Menu

Can Nigeria be an innovative state? 05 Aug 2026

Countries are often grouped by income level. Those with the lowest per capita income rely on primary products, especially agricultural produce. Agrarian economies are subject to diminishing returns on land yields and to boom-and-bust cycles. 

There is also the manufacturing society, also known as the industrial society. All the countries in the First and Second Worlds are industrial economies; hence, their per capita incomes are much higher than those of agrarian societies. However, the highest per capita incomes are found in service-based economies. These are countries that have moved beyond manufacturing and developed their service sectors. They are still industrial but have added high-level innovation to their manufacturing. The US, the UK, and Scandinavian countries have entered the innovation society. 

Can Nigeria join these innovative countries? Nigeria’s indicators are poor, but the potential is there. The country lags in innovation and infrastructure development. In 2025, Nigeria ranked 105th out of 139 countries in the Global Innovation Index. In the most recent Productivity Capability Index, the country scored 30.7 out of 100, lower than Ghana (34.9), Kenya (36.9), South Africa (51.7), and Egypt (42.2). Nigeria has poor social and physical infrastructure. It ranks 24th out of 54 African countries in infrastructure development.

In his book How Asia Works, Joe Studwell points out that East Asia developed economically by moving from agrarian to industrial, and later to an innovation-driven society. The key point is that those Asian countries that became rich used intelligent policies to transition from agrarian economies to industrial societies and, later, to knowledge economies. 

Innovation societies are defined by the critical role that knowledge and knowledge production play in their economic development. Such societies increase productivity by expanding the stock of knowledge, not just any sort of knowledge, but creative and innovative knowledge. The hallmark of an innovative society is the application of creativity to solve problems. An innovative society has developed both the hardware and software of innovation to produce higher-quality goods and services. 

What factors account for the ability of some societies to innovate while others cannot? I identify what I call the ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ of innovation – the technological and social elements, respectively. Political regimes and economic systems constitute the ‘hardware’. Innovation is more likely in societies that promote entrepreneurship by rewarding private initiative. Such a society will recognise trade and private property. Conversely, it will be difficult to sustain innovation in societies where people are not rewarded for their efforts. The great political economist Joseph Schumpeter thought that a free-market society could promote entrepreneurship, which he believed was the source of innovation. 

What is the ‘software’ of innovation? The American sociologist Robert Putnam viewed civil society through the lens of social capital and social trust. These are part of the software of innovation. Innovation is a collaborative enterprise. Innovators build on the work of other researchers and thinkers. They solve problems within a community defined by mutual trust and respect. If social capital or the trust quotient in a society is low, achieving the level of social cooperation required for sustainable innovation may be difficult. In his classic book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam examined the deficiencies of a low-trust society. Social capital includes volunteerism, membership of associations and unions, and religious beliefs and practices. Drawing on Alexis Tocqueville’s magisterial Democracy in America, Putnam argued for greater civic engagement. 

Another important principle for innovation is ethical universalism, the notion that human beings share common moral qualities that mandate non-discriminatory treatment. Innovative societies are characterised by ethical universalism and, to a large extent, by the principle of individualism. Such societies treat people without regard to their particularities of birth or status. They contrast with honourific societies that treat people differently according to their social or cultural status. Max Weber, the theorist of modernity, argued that modern development is only possible in a ‘bureaucratic’ society, one in which rules and laws replace traditional norms and privileges. This is the underlying structure of liberal and human rights-oriented societies. 

Innovation obviously thrives on knowledge. The Nobel Laureate in Economics, Kenneth Arrow, emphasises the importance of learning and doing. People learn by doing. Therefore, innovative societies also have innovative industries. This is also why innovative societies are usually post-industrial. Innovation comes from doing, and big corporations provide the learning environment for innovation. 

Two important points arise from this insight. First, without good education, progress is difficult. Quality education is the ‘software’ for innovation. When Japan began its transition from an agrarian to an industrial society, it had an 80-90% literacy rate. Second, as Japan also exemplifies, public norms must value quality education. This means it must be a meritocracy that encourages learning and doing. 

This contrasts with our society, which despises knowledge and offers no social reward for excellence. Nigerian society is not merit-based; it embraces privilege and prerogatives that undermine merit. It does not invest in education and does not reward social or physical innovation. Nigerian political institutions exist to encourage and reinforce extraction and distribution, rather than innovation. But if we emulate what East Asians have done this century, we can become more innovative. 

Sam Amadi, PhD, a former Chairman of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, is the Director of Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts.