Effect of Foreign Direct Investment on Nigeria's Economic Development

Chapter One

1.1 Introduction

The drying up in the early 1980’s of commercial bank lending to developing economies made most countries eased restriction on foreign direct investment (FDI) and many aggressively offered tax incentives and subsidies to attract foreign capital (Aitken and Harrison, 1999). Private capital flow to emerging market economies reached almost $200 billion in 2000. This is almost four times larger than the peak commercial bank lending years of the 1970’s and early 80’s. FDI now accounts for over sixty percent of private capital flow (Levine and Carkovic, 2002). However, while the explosion of FDI flow remains unmistakable, the growth effect remains unclear.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been a topic high on the policy agenda in emerging markets. This is due to the contributions FDI make to a country’s external financing and economic growth. The extent of regulation of FDI and other form of capital flow are also issues policymakers take a stand on and economic research has devoted a large effort to these issues. The experience of small number of fast-growing East Asian newly industrialized economies (NIEs), and recently china, has strengthened the belief that attracting FDI is needed to bridging the resource gap of low-income countries and avoiding further build-up of debt while directly tackling the cause of poverty (UNCTAD, 2005).

Even though the Asian crisis sounded a cautionary note to premature financial liberalization the call for more accelerated pace of opening up FDI have intensified on the assumption that this will bring not only more stable capital inflow but also greater technological know-how, higher paying jobs, entrepreneurial and workplace skills and new export opportunities (Prasad et al., 2003).

The increased importance of FDI has brought about international relationships, trade and policies materializing into export and imports between nations. This in turn results financial rewards to host countries. Policy makers across the region of Africa have hoped that attracting FDI with the bait of high tariff protection and generous incentives packages would provide the catalyst for a “late industrialization” drive (Thandika, 2001).

The debt crises in the early 80’s and policies introduced by several countries in Africa also witnessed increased FDI as necessary for economic development. The pursuit of responsible macroeconomic policies combined with an accelerating pace of liberalization, deregulation and above all privatization were expected to attract FDI to Africa (WorldBank, 1997). However, the record of the past two decades with respect to reducing poverty and attracting FDI as a result of policy changes has been disappointing at best (Ayanwale, 2007).

The importance of FDI varies across different sector in the recipient countries. However, in all major country groups, the extractive sector accounts for a significant share of inflow of FDI: for example, Australia, Canada and Norway among developed countries; Botswana, Nigeria and South Africa in Africa; Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador and Venezuela in Latin America and the Caribbean; and Kazakhstan in South-East Europe and the CIS (UNCTAD, 2006a).

The important of this sector is due to the fact that oil and gas are crucial to the contemporary global economy and their prices are key components of economic forecasts and performance. Crude oil and refined petroleum products constitute the largest single item in international trade, whether measured by volume or value (Steven, 2005). Thus, oil and gas are strategic resources in national, regional and global economies.

Despite this significant and strategic influence, empirical evidence suggests that oil and gas abundant economies are among the least growing economies (Sachs and Warner, 1997, Gelb, 1988, Stevens, 1991, Steven, 2005). This phenomenon is often conceived within the prisms of the “resource curse” and “Dutch disease”. Both of which are manifestations of inefficient utilization of resources rather than the inevitable outcome of the availability of oil and gas resources. The impact of FDI on economic growth of recipient country has been one of varying opinions among authors.

A huge literature exists concerning different effects of foreign investment on economic development in a recipient economy. Currently FDI sustains the most dynamic development in the world economy in comparison with other forms of foreign financing (De Gregorio, 1992). Most theoretical and empirical findings (see chapter 3) imply that FDI has a strong positive growth impact on the recipient economy.

Within the African context, the Nigerian economy is a unique case, not because it is a developing economy and is quite large, but because during last 15 years the country has not managed to attract significant amounts of FDI (Asiedu, 2002). Typically investment risks are so high in Nigeria that only high profits in export oriented extractive industries (e.g. fuel industry) have attracted much foreign direct investment. This sector exerts a prominent influence on the economy as a key revenue earner. While oil and gas resources have very high revenue yields due to increasing international demand the question of aggregate FDI impact on economic growth remains an open question. This paper attempts to find some answers. 

Over the last decade, the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Western and Southern Africa has become one of the most promising oil exploration areas in the world with a convergence of interest between African governments, multinational oil companies, international Financial Institutions (Jerome et al., 2007). Nigeria falls among the six countries which have become key players in the world of energy stake. However, the economic record and lived experience of mineral-exporting countries has generally been disappointing.

The World Bank classification of Highly Indebted Poor Countries include: twelve of the world 25 most mineral dependent states and six most oil dependent. When taken as a group, all “petroleum rich” less developed countries has witnessed erosion in their living standards and many rank bottom one-third of United Nations Human Development Index. In addition to poor growth records and entrenched poverty, they are also characterized by high level of corruption and a low prevalence of democratization (Jerome et al., 2007).”

1.2 FDI Defined

Various classifications have been made of foreign direct investment. For instance, FDI has been described by the Balance of Payment Manual 5th edition (BPM5) as a category of international investment that reflects the objective of a resident in one economy (the direct Investor) obtaining a lasting interest of a resident in another economy (the direct investment enterprise). The lasting interest implies the existence of a long-term relationship between the direct investor and the direct investment enterprise and a significant degree of influence by the investor on the management of the enterprise.

A direct investment relationship is established when the direct investor has acquired 10 percent or more of the ordinary shares or voting power of an enterprise abroad (IMF, 1993). This comprises not only the initial transaction establishing the FDI relationship between the direct investor and the direct investment enterprise but all subsequent capital transactions between them and among affiliated enterprises resident in different economies (Patterson et al., 2004). Once a firm undertakes FDI, it becomes a multinational enterprise (MNEs).

Policymakers believe that foreign direct investment produces positive effects on host economies. Some of these benefits are in the form of externalities and the adoption of foreign technology which could be in the form of licensing, agreements, imitation, employee training and the introduction of new processes by the foreign firms (Alfaro et al., 2004). Multinational enterprises are said to diffuse technology and management know-how to domestic firms (Tang et al., 2008).

FDI is conventionally used as a proxy to measure the extent and direction of MNE activities (Jones, 1996). Like any other business, MNEs have a major objective of maximizing profit and reducing costs. Hence, MNEs consider regions with higher returns on investment and enabling environment for business success. This is one of the reasons for more FDI in some places than others. Accordingly MNE will invest higher in regions that provide the best mix of the traditional FDI determinants (Berg, 2003). The motivation for investment by multinationals in certain countries much more than others is discussed elaborately in chapter three

1.3. Background

The involvement of MNEs (through FDI) in extractive industries has had a chequered history. In the early twentieth century, these industries accounted for the largest share of FDI, reflecting the international expansion of firms from the colonial powers. With a growing number of former colonies gaining independence after the Second World War, and the creation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960, the dominance of these MNEs s declined, as did the share of extractive industries in global FDI.

From the mid-1970s, in particular, the share of oil, gas and metal mining in world FDI fell steadily as other sectors grew much faster. However, as a result of rising mineral prices, the share of extractive industries in global FDI has recently increased, although it is still much lower than those of services and manufacturing. It is therefore an opportune timeto revisit the impact of FDI into theextractive industries has on economic development.

Measuring the effect of FDI on economic growth occupies a substantial body of economic literature. Many theoretical and empirical studies have identified several channels through which FDI may positively or negatively affect economic growth (Akinlo, 2003, Mello, 1997). Not many studies have reported on the effects of FDI in Africa and most existing studies have concentrated on economies with high FDI in the manufacturing industries unlike economies with high FDI inflow in the extractive sector (as the case of Nigeria).

Several factors suggest that the indirect benefits of FDI maybe less in extractive sector especially oil industries. Reasons given for this are that: firstly, the extractive sector (such as oil sub-sector) is often an enclave sector with little linkages with the other sectors. Secondly, the knowledge and technology embedded in the sector is extremely capital intensive and so transfer of knowledge and technology maybe less. Also, the capital requirement and large economies of scale may not attract new entrants into the sector as in the manufacturing sector. Furthermore, not all sector of the economy have the same potential to absorb foreign technology or create linkages with the rest of the economy (Hirschman, 1958). Finally, sales in this sector are foreign market oriented and require fewer input of materials and intermediate goods from local suppliers. Hence will have less forward and backward linkages (Akinlo, 2004). The sensitivity of project to world commodity price also make it been view as a volatie sector (WorldBank, 2005)

Given the pattern of foreign direct investment flow to Nigeria (mostly in oil and gas sector) and the angst-ridden as regards the benefits from the extractive FDI, it is apposite to examine empirically the situation in Nigeria. This constitutes the objective of this research. An analysis of this will be done for the period between 1980 and 2006

1.4 Overview of Foreign Direct Investment

1.5 Natural Resources and Economic Development

Since the 1950’s, economists have been concerned that economies dominated by natural resources would somehow be disadvantaged in the drive for economic progress. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, this concern was based upon deteriorating terms of trade between the “centre” and “periphery” (Prebisch, 1964) coupled with concern over the limited economic linkages from primary product exports to the rest of the economy (Hirschman, 1958). In the 1970’s, it was driven by the impact of the oil shocks on the oil exporting countries (Wijnbergen and Van, 1986, Mabro and Monroe, 1974).

In the 1980’s, the phenomenon of “Dutch Disease” (the impact of an overvalued exchange rate on the non-resource traded sector) attracted attention (Corden, 1984). Finally in the 1990’s, it was the impact of revenues from oil, gas and mineral projects on government behaviour that dominated the discussion (Stevens, 1991, Gelb, 1988).

The common thread running through these concerns is that the development of natural resources should generate revenues to translate into economic growth and development. Thus the revenues accruing to the economies should provide capital in the form of foreign exchange overcoming what was seen as a key barrier to economic progress. This could be explained both in terms of common sense (more money means a better standard of life) and development theories – the requirement for a “big-push” (Murphy et al., 1989), capital constraints (Lewis, 1955, Rostow, 1960) and dual-gap analysis (Shibley and thirlwall, 1981).

However, the reality appeared to be the reverse. Countries with abundant natural resources appeared to perform less well than their more poorly endowed neighbors. Thus the term “resource curse” began to enter the literature (Vanderlinde, 1994). More recently there has been a revival of interest in the phenomenon of “resource curse”. Furthermore, this has drawn the attention of a much wider audience than previously.

Growing concern among a number of non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) regarding the negative effects of oil, gas and mineral projects on developing countries has had several effects. It has forced the World Bank group to consider their role in such projects. This has culminated in the creation of “the Extractive Industry Review” based in Jakarta to consider whether the World Bank Group should, as a matter of principle, have any involvement with such projects. Disagreement within and between the World Bank and the IMF have further fuelled the debate over how such revenues should be managed. 

NGO concern has also encouraged the more responsible petroleum and mineral corporations to consider the impact of their investment in such projects on the countries concerned. However, in the literature that has focused on “resource curse”, there are references to countries that allegedly managed to avoid a “curse” and instead received a “blessing”. For example, even the report produced by Oxfam America (Ross, 2001) which is strongly negative towards such projects, states … “There are exceptions: some states with large extractive industries – like Botswana, Chile and Malaysia – have overcome many of the obstacles … and implemented sound pro-poor strategies”. There are similar references elsewhere to “success” stories – Botswana (Hope, 1998, Love, 1994), Chile (Schurman, 1996), Indonesia (Usui, 1996), Malaysia (Rasiah and Shari, 2001), and Norway (Wright and Czelutsa, 2002).

Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country with close to 132 million inhabitants. However, approximately 55% of the population lives on less than the value of one US dollar per day. The Nigerian economy depends heavily on the oil sector, which contributes 95% of export revenues, 76% of government revenues and about a third of gross domestic product. Before the establishment of democracy in 1999, the country was governed by military generals, under whose rule Nigeria’s economic performance had taken a beating for 15 consecutive years (Datamonitor, 2007).

Nigeria has a dual economy with a modern segment dependent on oil earnings, overlaid by a traditional agricultural and trading economy. At independence in 1960 agriculture accounted for well over half of GDP, and was the main source of export earnings and public revenue. The oil sector, which emerged in the 1960’s and was firmly established during the 1970’s, is now of overwhelming importance to the point of over-dependence.

Undoubtedly, Africa and indeed Nigeria is facing an economic crises situation featured by inadequate resources for long-term development, high poverty level, low capacity utilization, high level of unemployment and other Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) increasingly becoming difficult to achieve by 2020. Foreign direct investment has assumed prominent place in her strategy as a way of boosting economic rival and growth. It is also seen by policy makers at all levels as a way of bridging the resource gap of the country and avoiding further debt build-up (UNCTAD, 2005).

This has brought about several changes in policy and regulations in order to encourage foreign investor to invest in the country. Other measures include – the liberalization of the foreign investment regime to allow major foreign ownership, lifting foreign exchange controls and the privatization of Nigeria’s public enterprises. This research is aimed to take an in-depth analysis of the major private capital flow – foreign direct investment to a growing economy; Nigeria. This investment trend will be narrowed down to the extractive sector and in particular the oil and gas sector with the aim of investigating how investment in this sector translate to economic growth.

1.6 Research Gap

During the last decade, a number of interesting studies in the role of foreign direct investment in stimulating economic growth has appeared. Several authors have observed that the major reason for increased effort in attracting more FDI has been stemmed from the belief that FDI has several positive effects (Levine and Carkovic, 2002, Caves, 1996).

In contributing to the importance of FDI, it has also been shown that FDI is three times more efficient than domestic investment (De-Gregorio, 2003). Available evidence for developed countries seems to support the idea that productivity of domestic firms is positively related to the presence of foreign firms (Globerman, 1979). The result for developing countries are not clear, with some finding positive spillover (Blomstrom, 1986, Kokko, 1994), and others reporting limited evidence (Aitken et al., 1997).

Earlier studies on FDI showed that target countries receive very few benefits and in most cases negative effect on economic growth (Singer, 1950; Prebisch, 1968; Saltz, 1992; Bos et al., 1974 cited in (Katerina et al., 2004). A positive effect is only contingent on the ‘absorptive capacity’ of the host country (Durham, 2004). Many research have shown that FDI stimulates economic growth (Borensztein et al., 1998, Amy Jocelyn and Kamal, 1999) as seen in china’s economic growth (Dees, 1998 cited in (Ayanwale, 2007) and Latin American countries (Mello, 1997) showing that inflow of capital brings about increase in investment level.

FDI has also been shown to have both a positive and negative effect on economic development depending on the variables[1] that are used along side the test equation (UNCTAD, 1998; 1999). Its effect has also been more positively acclaimed in countries with higher institutional capabilities (Olofsdotter, 1998) and economically less advanced countries (like Philippines and Thailand) but negatively on more economically advanced countries like Japan and Taiwan (Bende-Nabende and Ford, 1998). In essence, the impact FDI has on growth of any economy may be country an period specific and as such there is a need for country specific studies.

Several studies have shown varying relationship between FDI and economic growth in Nigeria. For example, Odozi (1995) study showed that Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP hereafter) of Nigeria contributed to the FDI-growth relationship. He revealed that macro-policies before SAP discouraged foreign investors. Ogiogo (1995) reported a negative contribution of public investment to GDP growth for the reason of distortion. However, positive linkage effect of FDI-growth relationship was shown by Aluko (1961). Private domestic investment was also shown by Ariyo (1998) to contribute positively to raising GDP-growth rate for the period 1970-1995.

Oyinlola (1995) using Chenery and Stout’s two-gap model found a positive relationship between FDI and economic growth. Ekpo (1995) using time series data revealed that political regime, real income per capita, inflation rate, credit rating and debt service were key factors explaining variability in FDI into Nigeria. Using unrelated regression model, FDI was shown to be pro-consumption and pro-import hence showing a negative relationship to domestic investment (Adelegan, 2000 cited in Ayanwale, 2007) and statistically insignificant effect was shown for FDI-growth (Akinlo, 2004).

More recent findings by Ayanwale (2007) revealed that FDI contributes positively to Nigeria’s economic growth with the communication sector accounting for the highest potential to grow that economy. He also opined that FDI in the manufacturing sector has a negative relationship with economic growth suggesting that the business climate is not healthy enough for the manufacturing sector to thrive and contribute to positive growth.

Crude oil discovery and exploration has been said to have both positive and negative effect on Nigeria. The negative side is seen in term of the environmental degradation, deprived means of livelihood and other economic and social factors experienced by surrounding communities where the oil wells are exploited while the positive side is viewed from the large proceeds from domestic sale and export of petroleum products. However, its effect on the growth of the Nigerian economy as regards returns and productivity is still questionable (Odularu, 2007).

This review shows that the debate on the impact of FDI on economic growth is far from being conclusive. The role of FDI can be country specific and its relationship with growth can either be positive, negative or insignificant depending on the macroeconomic dispensation (economic, institutional and technological conditions) in the recipient country (Zhang, 2001). Even though none of these studies controlled for the fact that must of the FDI was concentrated in the extractive industry, they did not specifically investigate the relationship between oil-FDI and economic growth. This is the focus of this study.

1.7 Research Objectives and Questions

Few research on FDI into Sub-Saharan Africa have shown empirical evidence of FDI and economic growth as ambiguous (Ayanwale, 2007). In theory FDI is believed to have several positive effects on the economy of host country (such as productivity gains, technology transfers, the introduction of new processes, managerial know-how and skills, employee training etc), promoting its growth and in general, a significant factor in modernizing the host country’s economy (Katerina et al., 2004). However, there is no clear understanding of its contribution to growth (Bora, 2002).

This research was driven by the following questions:

Has foreign direct investment into Nigerian oil and gas sector brought about economic development?

What is the transmission mechanism through which FDI brings about growth?

1.8 Methodology

1.9 Dissertation Outline

The rest of the paper is organized as follows:

Chapter Two:

This chapter is the literature review and shall be discussed in three subsection. The first two sections shall seek to review the theories and motivation for Foreign direct investment and the third section deals with the theoretical and analytic review of literature on FDI – Growth linkages. This shall seek to answer the question on the mechanism through which FDI result in economic growth.

Chapter Three:

This chapter discusses the case study – Nigeria and reviews the contribution performance and challenges of the oil and gas sector in Nigeria. Also, the impact of this sector on economic growth is discussed.

Chapter Four:

The methodology and theoretical framework for the analysis is the objective of this chapter. This section discusses the research approach and data collection mode. The variables for analysis and the model for shall be derived.

Chapter Five:

Data Analysis of the result and findings shall be the aim of this chapter.

Chapter Six:

This chapter shall form the conclusion of the research and give a summary of the findings, suggestion for improving economic growth in Nigeria and recommendation for further study.

Chapter Three: Literature Review

3.0 Introduction

Foreign direct investment is in general motivated by both “pull” and “push” factors. The push factors are external to developing countries and focuses majorly on growth and financial market conditions in industrial countries. On the other hand, the pull factors are dependent (on a lot of factors) domestic policies and characteristics of host countries. While the push factors determine the totality of available resources, the push factors determine its allocation between countries (Ajayi, 2004).

The diversity of theoretical and empirical explanations for the impact and influence of FDI (and growth) is without doubt very rich. Many studies among others have emphasized conducive macroeconomic policy, increased liberalization of markets, large domestic markets, liberal trade regime, low labour cost, availability of natural resources, good infrastructure and investment in human capital (bring about an educative workforce) (Ajayi, 2003).

This review therefore draws from many of these works with the particular aim of providing an understanding of the theoretical and empirical background, views and present thought on the relationship between FDI and economic growth.

The discussion shall be presented in three sections. The first two sections shall discuss the theories and motivation for FDI and the third section involves theoretical and empirical review of the literature of FDI and economic growth from four perspectives: trade or export (openness), linkages and spillover effect, knowledge and technology transfer and human capital.

3.1 Theories of FDI

FDI can take the form of a Greenfield investment in a new facility or an acquisition of or merger with an existing local firm. Majority of cross-border investment is in the form of merger and acquisition rather than Greenfield investments. According to estimates by United Nations, 40 to 80 percent of all FDI inflows between 1998 and 2005 were in the form of mergers and acquisition (Hill, 2009). However, FDI flows into developed nations are different from those of developing nations. For developing nations only about one- third of FDI is in the form of cross-border merger and acquisition. This may simply reflect the fact that there are fewer firms to acquire in developing nations (Hill, 2009).

For the purpose of this research, I have concentrated on two theories of FDI which are relevant to the study. The first perspective explains why firms in the same industry often undertake FDI at the same time and why certain locations are favoured over others (i.e. the observed pattern of FDI). The second is known as the eclectic paradigm. This perspective is eclectic because it combines the best aspects of other theories into a single explanation.

In proceeding with the discussion, we define some terms. When goods are produced at home and then shipped to the receiving country for sale, it is known as exporting. The process of granting a foreign entity (the licensee) rights to produce and sell the firm’s product in return for a royalty fee on every unit sold is known as Licensing.

Foreign direct investment has been view as an expensive and risky venture compared to exporting and licensing. This is because firms bear the cost of establishing production facilities in a foreign country or acquiring a foreign enterprise and the risk of doing business in countries with different culture. In exporting, firms need not bear cost associated with FDI and risk can be reduced by the use of local sales agents. Similarly, under licensing, the licensee bears the cost and risks. However, it is worth noting in summary that firms will choose FDI over exporting as an entry strategy when transportation costs or trade barriers make exporting unattractive. Furthermore, firms will favor FDI over licensing (or franchising) when it wishes to maintain control of technological know-how or over its operations and business strategy or when firm’s capabilities are simply not amenable to licensing (Hill, 2009).

3.1.1 The Pattern of FDI

3.1.1.1 Strategic Behaviour

The idea that FDI flow reflects strategic rivalry between firms in the global marketplace is the basis for one of the theories of FDI. In studying the relationship between FDI and rivalry in oligopolistic industries F. T. Knickerbocker proposed a variation to this argument. An oligopoly is an industry made up of a small number of large players (for example, an industry in which four firms control 80 percent of a domestic market). One key features of such market is the interdependence of major players: the action of one firm have immediate impact on the major competitors, forcing a response in kind.

This interdependence leads to imitative behaviour; rivals are usually quick to imitate opponents in and oligopoly – “the bandwagon effect”. Imitative behaviour can take many forms in an oligopoly. Some good examples are price war and capacity increase. Rivals imitate lest they be left at a disadvantage in the future. F. T. Knickerbocker argued that the same kind of imitative behaviour characterizes FDI.

Although Knickerbockers’ theory and its extensions can help to explain imitative FDI behaviour by firms in oligopolistic industry, it does not explain the choice and efficiency of FDI over exporting or licensing. This is explained by the internalization theory.

