A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLICIES IN ASIA, EUROPE, AND AFRICA – PHILIPPINES, EU, AND NIGERIA
It's a curious thing, national ambition. It often starts with a grand vision, a chest-thumping declaration of destiny, only to sometimes end up like a promising soufflé that collapses in the oven. The ingredients were all there, the initial heat was perfect, but somewhere along the way, the recipe was fundamentally misunderstood. This is not just a culinary tragedy; it is the story of how nations, blessed with every advantage, can systematically choose a path away from prosperity.
This essay explores a tale of three continents, a comparative study in economic cause and effect, served with a side of cautionary humour. We begin with the Philippines, a nation that in 1950 stood as an economic beacon in Asia, second only to Japan in per capita income. It possessed a highly educated, English-speaking workforce, early reconstruction aid, and modern infrastructure—a veritable head start in the post-war race. Yet today, it looks up at neighbours it once looked down upon.
We will contrast its story with the meteoric rise of the “Asian Tigers” and “Tiger Cubs” who chose a different path.
Then, we pivot to the developed world, examining the quiet divergence between the European Union and the United States. Two economic behemoths, seemingly on parallel tracks two decades ago, now find their growth trajectories separating. Here, the central tension is not about nascent industrial policy but about mature regulatory philosophy: the EU’s preference for comprehensive, precautionary regulation versus the USA's appetite for disruptive innovation.
Finally, we turn to Africa, where Nigeria, the continent's giant, is conducting a perilous experiment in real time. With a labyrinthine bureaucracy of over 230 federal agencies often more focused on revenue collection than on trade facilitation, Nigeria stands at a crossroads. Its path is contrasted with the deliberate, business-friendly reforms of countries like Rwanda and Ghana.
Through these three comparisons, a unifying theme emerges: economic leadership is not a birthright, and its loss is rarely an accident. It is the cumulative result of specific policy choices.
1. The Tale of the Overprotected Heir: The Philippines vs. the Asian Tigers
In the grand economic theatre of post-war Asia, the Philippines was cast as the lead actor. With a 1950 GDP per capita of 1,293, it stood significantly ahead of Taiwan, South Korea, and Thailand. Yet by the end of the 20th century, the Philippines had “missed out almost completely on the Asian boom.”
The answer lies in protectionism.
1.1 The Gilded Cage of Import Substitution
The Philippines embraced import-substituting industrialization (ISI). High tariff walls were erected to protect domestic industries. However, this protection turned into a gilded cage. Sheltered from competition, industries had little incentive to innovate, improve quality, or increase efficiency.
In contrast, South Korea and Taiwan pivoted to export-oriented industrialization (EOI), forcing their firms to compete globally. This pressure forged competitiveness.
1.2 The Curse of Small Scale and Stifled Innovation
Confined to a domestic market, Philippine firms failed to achieve economies of scale. Innovation lagged, brain drain intensified, and the economy remained heavily dependent on remittances rather than high-value exports.
2. The Tortoise and the Hare on Hormones: EU Regulation vs. U.S. Innovation
While the U.S. economy has roughly doubled in size over the past two decades, EU growth has been comparatively anemic. The difference lies in regulatory philosophy.
2.1 The Precautionary Principle
The EU emphasizes precaution, harmonization, and risk mitigation. While protective, this approach often stifles experimentation and favors incumbents over start-ups.
The U.S., by contrast, operates on permissionless innovation, encouraging risk-taking, failure, and rapid iteration.
2.2 The Innovation Gap
The U.S. dominates digital and next-generation industries, while Europe excels in traditional manufacturing. This divergence has produced significant economic consequences, including slower growth and reduced dynamism in the EU.
3. The Labyrinth of Intentions: Nigeria vs. Africa’s Reformers
Nigeria’s vast bureaucracy—over 230 federal agencies—creates a hostile business environment focused on revenue extraction rather than trade facilitation.
This discourages investment, drives informality, and diverts entrepreneurial energy from innovation to regulatory survival.
3.1 Nigeria: Death by a Thousand Agencies
Nigeria ranks poorly on ease of doing business, reflecting systemic bureaucratic friction that acts as a tax on growth.
3.2 The Reformers’ Blueprint: Rwanda and Ghana
Rwanda and Ghana demonstrate that deliberate policy choices—streamlining bureaucracy, digitization, and transparency—can unlock economic potential despite fewer natural advantages.
4. The Inescapable Conclusion: Policy Is Destiny
Across continents, the lesson is clear: economic outcomes are forged by policy. Protectionism, over-regulation, and extractive bureaucracy stifle growth. Borrowing replaces organic development, shifting the burden to future generations through inflation, devaluation, and taxation.
Economic leadership is a choice—one that must be made continuously.
Thank you.
About AERE
The Alliance for Economic Research and Ethics (AERE) LTDGTE is a Nigerian non-profit dedicated to strengthening Nigeria’s public and private sectors through evidence-based research, policy advocacy, regulatory support, and ethical reforms.