The Impact Of Foreign Direct Investments On The Nigerian Economy

Abstract

Generally, policies and strategies of the Nigerian government towards foreign direct investments are shaped by two principal objectives of desire for economic independence and the demand for economic development. Multinational corporations are expected to bring into Nigeria, foreign capital in the form of technical skills, entrepreneurship, technology, and investment fund to boost economic activities thereby, rising the standard of living of Nigerians.

The main issues in this paper relate to understanding the effects and impact of foreign direct investments on the Nigerian economy as well as our ability to attract adequate amounts, sufficient enough to accelerate the pace of our economic growth and development. From related research and studies, it was revealed that multinational corporations are highly adaptive social agents, and therefore, the degree to which they can help in improving economic activities through foreign direct investment will be heavily influenced by the policy choice of the host country.

Order custom essay The Impact Of Foreign Direct Investments On The Nigerian Economy with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Secondary data were collected for the period 1970 to 2005. In order to analyze the data, both econometric and statistical methods were used. Tables were produced in order to create a visual impression of the dependence of Nigeria's economy on that of donor countries such as Western Europe and North America. The economic regression model of ordinary least square was applied in evaluating the relationship between foreign direct investment and major economic indicators such as gross domestic product, gross fixed capital formation, and index of industrial production. The model revealed a positive relationship between foreign direct investment and each of these variables, but that foreign direct investment has not contributed much to the growth and development of Nigeria. This is evident in the reality of the enormous repatriation of profits, dividends, contract fees, and interest payments on foreign loans.

The study thus suggests that in order to further improve the economic climate for foreign direct investments in Nigeria, the government must appreciate the fact that the basic element in any successful development strategy should be the encouragement of domestic investors first before going after foreign investors.

Introduction

In order to seek the highest return for capital, economists tend to favor the free flow of capital across national borders. It is against this backdrop that multinational companies seek investment in foreign countries with reasonable risk.

Nigeria is believed to be a high-risk market for investment because of factors such as bad governance, unstable macroeconomic policies, and investment as a way out of Nigeria’s economic state of underdevelopment. Since the enthronement of democracy in 1999, the government of Nigeria has taken a number of measures necessary to woo foreign investors into Nigeria. These measures include the repeal of laws that are inimical to foreign investment growth, the promulgation of investment law, and various overseas trips for image laundry by the president, among others.

The need for foreign direct investment is born out of the underdeveloped nature of Nigeria’s economy essentially, hindered the pace of her economic development. Generally, the policies and strategies of the Nigerian government towards foreign investments are shaped by two principal objectives the desire for economic independence and the demand for economic development. There are four basic requirements for economic development namely.

1. Investment capital
2. Technical skills
3. Enterprise
4. Natural resources.

Without these components, the economic and social development of the country would be a process lasting for many years. The provisions of these first three necessary components present problems for developing countries like Nigeria. This is because of the fact that there is a low level of income that prevents savings, big enough to stimulate investment capital domestically or, to finance training in modern techniques and methods. The only way out of this problem is through the acceleration of the economy through external sources of money (foreign investment) and technical expertise.

Foreign direct investment is therefore supposed to serve as means of augmenting Nigeria’s domestic resources in order to carry out effectively, her development programs and raise the standard of living of her people. According to Nwankwo, G. O. 2 factors responsible for the increasing need for foreign direct investment by developing countries are the world recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s and the resultant fall in the terms of trade of developing countries, which averaged about 11% between 1980 and 1982. The high real interest rates in the international capital market adversely affected the external indebtedness of these developing countries. The high external debt burden read macroeconomic management, fall in per capita income, and fall in domestic savings. Foreign direct investments consist of external resources, including technology, managerial and marketing expertise, and capital. All these generate a considerable impact on the host nation’s production capabilities.

At the current level of gross Domestic Product, the success of government policies in stimulating the productive base of the economy depends largely on her ability to control an adequate amount of foreign direct investments comprising managerial, capital, and technological resources to boost the existing production capabilities. The Nigerian government had in the past endeavored to provide foreign investors with a healthy climate as well as generous tax incentives, but the result had not been sufficiently encouraging (as we shall see in this research).

