An Evaluation Of The Impact Of Napep On Entrepreneurship Development In Nigeria (a Case Study Of Imo State)
ATTENTION:
BEFORE YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE
PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE
TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO
PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN
CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
An Evaluation Of The Impact Of Napep On
Entrepreneurship Development In Nigeria (a Case Study Of Imo State)
ABSTRACT
The study
examines the private sector as the engine of economic growth and development in
Nigeria. A model was specified and data were collected from the period of
1980-2010. The method used in this research work is the ordinary least square
(OLS) regression model and variables which are: gross domestic product (GDP) as
the dependent variable while foreign private investment (FPI), domestic private
investment (DPI), total private savings (TPS), and total bank loans (TBL) are
the independent variables and are all significant except total private savings
that is insignificant. From the regression result, the following findings were
made The estimate coefficients which are 0.8999687 {FPI} shows that a 1 percent
increase in foreign private investment will cause 89.9 per cent increase in
GDP, 0.0851059 {DPI} shows that a 1 percent increase in domestic private
investment will cause an 8.5 per cent increase in GDP, 0.2444129 {TBL} shows
that a 1 percent increase in total bank loans will cause 24 per cent increase
in GDP. -0.0268498 {TPS} shows that a 1 percent increase in total private
savings will cause 2.6 per cent decrease in GDP.. I recommend that there should
be policies that will attract foreign investors; such policies could be the
reduction of corporate tax rate. Incentives should be given to local investors
to enable them compete with foreign investors world-wide. Policies also should
be made against the transfer of capital and profit from Nigeria to foreign
countries as it drains the income meant for national development. The
government should also maintain political stability in the economy because unstable
environment discourages investors.
7
TABLE OF
CONTENT
Title
page………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Approval
page…………………………………………………………………………………………………2
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………………………..4
TABLE OF
CONTENT……………………………………………………………………………………..4
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................8
1.1 Background
of the study ………………………………………………………………………..8
1.2
Statement of the problem…………………………………………………………………….13
1.3 Research
question………………………………………………………………………………….14
1.4
Objective of the study……………………………………………………………………………..14
1.5 Research
hypothesis……………………………………………………………………………….14
1.6 Scope of
the Study………………………………………………………….15
1.7
Significance of the study……………………………………………………….15
1.8
Definition of basic concept……………………………………………………16
8
CHAPTER
TWO…………………………………………………………………………..17
2.0
Literature Review…………………………………………………………..17
2.1
Theoretical Literature……………………………………………………..17
2.1.1
Definition of private sector privatization…………………………………17
2.1.2 Phase
of privatization……………………………………………………………19
2.1.3
Private sector in Nigeria…………………………………………………….20
2.1.4 Objective
of the Nigerian privatization programme……………21
2.1.5
Macroeconomic comparism………………………………………………..22
2.1.6
Privatization and economic growth in Nigeria…………………………..23
2.1.7
Privatization and implementation problems…………………………………….29
2.2
empirical literatures………………………………………………………………………..32
CHAPTER
THREE…………………………………………………………………………………………42
3.0
methodology……………………………………………………………………………………..42
9
3.1 model
specification………………………………………………………………………………….42
3.2 method
of evaluation……………………………………………………………………………………43
3.3 Decision
rule for Durbin-watson…………………………………………………45
3.4 The
f-Test………………………………………………………………………………..46
3.5 Data
Required and Sources……………………………………………………….46
CHAPTER
FOUR…………………………………………………………………………………..47
4.1
Presentation and Interpretation of Result…………………………………………47
4.2 Economic
Apriori Ceterion…………………………………………………………………….49
4.3
Statistical Criteria (First order test) …………………………………………………50
4.3.1
Coefficient of Multiple Determination (R2)………………………………………………50
4.3.2 The
Student t-Test………………………………………………………………………………..52
4.4
Econometric Criteria…………………………………………………………………55
4.4.1 Test
for Autocorrelation…………………………………………………………….55
4.4.2
Normality Test for Residual………………………………………………………..56
10
4.4.3 Test
for Hetroscedasticity…………………………………………………………….57
4.4.4 Test
for Multicollinearity………………………………………………………………..59
4.5
Hypothesis Test……………………………………………………………………………60
CHAPTER
FIVE………………………………………………………………………………….62
5.1
Summary……………………………………………………………………………62
5.2 Policy
Recommendations…………………………………………………………65
5.3
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………….66
Bibliograpy…………………………………………………………………………………………….67
11
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of The Study
Privatization
has become a major strategy adopted world over to improve the performance of
public enterprises. It is a known fact that one feature of public enterprises
all over the world but more importantly in developing countries of Africa
especially Nigeria is inefficiency, bureaucracy of public enterprises and
uncared attitude of most public servants or most people to public work and
property. This leads to waste, slow growth and inordinate dependence on
government support (in the form of annual subventions) even when the activity
is apparently a profitable line.