3.1.1.2 The Product Life Cycle Theory

The product life cycle theory was proposed by Raymond Vernon in the mid-1960s and was based on the observation that for most of the 20th century, a very large proportion of the world’s new products had been developed by U.S. firms and sold first in the U.S. market (e.g. automobiles, photocopiers, televisions and semiconductor chips). Vernon opined that the wealth and size of the U.S. market gave U.S. firms a strong incentive to develop new consumer products and the high labour cost also gave firms in the U.S. an incentive to develop cost-saving process innovations.

The theory went further to argue that early in the life cycle of a typical new product, while demand is starting to grow rapidly in the United States, demand in other advanced countries does not make it worth while for firms in those countries to start producing the new product, but it does necessitate some export from the United State to those countries. However, over time the demand for new product starts to grow in other advanced countries. As this happens, foreign producer begin to produce at home for their own market and growing demand causes U.S. firms to setup production facilities in those advanced countries. This limits the potential for export for the United States. Finally, at maturity product becomes standardized, cost consideration start to play a greater role in the competitive process and producer in advanced countries with lower labour cost than the U.S. might now begin to export to the United States. Under intense cost pressure, the cycle by which the United State lost its advantage to other advanced countries might be repeated once more as developing countries begin to acquire a production advantage over advanced countries (Hill, 2009).

The effect of these trends is that over time the United States switches form being an exporter of the product to an importer of the product as production becomes concentrated in lower-cost foreign locations.

The product life cycle seems to be an accurate explanation of international trade patterns. However, the product life cycle is not without weakness. When viewed from an European or Asian point of view, the argument that most new product are developed and introduced in the United States seems ethnocentric. Even though this may be true (from 1945 – 1975) during the U.S. dominance of global economy, there have always been exceptions which have become more common in recent years. For example video game consoles where first introduced in Japan, new wireless phones in Europe. More so, with increased globalization and integration of the world economy, a growing number of new products (e.g. laptop computers, digital cameras and compact disc) are now introduced simultaneously in the United States, Japan and advanced European nations (Hill, 2009).

Vernon’s theory also fails to explain why it is profitable for firms to undertake FDI at such times rather than continuing to export from it home base and licensing a foreign firm to produce its product. Large foreign demand does not necessarily mean profitable local production as it may still be more profitable option to produce at home and export to that country or alternatively license product to foreign company to produce its product for sale in that country.

Hence it ignores these options and rather argues that once foreign market is large enough to support local production, FDI will occur. The theory’s failure to identify when it is profitable to invest abroad limits its explanatory power and its usefulness.

In summary, although the product life cycle theory as proposed by Vernon may be useful in explaining the pattern of international trade during the period of U.S. global dominance, its relevance in modern seems more limited.

3.1.2 The Eclectic Paradigm

The eclectic paradigm was championed by British economist John Dunning. Dunning opined that location-specific advantages are also of considerable importance in explaining the rationale for and the direction of FDI. According to Dunning, location-specific advantages refer to advantages arising from the utilization of resource endowment or assets that are tied to a particular foreign location and that a firm finds valuable to combine with its own unique assets (such as management capabilities and technological know-how). The difficulty for a firm to license its own unique capabilities and know-how which is an argument of the internationalization theory was acknowledged by Dunning. Hence stating that combining location-specific assets or resource endowment with firm’s own unique capabilities often requires foreign direct investment. That is, it requires firm to establish production facilities where those foreign assets or resource endowments are located (Hill, 2009).

Natural resources, such as oil and other minerals which are by their character specific to certain locations is an obvious example of the Dunning’s argument. To exploit such foreign resources, a firm must undertake FDI. This clearly explains the FDI undertaken by many of the worlds oil companies (such as Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, British Petroleum and Total) which invest where oil is located in order to combine their technological and managerial capabilities with valuable location-specific resources as is evident in the case of Nigeria.

Another reason for FDI is valuable human resources such as low-cost, highly skilled labour. The cost and skill of labour varies from country to country. Since labour is not internationally mobile, according to Dunning, it makes sense for a firm to locate production facilities in those countries where cost and skills of local labour are most suited to its particular production processes (Hill, 2009).

Location-specific advantage as proposed by Dunning also comes from the sheer concentration of intellectual talent in an area and also from networks of informal contact that allows firms to benefit from each other’s knowledge generation. An example of such location-specific advantage is Silicon Valley which is the world center for the computer and semiconductor industry. Economists refer to such knowledge “spillovers” as externalities and a well established theory suggest that firms benefit from such externalities by locating close to their source (Krugman, 1991). For example, it has been argued that direct investment of foreign firms in the U.S. biotechnology industry has been motivated by desires to gain access to the unique location-specific technological knowledge of U.S. biotechnology firms (Weijian and Jaeyong, 1997). Dunning’s theory therefore, seems to be a useful addition to the earlier theories as it helps explain how location factors affect the direction of FDI (Lance Eliot et al., 1999).

3.2 Motivation for FDI

Although traditional explanations of FDI and international production generally apply also to the extractive industries, at least three specific features of resources extractions should be kept in mind:

Most investment in the extractive industry is capital intensive and risky with long gestation periods. Hence requires huge capital and ability to manage high risk (Vernon, 1971).

Mineral extraction (more than other sectors) can engender considerable environmental and social impact that investors need to address.

Mineral resources notably oil and gas are regarded as strategically important to countries, hence motivations other than purely economic ones often influence investment decision.

The motivation for FDI in the extractive sector can be grouped into the following four categories as opined by (UNCTAD, 1998, Dunning, 2000):

a) Resource-seeking

b) Market-seeking

c) Efficiency-seeking

d) Strategic asset-seeking

3.2.1 Resource - Seeking

Natural resource-seeking dominates FDI and other form of MNEs involvement in upstream (exploration and extraction) activities. The reason for this include meeting the needs of its own downstream refining or manufacturing activities, selling to host, home or international markets or to secure the strategic requirement of energy or other minerals for its home country (as formulated by the country’s government) (UNCTAD, 2007).

Recently, the growing demand for various minerals has been the key driver of FDI (Kevin, 2006, Hoyos, 2007, David Zweig and Bi, 2005). For example, china’s “going global” strategy outlined in 2000 is among the most explicit recent step taken to boost FDI (UNCTAD, 2006).

3.2.2 Market - Seeking

FDI is viewed as a proactive mean of MNEs in seeking new markets for their products and services. This is done for many reasons such as profit advantage, unique products, patents, exclusive market information and tax benefits. FDI is perceived as a potential source of higher profits quite often because of the size of the market (Ghauri, 2000).

Even though this features among drivers of FDI in downstream activities, it is generally of limited importance for exploration and extraction activities. For mineral rich countries like Russia, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia based primary in the upstream sector, their market seeking position can be strengthened by moving to downstream market and capturing the value-added associated with the production and sale of finished products (Baker, 2007). Also, since relative profit between upstream and downstream activities vary over time, this form an opportunity for firms to diversify and mitigate risk.

3.2.3 Efficiency – Seeking

This is often time combined with market seeking motive especially when transportation of product is difficult or costly. In the case of refining, minimizing the cost of transportation may justify processing close to the source of the minerals while consideration of access to market and maximizing the scale of production may prompt locating it closer to consumer (Marina Elisabete Espinho et al., 2006).

3.2.4 Strategic Asset – Seeking

This is linked especially to the increase in cross-border Mergers and Acquisition (M&A) in the extractive industry. companies may invest to acquire strategic assets in the form of know-how and technology from the other companies or form specialized technology providers or speed up their rise to global status by accessing the resources, capabilities and market of acquired form (Dunning and Narula, 1998). Also, pre-emptive motivation may cause firms to merge with competitors to eliminate competition and erect barriers against others thereby strengthening their global position (caves, 1971).

3.3 Theoretical and Empirical Review of Literature

3.3.1 The FDI - Growth Linkages

Foreign direct investment has been widely acclaimed as a key ingredient of successful economic growth and development in developing countries – partly because the very essence of economic development is the rapid and efficient transfer and cross-border adoption of “best practice” (Ajayi, 2006). One way through which occurs is by upgrading human capital (Klein et al., 2001).

Growth is a necessary ingredient applauded to bring about reduction in poverty. Since growth can be fostered by FDI, then it is central to poverty reduction (especially for African nations in achieving their MDGs). Theory provides conflicting prediction concerning the growth effect of FDI. According to Addison and Mavrotas (2005) there are several ways in which FDI play a role in overall growth process. Some of which include:

Capital accumulation (physical and human): the nature of well designed FDI projects raise growth and lead to creation of jobs and employment growth which reduces income-poverty.

Revenue: FDI acts as a source of the much needed revenue by government for infrastructure and service development. This revenue effect can be direct or indirect. The direct aspect relates to corporate taxes by MNEs and revenue from FDI in the natural resource sector. The indirect aspect relates to the rise in economic growth translating to improvement in the total tax base.

Macroeconomic studies in most existing literatures also support the positive role of FDI and identifies three main channels through which FDI can bring about economic growth. These are:

FDI augments domestic savings in the process of capital accumulation

FDI acts as a conduit for technological transfer which brings about increase in factor productivity and efficiency in resource utilization leading to growth.

FDI leads to increase in export due to increased capacity and competitiveness in domestic production.

Empirical analysis of the positive relationship is often said to depend on other factors such as the “absorptive capacity” of the host country, and includes the level of human capital development, types of trade regime and degree of openness.

The preceding review takes a theoretical and empirical review of the FDI – Growth linkage and concentrates on four aspects: Trade and openness, knowledge and technology transfer, spillovers and human capital.

3.3.1.1 Knowledge and Technology Transfer

Theoretical

Knowledge and technology diffusion plays a central role in the process of economic development (Barro and Lee, 1993). In contrast to the traditional growth framework, where technological change was left as an unexplained residual, the recent growth literature has highlighted the dependence of growth rates on the state of domestic technology relative to that of the rest of the world. Thus, growth rates in developing countries are, in part, explained by a ‘catch-up’ process in the level of technology. In a typical model of technology diffusion, the rate of economic growth of a backward country depends on the extent of adoption and implementation of new technologies that are already in use in leading countries. Technology diffusion can take place through a variety of channels that involve the transmission of ideas and new technologies. Imports of high-technology products, adoption of foreign technology and acquisition of human capital through various means are certainly important conduits for the international diffusion of technology (Barro and Lee, 1994).

Besides these channels, foreign direct investment by multinational corporations (MNCs) is considered to be a major channel for the access to advanced technologies by developing countries. MNCs are among the most technologically advanced firms, accounting for a substantial part of the world’s research and development (R & D) investment (Borensztein et al., 1998). The role of foreign direct investment in technological progress of developing countries has been highlighted by recent work. For example, Findlay (1978) postulates that foreign direct investment increases the rate of technical progress in the host country through a ‘contagion’ effect from the more advanced technology, management practices, etc. used by the foreign firms.

Wang (2009) incorporates this idea into a model more in line with the neoclassical growth framework, by assuming that the increase in ‘knowledge’ applied to production is determined as a function of foreign direct investment (FDI). Economists argue that multinational enterprises, through FDI, can help to fill an "idea gap" between developed and developing or host countries and provide greater opportunities for growth in the host markets (Romer, 1993).

Boyd and Smith (1992) however argued to the contrary. According to them, FDI can affect resource allocation and growth negatively where there is price distortion, financial, trade and other forms of distortions existing prior to FDI injections. Wheeler and Mody (1992) also supports the view of Boyd and Smith (1992). According to Wheeler and Mody (1992), infrastructure enhances FDI’s contributions by reducing their operating costs and increasing the productivity of investments. In other words, the growth impact of FDI is not automatic but tied to certain levels of infrastructure and economic performance. While these arguments may be valid theoretically, this relationship has been shown to exits empirically as we see in the empirical literature.

