CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
Economic progress and development have been closely
identified with Industrialization since Industrial Revolution from late
eighteen century. This thinking has continued to influence policy makers
especially so in developing countries (Jomo, 1993). In
an attempt to enhance industrial performance and economic growth the Nigerian
government has, since independence in 1960, implemented various economic
policies. Such policies include: the Import Substitution Industrialisation
(ISI) Strategy in the 1960s; and the indigenization policy of 1972 which was
reinforced in 1977 (Adenikinju and Chete, 2002; Mesike, Giroh and Owie, 2008; Agboli and Ukaegbu, 2006).
These policies largely reflected government’s effort to directly control and
coordinate economic activities in order to achieve macroeconomic goals.
The Import Substitution industrialization (ISI) policy
was the first industrial strategy embarked upon by the Nigeria government
immediately after attaining independence. The objectives of this policy among
others include to lessen overdependence on foreign trade and to save foreign
exchange by producing those items such as detergents, food, textiles, household
appliances, etc. which were hitherto imported.
In 1972, the Nigerian Indigenization policy was
adopted following the obvious failure of the IS strategy. The major objective
of this policy was to strengthen the Nigerian economy by transferring ownership
and control of enterprises formally wholly or mainly owned and controlled by
foreigners to Nigerians, fostering widespread ownership of enterprises among
Nigerian citizens, creation of opportunities for Nigeria indigenous
businessmen, the encouragement of foreign businessmen and investors to move
from the unsophisticated area of the economy to areas where large investments
were more needed.
The 1972 Act that resulted in the indigenization
policy was amended, repealed and replaced by the Nigerian Enterprises Promotion
Act, in 1977. This Act gave birth to the indigenization policy of 1977. The
1972 Act contained II schedules, while the 1977 Act contained III schedules.
Schedule I of 1977 contained 40 Enterprises, Schedule II contained 57 and
Schedule III contained 39. In 1981 the number of Enterprises in each schedule
was revised. By this, schedule I had 36 Enterprises, Schedule II, 576
Enterprises and Schedule III, 456 Enterprises respectively.
The Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was adopted
in June, 1986 and it received the blessings of Breton Wood institutions. SAP
was regarded as the universal recipe that would bring the desired
transformation of the economy from agrarian to industrial. In particular, this
policy came to being in order to right the weaknesses, and ineffectiveness of
earlier policies. Its objectives include: to promote investment; stimulate
non-oil exports; and provide a base for private sector led development; promote
efficiency of Nigeria’s industrial sector; privatization and commercialization
of public investment; develop and utilize local technology by encouraging
accelerated development and use of local raw materials and intermediate inputs
rather than depend on imported ones. The SAP induced industrial policies
include interest rate deregulation, debt conversion (equity swap),
privatization and commercialization policy and the new export policy incentive
(Ndebbio and Ekpo, 1991). According to Famade (2009), this
programme was pursued up to 1993. Although some aspects of SAP were abandoned
between 1993 and 1998, the then government pursued what it called “guided
deregulation”.
In 1989, Trade and Financial Liberalization Policy
were enacted to foster competition and efficiency in the financial sector. It
aimed at stimulating competition among domestic firms and between domestic
imports competing firms and foreign firms. The objective was to promote
efficiency, reduction in the levels of both tariff and nontariff barriers, scrap
the commodity marketing boards and market determination of exchange rate as
well as deregulation of interest rates, all in a bid to foster efficiency and
productivity. The National Economic Reconstruction Fund (NERFUND) was setup in
the same year as complementary institution to the industrial policy. NERFUND
seeks to address the medium and long-term financial constraints experienced by
small and medium scale entrepreneurs, provide the required financial resources
to participating merchant and commercial banks to lend to small and medium
scale firms and provide naira or foreign denominated loans to participating
firms for a period of five to ten years with a three year moratorium.
Bank of Industry (BOI) established in 2000, was
introduced as a development institution to accelerate industrial development
through the provision of long-term loans, equity finances and technical
assistance to industrial enterprises. The bank has the combination of the
following institutions, Nigerian Industrial Development Bank (NIDB), Nigerian
Bank for Commerce and Industry (NBCI), Industrial and Insurance Brokers (IDIB)
and Leasing Company of Nigeria Limited (LECON). The objectives of this bank
include providing long term loans, assist in employment generation and promote
industrial dispersal indigenous entrepreneurship.
As a complement to the Bank of Industry, Small and
Medium Industries Equity Investment Scheme (SMIEIS) was also setup in 2000. The
objective was to assist in the coordination of the scheme with a guideline that
60 percent of the SMIEIS fund should go to core real sector, 30 percent to
services, and 10 percent to micro enterprises through NGOs. The other
objectives of SMIEIS include increased per capita income/output and initiating
changes in the structure of business and the society through growth, increased
output and employment opportunities, enhanced regional economic balance through
industrial dispersal, moderate rural/urban migration, ease adaptation to local
technology and promote efficient resource utilization.
As part of the efforts towards the implementation of
Nigeria’s Industrial Policy, which focused on the competitiveness of the
industrial sector, finance, technological advancement, incentives to
industries, research and development, among others, the National Integrated
Industrial Development (NIID) blueprint was adopted by the Federal Government of
Nigeria in 2007. The NIID is a country service framework developed by the
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in collaboration
with the Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Industry and other stakeholders. The
framework comprised four integrated programmes;
- Industrial governance and public/private sector partnership
- Strengthening industry’s institutional support base: a cluster development initiative to grow the Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) using common facilities.
- Environment and Energy: The challenge of low power generation and utilization to be addressed through rural renewable energy.
- Rural private sector agro-industrial development.
In addition, the Federal Government adopted the
recommendation of the Presidential Committee on Revival of the Textile Industry
in Nigeria with the approval of a N50 billion loan to the textile subsector.
Efforts to boost the development of SMEs through the construction of one
industrial park in each of the six geo-political zones of the country by the
Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN) continued.
The parks would provide industrial plots with regular power supply, potable water,
and sewage system.
To support this initiative of the Federal Government
of Nigeria, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) issued 14 new
licenses in 2007 to private operators for the establishment of independent
power plants with varied capacities and expected total output of 6,010MW. All
the licensed power generating plants were gas-based. This brought the total
number of licenses issued by the commission to 23, with expected total output
of 9,152.0MW. Two new distribution agencies were also granted licenses to
commence operation. (CBN Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, 2007)
In pursuance of these objectives, the government has
experimented with a number of incentives aimed at positively influencing the
performance and productivity of the industrial sector. Some of these incentives
include tax holidays, tariff protection, outright ban on certain commodities to
encourage domestic production, building of industrial estates (export
processing zones) and Industrial Raw Material Research and Development Council
(IRMRDC) etc (see Egwaikhide, 1997; Ayodele,
and Falokun, 2003; and Udah, 2010).
From
the above it is glaring that after SAP economic policies in Nigeria have been
towards a market driven economy. Therefore the focus of this study is on the
economic liberalization policy implemented in 1986 through the adoption of the
structural adjustment programme and the successive reforms aimed at further
liberalizing the economy.
Economic
liberalization is a subset of globalization and it is multifaceted as it
encompasses trade, financial, telecommunication liberalization, etc. According
to Kareem (2009), economic liberalization entails freedom in the movement of
goods and services across the border of the trading countries. Economic
liberalization may be described as the freedom to engage in economic activity
at home and/or abroad, a freedom subject to institutional and policy
constraints needed to guarantee public interests at large.
While some scholars believe that liberalization does
translate into substantial industrialization and economic growth, others
believe that it leads to the development of underdevelopment and further
impoverishment of peripheral nations in the unequal relationship it creates
amongst nations, a situation which is referred to as the “Mathew effect”
(Okowa, 2005).
1.2 Statement of the Problem