Regional Autonomy in Nigeria: Influence on Dynamics of Governance and National Integration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

 

I thank the authors for the interesting paper on the characteristics of centre-periphery relations in Nigeria and decentralisation processes.

From a methodological point of view, it would be important to attach the questionnaire used and explain how the responses were processed; for example, whether there was double processing (e.g. two researchers processed the responses, so as to discuss any doubts of allocation to the different categories of the interpretative model in Fugure 2). n addition, specific software (e.g. Nvivo) could have been used for better accuracy.

From a theoretical point of view, the main characteristics of federal systems could be better represented. For instance, it is not clear whether Nigeria's constitutional model is closer to the cooperative or competitive model (e.g. Canada vs. USA), or is a hybrid model (e.g. India), nor which model the respondents' answers tend towards. This would allow a better understanding of the type of vertical and horizontal subsidiarity that the interviewees and authors hypothesise is needed for the social and economic development of the country.

Furthermore, it would be possible to outline the current situation of local authorities in terms of resources (not only financial, but also resources concerning information on their territory, administrative capacities, organisational and technological capacities, etc.); and on this basis to discuss how decentralisation policy should be designed in order to be implemented effectively.

 

I suggest a few references:
Saxena R. (eds.), Varieties of Federal Governance: Major Contemporary Models, Delhi, Foundation, Cambridge University Press India, 2011.
Saxena R. (eds.) New Dimensions in Federal Discourse in India. Routledge, 2020.
Halberstam D. 2009. Federal Powers and the Principle of Subsidiarity (University of Michigan Law School).

Newmann, The Promise and Limits of Cooperative Federalism as a Constitutional Principle (
DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2563-8505.1329)

Bermann, G. A. (1994). Taking subsidiarity seriously: Federalism in the European

Community and the United States. Columbia Law Review, 94(2), 331–456.

Nico Steytler (ed). 2024. The Forum of Federations Handbook on Local Government in Federal Systems. Palgrave.  Ch. 13 Nigeria by Rotimi T. Suberu.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 279: The instead of He

Line 316: connect it with the next line or insert a colon (:)

English proofreading suggested

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. I agree with the comments. In response, we have attached the full questionnaire as an appendix file, detailed our response processing. Also, clarified the theoretical positioning of Nigeria’s federal system as a hybrid model, indicating how respondents’ views align with cooperative and competitive federalism (page 13). Additionally, we have provided a concise tabular overview of local authorities’ resource situations and discussed targeted policy recommendations to ensure effective decentralisation implementation (page 7) .

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-structured and empirically grounded, offering a valuable stakeholder-focused perspective on a critical issue in Nigerian federalism. However, it exhibits notable weaknesses in precision, methodological transparency, and evidentiary depth, which should be addressed to strengthen its scholarly rigor and impact.

1. The introduction situates the discussion of regional autonomy within Nigeria’s federal and multi-ethnic context, referencing historical calls for autonomy and relevant constitutional provisions. However, it lacks concrete historical illustrations—such as post-independence regional crises—that would effectively connect past events to contemporary challenges, thereby limiting contextual richness.
2. The problem statement is clearly presented, but its phrasing is verbose and occasionally repetitive. Furthermore, the articulation of the research gap is overly broad and lacks citation of specific prior studies, undermining its analytical sharpness and scholarly positioning.
3. The authors note that “in social research, two approaches are deemed suitable for data collection... quantitative or qualitative methods.” However, this overlooks the widely accepted mixed-methods approach, which could have enhanced the study's comprehensiveness and analytical balance.
4. The chosen qualitative methodology, which combines primary and secondary sources, is appropriate for investigating governance and integration dynamics. The use of thematic and content analysis aligns well with the study’s objectives. Nonetheless, the absence of explicit sampling criteria raises concerns about the representativeness and reliability of the findings.

