While key macroeconomic indicators show signs of recovery, many Nigerians continue to grapple with rising living costs and weak purchasing power, three years after President Bola Tinubu started a series of economic reforms that promised to improve the condition of an average citizen, ISAAC CHIBUIFE reports.

When President Bola Tinubu declared at his inauguration on May 29, 2023, that “subsidy is gone,” the announcement marked one of the most consequential economic shifts in recent Nigerian history. Three years later, the reforms that followed — fuel subsidy removal, exchange rate liberalisation and tax reforms continue to divide economists, investors and ordinary citizens.

On paper, several indicators suggest improvement. Government revenues have increased significantly, foreign reserves have strengthened, while the gap between the official and parallel foreign exchange markets has narrowed to almost zero. The capital market has also posted strong gains, while the government points to moderating inflation and improving investor confidence as evidence that the economy is stabilising.

Yet, economists who spoke with The Guardian yesterday insisted that the apparent macroeconomic progress has not translated into meaningful relief for most Nigerians.

A professor of economics at the Lagos Business School, Bongo Adi, described the current situation as one of “macroeconomic stability and worsening microeconomic fragility”.

According to him, the government’s reform narrative is disconnected from the reality facing households and businesses. While the foreign exchange market has shown some stability, he argued, other indicators such as inflation, employment and living standards remain deeply troubling.

“GDP growth has not translated into improved living conditions for ordinary Nigerians,” he said.

He cited sharp increases in the prices of construction materials and essential goods since May 2023 as signs of a troubled economy.

According to him, a 30-tonne truck of sand that previously sold for between N60,000 and N70,000 now costs as much as N350,000, while cement prices have more than doubled within the same period.

Although the minimum wage rose from N30,000 to N70,000, he argued that inflation has eroded much of the increase.

Adi also criticised the absence of updated unemployment data by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), saying the suspension of regular labour statistics has created a credibility gap in assessing the economy’s true condition.

“We do not know how many Nigerians are employed,” he said, even as he warned that economic statistics alone cannot define the well-being of citizens.

A former president of the Nigerian Economic Society (NES), Prof. Adeola Adenikinju, adopted a more balanced position. He acknowledged that the reforms were necessary and had helped to correct long-standing distortions in the economy.

“The core reforms are good and necessary. They have helped to stabilise the economy and place it on a more sustainable path,” he said.

He pointed to improved government revenues, relative stability in the energy market and stronger foreign reserves as positive outcomes of the administration’s policies.

However, Adenikinju stressed that the gains have not been matched by improvements in welfare indicators. Poverty levels remain high, youth unemployment has worsened and many households are struggling with declining purchasing power.

He noted that the manufacturing sector continues to face pressure from high energy costs, exchange rate volatility and expensive credit, limiting its capacity to create jobs and drive broad-based growth.

For him, the major weakness in the reform programme lies in the absence of adequate social protection measures.

“When reforms are introduced, there must also be support systems for vulnerable households and those negatively affected,” he said.

He argued that despite rising revenues accruing to federal and state governments since the subsidy removal, many Nigerians have seen little improvement in public services or social welfare programmes.

A development economist, Prof. Chiwuike Uba, also described the administration’s economic performance as mixed, with some structural improvements overshadowed by severe short-term hardship.

According to him, the challenge is not necessarily the decision to remove fuel subsidy, which enjoyed broad support among economists and political actors, but the way it was implemented.

“The policy was introduced without sufficient planning for its consequences,” he insisted.

He argued that the abrupt removal triggered immediate increases in transport fares, food prices and operating costs across sectors, with limited protection for low-income households.

Uba also questioned the transparency of subsidy spending, noting that fiscal records still suggest government expenditure on petroleum support despite official claims that subsidy payments had ended.

He warned about the growing dominance of the Dangote refinery in domestic fuel supply, saying the emergence of a single major supplier could create price distortions similar to what exists in other concentrated industries.

On tax reforms, Uba commended aspects of the administration’s fiscal policy, particularly exemptions for low-income earners and efforts to digitise tax collection systems.

However, he argued that the reforms remain heavily focused on revenue generation rather than addressing inequality.

According to him, many wealthy Nigerians outside formal employment structures remain beyond the reach of effective taxation. He advocated stronger property taxation and higher taxes on luxury consumption to improve fairness in the tax system.

He also criticised the lack of transparency surrounding tax waivers granted to corporations, saying the public has little information on the scale, beneficiaries or economic justification for such incentives.

Beyond policy execution, the economists identified communication failures and weak coordination within government as major concerns.

Adenikinju said the administration has struggled to provide Nigerians with clear guidance on the objectives, timelines and expected outcomes of its reforms.

“There must be clear communication about what the government is doing, the sacrifices required and the support available,” he said.

Adi was more critical, arguing that government officials have failed to demonstrate sufficient understanding of the hardship facing citizens.

He also questioned the coherence of the administration’s economic management structure, a concern echoed by Adenikinju, who argued that Nigeria lacked a clearly defined economic coordination framework capable of monitoring policy outcomes and making timely adjustments.

Adenikinju called for stronger investment in targeted social programmes, including school feeding schemes and direct support for vulnerable households. He also urged tighter fiscal discipline to ensure borrowing is directed toward productive infrastructure rather than recurrent expenditure.

Uba emphasised the need for greater transparency in capital project implementation and warned that the transition to digital tax systems must account for limited internet access and weak compliance capacity among small businesses in rural communities.

For Adi, the government’s immediate priorities should be improving the electricity supply and addressing insecurity, which he described as fundamental obstacles to economic recovery and social stability.

Three years into Tinubu’s presidency, the verdict from economists remains deeply divided. The administration has undertaken reforms that previous governments avoided, but the benefits remain concentrated largely in fiscal and financial indicators, while the burden has fallen heavily on households and businesses.

The subsidy removal, exchange rate reforms and tax measures may have corrected structural distortions, but the absence of adequate social buffers, chaotic implementation and limited public trust continue to undermine the broader impact of the reforms.

For many Nigerians, the real test of the administration’s economic agenda is not the FX reserve levels, stock market performance or government revenue growth, but whether essential commodities are more affordable or not.