This work examines the nature, dimensions and impact of economic liberalization in Nigeria, and the relationship of government to significant sectors of the economy, targeted at attaining healthy economic growth. It further takes an overview of the history, development and problems of the Nigerian economy, comparing Nigerian’s development strategies with global trends. It provides a guide to government on this area necessary for sustainable economic development
Meaning and Nature of Economic Liberalization and Sustainable Development.
The liberal theory is predicated on capitalist principles of production and exchange making for free, non-protectionist trade policies wherein nations are at liberty to specialize by the process of division of labour in what they have the best and comparative advantage.1 Liberalism as an
* LL.M., B.L: Lecturer , Faculty of Law, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki.
1. Akpuru-Aja A. (2002) Selected Themes In International Economic Relations, Understanding Trends Of Globalization And Regionalization, Enugu, Rhyce Kerex publishers. P. 17.
ideology postulates that freedom is central to the realization of the human personality. And when related to the economy, its adherents opine that complete economic freedom for its members would lead to an ever-increasing expansion of wealth for society. The Liberal economic theory was first developed by Adam Smith in 17762 to depict a free economy where the State is not a participant but only a referee or umpire in the game of free market enterprise which encourages economic growth through competitive
development. Economic liberalization has today gained currency and acceptability that is global in outlook to the end that State dominance of the forces of production and exchange has become increasingly obsolete and unfashionable. Nevertheless, the realities of today’s economic relations have exposed the inadequacies of absolute economic liberalization, a situation that has constrained virtually every Country of the world to depend on and operate a mixed economy blending the public sector with the private sector to forster economic growth and development. Nigeria is not an exception, moreso as she cannot move against the current trend of economic globalization. The public sector is part of an economy which activities, whether economic or non-economic, are under the control and direction of
2. Smith A. (1776) An Enquiry Into The Wealth Of The Nations, London Methuen.
the State. In that wise the State controls the means of production and dictates the production relations for the general benefit.3 Contrariwise, the private sector is that part of the economy which activities are under the control and direction of non-governmental economic units such as households or firms.4
To sustain is to protect, maintain, keep in good functional condition, or retain the best qualities, attributes and characteristics of an institution, situation, process, or state of being. What is sustainable is that which can be kept going or maintained.5 The term development has for centuries and till date generated quite a volumn of controversies and consequently theories. Most theories have been noted to be pro-capitalist or pro-communist in texture while some theories have been based on the developmental experiences of advanced economies. Others have rested on the circumstances of developing economies and of the third world. While highlighting the great importance of the entrepreneur to economic development, Schumpeter saw real development as a process generated within a society by forces propagated and invigorated by the actual members of that society, and that such a process cannot be started or sustained by
3. This approximates what was popularly known as communist or socialist economy
4. This again approximates what was often described as a capitalist economy. See further, Anyanwy J.C. et al (1997) The Structure of the Nigerian Economy (1960-1997) Onitsha, Joance Educational Publishers Ltd. p.229
5. Hornby A. A. (1995) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (5th ed) Oxford, Oxford University Press,
foreign participation. The major weakness of Schumpeter’s analysis of economic development lies in his perception of the relationship between the social structure and economic development whereat he insisted that there cannot be economic development unless the social structure was organized in near perfection. He equally placed too much weight on entrepreneurship as something that is either there or not there in a given society decrying attempts by some under-developed Countries to create climates inimical to entrepreneurship holding the attitude as resulting in underdevelopment.6 While acknowledging that entrepreneurship is a key factor in economic development, it must be observed that other factors such as government economic policies, capital flow, technology, infrastructure and energy are equally significant.
Karl Marx was of the view that technological progress was a prime mover of capitalist growth and assigned an important place to the entrepreneur in his development analysis. He saw technological progress as essentially labour-saving and capital-absorbing, the net result of which is that as technological progress gains momentum, workers are displaced adding to the industrial reserve army of unemployed. In replacement of labour by capital, wages are kept low by capitalists, and this results in a class
6. Cited in Onyemelukwe C.C (1974). Economic Underdevelopment: An Inside View London, Longman pp 1-3
struggle in which the capitalist class is defeated, and, secondly, the capitalists find investments unprofitable because wages which determine total consumption have dropped to subsistence level.7 Marx’s view on economic development is known to have many weaknesses. One major weakness is that his over-emphasis on capitalism ignored the dual economy where the private sector and the Government participate in the economic process. Again Marx refused to accept that problems of population pressure were inevitable in a true development situation. Nevertheless, Marx’s analysis of the social consequences of economic development provides a positive insight into the need to take social factors into consideration in economic development policies and strategies.
