SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON POVERTY IN NIGERIA

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The main objective of this research work are to examine the impact and relationship of foreign aid on poverty in Nigeria. Empirically, this work succeeds in providing father analysis of these objectives in Nigeria. Considering the various theories with postulates that foreign aid has either positive or negative impact on poverty in Nigeria, the ordinary least square estimates of the true impact and relationship between foreign aid and poverty in Nigeria was developed. From the results, it has been shown that ODA does not reduce poverty in Nigeria, rather the reduction in the living standard of 1980’s which
overflowed into the 1990’s was attributable to he structural adjustment programs, corruption, institutional failure, mismanagement, administrative incompetence and lots  more which arose form the adherence to the donor policies. Basically, it is noticed that foreign aid is designed to serve the strategic and economic interest of the donor countries thus making development and poverty reduction of the recipient count ineffective. More so these aid is often wasted on over priced goods and services from donor countries and as such discourages local production, disrupts economies of scale and increases the p9veryt rate in the country.


READ MORE ON FOREIGN AID

·   PRESENTATION OF REGRESSION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS GOTTEN FROM THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON POVERTY IN NIGERIA

·   RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OF THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON POVERTY IN NIGERIA - AFRICA

·   RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OF THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON POVERTY IN NIGERIA - AFRICA

·   EMPIRICAL LITERATURE OF IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON POVERTY IN NIGERIA

·   THEORETICAL LITERATURE REVIEW OF THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON POVERTY IN NIGERIA

·   IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON POVERTY IN NIGERIA

            Ideally, one would expect the poverty rate /poverty incidence (thus the population in poverty) in Nigeria to have a positive relationship with its population growth rate, but our empirical result shows otherwise and this could be explained by the fact the increase in population would lead increase in labour force and thus increase in output. Hence the increase in output reduces the level of poverty. More so , the level of consciousness about poverty amongst the people has made them to make ends meet despite the odds they face in the country.
Furthermore, the regression result showed a positive relationship been poverty and capital expenditure and this indicates that the amount invest by the government on infrastructure and other social amenities does not reduce poverty in the country. This could be attributed to the fact that the capital expenditure is mostly devoted to  cities and not inculcating rural, thus causing rural-urban migration and this leads to neglect of agricultural production for life in the cites. It could also be attributed to the level of corruption and nepotism in the county, where contracts are inflated and also competence is neglected in the award of contracts. Hence increase I capital expenditure increases the poverty level in the country, but its impact is not significant. In addition, the regression result shows that the past level of poverty in the country affects the current level of poverty  positively.

POLICY RECOMMENDATION
From the findings of the research and the facts on ground, the researcher would recommend
1.       The government has to get committed to poverty reduction by facing the facts on ground and tackle corruption which has posed a threat to poverty reduction as well as economic development. Hence the poverty alleviation programs should be more purposeful and aimed at the poor in the country rather than being used to compensate political allies and contractors.
2.       The government of Nigeria should as a matter of priority consider the people of the country when accepting foreign aid rather than the interest of the donor nations.
3.       For foreign aid to t be effective, the practice of attaching harsh economic policy conditions, privatization, trade liberalization and government reduction in spending must stop.
4.       A sincere and promising design of poverty reduction strategies must involve all stakeholders especially the grassroots, the poor and independent monitors. More so, workable mechanisms must be put in to effectively manage aid funds in order to have positive impact on the poor and to curb aid’s diversion.
5.       Another area of our recommendation is the time lag involved in policy making and policy impact. The changing nature of the Nigeria economy, if there is zero-time lag for an impact of a policy to be felt, and then it would be easier to discern and simultaneously monitor the effectiveness of policies meant to fight poverty in Nigeria. This will go a long way in checking conflicting policy effects and also make foreign aid more effective.
6.       The level of infrastructural development and other capital expenditure in Nigeria should be diversified with the rural areas involved in the various projects and development plans so as to make the life in rural areas better and thus reduce poverty.

CONCLUSION
          The research work shows that despite the volume of ODA received by Nigeria the level of population in poverty has not declined. More so, the capital expenditure of the government has not effectively curbed poverty since it encourages rural-urban migration and thus discouraging agricultural production.
          This research work has contributed immensely in explaining the analytical impacts of Foreign Aid On Poverty in Nigeria and the policy recommendations is confident that poverty which has assumed a multidimensional aspect will be curbed if proper policy is carried out sincerely to alleviate the poverty.