Nigeria still requires foreign assistance in the form of managerial, entrepreneurial, and technical skills that often accompany foreign direct investments. The total amount of income that will accrue to capital will be OR0BK0 while labor receives YBR0. Given that Q = F (K, L), the total output in this country is the area under the marginal efficiency of capital (MEC) curve and this output will be distributed between the two factors of production, that is labor and capital.

For a foreign direct investment to take place, the returns to capital in the United Kingdom must be less than the returns to capital in Nigeria, given that the United Kingdom is more endowed with capital utilization In response to this differential in returns to capital, there will be capital movement from the United Kingdom to Nigeria and this will continue until the returns are the same in the two countries. The amount of capital moved from the United Kingdom to Nigeria is in the form of foreign direct investment and hence, Nigeria’s stock of capital or investment fund is increased.

Literature review and theoretical review

Foreign direct investments and development: proponents and anti-proponents.

• Proponents

Most analysts believe that national and foreign private sector enterprises if permitted to operate in a competitive market condition will offer developing countries the best prospects for speedy national economic growth. These analysts however do not view multinational capital as a panacea for developing countries. Amongst the proponents of foreign direct investments are Peter Drucker, Harry Johnson, Gerald Mier, Sanjaja Hall, Paul Strcter, Carlos, F, Ludiak, l.

A Manle F. Author Nwankwo, and many more. Harry Johnson argued that foreign investments bring to the home country, “a package of cheap capital, advanced technology. Superior knowledge of the foreign market for final products and capital goods, immediate inputs and raw materials”. Similarly, Drucker has argued that developing countries need to employ export-oriented development strategies in order to meet their foreign exchange and employment requirements and that such orientation is much more likely to succeed if these countries can acquire “capital export markets”.

Such markets he maintained are precisely what multinational companies with their worldwide sourcing and marketing can offer. Gerald Mier contends that from the stand profit of national economic benefit, the essence of the case of encouraging the inflow of capital is that the increase in real income resulting from the act of investment is greater than the resultant increase in the income of the investor. This is also the view held by Mactougal when he stated that a moderate inflow of investment in an economy is beneficial.

The chief benefit of foreign direct investment, according to these writers, is the accompanying “package deal” of technical and managerial skills. This may be costly, difficult, or impossible to obtain through other alternative investment means. The less developed a country is, the less able it is as a rule to utilize patents, technical advice, and contract management assistance without taking the whole package. This view was supported by Penrose (1961) and Chenery (1966).

• Anti-proponents

Some analysts (known as the dependence school) are strongly opposed to pro-foreign direct investment perspectives. Their arguments are based on a series of studies and research carried out. Such analysts include Dos Santos, Ronald Multer, Cardose, Euzo Falleto, Dr. Fashola, and many others. Theofonio Dos Santos argued that developing countries’ economic difficulties do not originate in their isolation from advanced countries, but that the most powerful obstacle to their development came from the way they are aligned to their international system. Multer, R maintained that multinational corporations transfer technologies to developing countries that result in mass unemployment; that they monopolize rather than inject new capital resources; that they displace rather than generate local business and that they worsen rather than ameliorate the country’s balance of payment. Overall, the dependent school rejects the pro-foreign direct investment analysts’ depiction of the benefits derived from participation in the international economy.

Dr. Fashola, for example, argued that most of the policies adopted by Nigeria since the SAP era are qualitative in nature and as such is yet to be effective in turning around for the better economic fortunes of the nation. More recently, a new body of literature emerged and challenged the pro-foreign direct investment optimist about the long-term negotiating and benefiting prospects of the world. What might be labeled the structuralized school has argued that developing countries may in fact experience a long-term decrease in their power over high-technology manufacturing systems.

Their arguments were based on what scholars learned empirically about the behavior and effects of multinational companies in developing countries. The results of some of their studies are. i)Bornshier and Jean in a multiple regression analysis of variance in the growth of GNP per capital in 76 developing countries (Nigeria inclusive) between 1960 to 1975, found out that their flow of foreign direct investment was associated negatively with growth in income per capita.

