CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of the Study
Every
good or service has a price. So also is the service of lending money to others,
a service which is critical to the survival and growth of businesses,
households and individuals. The price of this service is called interest rate.
Like every price, interest rate is determined by the law of demand and supply of the commodity, which in this case is money. In the economy, the level of interest rate is chiefly determined by the amount of money or funds available for lending and borrowing.
On the supply side are businesses, households and individuals that save. On the demand side are the individuals, households businesses, including government that borrow either to augment income or invest in income generating projects.
Between these groups are the banks and other financial institutions that mobilizes savings in the form of deposits and investment products and lend the funds mobilized to those who want to borrow.
As in the determination of other prices, those who supply the funds, the savers desire and demand for high interest rates while those who borrow desire low interest rate. Meanwhile the banks also want to ensure that the lending interest rate covers the cost incurred for their operations, and adequate profit for their shareholders.
If the interest rate is too low, especially lower than the rate at which prices of goods and services are increasing (inflation), it would discourage people from saving, and it can make them to take their money out of the country to where the interest rate is high. But if the interest rate is too high, a lot of households and businesses would find it unprofitable to borrow or pass the high interest rate to consumers of their products.
Also,
where the nature of the funds available for lending are short term, that is
below one year, businesses would not be able to borrow to fund projects that
have long gestation period. In this situation, the manufacturing sector and the
agricultural sector would be at disadvantaged while the services sector would
be at advantage. And that is the case in Nigeria, where 80 per cent of bank
deposits are for tenures below one year.
In every
country, the role of ensuring that the interest rate is not too low to
discourage savings or too high to discourage borrowing for activities that
indirectly increase investments and employment is entrusted to the central
bank.
The
primary objective of central banks is price stability or stable prices of goods
and services. This they do by regulating the money supply in the economy. If
the money is too much it can cause a situation where too much money chases few
goods, and hence cause prices to rise persistently leading to inflation.
But
sometimes in an attempt to ensure this does not happen the central bank
introduces measures that reduce volume of money in supply, and this indirectly
reduces money available for lending and thus increased the price of money,
which is interest rate.
The manufacturing sector plays a significant role in the transformation of the economy. For example, it is an avenue for increasing productivity related to import replacement and export expansion, creating foreign exchange earning capacity; and raising employment and per capital income which causes unique consumption patterns (Imoughele and Ismaila, 2014). Furthermore, Ogwuma (1995) opines that it creates investment capital at a faster rate than any other sector of the economy while promoting wider and more effective linkages among different sectors. Loto (2012) revealed that the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) introduced in May 1986 was partly designed to revitalize the manufacturing sector by shifting emphasis to increased domestic sourcing of inputs through monetary and fiscal incentives. The deregulation of the foreign exchange market was also effected to make non-oil exports especially manufacturing sector more competitive even though, this also resulted in massive escalation in input costs (Loto, 2012).
Examining
the growth of the manufacturing sector over the years in Nigerian, the share of
the manufacturingsector in gross domestic product has not been impressive.Over
the thirty five (35) years of this study, the percentage of the manufacturing
sector in GDP averaged 18% inthe 80s’ (i.e. between 1981 and 1989). In 1994,
the manufacturing sector contributed above 20% into theNigeria’s GDP but have
been on the decline afterwards. In the recent times,specifically from 2002, the
manufacturing sector contributes less than 10% to gross domestic product and
wasalmost but averaging 9% between 2013 and 2015. The highest growth rate of
the Nigerian manufacturing sector of 60.3% was recorded in1994 and although
negative in 1984. The whooping 60% growth rate recorded in 1994 dropped
drastically to16.7% in 1995 and growing by a paltry 3% in 2015. This implies
that the Nigeria manufacturing sector has notimproved in terms of its growth
rate from 1995.
This
dismal performance of the sector in Nigeria could be attributed to massive
importation of finished goodsand inadequate financial support for the
manufacturing sector, which ultimately has contributed to the reductionin
capacity utilization of the manufacturing sector in the country. The
insignificant contribution of the sector togross domestic product could be as a
result of continued deterioration in infrastructural facility as well as lackof
access to cheap finance. Obamuyi, Edun and Kayode (2010) asserted that the
growth rate of manufacturingsector in Nigeria has been constrained due to
inadequate funding, either due to the inefficient capital market orthe culture
of the Nigerian banks to finance mainly short term investment. The long term
funds from the bankingsector are not easily accessible as a result of the
stringent and restrictive credit guidelines to the sector as well ashigh
interest rates. All these could be the reason why the Nigerian manufacturing
sector has failed to serve as anavenue for increasing productivity in relation
to import replacement and export expansion, creating foreignexchange earning
capacity, rising employment and per capita income, which causes unique
consumptionpatterns.