Modern development theorists often identify development with economic factors such as the gross national product (G.N.P) and per capita income. However, the use of G.N.P as a measure of economic development has been faulted by some writers as misleading, citing the uneven distribution of G.N.P among the population, inflationary pressures and the difficulty of monetizing all products and services among others as militating factors.8
7. Onyemelukwe C.C. Op. Cit pgs 1-3
8. Ude M. O. Teidi S.S. (2002) Macro Economies: An In-dept Analysis of Theory And its Application to National Economic Problems in Nigeria. Enugu, New Generation books pgs 12-13.
According to Hoffman9, economic development in any nation provides essential indices of status and growth, but their true significance for social (human) development, must be measured by the extent to which potential well-being is translated into the actual welfare and development of people. In other words, the essential end point of development is the actual development and welfare of people. And the development of people can only be meaningful in terms of the development and welfare of the whole man. Hoffman goes further to describe human development as being measured in terms of the physical, intellectual, social, and moral development and welfare of man in the same way that a truly developed society must be a moral society, a physically healthy society, and an intellectually capable society. It follows from this point of view that development is not just an economic phenomenon, reflected mainly in terms of per capita income and gross national product; rather, it includes physical, intellectual, social, cultural, and moral development of the people and the society10.
For Pearce and Warford , economic development is defined as achieving a set of social goals, and since these goals change over time
9. Cited in Hanson and Brembeck (ed) (1966). Evaluation and Development of Nations New York, Holt, Rinchart & Winston inc
10. Ukeje B. O. in Nwosu E.J (ed) (1985) Achieving Even development in Nigeria Problems & Prospects, Enugu. Fourth Dimension publishers pp 285-286.
economic development is, to some extent, a process. The authors went further to opine that a society in the process of economic development is likely to experience a combination of three sets of changes which include, firstly, an advance in the utility11 experienced by individuals in society. A corollary to this is that the well-being of the most disadvantaged sectors must be given greater weight in a developing society than that of society as a whole, since according to the authors, if the well-being of society as a whole improves but that of the most disadvantaged sectors worsens, it would appear reasonable to conclude that such a society is not developing; secondly, advances in the realms of education, health, and general quality of life which, in other words, translates positively to advances in skills, knowledge, capability, and choice; thirdly, presence of self-esteem and self-respect. It is the authors’ view that a society is developing if it exhibits a growing sense of independence either from domination by others or from the State12 . Whereas the authors’ pre-occupation with the social qualities of development is in tandem with current trends in modern development strategies particularly in advanced economies, the major shortcoming of their analysis is that infrastructural facilities, energy, technology,
11. Which is simply satisfaction or well-being. A major factor contributing to advances in well-being is real income per capita.
12. Pearce D.W. , Wardford J.J (1993) World Without Ends Economics. Environment, and Sustainable Development Oxford, Oxford University Press p. 42
transportation, capital flow, and communication which all constitute a major setback in economic development in the third world seem to be taken for granted. Nevertheless, their analysis presents a plausible guide towards sustainable economic development.
Nigeria’s Economic Development Strategies Until the Advent of the Fourth Republic.