Empirical

Empirical contributors to FDI debate include (Borensztein et al., 1998) Borensztein, De Gregorio and Lee (1998). They examined the effect of FDI on economic growth using data on FDI flows from industrial countries to 69 developing countries over the last two decades. Their regression results suggest that FDI is an important tool for technology transfer and it has contributed to growth more than domestic investment. However, the higher productivity of FDI can be realized more when the host country has a minimum threshold stock of human capital.

In addition, FDI has the potentials of increasing total investment more than one for one. The effect of FDI on economic growth appears to have become quite explicit with multinational enterprises acting as the primary vehicle for the international transfer of technology (OECD, 1991). The above point shows the complementary effect of FDI on domestic firms. Even though most empirical literature is contingent on additional factors within the host country, FDI has been shown to positively correlate with growth and the transmission mechanism generally focuses on the first beneficial characteristic of FDI – the dissemination of advanced technology (Durham, 2004). Thus

↑FDI ⇒↑Productive Technologies ⇒↑Output ⇒↑ Economic Growth

3.3.1.2 SPILLOVER EFFECTS

Theoretical

The economic rationale for offering special incentives to attract FDI frequently derives from the belief that foreign investment produces externalities in the form of technology transfers and spillovers. Romer (1993), for example, argues that there are important “idea gaps” between rich and poor countries. He notes that foreign investment can ease the transfer of technological and business know-how to poorer countries. These transfers may have substantial spillover effects for the entire economy. Thus, foreign investment may boost the productivity of all firms not just those receiving foreign capital (Rappaport, 2000). Findlay (1978) postulates that FDI increases the rate of technical progress in the host country through a "contagion" effect from the more advanced technology and management practices used by foreign firms. This contagion or knowledge diffusion is often referred to as “externalities or spillovers” and can lead to improvements in productivity and efficiency in local firms in several ways. The argument of a generation of productivity spillover by FDI is supported by the work of Lim (2001) and Borensztein, De Gregorio, and Lee (1998).

Furthermore, according to Perez (1997) moderate foreign presence is sufficient to generate positive spillovers even when there is relatively wide technological gap between the foreign and locally owned industry. Caves (1974) proposed that the beneficial effects of FDI through MNEs can be categorized in terms of allocative efficiency, technical efficiency and technology transfer. Allocative efficiency gains are thought to arise from pro-competitive effects. Technical efficiency improvements spring from the demonstration of superior practice by foreign owned enterprise (FOE). With technology transfer, the presence of FOEs furnishes local firms with access to advanced technology on favourable terms (Susan and Sumit, 2001). This effect has been assumed to be linear (Peter et al., 2007).

In its simplest form, a spillover can occur when a local firm improves its productivity by copying some technology used by multinational affiliates/corporation (MNC) in the local market. Another type occurs when local firms are forced to use existing technology and resources more efficiently, or to search for more efficient technologies, because an MNC's entry has increased competitive pressure in the local market. In addition, spillovers can occur when an affiliate demonstrates new techniques to and trains local workers, who later accept employment in local firms or start their own firms (Lim, 2001).

Location-specific advantage as proposed by Dunning comes from the sheer concentration of intellectual talent in an area and also from networks of informal contact that allows firms to benefit from each other’s knowledge generation (e.g. Silicon Valley). Economists refer to such knowledge “spillovers” as externalities and a well established theory suggest that local firms would benefit from such externalities with the presence of foreign firms locating close to their source (Krugman, 1991).

A particularly significant channel for spillovers is through the linkages between the MNC affiliate and its local suppliers and customers. Lall (1980) identifies the following MNC/supplier interactions that can help increase the productivity and efficiency of local firms:

Helping prospective suppliers set up production facilities;

Demanding from suppliers reliable, high quality products that are delivered on time, while also providing the suppliers with technical assistance or information to help improve the products or facilitate innovations;

Providing training and help in management and organization; and Assisting suppliers to find additional customers including their sister affiliates in other countries. Such suppliers may then start to export to the sister affiliates as well as to other independent external purchasers.

Empirical

Blomström and Persson (1983) and Blomström (1986)(1986) find that FDI has created significant positive spillover effects on the labor productivity of domestic firms. Since Caves’ (1974) influential work on spillovers in Canadian and Australian manufacturing, an extensive empirical literature has emerged, bearing mixed results. Overall, the greatest number of enquires finds evidence for a positive relationship dominates.

These works find evidence that FDI enhances local owned enterprises (LOE) productivity (Caves, 1974, Globerman, 1979, Xiaming et al., 2000, Gangti and Kong Yam, 2000). Others report negligible or inconclusive effects (Haddad and Harrison, 1993). Fewer and more recent studies find negative spillover effects on the performance of LOEs (Ram, 1992, Aitken and Harrison, 1999, Jozef, 2000, Peter et al., 2002). In defense of these conflicting findings, differences between data sets and periods of measurement have been widely involved (Holger and Eric, 2001). Thus,

↑FDI (MNE Presence) ⇒↑Spillovers ⇒↑ Economic Growth

3.3.1.3 TRADE OPENNESS

Theoretical

Many studies have looked at the relationship between trade and economic growth (Sachs et al., 1995b, Jeffrey and David, 1999, David and Aart, 2004). As predicted by the standard theory of comparative advantage (by Ricardo), countries that adopt a more open stance towards international trade enjoy higher growth rates than those that close their economies to trade. Also, according to Samuelson (1962) the opening up of an economy to trade is likely to generate dynamic gains of two sort. First free trade might increase a countries stock of resources as increased supplies of labour and capital from abroad become available for use within the country.

Secondly, free trade might also increase the efficiency with which a country uses its resources. This could come through making of better technology from abroad available to domestic firms; better technology in turn increases labour productivity or the productivity of land. Also, opening, an economy to foreign competition might stimulate domestic producers to look for ways to increase their efficiency (Caves, 1996). As a consequence, the direct and indirect effects of FDI together enhance the host country’s export performance.

The export led growth (ELG) hypothesis also states that exports are the main determinants of overall growth. At the heart of the ELG model are beliefs that

The export sector generates positive externalities on non-export sectors in the economy through more efficient management and production techniques (Feder, 1983).

Export expansion increases productivity by creating scale economies (Krugman, 1998)

Exports help to alleviate foreign exchange constraints and thus provide greater access to international markets (Esfahani, 1991).

Endogenous growth theory extends this analysis by emphasizing the role of exports on technological innovation and dynamic learning (Romer, 1986, Lucas, 1988).

Empirical

Empirical evidence in the last few decades indicates that FDI flows have been growing at a pace far exceeding the volume of international trade. Between 1975 and 1995, the aggregate stock of FDI rose from 4.5% to 9.7% of world GDP, with sales of foreign affiliates of multinational enterprises substantially exceeding the value of world exports (Ray and Nigel, 1997).

Sachs et al. (1995a) looked at the relationship between openness and economic growth for a sample of more than 100 countries from 1970 – 1990. Their results showed a strong association between openness and growth both within the group of developing and the group of developed countries. Within the group of developing countries, the open economies grew at 4.49% per year and closed economies grew at 0.69% per year. Within the group of developed economies, the open economies grew at 2.29% per year and the closed economies grew at 0.47% per year.

However, empirical work from both the ELG literature and the FDI and growth literature when studied in isolation show mixed results. This is mainly, due to the omission of a relevant mechanism through which openness or the re-structuring of an economy promotes growth. Liberalization, in particular, is expected to increase not only trade but also FDI. If a complementary relationship between FDI and exports exists, then foreign investment may increase the volume of exports in specific and international trade in general. Direct investment may encourage export promotion, import substitution, or greater trade in intermediate inputs, especially between parent and affiliate producers (Goldberg and Klein, 1997).

Along the same lines, Blomstrom et al (2000) argue that the beneficial impact of FDI is only enhanced in an environment characterized by an open trade and investment regime and macroeconomic stability. In this environment, FDI can play a key role in improving the capacity of the host country to respond to the opportunities offered by global economic integration. In the absence of such an environment, FDI may impede rather than promote growth by enhancing the private rate of return to investment for foreign firms while exerting little impact on social rates of return in the recipient economy (Balasubramanyam et al., 1996).

Early studies supporting the ELG hypothesis such as those by Balassa (1978) and Tyler (1981) examined the simple correlation coefficient between export growth and economic growth, and based their conclusions based upon the high degree of correlation between the two variables. Other studies, characterized by Feder (1983), Balassa (1985), Ram (1987) and Ukpolo (1994) find support for ELG based upon growth and output regressions drawn from a growth accounting framework. Ogbekor (2005) examined the role of exports and FDI on the growth of Namibian economy from 1991 to 2001 and his study concludes that FDI and export aids in economic growth potential. In summary,

Open Economy ⇒↑Efficiency ⇒↑Output ⇒↑ Income Level (Economic Growth)

(Free Trade) (Standard of Living)

3.3.1.4 HUMAN CAPITAL

Theoretical

Human resource development (HRD) and FDI has been opined to be among key drivers of growth in developed and developing countries (Borensztein et al., 1998, Mankiw et al., 1992). While HRD and FDI individually affect growth, they also reinforce each other through complementary effects (Miyamoto, 2008). In general, enhanced HRD increases incoming FDI by making the investment climate attractive for foreign investors. This is done through a direct effect of upgraded skill level of the workforce, as well as via indirect effects such as improved socio-political stability and health (UNESCO and OECD, 2003, WORLD BANK, 2003).

On the other hand, FDI contributes to HRD since multinational enterprises (MNEs) themselves can be active providers of education and training, bringing new skills, information and technology to host developing countries. Ultimately, this complementary effect leads to a virtuous circle of HRD and FDI where host countries experience continuous inflow of FDI over time by increasingly attracting higher value-added MNEs, while at the same time upgrading the skill contents of pre-existing MNEs and domestic enterprises. This argument is in line with Borensztein et al. (1998) argument that FDI has a positive effect when the country has a highly educated workforce that allows it to exploit FDI spillover.

The literature on human capital and FDI indicates that human capital is an important determinant of FDI, especially among efficiency-seeking FDI which requires a skilled workforce as one of its key inputs. Although higher human capital does not appear to affect inflows of resource/market-seeking FDI directly, it can indirectly affect FDI by improving civil liberties, health and crime rates (Miyamoto, 2008)

Empirical

Preliminary studies by World Business Environment Survey, Foreign Direct Investment Survey organized by the World Bank and other bodies in the year 2000, show that the quality of human resource is an important criteria for MNEs investment decision and the ability to hire technical/managerial staff and skilled workers are among critical factors of location choice.

In a study of 69 developing countries over the last two decades, Borensztein et al. (1998) finds a strong positive interaction between FDI and the level of human capital showing that the effect of FDI on economic growth is dependent on the level of human capital available in the host economy. Notably, the same interaction was not found to be significant in the case of domestic investment, possibly a reflection of differences of technological nature between FDI and domestic investment.

↑Enhanced HRD ⇒↑Highly Skilled Workforce ⇒↑ FDI

A countries ability to take advantage of FDI has been shown to be limited to the “absorptive capacity” i.e. local conditions such as development of local financial market or educational level (human capital) of the country (Borensztein et al., 1998). In contributing to this, Alfaro et al (2004) and Durham (2004) provide evidence that only countries with well-developed financial markets gain significantly from FDI. Two key points of Alfaro’s research are that financially developed countries experience higher growth rates from increased FDI and local conditions such as development of financial markets and educational level of the country affect the impact of FDI on growth.

Industry and country level studies find positive impacts of FDI on economic growth. For example, a positive relationship was found for Uganda (Obwona, 2004), Uruguyan manufacturing industries (Kokko et al., 1996), China (Chen et al., 1995 cited in Ajayi, 2006) and for labour productivity in Brazil (Bielschowsky, 1994 cited in Mello, 1997).

In summary, both theoretical and empirical review of literature on FDI and economic growth has pointed implicitly and explicitly to the fact that human capital, knowledge and technology, spillovers and trade openness does have impact on FDI and economic growth. The review has further showed the transmission mechanism through which this effect occurs thereby answering one of the research questions.

Chapter Four: Background to the Case Study

4.1 Introduction

Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country with about 140 million inhabitants. However, approximately 55% of the population lives on less than the value of one US dollar per day (Datamonitor, 2007). Nigeria may be the most challenging and important development country in the world today. It is by far the world’s most populous extremely poor country – but is the sixth largest oil exporter. It has the smallest manufacturing sector of any large economy in the world, and the greatest concentration of export and government revenue dependence on a natural resource commodity. It has witnessed spectacularly failed economic policies with GDP no higher than it was forty years ago.

Nigeria’s has several social problems some of which are due to the oil and gas exploration in the country – with half of the adult population illiterate, gender disparities in education and access to water and social amenities like good road being limited. The rising and ongoing militant violence in the Niger delta region of the country due to oil exploration is one which has been a major challenge for the government of the country. It is rated as one of the world’s most corrupt country.

So much of positive and negative issues in Nigeria have been tied to the oil and gas sector and it has become evident that there is need to study the relationship between investment in this sector and the growth of the country.

This section shall seek to provide an analysis of the case study - Nigeria, providing an overview of its political, economic and business environment. By providing macroeconomic and market data, this country profile gives access to country data points, trends and analysis. Some of which include: political and government make-up, economic performance and GDP, potential for development and detailed market and industry analysis of the country’s business environment. The performance, contribution and challenges of the oil and gas sector in Nigeria is also be reviewed.

4.2. History of Nigeria Economy

4.2.1 Key Facts

Nigeria is located in western Africa, bothering the Gulf of Guinea, between Benin and Cameroon. The country is made up of 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja). Nigeria is a federal republic in which the president acts as both the head of the state and the head of government. The current head of state (and government) is – President Umaru Yar’Adua. English is the official language in Nigeria, although Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo and Fulani are spoken with more than 250 ethnic African groups co-existing in Nigeria. Half of the Nigerian population are Muslim, while 40 percent are Christian and the remaining 10 percent comprises of people from various other religious groups.

Nigeria is and oil rich country that has been held back by successive militaristic regimes. A number of issues such as poor macroeconomic management, corruption, political instability, over-dependence on oil revenue and inadequate infrastructural development have hindered the country’s overall development. The country’s 16 years of military dictatorship came to and end in February 1999 with the inauguration of Olusegun Obasanjo as president following an election. By August 2000, Nigeria got a debt-restructuring deal from the Paris Club of creditors and a $1 billion credit from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) following the signing of an IMF stand-by agreement. Both deals where subject to economic reforms.

The country’s inability to meet its spending and exchange rate targets in April 2002, made it pull out of the its IMF program and this implied ineligibility for additional debt pardon from the Paris Club. However, lately the government has shown the political will needed to implement the market-oriented reforms that were initially proposed by the IMF and as at November 2005; Abuja structured a repayment plan with the Paris Club which proposed to eliminate $30 billion worth of Nigeria’s $37 billion external debt by March 2006. With the repayment of the last $4.6 billion in April 2006, Nigeria fully paid off its multi-billion dollar debt to the Paris Club.

Nigeria contains proven oil reserves of 36.2bn bbl (according to the June 2008 BP Statistical Review of World Energy and the December 2008 Oil & Gas Journal survey). The Nigerian government hoped to expand this total to 40bn bbl by 2010, although this looks to be an ambitious target. The bulk of reserves are found along the country's Niger River Delta, with the majority of oil located in hundreds of sub-50mn bbl fields. There are almost as many similar fields with only partial reserves disclosure, which could suggest substantial medium- to long-term upside potential. However, the major oil industry participants have recently become more interested in deepwater and ultra deepwater oil prospects off Nigeria’s coast. Some two-thirds of the country’s oil production is high-quality light, sweet oil favoured by many US and European refiners.

Despite significant progress in recent years, several social and cultural issues still pose tremendous challenges to its development. A strong ethnic division exists between the Hausa-Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba ethnic groups, while religious friction between largely Muslim population in the north and Christians in inhabiting the south. The exploitation of Nigeria’s ethnic, cultural and religious diversity has been blamed on politicians and other influential parties who use these means to further their own interest. The problem of social disharmony in Nigeria has been exacerbated by an escalation in the number of local militias, especially in the Niger Delta, where abundant reserves of oil exist. Recent spates of terrorist attacks and the kidnapping of oil sector workers have been attributed to these militias which are fighting for a larger share of oil revenue (Datamonitor, 2007).

Crude oil output in December 2008 was just 1.90mn b/d, compared with estimated productive capacity of 2.65mn b/d. This reflects ongoing disruptions since the suspension by Royal Dutch Shell of oil export operations at the major Forcados terminal, with more than 550,000b/d of production being lost following January 2006 protest attacks on the Anglo-Dutch oil company’s facilities. Various other operators, including Italy’s Eni and US major Chevron, have suffered from attacks on installations that have disrupted oil flows.

Nigeria has approximately 5,300bcm of proven natural gas reserves, ranking it seventh in the world. It has become an increasingly important supplier of LNG to European buyers. According to government sources, Nigerian gas demand could rise from an estimated 13bcm in 2008 to a possible 64bcm by 2011 in order to fire a projected 14.7 gigawatts (GW) of new gas power plants. The country’s four oil refineries have a combined nameplate capacity of 505,000b/d, but problems including sabotage, fire, poor management and lack of maintenance have sharply decreased actual output, which is estimated at less than 300,000b/d. The country has some 6GW of installed electricity generating capacity, in the form of three hydro-based stations and five thermal stations. Electricity supply is inadequate, leading to frequent power supply shortages.

4.2.2 Nigeria Economic Growth and Policies

Nigeria is considered to be a crucial player in Africa due to its size, oil resources and military strength. The emergence of democracy in Nigeria in February 1999 has been marked with improvement in various aspects of the economy as it brought an end to the military regime which was known for dysfunctional bureaucracy and collapsed infrastructure.

One of the major challenges faced by Nigeria over recent years has been the issue of corruption and its ancillaries – bribery, fraud and nepotism. The consequence of this has been retarded growth in almost all sectors of the economy and a general economic slowdown. Transparency International ranks Nigeria among the five most corrupt nations in the world. Since the discovery of Nigeria’s significant oil reserves, successive governments have spent oil reserves without much control and have allowed corruption to take a hold and spread its roots. The government has set up several bodies to tackle financial and related crimes some of which include the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offenses Commission (ICPC).

In the recent past, Nigeria’s economy has been dominated by the petroleum sector, which has left the economy’s performance dependent upon international oil prices. The oil boom of the 1970s led Nigeria to neglect its strong agricultural and light manufacturing bases in favour of unhealthy dependence on crude oil. In 2000, oil and gas export accounted for more than 98% of export earnings and about 83% of federal government revenue (Odularu, 2007). The new oil wealth, the concurrent decline of other economic sectors and a lurch towards a static economic model fueled massive migration to the cities and led to widespread poverty, especially in rural areas.

This was accompanied by a collapse of basic infrastructure and social services. By year 2000, Nigeria’s per capita income had plunged to about on-quarter of its mid-1970s high, below the level at independence. Along with the endemic malaise of Nigeria’s non-oil sectors, the economy continues to witness massive growth in “informal sector” activities estimated by some to be as high as 75% of the total economy.

On assuming power in 1999, the Obasanjo government took some bold steps to restructure the economy. This it did by trying to address the energy problem (especially electricity) which was a major factor behind the high cost of production in Nigerian enterprises, diluting their ability to compete in the world market. Also, privatization of government owned companies, empowerment programs such as National Economic Empowerment Development Strategy (NEEDS) was designed to help eradicate poverty. The Paris Club of creditors offered a debt write-off of about $18 billion to allow Nigeria some relief in paying its debts. The banking industry consolidation exercise saw some success in 2005 with $500 million in FDI having flowed into the sector. Reforms in the insurance sector also followed similar lines.

For the last 20 years, the Nigerian economy has witnessed a reform program adopted by a democratically elected government. The major challenges before the government include reducing the economy's dependence on oil and diversifying the economy towards the sectors where the country has a core competency. Nigeria has the third largest number of poor people in the world after China and India. Approximately 55% of the population of the country lives on less than a dollar a day. The income generated by the oil economy is not passed on to the masses, but is accumulated in the hands of a few people, leading to unrest and societal polarization.

Oil revenues have also led to a growth in inflation, which has mostly been hovering in the double digit territory. The overvaluation in the currency due to oil export earnings is proving detrimental to other sectors, especially agriculture, which provides employment for the poor. Poverty reduction programs have received a boost due to recent debt write-offs and oil windfalls being investment in the cause. Between 1999 and 2004, 50% of the GDP came from the industrial sector, which is high for an African country.

Fiscal policy in the country has remained highly unpredictable as it has been dependent upon highly erratic oil export revenues. The share of oil in state’s revenues has fluctuated in the 56%–86% range since 1981. As a result of the fluctuating government revenue, the government's expenditure on social programs for health and education has also remained unstable. Recently, Nigeria's fiscal policy has been managed with increased prudence. Nigeria has enjoyed greater integration with the world economy as a result of easing restrictions in international commerce, a reduction in transportation costs, and improvisation in communication technology. External trade has seen a marked increase recently and the ratio of trade to GDP jumped to 79% in 2004 as compared to 67.2% in 2001.

Since 2000, economic growth has picked up, with a CAGR of 6.5% over 2001–06. The Obasanjo government’s reform and growth programs seem to be working well for the country’s economy. The economy expanded by a robust 9.6% in 2003, mainly due to an upturn in the international oil market, which had hit a low in 2002. A healthy fiscal position and the resumption of regular payments of external debt also augured well for the economy. The economy expanded by about 6.6% in 2004; however, unlike in 2003, growth was more broad-based and diversified, and less dependent on oil. The non-oil sector saw growth of 7.4% during 2004, compared to 4.4% in 2003. The economy continued its growth momentum in 2005 and 2006, recording growth of 6.5% in 2005 and 5.3% in 2006. In the medium term, the economy looks set to continue along much the same lines, and is expected to expand at a CAGR of 6.5% during 2007–11.

4.2.3 The oil and gas sector in Nigeria

Oil was discovered in Nigeria in 1956 at Oloibiri in the Niger Delta after half a century of exploration. The discovery was made by Shall-BP, at the time the sole concessionaire. Nigeria joined the ranks of oil producers in 1958 when its first oil field came on stream producing 5,100 barrels per day (bpd). After independence in 1960, exploration rights in onshore and offshore areas adjoining the Niger Delta were extended to other foreign companies.