The
manufacturing sector in Nigeria is faced with the problem of accessibility to
funds. Even the financial sectorreform of the Structural Adjustment Programme
(SAP) in 1986, which was meant to correct the structuralimbalance in the
economy and liberalize the financial systemsdid not achieve the expected
results (Obamuyi,Edun and Kayode, 2010). As Edirisuriya (2008) reported,
financial sector reforms are expected to promote amore efficient allocation of
resources and ensure that financial intermediation occurs as efficiently as
possible.
This also
implies that financial sector liberalization brings competition in the
financial markets, raises interestrate to encourage savings, thereby making
funds available for investment, and hence lead to economic growth (Asamoah,
2008). However, these seem not to be the case in Nigeria.
Since the
inception of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on 1stJuly, 1959,
monetary policy has been under the control of the Bank(CBN). Before 1st August
1987, interest rate was under theregulation of the central Bank. This
regulation was achieved byfixing the range within both deposits and the lending
rates are tobe maintained.
According
to the CBN, interest rateof orderly growth of the financialregulation is
for the promotionmarket, to combat inflation and to lessen the burden of
internal debt servicing of the government.
Since the
deregulation, interest rates have been rising almostuninterruptedly especially
in recent years. From the average of12.6 percent at the end of July, 1987,
which marked the end of’ theera of administrative determination of the rates,
lending ratesmoved to 17.6 percent in August 1987 – the immediate
monthcommencing the period of deregulation of the rates.
The rapid
upward movement in the interest rates was not favourableto production, growth
and infact the manufacturing sector of theeconomy. Although the deposit rate
seemed high enough to promoterising flow of saving, the high lending rate
appeared to havehindered the usage of the resources mobilized. In an attempt
toeconomize on a resource that was getting increasingly expensive,many firms
especially the manufacturers abstained from borrowingfrom banks while the bulk
of those who borrowed made losses orprofit margins that could not support
production initiatives. Thiscould have resulted in sharp curtailment of output.
Long-termfinancial requirements for expansion was largely met through
thefloatation of new equity and debenture. This was confirmed by thelarge boost
in the amount of new issue s of stocks and debenturesduring the period. While
distribution trade and other quickyielding activities were able to obtain bank
financing, investmentin equipment and machinery for prosecuting expanding
productiveactivities reduced sharply.
Although
the high interest rate encouraged inflow of funds, thebulk of the inflow went
to distributive trade and businessservices.
It is
crystal clear that since the introduction of the policy oninterest rates
deregulation in the banking industry in August,1987, the levels of the rates
have persistently increased.
In
particular, the lending rates of commercial and merchant banks assumed a sharp
upward trend. This dealt a serious devastating blowto the manufacturing sector
and the economy as a whole.
However, all the regulations and deregulations of interest rate in Nigeria were all in a bid to manage the country’s capital allocation through the financial sector. The essence of managing interest rates were based onthe premise that the market, if freely allowed to determine the rate of interest would exclude some priority sectors. Thus, interest rates were adjusted through the “invisible hand” in order to promote increased level of investment in the various preferred sectors of the economy. Prominent among the preferred sectors were the agricultural, manufacturing and solid mineral sectors which were accorded priority and deposit money banks were directed to charge preferential interest rates on all loans to encourage the upsurge of small-scale industrialization which is a catalyst for economic development (Udoka and Roland, 2012). Thus, this study therefore examines the effect of interest rates on the performances of the Nigerian manufacturing sector.
1.2
Statement of the Problem
The
observed reduction in manufacturing sector output in Nigeria is attributed to
the instability of the interest rate in the country which discourages foreign
and local investors to carry out investment activities which would be
beneficial to the country.The dismal performance of the Nigerian manufacturing
sector could be attributed to inadequacy of financialsupport for the
manufacturing sector, which ultimately has contributed to the reduction in
capacity utilization ofthe manufacturing sector in the country. The
insignificant contribution of the sector to gross domestic productcould be as a
result of continued deterioration in infrastructural facility as well as lack
of access to cheapfinance characterized by rising lending rate. Also, the debt
overhang has also discouraged investment in the manufacturing sector, through
its implied credit constraints in international capital markets as a result of
flawed interest rate policies by successive monetary authorities in Nigeria.
Have seen
the series of problems that can emanate from flawed interest rate policy, the
researcher therefore seeks to unravel further influence of interest rate on the
manufacturing sector output in Nigeria.
1.3
Objective of the Study
The broad
objective of this study is to determine the impact of interest rate on
manufacturing sector output in Nigeria. The specific objectivesof the study
include:
- To determine the impact of interest
rate on manufacturing sector output in Nigeria.
- To examine the impact of commercial
bank total loan volume on manufacturing sector output in Nigeria.
- To determine the impact of inflation
rate on the manufacturing sector output in Nigeria.
- To evaluate the direction of
causality between interest rate, inflation rate, commercial bank total loan and
manufacturing sector output in Nigeria.
1.4
Hypotheses of the Study