REFERENCES
Abiola, A. G. And Olofin, O. P. (2008) Foreign Aid, Food Supply And Poverty Reduction In Nigeria; examination of possible nexus. Department of Economics, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife.

Ahmed, M. H and Ahmed Q. M. (2002), Foreign Capital Inflows and Saving In Pakistan: Cointegration Technique and error correction modelling

Aigbokan B. E. (2000) Poverty, Growth and Inequality in Nigeria: a case study of African Research Consortium. Nairobi.

Akonor, K., (2008) Foreign Aid to Africa: A Hollow Hope? Int. law Politics, 40: 1071-1078

Barro, R. J. (1991), “Economic Growth in Cross Section of Countries” the Quarterly Data of Economics. Washington d. c: Model Press.

Benjamin F. N. (1997) International Affairs Budget: Framework for Assessing Relevance, Priority and Efficiency. Washington, dc: General Accounting Office.

Bevan D. L, Collier P. and Gunning J. W. (1999), the political economy of poverty, equity, and growth: Nigeria and Indonesia; a world bank comparative study. Oxford: oxford university press.

Bienen, Henry (1985), Political Conflict and Economic Change in Nigeria – Frank, Cass & Co.

Burnside, C. and D. Dollar, (2000). Aid Policies and Growth. Am. Econ. Rev., 90:847-868.

Collier et al (2003) Aid and Capital Flight, a Preliminary Draft Prepared for the Conference on Sharing Global Prosperity. Helsinki

Dean, t. (2004) tied aid, strangling nations. New York: Uninter press service
Devarajan, sand Swaroop. V. (2000), the implication of foreign aid fungibility for development assistance. In: Gilbert, c. l. and d. vines (eds.) the World Bank: structure and policies: 196-209. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Devarajan, s. et al(2001), aid & reform in Africa. Washington dc: the World Bank group

Fayissa, B, and El-Kaissy, M. I. (1999), “Foreign Aid and Economic Growth or Developing Countries (LDCs): Further Evidence” Studies in Comparative International Development

Furuoka, F., (2008), A Dynamic Model of Foreign Aid Allocation Econ. Bull, 15:1-13

Hauser, E. M. (2009) “The Impact of International Aid on Nigeria Poverty” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Hotel International, New Orleans, Laonline<pdf>2010-11-11
Howell E. M. (2009), New Roles and Relevance; Development of NGO’s and the challenge of change. San Francisco: Kumarian Press.

International monetary fund. (2008).

Ijaiya, G. T. and Mobolaji, H. I. (2004) “which should come first in Nigeria: poverty reduction or poverty analysis?” in h. a. saliu (ed.) Nigeria under democratic rule (1999 – 2003). Ibadan: university press. Vol. 1

Njehu N. N. (2008), The Other Side of Development Assistance. Lagos: Dominion Publishers

Ogwumike, F. O. (1987) Poverty and Basic Needs: an Approach to development Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, department of Economics, University of Ibadan
Ogwumike Fidelis O. (2005) an Appraisal of Poverty Reduction Strategies in Nigeria. CBN Economic and Financial review, Abuja: CBN, Vol. 39 No.4.

Reiffel L. (2005) “Resolving Nigeria’s Paris club Debt Problem: a case of non-performing creditors’, Washington DC: the Brookings Institution
Shah Anup (2010), foreign aid for development assistance.http/www.globalissues.org/articles/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance.

Singh, r. d., (1985), state interaction, foreign economic aid, savings and growth in less developed countries. Some recent evidence kyklos, 38:216-232

Sowa, N. K. (2003) “The Gospel, Poverty and Displacement in Africa”. Core Research Fellow. Accra: Centre for Policy Analysis

The world bank (2008) Nigeria’s Seven Point Agenda, Washington DC: the World Bank Group
Yahie, A. M. (1993) “The Design and Management of Poverty Alleviation Washington D.C.: World Bank, Human Resource Division.