The end of the Biafra war in 1970 coincided with the rise in the world oil price, and Nigeria was able to rap instant riches from its oil production. Nigeria became a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1971 and established a state owned and controlled company - the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) in 1977 which is a major player in both the upstream and downstream sector. By late 60s and early 70s, Nigeria has achieved over 2 million bpd of crude oil. Due to the economic slump in the 80s, production figures dropped however, 2004 recorded a rejuvenation of oil production to a record level of 2.5 million bpd. Current development strategies are targeted at increasing production to 4million bpd by year 2010.

Oil and gas production and export play a dominant role in Nigeria’s economy and account for 90% of her gross earnings. This dominant role has pushed agriculture the traditional mainstay of the economy from the early fifties and sixties to the background. Nigeria recovery from the Biafra war was mainly due to huge revenues from oil in the 70s. The oil boom continued for three years and the country had virtually enough money for all item in its development plan. By 1973, the world experienced an “oil shock” (oil boom and bust) which rippled through Nigeria until mid 80s. Though this had great positive advantage for the Nigeria, the mismanagement and military rule made it an economic disaster. If many had hoped that oil would turn Nigeria into an industrial power and a prosperous country based on a large middle class, they were to be disappointed when a formerly rich country became a debtor nation by the 80s.

SWOT analysis of Nigeria

Strength

Large oil reserves promise to remain a key economic driver for years to come

Investors interest is now firmly focused in Africa and as a centrally located oil producer with a pro-reform government, Nigeria is well placed to take advantage of this

Debt has been practically wiped out through the Paris Club debt relief initiative.

Large population with abundance of cheap (though unskilled) labour and growing consumer market

Relatively low tax with VAT just 5%, corporate tax 30% and individual income tax at top rate of 25%

Oil and natural gas reserves remain the highest in Africa.

Efficient financial infrastructure due to recent banking reforms.

Weakness

Business environment in need of reform, heavy bureaucracy, high level corruption (121st out of 180 countries worldwide) are key obstacle to private sector development.

Unemployment remains widespread despite GDP growth.

Poor Intellectual property protection and security for foreign workers in some regions

Repeated attacks on oil installations by rebels

Opportunity

Capacity to invest heavily in crucial sector since it has no debt servicing cost

Planned privatization deals look set to increase revenue and boost the private sector.

Years of rapid growth in foreign direct investment has brought overseas players into Nigeria, which should help with the spread of international business norms and practices.

Underdeveloped deepwater prospects to raise oil potential.

Improvement in pro-market government and the fight against corruption.

Recent banking-sector reforms have led to a consolidated and much more efficient financial service sector.

Threats

Large unionized society and ongoing poverty could make reforms difficult.

Niger Delta militant destruction of oil pipelines and kidnapping of foreign workers may result in under production in capacity and threatening of export and fiscal revenue

Current ongoing financial crisis (credit crunch) may disrupt the government plans to transform the publicly owned petroleum company into a private sector firm

Investment in energy sector has been frozen pending an improved strategy for expanding capacity

Tampering with oil contract terms could result in reduced investment or the departure of key International Oil Company (IOC) partners

Soaring gas demand for power generation could undermine export potential.

Figure : Nigeria Economic and Business Environment SWOT Analysis.

(source: BMI, 2009; Market Intelligence Report, 2009)

4.2.4 Performance, Contribution and Challenges of the oil and gas sector in Nigeria

The Nigerian oil sector can be categorized into three main sub-sectors namely:

Upstream

Downstream

Gas

The most problematic over the years has been the downstream sector which is the distribution arm and connection with final consumers of refined petroleum product in the domestic economy. In 2003, the government deregulated the downstream sector due to the incessant crisis in supply of products. However, the manner of its implementation has been controversial because it ignores the economic realities in Nigeria. Since the deregulation of the downstream sector, the place of oil in the mind of the average Nigerian has become more profound.

Foreign multinational oil companies operate a joint venture (JV) partnership with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and this account for about 95% of Nigeria’s crude oil production. Shell which operated the largest joint venture in Nigeria with 55% government interest (through NNPC), produces about 50% of Nigeria’s crude oil (Odularu, 2007). Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, ENI/Agip and TotalfinaElf operate the other JVs in which the NNPC has 60% stake.

The overdependence on the oil and gas sector has created vulnerability to the vicissitudes of the international markets. A rise in crude oil price signifies more external earning for Nigeria but also increased expense burden on imported refined petroleum product. This contradiction makes the Nigerian economy appear strange at times as policies seem to ignore what appears obvious to do. Nigeria depends on importation of refined product to meet the domestic needs despite having four refineries. The combined capacity of these refineries exceeds the domestic consumption of refined product however, they are operated far below their installed capacities due to neglect in maintenance during the military era.

The monetization of oil revenue has been a major factor in liquidity management in Nigeria. The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has always battled to keep liquidity in check in order to ensure that it does not create adverse effects on the three key macroeconomic prices (which are interest rate, exchange rate and inflation rate). The greatest challenge is when Nigeria generates more revenue from crude oil sales than it budgeted. Such excess have always been monetized, creating market distributions and inflationary pressure (Adedipe 2004, cited in Odularu, 2007).

At this point, there is sufficient ground to examine the contribution impacted or induced by the oil and gas sector in Nigeria. Major economic policies would be examined side-by-side with the oil sector. This will help when providing specific recommendation on how to reduce the dependency.

The contribution of the oil sector over the last fifteen years has been tremendous. This includes (though limited to) creation of employment opportunities, local expenditure on goods and services, contributions to government revenue, gross domestic product and foreign exchange reserves and the supply of energy to industry and commerce.

Employment Opportunities

The creation of employment opportunities is one of the first contributions of this sector to the Nigerian economy. Nigerians before then were previously being employed in varieties of non-basic activities such as building of road and bridges, clearing of drilling sites, transportation of materials and equipment and the building of recreational facilities. The process of time saw Nigerians in areas like seismic, reservoir, drilling operations and in supervisory and managerial functions. This industry however is very capital intensive and the size of capital-labour ratio is quite high compared with other industries. Hence, the direct oil industry employment in Nigeria is not likely to expand significantly in the future. This high capital-labour ratio also implies that growth in oil operations is generally reflected in the expansion of capital investment rather than the relative expansion of employment. Oil industry employment in Nigeria (including employment of ancillary firms) represents only 1.3 percent of total modern sector employment of the country (Odularu, 2007).

Contribution to Gross Domestic Product

For any accounting period, the contribution of an industry or branch to the gross domestic product (at factor cost) can be measured by subtracting the cost of inputs-materials, equipment, services, etc purchased from other industries or branches of activities from its gross output. The gross output of the petroleum sector consists of the proceeds from oil export, local sales of crude oil for local refining and sale of natural gas.

However, due to large involvement of foreign operators in the Nigerian oil and gas sector, not all industry value added is retained in the country; at the moment, a considerable portion is sent out in the form of factor payments profits, dividends, interest, fees and wages/salaries paid abroad. It could therefore be more realistic to consider the industry’s contribution to gross national product (i.e. GDP less factor payment made abroad).

Local Expenditure on Goods and Services

Another important contribution of the oil and gas industry is the periodic injection of purchasing power through its local expenditure on goods and services. Besides the direct payment made to the government, this sector expenditure in Nigeria takes the form of payment of wages and salaries, payments to local contractors, local purchasers of goods and services, harbor dues, vehicle licenses, telephone and postal charges, local rents, educational grants and scholarship award, donations and subventions and other minor social charges.

In 1974 for example this cumulative expenditure was about N950 million. Such injection not only provide direct stimulation to the producers of these goods and services but exerts secondary influence through the multiplier effect on the level of output and employment in other related sectors of the economy. The magnitude of the overall effect depending on the size of the initial injection and the extent of leakages out of the local economic system also exist.

Contributions to Government Revenue

At the early stages of oil operations when the prospects of establishing a viable oil industry in Nigeria were rather uncertain, the government was in a weak bargaining position with the oil companies. As a result, the terms negotiated at that time with Shell-BP Petroleum Company of Nigeria were favourable to the company and included low concession rents, a 12.5 percent royalty rate, 50-50 profit sharing formula based on realized prices and large capital allowances.

The implication of using the realized in the calculation of taxable profits meant that the country’s oil revenues fell as oil prices fell throughout most of the 60s. The significant increase in government receipts in recent years is a reflection of three factors: increased crude oil production, huge increase in crude oil prices and more favorable fiscal arrangement obtained by government as a result of improved bargaining power/position over the years.

How far oil prices will continue to be high in the future will depend on the balance between the demand for and supply of energy – in particular, on the level of economy in energy consumption and the speed of development of substitute fuels for consumption.

Foreign Exchange Reserves

This aspect of the oil industry contribution to the Nigerian economy is very important and could not have come at a more opportune time because the country is carrying out a massive programme of industrialization and economic development which require huge imports of capital goods and specialized services involving massive expenditure of foreign exchange. Acute shortage of foreign exchange often exacerbated by massive declines in world commodity prices constitute a major obstacle to effective economic development especially in most underdeveloped countries especially those that are heavily dependent on a narrow range of primary commodities.

The Nigerian oil industry has substantial foreign exchange reserves and is in the healthy position of being able to finance the foreign exchange cost of her development programmes. The industry’s contribution is not measured by the gross value of crude oil exports because the practice followed by the oil companies is to retain the entire proceeds from exports abroad and to remit to the producing country only the amount need to sustain their local operations.

Contribution to Energy Supply

Another contribution of the oil industry to the Nigerian economy is the provision of a cheap and readily available source of energy for the industry and commerce, through the operations of the local refinery and the utilization of locally discovered natural gas. The availability of huge reserve of natural gas provides a good opportunity for the supply of cheap energy to the industry and commerce.

Shell-BP supplies natural gas produced jointly with crude oil to the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) for thermal electricity generation; to the Nigerian Petroleum Refinery Company for use as fuel in petroleum refining at the Eleme refinery near Port Harcourt (Niger Delta region), Nigeria; and to a number of industrial undertakings around the centers of oil operations.

The oil and gas sector in Nigeria has been plagued by various problems which undermined its optimal performance and development over the years. This sector since the 90s faced (and still faces some of) the following challenges:

Public control and bureaucracy: The NNPC is controlled by the Ministry of petroleum resources. However, the NNPC is characterized by inefficiency, especially in refinery operations, distribution and marketing due to lack of autonomy which results in bureaucratic and unnecessary delay in decision making.

Poor funding of investments: The government delays the payment of cash calls for its JV operations in the upstream subsector, focusing more on maintenance rather than growth. The frequent delay in the payment of cash calls to the joint venture operators have tend to discourage increase in the level of investment by the oil companies. Adequate equipment maintenance and efficient refinery operations by the NNPC has also been constrained by insufficient funds.

Communal disturbance: The rate of communal and militant disturbances (resulting in kidnapping of oil workers and destruction of oil pipelines) in the Niger Delta oil rich region of Nigeria has been on the increase and has been a major concern for the government. This has disrupted crude production and imposed restrictions as oil communities’ clamor for higher stakes and share in oil operations. Most oil companies are beginning to move operations outside this region and even outside the country.

Smuggling and diversion of petroleum product: massive smuggling of product for foreign exchange also exist in Nigeria

Fraudulent domestic marketing practice: oil marketers hoard petroleum product during period of scarcity and do sometimes create artificial scarcity in order to sell for higher price at black market.

Product adulteration

High technical cost of production due to low level of domestic technological development

Environmental degradation due to the flaring of associated gas coupled with the movement of world towards “safer or green” energy.

Relatively low level of investments in the sector compared to its potentials.

The above brief review shows that even with the challenges which the industry faces, the oil and gas industry is making variety of very useful contributions to the Nigerian economy, especially the provision of revenue and foreign exchange. However, moving from the immediate apparent to the long-lasting impact from the largely monetary contribution to the real economic impact, a completely different picture emerges which shows that notwithstanding the massive increase in oil wealth, the industry has yet to make a significant impact on economic development in Nigeria.

According to a recent World Bank report on Nigeria, “At the moment, petroleum remains a typical enclave industry whose contribution to the Nigerian economy is limited largely to its contribution to government revenue and foreign exchange earnings”.

Although the industry’s value added is helping to boost the countries GDP, the later is not necessarily synonymous with increased economic development. The increase in industry value added is seen rather a reflection of the significant increase in crude oil production and prices since the end of he civil war.

4.3 Impact of FDI on Economic Growth in Nigeria

Few studies on investment and growth in Nigeria have ended up with varying results and submission. In studying the factors that affect FDI flow into Nigeria in both pre and post structural adjustment programme (SAP) eras, Odozi (1995) found that the macro policies in place before SAP discouraged foreign investors. This policy environment led to the proliferation and growth of parallel markets and sustained capital flight.

A negative contribution of public investment to GDP growth in Nigeria for the reason of distortion was reported by Ogiogio (1995 cited in Ayanwale, 2007). However, positive linkages between FDI and economic growth in Nigeria were reported by Aluko (1961) and Obinna (1983). The linkage effects of FDI on the Nigerian economy were discussed by Endozien (1968) ho submitted that these have not been considerable and that the broad linkage effects were lower than the Chenery-Watenabe everage (Chenery and Watanabe, 1958). Oseghale and Amonkhienan (1987) found that FDI is positively associated with GDP, cncluding that greater flow of FDI will spell a better economic performance of the country.

Ariyo (1998) studied the investment trend and its impact on Nigeria’s economic growth from 1970 – 1995 and came to a conclusion that only private domestic investment consistently contributed to raising GDP growth rates. Also, he found that there is no reliable evidence that all investment variables included in analysis have any perceptible influence on economic growth and therefore suggested the need for institutional arrangement that recognizes and protects the interest of major partners in the development of the economy.

In exploring the seemingly unrelated regression model to examine the impact of economic growth in Nigeria, Adelegan (2000) found that FDI is pro-consumption and pro-import and negatively related to gross domestic investment. Akinlo (2004) found that foreign capital has a small and not statistically significant effect on economic growth in Nigeria.

Much of the empirical work on FDI in Nigeria centered on examination of its nature, determinants and potentials. Odozi (1995) for example noted that foreign investment in Nigeria was made up of mostly “Greenfield” investments. Aremu (1997) categorized the various types of FDI in Nigeria into five: Wholly foreign owned, Joint venture, Special contract arrangement, technology management and marketing arrangement and subcontract co-operation and specialization.

In studying the determinants of FDI in Nigeria, Anyanwu (1998) identified change in domestic investment, domestic output or market size, indigenization policy and change in openness of the economy as major determinants of FDI. He further noted that the abrogation of the indigenization policy in 1995 encouraged FDI inflow into Nigeria and that effort must be made to raise the nation’s economic growth so as to be able to attract more FDI. Does FDI into the major sector (oil and gas) of Nigeria have any major impact on economic growth and if so what is the relationship? This is the focus of this study.

4.3.1 Some Stylized fact about FDI in Nigeria

Nigeria is one of the few countries that have consistently benefited from the FDI inflow to Africa as reflected in the table 2 below. Nigeria’s share of FDI inflow to Africa averaged around 10%, from 24.19% in 1990 to a low level of 5.88 in 2001 up to 11.65% in 2002.

Year

Africa

Nigeria

Percent of Africa

1980

392

-188.52

1990

2430

588

24.19

1995

5119

Source: UNCTAD Foreign Direct Investment Database online

The UNCTAD (2003) showed Nigeria as the continent’s second top FDI recipient after Angola in 2001 and 2002. However, recent 2007 report as seen in Figure 4 shows Nigeria as the top FDI recipient

Figure 4: Top 10 recipient of FDI inflow in Africa 2006-2007 (billions of dollars)

Source: UNCTAD, FDI/TNC database *Ranked by magnitude of 2007 FDI flows

Table 3 shows the details of FDI inflows into Nigeria for the period 1970 to 2006. The nominal FDI inflow ranged from N128.6 million in 1970 to N434.1 million in 1985 and N115.952 billion in 2000. This was an increase in real terms from the decline of the 1980s. The table also shows that FDI contribution to the GDP of the nation is a small percentage – making up 2.47% in 1970, -0.81% in 1980, 6.24% in 1989 (the highest) and 3.93% in 2002. In total, if forms 2.1% of the GDP over the whole period of analysis. Until 1972, much of the non-agricultural sector was controlled by large foreign owned trading companies that had monopoly on the distribution of imported goods (Ayanwale, 2007). Between 1963 and 1972, an average of 65% of total capital was in foreign hands (Ogunkola and Jerome, 2006).

To Insert Table Here

Rather than promote FDI, the Nigerian Enterprise Promotion Decree (NEPD) was to regulate. Charged with the task of limiting foreign equity participation in manufacturing and commercial sectors to a maximum of 60%, the NEPD was promulgated in 1972. to further limit foreign equity participation to 40% a second indigenization decree was promulgated in 1977. These official policies restricted FDI as it discouraged foreign participation within this period. The hostility was terminated with the introduction of SAP in 1986.

A new industrial policy with the debt to equity conversion scheme as a component of portfolio investment was introduced in 1989. In 1988, the Industrial Development Coordinating Committee (IDCC) was established as a one stop agency for facilitating and attracting FDI. This was followed in 1995 by the appeal of the Nigeria Enterprise Promotion Decree and its replacement with the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Decree 16 of 1995. The NIPC absorbed and replaced the IDCC and provided for a 100% foreign ownership in Nigeria also, Foreign Exchange Decree 17 of 1995 allowed foreign investors into money market instruments and Nigerian enterprises with foreign capital that is legally brought into the country.

In summary, the policies embarked upon by the Nigerian government to attract FDI as a result of the introduction of SAP could be categorized into five: the establishment of IDCC, investment incentive strategy, non-oil export stimulation and expansion, the privatization and commercialization programme, the shift in macroeconomic management in favour of industrialization, deregulation and market-based arrangement.

Chapter Five: Research Methodology and Data Analysis

5.1 Introduction

In order to investigate and answer the questions on the impact of FDI on economic development in Nigeria, which is the objective of this study, we give a comprehensive description of the research design/approach; describe the variables and the model to be used. This forms the focus of this chapter.

5.2 Research Approach

Research are usually conducted using either a deductive approach (where theory is developed and a research is designed to test hypothesis) or inductive approach (whereby data is collected and a theory is developed as a result of data analysis) (Saunders et al., 2007). This is referred to as quantitative and qualitative approaches by (Collis and Hussy, 2003). While qualitative approach is subjective in nature and involves careful thought and observation in order to gain a proper understanding of social and human activities, quantitative approach is objective in nature and involves collecting and analyzing numerical data which involves statistical application.

This research takes a descriptive and quantitative approach to the subject. This approach is best suited for the study as (it better examines in details than other approach) the research involves correlative study which investigates the relationship between variables. Also, the choice of a quantitative approach is best because it is cheaper and easy to access given the time frame of the research. The choice of the extractive sector and country has been fully explained in chapter four.

5.3 Data Collection

The mode/source of data collection is from reliable secondary sources. The choice of secondary data is its reliability in international and cross-cultural research, making data comparison and interpretation less difficult. The use of secondary data as a sole source of information for research study has some negative implications. Data from secondary sources are usually collected for different objective which may not necessarily fit the study at hand. Also, data may be inaccurate or inconsistent.

In other to tackle these problems, it is usually recommended to check original source of data so as to get proper understanding of the process of data collection and analysis. In eliminating errors from this research, I have used information and data from published academic journal and articles, government data like the Central Bank of Nigeria statistical bulletin, international bodies like UNCTAD, IMF, World Bank, and academic books which have been reviewed and evaluated by experts and academicians (in those fields) before publication. Data for analysis are real data (i.e. data in real terms) meaning that the values have been adjusted for inflation.

5.4 Description of the Variables

While most of the variable mentioned the literature review are economically meaningful and theoretically clear, their effects on foreign investment are fairly difficult to assess empirically. Consequently, this section which defines variables and specifies the empirical model (for Nigeria) focuses on a few of them.

5.4.1 Endogenous Variable

The dependent variable is Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP is used as the basic measure of an economy’s economic performance. It is the value of all final goods and services made within the borders of the nation in a year (Arthur and Sheffrin, 1996). It also represents the value added at every stage of production by all the industries or the income generated by production in the country in the period – i.e. compensation of employees, taxes on production and imports less subsidies and gross operating surplus (or profit). The expenditure method of GDP measurement shows that

GDP = Private Consumption + Gross Investment + Government Spending + (Export – Import)

GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)

This analysis uses real GDP growth which is GDP growth adjusted for price change (inflation). This is because real GDP allows economists to determine if production increase or decreased regardless of changes in the purchasing power of the country. The GDP data was gotten from the UNCTAD database (UN common database) and corresponds with data from the Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin.

5.4.2 Exogenous Variable

Due to non-availability of data and for the purpose of this research, only few variables which can be quantified and are easily available from published sources are selected. These independent variables include:

Openness of the host economy to trade: Export is used to capture this variable as is standard in the literature. The FDI – Growth literature (Chapter three) has shown that export can be considered as an explanatory variable since FDI inflows are expected to result in improved competitiveness in host countries exports. Increase in exports and investment will have a multiplier effect on FDI. This may also generate foreign exchange that can be used to import capital goods. Furthermore, if the additional investment embodies labour intensive techniques, employment will rise. We expect a direct relationship between this variable and economic growth.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): Foreign direct investment inflows in Nigeria are taken as one of the independent variable. These are flows entering the balance of payment (BOP) in terms of equity financing from abroad and constitute at least 10% of the share (as specified by the World Bank) in business activities. This analysis uses inward FDI stock which represents the value of the share of capital and reserves (including retained profit). FDI stocks are estimated by either cumulating FDI flows over a period of time or adding flows to an FDI stock that has been obtained for a particular year from National official source or the IMF data series on assets and liabilities of direct investment.

Human Capital: The ideal data for measuring human capital is the Unit Labour Cost (ULC). However, due to unavailability of this data for Nigeria, the literacy rate is used as proxy for human capital. This data was collected from the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) database. Ayanwale (2006) used the ratio of secondary and tertiary institution enrolment in the population. Akinlo (2004) and Barro & Lee (1994) found a direct relationship between this variable and growth, Borensztein et al., (1998) found conditional relationship, where the relationship was indirect below some threshold and positive thereafter. Bende-Nabende and Ford (1998) found an indirect relationship in their study for Taiwan. We expect a direct relationship between the two variables.

Other variable: we include the rate of inflation as a measure of overall financial performance and stability of the host country. High inflation is an indication of the government’s inability to balance its budget and failure of the central bank to conduct appropriate monetary policy (Schneider and Frey, 1985 cited in Zaman et al., 2006). The data for this variable was gotten from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) statistical bulletin for various years. We expect an indirect relationship between inflation since high inflation would inhibit inward FDI.

Error term: this term captures the left over effects. It is assumed as distributed independently and normally with zero (0) mean and constant variance.

Other suitable data for this analysis would have been Unit Labour Cost (ULC). However, this data was unavailable for Nigeria and so could not be used.

