acquired the quality, productivity and technology required to compete on commercial terms. Technology transfer also needs to become measurable rather than a compliance exercise. Companies benefiting from local-content preferences should submit specific plans identifying the technology, processes, intellectual property and technical skills Nigerian partners and employees are expected to acquire. Progress should be independently assessed annually. Where agreed technology-transfer or succession targets are repeatedly missed, access to future preferential opportunities should be reduced. Where firms demonstrate genuine capability building, the government should provide stronger incentives for them to undertake more complex work. Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

Technology transfer also needs to become measurable rather than a compliance exercise. Companies benefiting from local-content preferences should submit specific plans identifying the technology, processes, intellectual property and technical skills Nigerian partners and employees are expected to acquire. Progress should be independently assessed annually. Where agreed technology-transfer or succession targets are repeatedly missed, access to future preferential opportunities should be reduced. Where firms demonstrate genuine capability building, the government should provide stronger incentives for them to undertake more complex work. Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

Training should be judged in the same way. Local-content obligations can create demand for welders, fabricators, engineers, inspectors, marine specialists, project managers and digital technicians, but contracts cannot by themselves produce the required skills. Companies, universities, polytechnics and technical institutions should establish sector-specific training requirements, while public support should be tied to measurable outcomes. The relevant indicators should include recognised certification, employment in related occupations and progression into higher-skilled positions after two or three years, rather than simply the number of people enrolled in training programmes. This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

This would help address a persistent contradiction in Nigeria’s labour market, where employers report shortages of technical skills while many young people struggle to find productive employment. Local content can create demand for skills, but education policy must ensure that the supply of skills responds to that demand. Industry should have a greater role in defining curricula, providing apprenticeships and assessing practical competence, while the government should publish annual data showing whether publicly supported training is actually leading to relevant employment. Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

Protection should also have an exit strategy. Temporary preference can help a domestic supplier acquire technology, standards, capital and market knowledge, but it becomes counterproductive when firms depend indefinitely on reserved opportunities. Selected local-content preferences should therefore undergo reviews every three to five years against productivity, technology-transfer and competitiveness indicators. Firms that demonstrate measurable upgrading should be eligible for more sophisticated opportunities, while persistent underperformance should lead to the withdrawal or redesign of support. Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

Read also: Politics crack Tinubu as discounted petrol returns This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

This does not require Nigeria to choose between foreign investment and domestic capability. Foreign companies can bring capital, technology, management expertise and access to global markets. The policy objective should be to ensure that Nigerian firms and workers increasingly acquire the capacity to absorb, adapt and eventually compete with that knowledge. The same principle should apply beyond oil and gas, including manufacturing, power, infrastructure and agriculture, where policies increasingly seek to reserve economic space for domestic businesses. Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

Nigeria therefore needs to move from measuring how much work is local to measuring how much capability becomes local. The first tells policymakers where money was spent; the second reveals whether the economy is becoming more productive. The ultimate test of local content is not whether a Nigerian company participated in today’s contract, but whether, after the contract ends, Nigeria has more engineers who can design, more companies that can execute complex projects, more technology that domestic firms control and more businesses capable of competing beyond a protected market. That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share

That is the difference between participation and transformation. Nigeria has created room for local actors. The next challenge is to ensure that they use that room to build capabilities strong enough to compete without needing it to remain permanently reserved. Related News Why the federal government must stop collateralising Nigeria’s natural resources for loans India-Nigeria trade rebounds to $9bn as LCCI pitches Nigeria as gateway to AfCFTA FAAN sets December for opening of new MMIA terminal link bridge The Editorial Board comment is free Send 800word comments to [email protected] Share