Introduction
In West Africa, insecurity is rapidly escalating. From the relentless progression of extremist groups in the Sahel to the increasing wave of youth-led violence in major urban areas, the region is experiencing significant strain. Governments, grappling with limited budgets and rising social pressures, must make difficult choices regarding the distribution of scarce resources. Frequently, they revert to conventional economic principles, such as Pareto Optimality, to inform these decisions. This principle, often praised for enhancing efficiency, posits that redistributing resources is justifiable only if no individual is negatively impacted. While it may provide valuable perspectives in stable and well-governed economies, its relevance in fragile and unequal nations like those in West Africa brings forth a crucial and troubling question: efficient for whom?
Understanding Pareto Optimality and Its Assumptions
Pareto Optimality, a principle that stems from the work of Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, describes a state in which it is impossible to improve someone’s situation without negatively impacting another (Varian, 2014). In the realm of economic theory, it has long been recognized as a standard for efficient resource distribution. Under ideal market circumstances, where every participant has equal access to information and influencing power, Pareto efficiency guarantees that resources are utilized in a manner that prevents waste.
Nonetheless, this framework fails to recognize the significant inequalities that influence governance in West African countries. It disregards the ownership of resources, the means through which they were obtained, and whether their allocation advances broader societal objectives. In societies marked by deep inequalities, the pursuit of Pareto efficiency might inadvertently strengthen the position of a privileged minority instead of enhancing the welfare of the larger population. Consequently, policies deemed “efficient” within this framework can exacerbate poverty, increase exclusion, and ultimately trigger more insecurity.
Security as a Public Good and a Victim of Structural Misallocation in West Africa
Security is akin to education or access to clean water, qualifying as a public good that should be universally accessible and not diminished through use. However, in numerous West African countries, the distribution of security is unequal. Instead of serving the general populace, it is frequently concentrated in urban areas and tailored to elite interests, leaving rural and marginalized communities exposed. Nigeria exemplifies this disparity. Even with a defense budget that has escalated to ₦2.98 trillion in 2023 (Budget Office of the Federation, 2023), the nation continues to face widespread insecurity, including insurgencies, kidnappings, and violent communal conflicts.
This disparity is rooted in a more profound structural issue. Adeleye (2016) refers to a phenomenon known as Pareto Economic Disability, which occurs when a country’s economy relies heavily on one or two dominant sectors that significantly contribute to GDP but provide limited employment opportunities. In Nigeria, the oil industry represents this scenario. It generates substantial revenue but only employs a small percentage of the workforce. This leads to what Adeleye describes as a Pareto gap, where the economic impact of an industry does not align with the inclusive benefits for the general population. Consequently, this creates a scenario where wealth coexists with poverty, with economic growth obscuring increasing inequality and exclusion.
Such exclusion can lead to severe repercussions. Many young individuals, unable to secure jobs or engage meaningfully in society, become vulnerable to recruitment by extremist groups or criminal organizations. Although defense expenditures are defended as crucial for national security, they often neglect the root causes of insecurity, such as unemployment, inadequate education, and weakened local institutions. From a Pareto efficiency perspective, reallocating funds to social sectors might disrupt those with vested interests, particularly elites who benefit from military expenditure. Nevertheless, from the perspective of public welfare, such a reallocation is both logical and imperative. If unaddressed, the cycle of fragility and instability is likely to persist.
Beyond Pareto Thinking: Modeling Better Choices
The discussion about the optimal allocation of resources extends beyond just national security. According to Stuart et al. (2019), a similar conflict was evident in the public health field. Their study on HIV funding in Togo and Sudan revealed that attempts to reallocate resources for the benefit of a larger population were dismissed as ineffective. This was due to the perception that even minor drawbacks for a particular group were intolerable, highlighting a significant weakness in rigid Pareto thinking. It tends to uphold current resource distributions, even when they do not serve the greater public good.
A more adaptable strategy is presented by Ojamaa and Tyugu (2008), who utilized a Pareto optimization model for security planning challenges. Their framework enabled policymakers to understand the trade-offs between cost and effectiveness using dynamic programming techniques. While their focus was on areas such as banking and information systems, the relevance of their findings for national security is evident. With limited resources, the objective should be to maximize outcomes for the majority rather than safeguarding the advantages of a select few.
Reframing the Frontier: Toward Inclusive Efficiency
The evidence indicates a pressing necessity to reconsider what we understand by efficiency in fragile and unequal contexts. In West Africa, this implies adopting a Security-Inclusive Pareto Frontier—a framework where resource distribution considers not only technical efficiency but also fairness, human security, and enduring resilience. This redefinition demands a transformation in our planning, allocation, and actions, which would necessitate the following approaches:
- Understanding security as multifaceted and experiential: Security involves more than just military presence, barriers, or enclosures—it encompasses the ability to walk home fearlessly, secure decent employment, and know that your community will support you during difficult times. A genuinely secure society invests in education, job opportunities, and trust, rather than solely in defense mechanisms.
- Centering equity in planning: Historically, certain communities have been persistently neglected while others receive excessive focus. Planning should rectify these disparities by prioritizing regions where individuals feel ignored or marginalized. Equity involves ensuring everyone has what they require to feel safe, supported, and acknowledged.
- Implementing adaptive strategies that mirror reality: In intricate and swiftly shifting environments, inflexible, uniform policies fall short. Governments must utilize adaptable planning tools that enable them to evaluate trade-offs, simulate various futures, and assess real-world effects, rather than merely monitoring financial outlays. Effective governance is about learning and adjusting, rather than only managing inputs.
- Collaborating across borders: Insecurity does not adhere to national borders. Regional organizations like ECOWAS need to be empowered to exchange intelligence, coordinate actions, and pool resources. Cross-border threats necessitate cross-border collaboration.
- Revisiting the concept of efficiency: In fragile nations, efficiency should encompass more than mere speed or cost-effectiveness. It must consider whether policies bring about genuine, lasting transformation. An effective policy may not appear neat on financial reports, but it should make individuals feel safer, more included, and more hopeful in their daily lives. The objective is not to abandon Pareto efficiency but to situate it within a broader framework of values and realities that resonate with the lived experiences of citizens in fragile environments.
Conclusion
In a region as intricate and unstable as West Africa, the issue of resource efficiency is far from theoretical; it is profoundly political. When policies are termed “efficient” but result in millions being insecure, unemployed, and voiceless, we must inquire: efficient for whom?
Genuine efficiency in fragile environments necessitates more than just financial reports. It demands political bravery, inclusive governance, and a readiness to confront economic principles that ignore inequality. As insecurity continues to undermine development achievements, West Africa must transcend restricted definitions of optimality and adopt a model where efficiency and justice are not opposing objectives but are deeply intertwined priorities.
References
- Adeleye, E. O. (2016). The Pareto Theory of Poverty-induced Corruption. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development, 25, 73–77.
- Budget Office of the Federation (2023). Approved Budget 2023. https://www.budgetoffice.gov.ng
- Ojamaa, A., & Tyugu, E. (2008). Pareto-Optimal Situation Analysis for Selection of Security Measures. Proceedings of MILCOM 2008, IEEE.
- Stuart, R. M., Haghparast-Bidgoli, H., Panovska-Griffiths, J., et al. (2019). Applying the “no-one worse off” criterion to design Pareto efficient HIV responses in Sudan and Togo. AIDS Journal, Publish Ahead of Print. doi:10.1097/QAD.0000000000002155
- Varian, H. R. (2014). Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach (9th ed.). W.W. Norton.
