Abstract
This paper, attempts to employ and apply the dependency and liberal economic theories in order to demonstrate how these two theories help in the accurate analysis and explanations of the debt crisis in the developing countries, particularly Africa and especially Nigeria. In doing this, the paper considers very briefly some of the actions and policies of IMF and other IFIs, the administrations of some Nigeria leaders and the undertakings/trend of events during the implementations of the Structural Adjustment Programme in Nigeria. It also reflects some of the activities in other countries in Africa relevant to the analysis. The paper concludes that the IMF, World Bank and the West should be blamed for collaborating with some Nigeria leaders in making the country indebted. And that the Nigerian masses needed reparation for the losses, pains and sufferings they have passed through because of IMF’s SAP.
Highlights
An accurate account and proper analysis of the debt crisis in developing countries of Africa, and Nigeria in particular cannot be possible without the examinations of some theories underpinning the problem
While some studies argue that dependency theory (Baran, 1957, Frank, 1971) is best for understanding the debt crisis, others maintain that development theory (Rostow, 1960) or economic explanations (Offiong, 1980) is more lucid
A superficial reflection on the expatiated report of the IMF would show the plan as appealing option for the continent, but a critical study into the factors that led to the role of these two institutions were/are playing in the economic development of Africa would show that, after all, IMF and World Bank could be nothing but instruments of neo-colonialism
Summary
An accurate account and proper analysis of the debt crisis in developing countries of Africa, and Nigeria in particular cannot be possible without the examinations of some theories underpinning the problem. Scholars and writers have emerged with different theories and explanations concerning the debt crisis in developing poor countries. While some studies argue that dependency theory (Baran, 1957, Frank, 1971) is best for understanding the debt crisis, others maintain that development theory (Rostow, 1960) or economic explanations (Offiong, 1980) is more lucid. Others contend that political explanations (Migdal, 1988) or the liberal theory (Burchill, 1996) is important. For the purpose of this paper, the dependency and liberal economic theories will be considered
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