Other studies by Michael Dolan and Brain Tomlin appeared basically to confirm Bormshier’s observations. Also, Robert Johnson in his regression analysis of growth per GNP in 72 countries between 1960 to 1978, found stocks of foreign direct investment to be positively associated with economic growth at statistically significant levels for relatively advanced economies. He, therefore, concluded that once the size of a developing country is taken into account, the level of direct investment has no consistent effect on growth. i)Vincent Mahler (1976) carried out an analysis of 68 least developed countries and found a statistically significant association between income concentrated in the 6 percent to 20 percent of the population and foreign direct investment in manufacturing but not in mining and agriculture. iii)Several studies were also conducted to estimate the economic desirability of the technology brought to developing countries by multinational corporations.

It was found that royalty payments, technical tees, tie-in-clause leading to the purchase of overpriced immediate goods, export restrictions, and other limitations had resulted in technology acquisition during most of the sixties to become a major burden In conclusion, considering the wide range of conflicting empirical studies on how foreign direct investment in developing countries affect the rate of aggregate growth, distribution of income, employment and some non-economic indicators like culture and political structures, one cannot draw conclusions from them with any minimally acceptable level of confidence.

Perhaps the warning of Arthur Nwankwo is appropriate in this context where he warned that no nation could provide for the welfare of its citizens as long as its economy is fettered. More so, many studies have shown that multinational corporations are highly adaptive social agents and therefore, the degree to which foreign direct investment helps or hurts a developing country will be heavily influenced by the policy choice of the host country.

Empirical analysis

Model specification

The under-listed variables are used in building the model. FDIForeign Direct Investments GFCF Gross Fixed Capital Formation

GDPGross Domestic Product llPIndex of Industrial Production The models will therefore be GPD = b0 + b1FDI + u  (equation 1) GFCF b0 + b1FDI + u (equation 2) IP = bo + b1FDI +u (equation 3) These models, which are used in gauging and assessing the performance of the economy, make the economic indicators functions of the level of cumulative foreign direct investment. If we assume a linear relationship (logarithm), then the model equations become. Log GPD= b0 + b1Iog FDI + u (equation 1) Log GFCF= b0 + b1log FDI + u (equation 2)

Log lIP= b0 + b1log FDI + u (equation 3) From the model Log GOP=b0 + b1 FDI Log GOP=0. 159 + 1. 237 log FDI Standard Error (Se)=0. 158 Correlation coefficient (r)=0. 99 t1=1. 03 t2=0. 037 3. 2 Interpretation of Results The first noticeable thing about the above result is that Gross Domestic Product is positively related to foreign direct investments. The responsiveness of GDP to FDI to 1. 237 indicates that a one percent increase in foreign direct investment leads to a more than the proportionate increase of 1. 24 percent in gross domestic product. A correlation coefficient of 0. 9 indicates a very strong relationship between economic growth (measured by GDP) and foreign direct investments, thus leading to the rejection of our alternative hypothesis and acceptance of our null hypothesis, which states that there is a relationship between foreign, direct investment and economic growth. Also, a test of the significance of the intercept and gradient of our model is found to be statistically significant through a test of standard error. Thus given that: H0 : a = 0 H1 : a + 0, for significance of intercept And H0 = 0 H1 : B + 0, for significance of gradient.

For t1 since the computed value of 1. 02 is less than 2. 042 (value from t table), we reject H1 and accept H0 which states that there is a relationship between foreign direct investment and economic growth. For t2 since the computed value of 0. 037 is less than 2. 042 (value from t table), we reject H1 and accept H0 which states that there is a relationship between foreign direct investment and economic growth. From the model Log GFCF=b0 + b1 FDI Log GFCF=0781 + 0. 873 log FDI Standard Error (Se)=0. 199 Correlation coefficient (r)=0. 95 Tl=9. 41 t2=41. 57 3. 3 Interpretation of Results

The results from this model show that there exists a direct functional relationship between foreign direct investment and standard of living, such that the elasticity of gross fixed capital formation with respect to foreign direct investment is 0. 873. A correlation coefficient of 0. 95 indicates a very strong relationship between foreign direct investment and gross fixed capital formation (which could be used as a measure of standard of living). Also, a test of the significance of the intercept and gradient of our model is found to be statistically significant through a test of standard error.