Vu Minh Duc (2001) Foreign Aid and Economic Growth in the Developing Countries – A Cross Country Empirical Analysis London: Vandar Press

William e. (2006), The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest have done so much ill and so little good. London: Penguin Press

APPENDIX ONE
RAW DATA
YEAR
P
ODA
GR
PGR
CAP
GRGDP
1980
18.26
34.4
2.68
3
10163.4
4.2
1981
21.5
39.25
6.14
2.8
6567
13.1
1982
24.5
34.95
4.45
2.7
6417.2
-0.2
1983
28
46.75
4.2
2.6
4885.7
-5.3
1984
31.3
32.39
6.95
2.6
4100.1
-4.8
1985
34.73
31.71
3.77
2.6
5464.7
9.7
1986
35.05
58.12
8.73
2.7
8526.8
2.5
1987
35.8
67.62
13.79
2.7
6372.5
-0.7
1988
36.5
118.08
35.52
2.7
8340.1
9.9
1989
37.1
344
127.8
2.7
15034.1
7.2
1990
37.6
255.08
124.7
2.6
24048.6
8.2
1991
38.35
258.32
130.77
2.6
28340.9
4.8
1992
39.07
258.82
116.26
2.5
39763.3
2.9
1993
46
288.42
53.44
2.5
54501.8
2.2
1994
52.85
189.66
43.16
2.5
70918.3
0.1
1995
60.05
210.9
32.56
2.5
121138.3
0.2
1996
67.11
188.75
24.14
2.5
212926.3
4.3
1997
67.4
199.75
27.01
2.5
26965.7
2.7
1998
67.5
203.09
30.06
2.4
309315.6
1.9
1999
67.7
151.8
47.59
2.4
498027.6
1.1
2000
67.9
173.7
49.49
2.4
239450.9
5.4
2001
68.1
176.17
98.23
2.4
438696.5
3.1
2002
68.35
297.93
105.69
2.4
321378.1
1.5
2003
68.5
308.19
113.2
2.4
241688.3
10.3
2004
68.7
576.87
163.23
2.4
351300
10.6
2005
77.7909
6408.74
5846.55
2.4
519500
5.4
2006
80.11968
11427.9
11383.95
2.4
552385.5
6.2
2007
82.44845
1956.18
1320.9
2.4
759323
6.4
2008
84.77723
1289.78
842.92
2.3
960900
6


    SOURCE: CBN STATISTICAL BULLETIN, 2008

APPENDIX TWO
REGRESSION RESULT
Dependent Variable: P
Method: Least Squares
Date: 11/09/11   Time: 09:04
Sample: 1980 2008
Included observations: 29
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob. 
C
245.8542
34.56362
7.113094
0.0000
ODA
0.011446
0.012607
0.907943
0.3733
GR
-0.010647
0.012492
-0.852342
0.4028
PGR
-79.53131
13.16922
-6.039182
0.0000
CAP
2.26E-05
9.77E-06
2.313773
0.0300
GRGDP
0.272130
0.335517
0.811075
0.4256
R-squared
0.892563
    Mean dependent var
52.17435
Adjusted R-squared
0.869207
    S.D. dependent var
20.30234
S.E. of regression
7.342395
    Akaike info criterion
7.007199
Sum squared resid
1239.948
    Schwarz criterion
7.290088
Log likelihood
-95.60438
    F-statistic
38.21587
Durbin-Watson stat
0.775839
    Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000
 
Dependent Variable: LOG(P)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 11/09/11   Time: 09:06
Sample: 1980 2008
Included observations: 25
Excluded observations: 4
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob. 
C
7.452407
1.063112
7.009992
0.0000
LOG(ODA)
0.212939
0.087926
2.421798
0.0256
LOG(GR)
-0.129545
0.062113
-2.085636
0.0507
LOG(PGR)
-4.986452
0.834317
-5.976690
0.0000
LOG(CAP)
0.041455
0.032670
1.268911
0.2198
LOG(GRGDP)
-0.004304
0.022743
-0.189229
0.8519
R-squared
0.936304
    Mean dependent var
3.946906
Adjusted R-squared
0.919541
    S.D. dependent var
0.417874
S.E. of regression
0.118531
    Akaike info criterion
-1.221722
Sum squared resid
0.266942
    Schwarz criterion
-0.929192
Log likelihood
21.27153
    F-statistic
55.85799
Durbin-Watson stat
1.253807
    Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000


READ MORE ON FOREIGN AID
Share on Google Plus

About MARTINS CHIMA

This is a short description in the author block about the author. You edit it by entering text in the "Biographical Info" field in the user admin panel.
    Blogger Comment
    Facebook Comment