The State, Market Reforms and Social Inequality in Nigeria: A Political Economy Interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neo-liberal economic reforms and corresponding arrogance of the Nigerian governing class on the inviolability of market reforms depicts aspects of the Nigerian crises. The resultant social inequality among social groups because of the implementation of market reforms raises question on its purpose, relevance, and implications. The neo-liberal paradigm had been posed and foisted on the Nigerian economy by external agencies as panacea to its structural distortions and underdevelopment. The market reforms, however, have been pigeon-holed as retarding development and signposting social inequality. Social inequality reflects the social backlash of economic reforms; the lopsided sacrifices of the working people, urban poor, and peasants in relation to the affluence and profligate lifestyle of state officials and their allies, changing lifestyles and decline in the living conditions of affected social groups. The victims of market reforms question its purpose and insist on endogenous, pro-poor and pro-people based alternative economic and developmental frameworks. The political economy approach offers theoretical basis to examine the Nigerian economy, its social classes, and the ensuing social class struggles against market reforms and social inequality. This work poses specific questions to situate the interfaces of state, market reforms and social inequality in Nigeria. Who are the beneficiaries of economic reform programs? Who are the victims of social inequality? How do the victims respond to social inequality? How do economic reforms result in social inequality? How does the Nigerian state deal with the question of social inequality? How adequate are these measures?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".