From the historical perspective, Nigeria has moved from an economy dominated by public sector involvement to one dominated by private sector participation.13 From a rustic subsistence economic enterprise that marked the precolonial traditional society in Nigeria, the Country came under British colonial conquest and economic and political domination that lasted more than six decades. Within the period of colonialism the country witnessed unprecedented socio-political and economic transmutations that left its society disoriented and its economy mindlessly exploited and externally dependent.14 This was generally the situation in colonial Africa where the colonial masters controlled and presided over the growing economies of the colonial territories and used them selfishly to develop the economies of Europe and America at the great price of African underdevelopment. At the
13. Ake C.(1981) A Political Economy Of Africa, Nigeria, Longman Nig. PLC. 43 -60
14. Ayida A.A. (1987) Reflections On Nigerian Development, Lagos, Malthouse Press Ltd. Pp. 256-266
height of the industrial revolution in Europe, colonial territories became sources of raw materials for the European industries that were growing in leaps and bounds. No effort was made by the colonial masters to establish any of those industries in the colonial territories and neither was there any effort to diversify the economies of the colonies. The colonial policy rather, turned colonial territories into cash crop cultivation zones which produce only had value when they were bought and utilized by the industries in Europe. In this way colonial economies became helplessly dependent on the economies of their masters, aside of their manipulation into single commodity economies, a situation that has lingered in the developing Countries many decades after independence.15
It is the above scenario that made it most compelling for developing Countries on attainment of political independence to take measures to re-chanel their economic growth and which led to the employment of different
development strategies such as self-reliance, indigenization, and nationalization policies. Indigenization as an economic policy was aimed at giving the nationals of the emergent States opportunities to participate in the
15. Onyemeelukwe C.C. (1974) Economic Underdevelopment: An Inside View, London, Longman Groupg Ltd. Pp. 63-74.
economic activities of their Countries. Under this policy, citizens were encouraged to take more interest in the economic processes and many economic legislations and rules were enacted to enable citizens to play dominant roles in strategic sectors of the economy16
Further, to own a business venture in Nigeria, a foreigner or foreign Corporation was mandated to achieve a certain participation of indigenous investors in the business, aside of preserving certain strategic managerial positions in the Company for citizens17. Rules were also made with regard to foreign exchange, taxation, and application and repatriation of profits. Indigenization of enterprises was beset with many problems, foremost among them being poverty and low per capita income. At the attainment of independence, the overwhelming majority of the citizens in most African States were engaged in subsistence farming while the small percentage of civil servants lived on low wages. This resulted in very poor savings and without savings investment is difficult. Most enterprises were capital intensive and government did less than enough to provide needed capital to
16. See for example, the Nigerian Enterprises Decree 1972 with subsequent amendments, later repealed and replaced by the Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Act, 1977 which again was amended by the Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decree, 1989. The 1989 Decree was repealed in 1995 and replaced by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Decree No. 16 of 1995.
17. See Schedules I, II and III of the 1977 as revised in 1981.
entrepreneurs to invest. In spite of its many defects as an economic policy, a number of legislations in Nigeria are still pre-disposed to the policy of indigenisation.18
Nationalisation like indigenisation was one of the economic policies adopted by Countries that had recently emerged from colonialism as a way of shaking off economic domination by their colonizers and maintaining a firm grip of their economic processes, growth and development19. Under the policy, a number of enterprises and corporations considered strategic as in the finance, energy, telecommunications, and public utilities sectors were subsumed under the authority and management of the central or federal government. Most Countries that nationalized foreign private property appeared to draw impetus from the UN Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order 1974, which in conjunction with other
UN Resolutions and Practice20 reaffirmed a State’s inalienable right to nationalize property. Equally, the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 1974, laid down that States have the right:
18. See the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act ,1995
19. Shaw M.N. (1997) International Law (4th ed.) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 573-584
20. See for instance the UN Resolution on Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources and Wealth, 1962 (UNGA Res. 1803 LXVII of 1962).
to nationalize, expropriate or transfer ownership
of foreign property in which case compensation
should be paid … taking into account its
relevant laws and regulations and all the
circumstances that the State considered pertinent.
Although nationalization did not begin with Africans21, those Countries that gained independence from colonial masters adopted the policy in order to strengthen and consolidate their sovereignty22.
Nationalizations were carried out in many African Countries including Tanzania, Nigeria, and Libya and compensations were in most cases paid. Cuba even promulgated a decree to aid nationalization.23 Iran nationalized British Oil interests in 1951, while Libya nationalized British Petroleum in 1971 among other cases.24 The nationalization policy, which followed on the heels of Nigerian independence was aimed in general terms at achieving:
(a) a united, strong and reliant nation;
(b) a great and dynamic economy;
(c) a just and egalitarian society;
(d) a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens;
(f) a free democratic society.
21. Russia after her October 1917 Resolution took a number of foreign-owned private property; Britain did the same after the second World War 1949-1950.
