JOB CREATION AS A SECURITY STRATEGY

JOB CREATION AS A SECURITY STRATEGY

By Jerry Adesewo

For millions of young Nigerians, the search for employment is more than an economic struggle. It is a daily encounter with uncertainty: applications without responses, qualifications without opportunities, skills without markets and, increasingly, the pressure to find money by whatever means possible.

In a country confronting banditry, kidnapping, violent extremism, robbery and other forms of insecurity, the conventional response has largely been to strengthen the instruments of law enforcement and deploy more security personnel.

But what if part of the security solution lies somewhere else?

What if Nigeria’s unemployment problem is also a security problem—and job creation should therefore be treated as part of the country’s security strategy?

READ ALSO: From Food Basket to Food City: Benue Bets $250m on Agro-Industrial Transformation

That is the provocative proposition at the heart of a research paper by Agbi-Etuk Aduratomi and Adeyemi O A, titled ‘The Role of Technology Forecasting on Unemployment: A Panacea to Insecurity in North Central Nigeria.’

Published in the September 2022 edition of the International Journal of New Technology and Research, the study examines the relationship between unemployment and insecurity and explores whether anticipating the jobs of the future could help Nigeria reduce unemployment and, consequently, insecurity.

Its central argument is straightforward: if unemployment contributes to insecurity, then creating pathways into meaningful employment should be considered part of the response to insecurity.

The researchers argue that there is a direct relationship between unemployment and insecurity, particularly among young people. Their review of secondary evidence found unemployment to be a significant determinant of total crime, while the literature examined in the study also points to a relationship between prolonged unemployment and criminal behaviour.

But the paper goes a step further. It asks whether Nigeria is preparing its young people for the economy that is coming—or merely educating them for the economy that is disappearing.

The security question behind the job question

Nigeria’s insecurity crisis has many causes. Poverty, weak institutions, political grievances, communal tensions, extremism and competition over resources all feature in the broader conversation.

The authors do not suggest that unemployment is the only cause of insecurity. Their proposition is that it is an important part of the problem—and therefore deserves to be treated as part of the solution.

The study points to the economic consequences of insecurity itself: businesses become disrupted, investment declines, unemployment rises and the country becomes less attractive to investors. In other words, insecurity can destroy jobs at the same time that unemployment may contribute to the conditions in which insecurity flourishes.

It becomes a vicious cycle.

No jobs can contribute to insecurity. Insecurity destroys economic activity. Reduced economic activity means fewer jobs. Fewer jobs deepen frustration and vulnerability.

Breaking that cycle requires more than responding to violence after it occurs. It requires addressing some of the economic conditions that leave young people vulnerable in the first place.

The young graduate paradox

Perhaps the most striking element of the study is that unemployment does not necessarily mean a lack of education.

Of the 60 people surveyed for the study, 80 per cent were between 18 and 28 years old. Seventy per cent had bachelor’s degrees, while others possessed HNDs, ND qualifications or secondary school certificates.

This presents a familiar Nigerian paradox: education does not automatically translate into employment.

A young person can spend four years—or more—in university, graduate with a certificate and still find that the economy has no place for the skills they have acquired.

The problem, therefore, may not simply be how many young Nigerians Nigeria educates. It may be what Nigeria educates them for.

That is where the researchers introduce the idea of technology forecasting.

Stop training for yesterday

Technology forecasting, as presented in the study, involves anticipating technological developments and the employment opportunities likely to emerge from them.

The logic is compelling. If policymakers can identify the industries, technologies and skills likely to drive tomorrow’s economy, training institutions can begin preparing young people for those opportunities today.

Rather than waiting for unemployment statistics to reveal that thousands of graduates have skills the economy does not need, government and educational institutions could attempt to anticipate labour-market demand and train accordingly.

The researchers therefore propose specialised institutions, academies and skills centres focused on future employment opportunities. They contrast this approach with the traditional four-year university model, arguing that shorter and more specialised training could prepare young people more directly for emerging employment opportunities.

This is not an argument against universities. It is an argument for greater diversity in the pathways from education to employment. Young Nigerians are asking for another route. 

The research provides an important signal from its respondents.

A remarkable 98.3 per cent of those surveyed indicated that they would be interested in specialised training for future employment opportunities identified through technology forecasting.