Thus given that H0: a = 0 H1: a + 0, for the significance of intercept And H0: B = 0 H1: B + 0, for the significance of gradient For t1 since the computed value of 9. 41 is greater than 2. 042 (value from 1 table), we reject H0 and accept H, which states that the inflow of foreign direct investment has not affected the standard of living of Nigerians. For 12 since the computed value of 41. 57 is greater than 2. 042 (value from t table), we reject H0 and accept H, which states that the inflow of foreign direct investment has not affected the standard of living of Nigerians.

Interpretation of Results

The above results show a positive relationship between foreign direct investment and industrial production. The elasticity of the index of industrial production with respect to foreign direct investments of 0. 14 indicates that a one percent increase in foreign direct investment will lead to a fourteen percent increase in the level of industrial output. The coefficient of the explanatory variable of foreign direct investment is also significant, statistically at 8. 5 percent. The correlation coefficient of 0. 78 shows a high positive relationship between foreign direct investment and the index of industrial output.

Also, a test of the significance of the intercept and gradient of our model is found to be statistically significant through a test of standard error. Thus given that: Ho:a = 0 H1 : a + 0, for significance of intercept And H0 : B= 0 H1 : B + 0, for significance of gradient. For t1 since the computed value of 936 is greater than 2. 042 (value from t table), we reject H0 and accept H, which states that the inflow of foreign direct investment is not associated with the rate of increase in the index of industrial production. For t2 since the computed value of 7. 05 is greater than 2. 42 (value from t table), we reject H0 and accept H1

Conclusions and policy recommendations

Conclusion

Given the above situation and the fact that Nigeria’s economic recovery efforts and growth requires major private sector investment in modern equipment that can industrialize the agricultural sector and the economy as a whole, then Nigeria’s foreign investment policy should move towards attracting and encouraging more inflows of foreign capital by moving ahead with economic programs that includes measures easier set-up and expansion of businesses.

In the years ahead, Nigeria (and many other African and third world countries) in trying to pave way for more foreign direct investment faces greater problems, especially with poor external image problems and particularly the concept of European Economic Unity that includes Eastern Europe. This translates to the fact that investment flows that would ordinarily have come from countries of surplus capital like Western Europe to capital-deficient countries like Nigeria would now be going to poor European Economic Communities which includes Eastern Europe.

Except African countries are able to adopt new strategies, this development will further compound the crises of under-development confronting countries like Nigeria. A very important challenge of management in the coming years would therefore be the development of indigenous technology and entrepreneurial capabilities as the involvement of multinational companies in our economy may dwindle as a result of new bigger and more attractive opportunities that are likely to emerge from Europe.

With the up-and-down movement of foreign direct investment, Nigeria needs to juxtapose foreign investment with domestic investment in order to maintain high levels of income and employment. The problem, therefore, does not lie so much with the magnitude of investment flows to Nigeria as with the form in which it Is given. We could emphasize that foreign investment cannot contribute much to the economic development of Nigeria if it is directed primarily to capital supply than to investment projects. Foreign investment can be very effective if it is directed at improving and expanding managerial and labor skills.

In other words, the task of helping a “poor beggar” can be made less generous and yet more fruitful if it is directed at teaching him a trade rather than giving him food to eat. The analysis presented in this work does not offer a simple version of multinational corporation investment in Nigeria because the picture is complex. Foreign direct investment can make a valuable contribution to third-world countries’ development in general and Nigeria in particular, but not all foreign direct investment doe so.

Greater flows of investment fund’s climate in the Nigerian economy are important but a good investment climate is not synonymous with what multinational corporation prizes most. In conclusion, in order to further improve the climate for foreign investment in Nigeria, the government must appreciate the fact that the basic element in any successful development strategy should be to encourage domestic investors first before going after foreign investors, considering the fact that they constitute the bulk of investment activities in the economy.

Thus, the most effective strategy for attracting foreign investment is to make the Nigerian economy very attractive to Nigerian investors first.

Policy recommendations

The following policies are hereby recommended to policymakers and government if it is desired that foreign investment contributes to the growth and development of Nigeria. The Nigerian government should encourage the inflows of foreign direct investment and contact policy institutions that can ensure the transparency of the operations of foreign companies within the economy. In evaluating a foreign direct investment, the screening process should be simplified and improved upon. For example, export investment projects that consistently generate positive contributions to national income can be screened separately and swiftly, while projects in import-competing industries should be screened separately. Efforts should be made to engage in joint ventures that are beneficial to the economy. Joint ventures provide for a set of complementary or reciprocating matching undertakings, which may include a variety of packages ranging from providing capital to technical cooperation.