As a way of
improving the fortunes and performance of these enterprises through which
profit orientation will be the motive of the enterprises, privatization is
being canvassed such that government will divest itself of all its ownership
interest and allow
12
private
sector to buy over these companies. In Nigeria today, the private sector is
increasingly being recognized as the motivating force that fosters economic
progress.
In Nigeria,
the oil boom of the1970s among other factors gave impetus to a public
sector-led government strategy. Public sector dominance was also prevalent in
order to give government an increasing measure of control over its own
resources (obadan 2000), the dwindling revenue of government as a result of the
economic crisis of the 1980s coupled with the dissatisfaction with the
performance of the public compelled Nigeria to adopt the privatization and
commercialization in 1988.
Today, in
Nigeria, privatization of key government business is no longer a household talk
but it has become a major issue in the mind of every meaningful Nigerian.
The
participation of the State in enterprises in Nigeria dates back to the colonial
era. The task of providing basic infrastructure such as railway, road, bridges,
water, electricity and port facilities fell on the colonial government due to
the absences of indigenous
13
companies
with the required capital as well as the inability or unwillingness of foreign
trading companies to embark on capital intensive project (Iheme, 1997). The
involvement was expended and consolidated by the colonial welfare development
plan (1946-1956) that was formulated when labor party came to power in the
United Kingdom. This trend continued after independence such that by 1999, it
was estimated that successive Nigerian government had invested up to N800
billion in public owned enterprises (Igbuzor, 2003 as citing Obasanjo, 1999).
Throughout much of the twentieth century, there were three dominant strategies
for infrastructure investment. In some countries, most notably those in the
Eastern Bloc, State ownership of the means of production was promoted, while
others (Western Bloc) promoted private ownership of production. A large number
of countries also predicted what was termed a mixed economy, a combination of
public and private ownership of the means of production. However, by the end of
the twentieth century with the end of cold war between the eastern and western
bloc, private ownership of the means of production gained ascendancy. Today,
what is applicable is that the State should
14
recede from
this role, and that private ownership of the means of production is the only
viable approach to the efficient production of goods and services, as well as
economic growth and development. Consequently, there is a strong move all over
the world to privatize erstwhile public enterprises (Igbuzor, 2003). Thus,
privatization could be looked upon as the reduction of public sector
intervention in economic activity. It involves the divesture of government
economic activities (Anyanwu, 1993). It occupies a unique position in a global
economic liberation and provides an avenue for raising productivity, thus,
enhancing overall economic growth and development (Salako, 1999). This is however,
achieved through increased involvement of the private sector in productive
economic activities through the sale of public enterprises to the private
sector with the ultimate aim of infusing improved economic efficiency in the
businesses. With privatization, the role of government in direct productive
activities diminishes as the private sector takes over such responsibilities
with profit motive as its major objective. In such a situation, the government
is only expected to provide essential infrastructure and an enabling
environment through
15
which
private enterprises could flourish. Privatization is predicated on the
assumptions of State inefficiency and absolute efficiency of the market
(Salako, 1999). It would be recalled that several Nigerian public enterprises
have on several occasions been under severe criticism by international media
agents for their operational and pricing inefficiencies. Nigeria like many
other developing economies witnessed increasing cost and poor performance of
State-owned enterprises (SOEs), resulting in heavy financial losses. In it,
there has been proliferation of SOEs in all facets of economic endeavours, as a
means of fostering rapid economic growth and development (Eke, 2000).
Unfortunately,
most of them were structurally ill-conceived, economically inefficient with
accumulated huge financial losses and thus absorbing disproportionate share of
domestic credit. They were also sustained through heavy budgetary allocations
of the country (Jerome, 1996, as cited in Eke, 2000). For instance, the
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are adjudged to have contributed substantially
to public sector deficit and have financed less than one fifth of their
investments through Internally Generated
16
Resources
(IGR) (Nair and Filippides, 1988). As some governments ran into severe fiscal
problems such that loans became increasingly difficult to rise at home and
abroad, they were forced to consider some radical methods of reviving the SOEs.
Such reforms embarked upon by developing countries included privatization.
Kikeri (1994) has noted that the high costs and poor performance of SOEs and
the modest and fleeting results of reform efforts have turned many governments
towards privatization.
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following instructions and information if you
will like to order/buy our complete written material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank
Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project topics
(2) Email Address
(3) Payment Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE LINKS:
myeasyproject.com.ng
easyprojectmaterials.com
easyprojectmaterials.net.ng
easyprojectsmaterials.net.ng
easyprojectsmaterial.net.ng
easyprojectmaterial.net.ng
projectmaterials.com.ng
googleprojectsng.blogspot.com
myprojectsng.blogspot.com.ng
https://projectmaterialsng.blogspot.com.ng/
Comments
Post a Comment