That finding deserves attention. It suggests that the problem may not be a lack of willingness among young people to acquire new skills. The problem may be whether the country can identify the right skills, provide credible training and connect that training to actual economic opportunities.

The appetite is there. The question is whether policy can catch up.

When unemployment becomes pressure

The study also provides a human dimension to the statistics.

A majority of respondents reported feeling discouraged by unemployment and experiencing pressure to make money.

That pressure matters.

A young person without income still has needs. Food must be bought. Transport must be paid for. Families may depend on them. Social expectations remain. In an environment where legitimate economic opportunities are scarce, the attraction of illicit alternatives can become stronger.

The researchers cite previous work suggesting that young people may become involved in violent or extremist organisations partly because such organisations can offer immediate economic benefits, whether through payment, looting or access to longer-term economic opportunities.

This is where the employment question becomes a security question. A job does more than provide a salary. It provides an alternative.

It gives a young person something to lose, something to build and, potentially, a legitimate stake in society.

From unemployment policy to security policy

If the argument is taken seriously, Nigeria’s approach to national security may need to become broader.

Security cannot be measured only by the number of troops deployed, arrests made or weapons recovered.

It should also be measured by the number of young people who can see a legitimate economic future for themselves.

This does not mean every unemployed person is a potential criminal. The research itself requires caution here. While its analysis of secondary data demonstrates a relationship between unemployment and crime/insecurity, the authors acknowledge that their primary Abuja survey did not effectively establish the same relationship.

That distinction is important.

The argument, therefore, should not be reduced to the simplistic claim that “unemployment causes crime.”

The more useful proposition is this: When large numbers of young people are excluded from meaningful economic participation, the country creates a vulnerability that security policy cannot afford to ignore.

What would a jobs-led security strategy look like?

For the researchers, the answer begins with anticipation.

Government could establish mechanisms for identifying emerging technologies, industries and occupations and then align training programmes with those opportunities.

Specialised training centres could be developed around identified future skills. Universities could work more closely with industry.

Technical and vocational education could be treated not as a second-class alternative to university education but as a central component of national economic planning.

And, critically, training should be connected to actual employment.

The study itself recommends further research into whether graduates of proposed specialised institutions actually secure employment—and how quickly they do so.

That recommendation points to an important principle:

The success of a skills programme should not be measured by how many certificates it produces, but by how many livelihoods it creates.

The security dividend of employment

The researchers see benefits extending beyond individual livelihoods. Their conclusion argues that reducing unemployment could contribute to reducing insecurity and, consequently, help address brain drain, improve productivity, reduce corruption, encourage foreign direct investment and support economic growth.

That is potentially the biggest argument for treating employment as a security intervention. A successful job-creation strategy could generate a double dividend.

First, it puts income in people’s hands.

Second, it strengthens the economic ecosystem that produces more opportunities.

Businesses require security to invest. Investors create businesses. Businesses create employment. Employment gives people purchasing power. Economic activity generates government revenue. Government revenue can support public services.

In this sense, security and employment are not separate policy silos. They are interconnected.

The question Nigeria must answer

The paper by Agbi-Etuk Aduratomi and Adeyemi O A was focused on North-Central Nigeria, with Abuja as its case study. Its sample was relatively small, and its authors themselves identify areas requiring further research.

But perhaps that is precisely why the research is useful. It does not present a final answer. It asks Nigeria to consider a different question. Instead of asking only: “How do we stop young people from joining criminal or violent groups?”,  perhaps policymakers should also ask: “What legitimate economic future are we offering them instead?”

Instead of asking only: “How many security personnel do we need?” Perhaps, the country should also ask: “How many productive young people can we bring into the economy?”

And instead of treating job creation as merely an economic-development objective, perhaps Nigeria should recognise employment as one of the instruments through which peace and stability can be built.

The country’s security strategy cannot be reduced to employment. But neither should its employment strategy be separated from security.

For a young Nigerian standing in a queue for a job, waiting for an opportunity that may never come, the distinction between economic insecurity and physical insecurity can become increasingly difficult to see.

Perhaps the first line of defence is not always a checkpoint. Sometimes, it may be a classroom. Sometimes, a skills centre. Sometimes, a startup. Sometimes, a factory. And sometimes, simply a job.