The government should intensify the policy to acquire, adopt, generate, and use the acquired technology to develop its industrial sectors. Efforts should continue, this time with more vigor at ensuring consistency in policy objectives and instruments through a good implementation strategy as well as a good sense of discipline, understanding, and cooperation among the policy makers. The Nigerian government needs to come up with more friendly economic policies and a business environment, which will, attracts FDI into virtually all sectors of the economy. The Nigerian government needs to embark on a capital project, which will enhance the infrastructural facilities with which foreign investors can build. The current indigenization policy should be pursued to the letter as a way of preventing absolute foreign ownership in the key sector of the economy. The Nigeria government should also carry out the liberalization of all the sectors of the economy so as to attract foreign investors so that the current efficiency and growth noticed in the telecommunication sector can also be enjoyed there. For Nigeria to generate more foreign direct investments, efforts should be made at solving the problems of government involvement in business; a relatively closed economy; corruption; weak public institutions; and poor external image. It is therefore advised that the government continues with its privatization program, external image laundry, seriousness and openness in the fight against corruption, and signing of more trade agreements.

Reference

1. Ahmed A. (1993) Strategies for foreign investment in Nigeria. A central Bank perspective Economic and Financial Review volume 26.
2. Ajayi S. I. (1992) An Economic Analysis of Capital flight from Nigeria: World Bank Working Paper series No 993.
3. Aremu, J. A(1997) Foreign private investment: Issues, determinants, and performance. Paper presented at a workshop on foreign investment policy and practice, organized by the Nigeria institute of Advance legal studies, Lagos, March Arthur, Nwankwo (1981) Can Nigeria survive 4th dimension publication.
4. Enugu. Berham N. J. (1970) National Interests and Multinational Enterprise: Tensions among the North – Atlantic Counties.
5. Engle Wood Clifts: Prentice Hall. Bhattacharya A, Montie P. J and Shame (1997) How can sub-saharan African attract more private capital in flow
6. Buckley P & Casson M. (1976) The future of multination enterprises: Macmillan press Limited, London.
7. Caves R. E. (1988) Exchange rate movement and foreign direct investment in the United States, New York University Press.
8. Classens S. (1993) Portfolio Capital flows Hot or Cold The World Bank Economic Review Vol. 9, No1 page 153-174. Drucker P. F. (1974) Multinationals and developing countries: myths and Realities.
9. Foreign affairs No. 53. Dunning J. H. (1994) Re-evaluating the benefits of foreign direct investment, Transnational Corporations, Vol. 3, February, No 1, 23-51.
10. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1988) industrial policy of Nigeria: Policies, Incentives, Guidelines, and Institutional framework.
11. Federal Ministry of Industries, Abuja. Fernandez – Arias, E. (1996) The new wave of capital inflows: push or poll Journal of Development Economics Vol. 48, 389 – 418.
12. Frost K. and Stein J. C (1991) Exchange rates and foreign direct investment: an imperfect capital market approach.Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 4, No 4, 1191-1217.
13. Hartman D. G. (1984) Tax Policy and foreign direct investment in the United States. National tax journal, Vol. 34, No 4, December, 175 – 488.
14. International Monetary Fund (1985) Foreign private investment in developing countries. A study by the international monetary fund research Department. Occasional paper No 33. Meier G. M. (1984) leading issues in economic Development. Oxford University Press, 4th edition.
15. Mahmoud M. I. (1986) The Determinants of foreign investment in African countries, Dakar, Senegal.
16. Nigerian Economic Society (1988) Rekindling Investment for Economic Development in Nigeria. Selected papers for the annual conference.
17. Nwankwo G. O. (1988) foreign Private Capital flows to Nigeria 1970 – 1983, Economic and Financial Review. Volume 28, March. OjO. M. O. (1988) Nigeria Economic Crisis: Causes, Solutions, and Prospects. A paper delivered at the AHQ garrison annual officers training, April.
18. Stephen J. K. (1997) Foreign Direct Investment, Industrialisation, and social change. Contemporary studies in Economic and Financial Analysis. Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich Connecticut.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer