IMPACT OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ON THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF NIGERIA ( 1986-2010)
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
IMPACT OF
FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ON THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF NIGERIA ( 1986-2010)
ABSTRACT
An agreed
framework definition of foreign direct investment (FDI) exists in
theliterature. That is, FDI is an investment made to acquire a lasting
managementinterest (normally 10% of voting stock) in a business enterprise
operating in acountry other than that of the investor defined according to
residency (World Bank, 1996). Such investments may take the form of either
“greenfield†investment (also called “mortar and brick†investment) or
merger and acquisition (M&A), which entails the acquisition of existing
interest rather than new investment.
In corporate
governance, ownership of at least 10% of the ordinary shares or voting stock is
the criterion for the existence of a direct investment relationship. Ownership
of
less than
10% is recorded as portfolio investment. FDI comprises not only merger and
acquisition
and new investment, but also reinvested earnings and loans and similar capital
transfer between parent companies and their affiliates. Countries could be both
host to FDI projects in their own country and a participant in investment
projects in other counties. A country’s inward FDI position is made up of the
hosted FDI projects, while outward FDI comprises those investment projects
owned abroad.
One of the
most salient features of today’s globalization drive is conscious encouragement of cross-border investments,
especially by transnational corporations and firms (TNCs). Many countries and
continents (especially developing) now see attracting FDI as an important
element in their strategy for economic development. This is most probably
because FDI is seen as an amalgamation of capital, technology, marketing and
management.
Sub-Saharan
Africa as a region now has to depend very much on FDI for so many reasons, some
of which are amplified by Asiedu (2001). The preference for FDI stems from its
acknowledged advantages (Sjoholm, 1999; Obwona, 2001, 2004). The effort by
several African countries to improve their business climate stems from the
desire to attract FDI. In fact, one of the pillars on which the New Partnership
for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) was launched was to increase available
capital to US$64 billion through a combination of reforms, resource
mobilization and a conducive environment for FDI (Funke and Nsouli, 2003).
Unfortunately,
the efforts of most countries in Africa to attract FDI have been futile. This
is in spite of the perceived and obvious need for FDI in the continent.
The development is disturbing, sending
very little hope of economic development andÂ
growth for these countries. Further, the pattern of the FDI that does
exist is often skewed towards extractive industries, meaning that the
differential rate of FDI inflow into sub-Saharan African countries has been
adduced to be due to natural resources, although the size of the local market
may also be a consideration (Morriset 2000; Asiedu, 2001).
Nigeria as a
country, given her natural resource base and large market size, qualifies to be
a major recipient of FDI in Africa and indeed is one of the top three leading
African countries that consistently received FDI in the past decade. However,
the level of FDI attracted by Nigeria is mediocre (Asiedu, 2003) compared with
the resource base and potential need. Further, the empirical linkage between
FDI and economic growth in Nigeria is
yet unclear, despite numerous studies that have examined the influence of FDI on Nigeria’s economic growth with
varying outcomes (Oseghale and Amonkhienan, 1987; Odozi, 1995; Oyinlola, 1995;
Adelegan, 2000; Akinlo, 2004).
Most of the
previous influential studies on FDI and growth in sub-Saharan Africa are multi
country studies. However, recent evidence affirms that the relationship between
FDI and growth may be country and period specific. Asiedu (2001) submits that
the determinants of FDI in one region may not be the same for other regions. In
the same vein, the determinants of FDI in countries within a region may be
different from one another, and from one period to another.
Foreign
direct investment (FDI) is an investment made to acquire a lasting management
interest (normally 10% of voting stock) in a business enterprise operating in a
country other than that of the investor defined according to residency (World
Bank, 1996). Such investments may take the form of either “greenfieldâ€
investment (also called “mortar and brick†investment) or merger and
acquisition (M&A), which entails the acquisition of existing interest
rather than new investment.
One of the
most noticeable features of today’s globalization drive is conscious
encouragement of cross-border investments, especially by transnational
corporations and firms (TNCs). Many countries (especially developing) now see
attracting FDI as an important element in their strategy for economic
development. This is most probably because FDI is seen as an amalgamation of
capital, technology, marketing and management. Africa as a region now has to
depend very much on FDI for so many reasons, some of which are amplified by Asiedu
(2001). The preference for FDI stems from its acknowledged advantages (Sjoholm,
1999; Obwona, 2001, 2004). The effort by several African countries to improve
their business climate stems from the desire to attract FDI. In fact, one of
the pillars on numerous studies that have examined the influence of FDI on Nigeria’s economic growth with
varying outcomes (Oseghale and Amonkhienan, 1987; Odozi, 1995; Oyinlola, 1995;
Adelegan, 2000; Akinlo, 2004). Most of the previous influential studies on FDI
and growth in sub-Saharan Africa are multi country studies. However, recent
evidence affirms that the relationship between FDI and growth may be country
and period specific. Asiedu (2001) submits that the determinants of FDI in one
region may not be the same for other regions. In the same vein, the
determinants of FDI in countries within a region may be different from one
another and from one period to another (Kolawole and Henry, 2009).
Studies on
FDI and economic growth in Nigeria are not complete in agreement in their
submissions. A closer examination of these previous studies reveals that
conscious effort was not made to take care of the fact that more than 60% of
the FDI inflows into Nigeria is made into the extractive (oil) industry.
Nigeria is a
country endowed with arable land and abundant natural resources. Government
policies have been directed towards ensuring that what nature has provided is
harnessed and utilized to the fullest for the benefit of the citizenry. Thus,
Government policies and strategies towards foreign investments in Nigeria are
usually shaped by two principal objectives: the desire for economic
independence and the demand for economic development (Garba, 1998).
Todaro
(1994) notes that the primary factors which stimulate economic growth are
investments that improve the quality of existing physical and human resources,
that increase the quantity of these same productive resources and that raise
the productivity of all or specific resources through invention, innovation and
technological progress. FDI contributes to GDP growth rates and is seen as a
vital tool for economic progress.
Osaghale and
Amenkhieman (1987) conducted an investigation to determine whether foreign
capital inflows, oil revenues and foreign borrowing had any positive impact on
the economic growth of Nigeria. They found that Nigeria’s revenue from oil
export increased between 1970 and 1982 and that there was a substantial growth
in her total foreign debts and FDI. The study also showed that there was a
positive relationship between FDI and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The study
concluded that the economy would perform better with greater inflow of FDI; and
recommended that less developed countries (LDCs) should create more conducive
environments for FDI.
Edozien
(1968) stresses the linkages generated by foreign investment and its impact on
the economic growth of Nigeria. He contends that FDI induces the inflow of
capital, technical know-how and managerial capacity which accelerate the pace
of economic growth. He also observed the pains and uncertainties that come with
FDI. Specifically, he noted that foreign investment could be counter
productive
if the linkages it spurs are neither needed nor affordable by the host country;
and concluded that a good test of the impact of FDI on Nigeria’s economic
growth is how rapidly and effectively it fosters, innovates or modernizes local
enterprises.
Aremu (2003)
observes that foreign firms can raise the level of capital formation, promote
exports and generate foreign exchange. Indeed, the role of FDI in capital
formation in Nigeria has been increasing over the years. FDI/GCF (Gross Capital
Formation) rose from 7.3% in 1974 to about 17% in 1985, although it was
generally low in the late 1970s and early 1980s. For example, FDI only
contributed 1.5% to GDP growth in 1976 and 0.5% in 1982. The relatively low
level of FDI in total capital formation in these periods was similar to that of
Korea and Taiwan, which had emphasized minimal levels of reliance on foreign
investment. In contrast to this, were some South East Asian countries which had
the policy of attracting FDI, for example, Indonesia. Nigeria retarded the
contribution of FDI to gross capital formation during this period using infant
industry protection, local content rules, FDI restrictions and other
restrictive policies. The relative rise in the share of FDI in capital
formation since 1993 has been due to rapid loosening of controls and
regulations on the activities of multinational corporations in Nigeria. As a
result, FDI/GCF ratio rose from 6.4% in 1986 to 32% in 1993 and 49% in 1998
(Fabayo, 2003).
The linkage
between investment and growth does not mean that capital accumulation is the
sole determination of economic growth in Nigeria. FDI may also influence
investment by domestic firms and by other foreign affiliates. An IMF study
based on 69 countries over the period 1970–1989 found that FDI from developed
countries stimulated domestic investment (Borensztein et al, 1998).
Thus, Odozi
(1995) posits that FDI appears to be the most crucial component of capital
inflow Nigeria should seek to attract in the light of her current economic
circumstances. Many studies, however, indicate that the impact of FDI is
limited or even negative sometimes.
In a study
of Nigeria, Onimode et al (1983) found that where FDI was directed at import
substituting firms, the value of imports was observed to be greater than the
value added produced. This type of FDI would give rise to outflows of
investment income and high cost of imported inputs which adversely affect
growth. Ohiorheman (1993) asserts that with the research and development
(R&D) concentrated in the head offices of multinational corporations
(MNCs), technology transfer was limited. He added that even though the MNCs
provided local training programs, Nigerians were intricacies of machinery
construction or installation. Consequently, their innovative ability was not
enhanced. He concluded that, to the extent the MNCs dominated the manufacturing
sector, their activities generated little multiplier effects and the linkage
effects were generally low in the (manufacturing) sector.
Using
indices of dependence and development as a mirror of Nigeria’s economic
performance, Oyaide (1977) concluded that FDI engineer both economic dependence
and growth. In his opinion, FDI causes and catalyzes a level of growth that
would have been impossible without such investment. This is, however, at the
cost of economic dependence.
Although a
lot of studies indicate that there exists a positive relationship between FDI
and economic growth in Nigeria, there is a consensus among economists that the
country’s growth rate would have a positive impact on FDI. The prospect that
FDI will be profitable is brighter if the nation’s economic health is better
and the growth rate of GDP is higher.
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