Double-Standards, Debt Treatment, and World Bank Country Classification: The Case of Nigeria - Working Paper Number 45
Publication Info
Publication Type
Download
Initiative
Research Topics
CGD Experts
Opinions
- A buyback to resolve Nigeria's debt problem
- Nigerian Debt Relief Now a Done Deal: Q&A with Todd Moss
- Q & A: Nigerian Debt Relief
- Reflections on "Our Common Interest," The Report of the Commission on Africa
Articles
- A Victory for Democracy in Nigeria
- Clean slate [Economist]
- For Wolfowitz, Poverty Is the Newest War to Fight (NYT)
- G8 Debt Agreement to Benefit 23 African Countries; Separate Deal for Nigeria Mooted
- IMF endorses Nigeria policies in nod to Paris Club
- Just saying no [The Economist]
- Nigeria Completes PC Pre-payment
- Nigeria in Deal to Pay Off Most of Its Foreign Debt [NYT]
- Nigeria in talks for $31 bln debt buyback
- Nigeria Wins Debt Relief
- Nigeria- Time to Cut a Debt Deal
Rights and Permissions
We welcome the use of CGD work-just let us know in advance! For contact information see our Rights & Permissions page. CGD rights and permissions are managed under the terms of the Creative Commons license below.
Todd Moss, Scott Standley and Nancy Birdsall
09/01/2004
REVISED Version November 1, 2004.
Nigeria is currently classified by the World Bank as a ‘blend’ country, making it the poorest country in the world that does not have ‘IDA-only’ status. This paper uses the World Bank’s own IDA eligibility criteria to assess whether Nigeria has a case for reclassification. Given that the country has not borrowed from IBRD for the past eleven years, such a change would merely recognize what is already de facto the case. Based on our analysis, Nigeria clearly qualifies as IDA-only based on its low income level and lack of creditworthiness. Its record of policy performance appears to be the final barrier, but we show it is no worse on performance than three African comparator groups: the current IDA-only pool, previous reverse-graduates, and the IDA-only oil producers. We also question the logic of this criterion for IDA-only ‘eligibility’ (though not of course for actual allocation or disbursements). Certainly, Africa’s three previous reverse-graduates and Angola’s current IDA-only status suggest that Nigeria is facing a double-standard. We thus conclude that Nigeria does have a strong case for reclassification. Nigeria has good reason to request such a change as it would allow it more equal consideration of its access to IDA grants (restricted to IDA-only countries) including for HIV/AIDS programs and its allocation of IDA loans. Reclassification would also strengthen the case for Nigeria receiving an immediate write-down of a large portion of its debt to bilateral donors (along the lines of concessional Naples terms for IDA-only countries), which we argue is critical to any hope that the current government’s economic and political reform efforts can be sustained. The creditors have good reason for supporting such a change as part of a broader strategy for encouraging progress in Africa’s most populous country, and one that is key to stabilizing a region where internal conflict and Islamic radicalism create threats to global security.