Overall, the article engages with a pressing national issue, yet it requires greater precision in its problem formulation, more detailed methodological exposition, and clearer thematic differentiation. The heavy reliance on perception-based data, without complementary quantitative evidence, and the normative tone of the conclusion detract from the study’s analytical robustness.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your comments. In response, I highlighted historical illustrations—such as post-independence regional crises—that would effectively connect past events to contemporary challenges, thereby limiting contextual richness (page 3). I rephrased the problem statement and added citation of specific prior studies. I have also included the sampling criteria for representativeness and reliability of the findings

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article aims to analyze article analyzes the regional autonomy in Nigeria and its impact on both 4 national integration processes and governance issues

The content analysis reveals unclear use of some terms: autonomy, decentralization.

The use of the interview as a research method in this case is not likely to provide sufficient information to provide a relevant, representative model and conclusions.

The conclusions formulated are not supported and do not emerge from the analysis performed, so they appear to be opinions of the authors.

Author Response

Thanks for your review. I agree with your comments. In the conclusion section of this paper, I have formulated the conclusion based on the analysis of interview data and thematic content. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses an important and timely topic concerning the impact of regional autonomy on governance processes and national integration in Nigeria. The authors rightly point out that in the context of a multi-ethnic and federal state such as Nigeria, centre-region relations and autonomy mechanisms are crucial for state stability and the quality of governance. This topic is of great practical and scientific importance, especially in light of the challenges facing contemporary states that are administratively and culturally complex.

Unfortunately, despite the importance of the issue, the paper does not fully meet the standards of a reliable scientific publication. The main weakness of the article stems from its superficial theoretical approach and insufficiently transparent methodology. The authors declare a qualitative approach based on literature analysis and in-depth interviews, but the method of selecting respondents remains unclear. It is not known which regions the interviewees came from, what the criteria for their selection were, or what social role they played. There is no description of the sample, which raises legitimate doubts about the representativeness of the collected material. Moreover, the number of interviews conducted – given such a complex and diverse topic – seems far from sufficient to be able to formulate generalised conclusions about the impact of autonomy on national integration in a country with over 200 million inhabitants and over 30 subnational units.

The theoretical part of the article is based on basic definitions of autonomy, federalism and integration, but it does not introduce a new conceptual approach or refer to more advanced research models. The article lacks an in-depth analysis of political discourse, interethnic relations, or specific institutional mechanisms that support or hinder national integration. The analysis is rather general and resembles a political essay rather than an in-depth scientific study.

The conclusions, although consistent with the general thesis of the article, are largely obvious and predictable – they repeat approaches known from the literature on the role of autonomy in multicultural federal states. They lack an innovative perspective, interregional comparisons or an indication of the factors that differentiate the impact of autonomy on governance in different parts of the country.

In summary, the article addresses an important topic, but in its current form it does not meet the requirements of an international scientific publication. It requires serious refinement, primarily in terms of methodology (transparency of the sample, number of respondents, method of data analysis) and theory (deepening of the analytical framework and references to current international literature).

Author Response

Thanks for pointing it out. I agree with the comments. I have describes the sample,  the number of interviews in line with their geopolitical zone they represent to capture to the full spectrum of the country (page 4). I  added an innovative perspective, interregional comparisons or an indication of the factors that differentiate the impact of autonomy on governance in different parts of the country (page 16).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have only remedied part of the previously formulated observations.

Author Response

Thanks for your review, I have made additional adjustments to all suggestion presented, highlighted in blue colour. contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research have been improved in my previous submission. I have clearly presented the article aims highlighting the research questions the study intend to answer (check introduction). The comment on content analysis reveals unclear use of some terms: autonomy, decentralization and other terms have been clearly defined in the introduction (page 1). I also presented justification on the study’s qualitative scope which provide a sufficiently robust empirical basis for generating relevant, representative models of the governance-autonomy nexus in Nigeria (page 5). This finding also presented clearly separates themes, which (check table  2) summaries this themes and findings (page 6). Also, the supports/claims with quotations, reveals divergent views, and explicitly connects findings to research aims – improving coherence, transparency, and persuasiveness in empirical result reporting.  The discussion has been adjustment to clearly separate empirical findings from interpretative analyses and recommendations (page 15). The conclusion have been adjusted in the previous review to fit in the analysis performed and not the opinions of the authors.

 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-