5.4.3 The Model

The foregoing suggests that a general empirical model of FDI on Nigeria’s economic growth can be put as follows

FDI = GDP + X + INF + HUMCAP + Ut

Where FDI = Foreign Direct Investment (inward Stock)

GDP = Real Gross Domestic Product at constant price

X = Export

INF = Inflation

HUMCAP = Human Capital

Ut = Error term.

Due to non availability of Sectorial FDI data for the period of study………….

To achieve the stated objective of the study, annual time series data of the variables were used. The data were sourced from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Statistical bulletin, The United Nations Common database, The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2006.

The period covered by the study is 1970 to 2006. The choice of this period is informed by the development in the Nigerian economy which has just recently marked 10 years since return to civilian rule in May, 1999.

References

ADDISON, T. and MAVROTAS, G. (2005) Foreign Direct Investment, Innovatie source of development finance and domestic resource mobilisation. In: CHERU, F. and BRADFORD, C. (Eds.) The Millinnium development goals: raising the resources to tackle world poverty. London: Zed books.

AITKEN, B. J. and HARRISON, A. E. (1999) Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review, 89 (3), 605-618.

AJAYI, I. S. (2004) Issues of Globalization in Africa: The Opportunities and the Challenges. Journal of Social Sciences, 2 (1), 113-128.

AJAYI, I. S. (2006) FDI and Economic development in Africa. In: ADB/AERC International Conference on Accelerating Africa's Development. Tunis, Tunisia.

AJAYI, S. I. (2003) Globalisation and Africa. Journal of African Economies, 12 (1), 120.

ALFARO, L., et al. (2004) FDI and economic growth: the role of local financial markets. Journal of International Economics, 64 (1), 89-112.

ARTHUR, S. and SHEFFRIN, S. M. (1996) Economics: principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

AYANWALE, A. B. (2007) FDI and economic grwoth: Evidence from Nigeria. African Economic Research Consortium, Nairobi Kenya, Working paper 165.

BAKER, J. A. (2007) The changing role of national oil companies in international energy markets. Baker institute policy report, 35 (Houston, TX: Rice University).

BALASSA, B. (1978) Exports and economic growth: Further evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 5 (2), 181-189.

BALASSA, B. (1985) Exports, Policy Choices, and Economic Growth in Developing Countries After the 1973 Oil Shock. Journal of Development Economics, 18 (1), 23.

BALASUBRAMANYAM, V. N., et al. (1996) Foreign direct investment and growth in EP and IS countries. Economic Journal, 106 (434), 92-105.

BARRO, R. J. and LEE, J.-W. (1993) International comparisons of educational attainment. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32 (3), 363.

BLOMSTROM, M. (1986) FOREIGN-INVESTMENT AND PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY - THE CASE OF MEXICO. Journal of Industrial Economics, 35 (1), 97-110.

BLOMSTROM, M., et al. (2000) The determinants of host country spillovers from foreign direct investment. London: Stockholm School of Economics.

BLOMSTRÖM, M. and PERSSON, H. (1983) Foreign investment and spillover efficiency in an underdeveloped economy: Evidence from the Mexican manufacturing industry. World Development, 11 (6), 493-501.

BORENSZTEIN, E., et al. (1998) How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth? Journal of International Economics, 45 (1), 115.

BOYD, J. H. and SMITH, B. D. (1992) Intermediation and the equilibrium allocation of investment capital : Implications for economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 30 (3), 409-432.

CAVES, R. E. (1971) International corporations: The industrial economics of foreign investment. Economica, 38 (149), 1-27.

CAVES, R. E. (1974) Multinational Firms, Competition, and Productivity in Host-Country Markets. Economica, 41 (162), 176-193.

CAVES, R. E. (1996) Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

COLLIS, J. and HUSSY, R. (2003) Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. China: Palgrave Macmillian.

DATAMONITOR (2007) Nigeria country profile.) Marketline. 2007 ed., Datamonitor plc.

DAVID, D. and AART, K. (2004) TRADE, GROWTH, AND POVERTY. The Economic Journal, 114 (493), F22.

DAVID ZWEIG AND BI, J. (2005) China's Global Hunt for Energy. Foreign Affairs, 84 (5), 25.

DUNNING, J. and NARULA, R. (1998) The investment development path. In) Foreign Direct Investment and Governments: Catalysts for Economic Restructuring. UK: Routledge.

DUNNING, J. H. (2000) The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9 (2), 163-190.

DURHAM, J. B. (2004) Absorptive capacity and the effects of foreign direct investment and equity foreign portfolio investment on economic growth. European Economic Review, 48 (2), 285-306.

ESFAHANI, H. S. (1991) Exports, imports, and economic growth in semi-industrialized countries. Journal of Development Economics, 35 (1), 93-116.

FEDER, G. (1983) On Exports and Economic Growth. Journal of Development Economics, 12 (1-2), 59.

FINDLAY, R. (1978) Relative Backwardness, Direct Foreign Investment, and the Transfer of Technology: A Simple Dynamic Model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92 (1), 1-16.

GANGTI, Z. and KONG YAM, T. (2000) Foreign direct investment and labor productivity: New evidence from China as the host. Thunderbird International Business Review, 42 (5), 507.

GHAURI, P. (2000) Internationalisation of the firm. In: TAYEB, M. (Ed.) International Business: Theories and Policies. UK: Prentice Hall.

GLOBERMAN, S. (1979) Foreign direct-investment and spillover efficiency benefits in Canadian manufacturing industries. Canadian Journal of Economics-Revue Canadienne D Economique, 12 (1), 42-56.

GOLDBERG, L. S. and KLEIN, M. W. (1997) Foreign Direct Investment, Trade and Real Exchange Rate Linkages in Southeast Asia and Latin America. (Working paper W6344).

HADDAD, M. and HARRISON, A. (1993) Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment? : Evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics, 42 (1), 51-74.

HILL, C. W. L. (2009) International Business : Competing in the global marketplace. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

HOLGER, G. and ERIC, S. (2001) Multinational companies and productivity spillovers: A meta-analysis. The Economic Journal, 111 (475), F723.

HOYOS, C. (2007) The new seven sisters.) Financial Times. London, Ft.com.

JEFFREY, A. F. and DAVID, R. (1999) Does trade cause growth? The American Economic Review, 89 (3), 379.

JOZEF, K. (2000) The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms: Evidence from firm level panel data in emerging economies. William Davidson Institute working paper series 344.

KEVIN, G. (2006) THE MARKET FOR MERGERS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FIRM. CESifo Forum, 7 (1), 9.

KLEIN, M. U., et al. (2001) Foreign Direct Investment and Poverty Reduction. World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper 2613.

KOKKO, A., et al. (1996) Local technological capability and productivity spillovers from FDI in the Uruguayan manufacturing sector. The Journal of Development Studies, 32 (4), 602.

KRUGMAN, P. (1991) Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. The Journal of Political Economy, 99 (3), 483.

KRUGMAN, P. R. (1998) The age of diminished expectations U.S. economic policy in the 1990s. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: MIT Press.

LALL, S. (1980) Vertical Inter-firm Linkages in LDCs: An Empirical Study. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 42 (3), 203-226.

LANCE ELIOT, B., et al. (1999) Is Dunning's eclectic framework descriptive or normative? Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (4), 831.

LIM, E.-G. (2001) Determinants of, and the relationship between foreign direct investment and growth: A summary of the recent literature. International Monetary Fund, working paper.

LUCAS, R. E., JR. (1988) On the Mechanics of Economic Development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22 (1), 3.

MANKIW, N. G., et al. (1992) A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (2), 407.

MARINA ELISABETE ESPINHO, T., et al. (2006) Oil refining expansion criteria for Brazil. Energy Policy, 34 (17), 3027.

MIYAMOTO, K. (2008) Human Capital Formation and Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries. OECD Papers, 2008 (1), 1.

OBWONA, M. B. (2004) Foreign Direct Investment Flows in Sub-Saharan Africa: Uganda Country Case Study. Economic Policy Research Centre, (Bank of Uganda).

ODULARU, G. O. (2007) Crude oil and the Nigerian economic performance.) Department of Economics and Development Studies, College of Business and Social Science. Ogun state, Nigeria, Covenant University.

OGUNKOLA, O. E. and JEROME, A. (2006) Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria: Magnitude, Direction and Prospects. In: AJAYI, I. S. (Ed.) Foreign Direct Investment in Sub-Saharan Africa: Origins, Targets, Impact and Potential. Nairobi , Kenya: African Economic Reasearch Consortium.

PETER, J. B., et al. (2002) The impact of inward FDI on the performance of Chinese manufacturing firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (4), 637.

PETER, J. B., et al. (2007) Is the relationship between inward FDI and spillover effects linear? An empirical examination of the case of China. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (3), 447.

RAM, D. S. (1992) Government-introduced price distortions and growth: Evidence from twenty-nine developing countries. Public Choice (1986-1998), 73 (1), 83.

RAM, R. (1987) Exports and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: Evidence from Time-Series and Cross-Section Data. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36 (1), 51.

RAPPAPORT, J. (2000) How does opennes to capital flow affect growth. Kansas:

RAY, B. and NIGEL, P. (1997) Foreign direct investment technological change, and economic growth within Europe. The Economic Journal, 107 (445), 1770.

ROMER, P. (1993) Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32 (3).

ROMER, P. M. (1986) Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94 (5), 1002.

SACHS, J. D., et al. (1995a) Economic reform and the process of global integration. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, (1), 1.

SACHS, J. D., et al. (1995b) Economic reform and the process of global integration; Comments. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, (1), 1.

SAMUELSON, P. A. (1962) The Gains from International Trade Once Again. The Economic Journal, 72 (288), 820-829.

SAUNDERS, M., et al. (2007) Research method of business students. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.

SUSAN, E. F. and SUMIT, K. M. (2001) Technology spillovers from foreign direct investment in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (3), 421.

TYLER, W. G. (1981) Growth and Export Expansion in Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 9 (1), 121.

UKPOLO, V. (1994) Export composition and growth of selected low-income African countries: Evidence from time-series data. Applied Economics, 26 (5), 445.

UNCTAD (1998) Foreign Direct Investment in Africa: Performance and potential.) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. New York and Geneva, United Nations.

UNCTAD (2006) World Investment Report: FDI from developing and transition economies - implications for development. In: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2006.

UNCTAD (2007) World Investment Report: Transnational Corporations, extractive industries and development. In: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. New York and Geneva: United Nations, 2007.

UNESCO AND OECD (2003) Financing Education: Investments and returns. Paris.

VERNON, R. (1971) Sovereignty at bay; the multinational spread of U.S. enterprises. (The Harvard multinational enterprise series) New York: Basic Books.

WANG, M. (2009) Manufacturing FDI and economic growth: evidence from Asian economies. Applied Economics, 41 (8), 991-1002.

WEIJIAN, S. and JAEYONG, S. (1997) Foreign direct investment and the sourcing of technological advantage: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 28 (2), 267.

WHEELER, D. and MODY, A. (1992) International Investment Location Decisions: The Case of U.S. Firms. Journal of International Economics, 33 (1,2), 57.

WORLD BANK (2003) Global Economic Prospects. Washington D.C.: World Bank.

XIAMING, L., et al. (2000) Productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment: Evidence from UK industry level panel data. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (3), 407.

ZAMAN, K. U., et al. (2006) Economic determinants of fodreign direct investment in Pakistan. Gomal University Journal of Research, 22, 49- 57.