22. Umozurike U.O, (2008) Introduction to International Law (3rd ed), Ibadan, Spectrum books Ltd pp. 133-137
23. See The Sabbatino Case (58 AJIL, 1964) 779
24. Umozurike U.O. op. Cit.
The lofty objectives outlined above formed the major plank of Nigeria’s second national development plan (1970-1974). As Onyemelukwe25 has argued, among the myriads of failures that bedeviled the second development plan in Nigeria was the lack of a practical framework and plan of action to effectively utilize Nigeria’s huge unused and idle resources in the economy. A second setback was the lack of a technological base and enterprise in the country. These coupled with corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency, bureaucratic bottlenecks and lack of practical vision in the nationalized sectors of the economy soon made a mockery of the policy. Not only were output and services poor, appointment into managerial positions and Governing Boards in the public Corporations became a matter of political patronage and nepotism. Soon such public Corporations like NITEL, NEPA, NNPC, air and rail transportations were almost grounded to a halt in spite of the huge annual subventions that were made to them by the Federal Government. Consequent upon the above developments, attention was turned to a shift in policy that encouraged liberalization and greater private participation in the economy. Most hitherto forbidden areas like telecommunications, energy and transportation sectors were thrown open to private investors, both foreign and local. This resulted to the era of
25. Onyemelukwe C.C, Op. Cit.
privatization. Under the policy of privatization, these public enterprises that had become moribund were either sold off to private investors outrightly26 or the investors were invited to acquire majority shares and accordingly take over the management of the enterprises.
Aside of this internally compelling circumstance, most developing Countries, Nigeria inclusive depend partly on external finance for their economic development. Foreign Governments and international financial institutions always give conditionalities for assistance, aid, or loan, and African nations owing to the dismal level they have pushed their economies often do not have a choice. As a result, they are now going back to privatization under the pressure of the World Bank, International Monetary fund and donor nations who lay emphasis on private enterprise among other economic recovery and/or development programmes.
Economic Liberalization and Sustainable Development in Nigeria since 1999.
The process of commercialization and privatization could be said to have commenced in earnest in Nigeria in the year 2000 with the setting up of
the National Council on Privatization which work through the Bureau of Public Enterprises to formulate modalities and bring the privatization of
26. This day Newspaper November 19, 2008 pg. 8.
ailing Public Enterprises to fruition. Take the case of NITEL which controlling shares of 51% had been acquired by a private investor, Transnational Corporation, through the Bureau of Public Enterprises. Ordinarily, the Federal Government would have retained 49% of the shares,
but its shareholding was whittled down considerably by the ceding of 15% of the shares to IILL, which had made part payment of $ 131 million to the Federal Government in a bid to acquire NITEL in 2003 from the $ 1.3 billion it offered to pay. The Federal Government had also offered 4% share to NITEL workers. On the whole this translated to a shedding of 29%, leaving the Federal Government with 20% shares. Aside of the privatization of NITEL, the Federal Government has also thrown open its telecommunications sector to other private investors and the sector has witnessed investments and services from Companies such as Globacom, MTN, Zain, Vodafone etc. And we may add that Nigerians have shown their preference for the services provided by these entrepreneurs27.
In the petroleum sub-sector, deliberate efforts have been made to encourage private investors to participate in the industry. In 2007, the Kaduna and PortHarcourt Refineries were sold to Bluestar Consortium due
27. This Day Newspaper, November 19, 2008, pg. 8
to the dismal performance of the refineries. The Consortium that consisted of Transcorp and Zenon Petrol acquired 49% percent shares for both refineries for $72 million. This action sparked a strike action by the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN). Eventually, Government rescinded the sale of the Refineries. Before then, on June 19, 1996, the Abacha regime granted licenses to two private refineries to operate, namely, Brass Oil Refinery, in Rivers State, and Qua Petroleum Refinery, in Ibino Akwa Ibom State. The proposed private refineries were expected to refine an additional 100,000 bpd to complement the 445,000 bpd then produced by existing public refineries. However, that expectation remained dim as the private refineries did not take off as expected, and neither did the 18 others that later got provisional licenses from the Department of Petroleum Resources, DPR, in 2004. Among the reasons for the non-performance of the private refineries is the huge capital requirement needed for a macro-economic initiative as a refinery. Foreign partners required credit guarantees from the Federal Government, which was not forthcoming. Another setback is the instability in the petroleum sub-sector coupled with vandalisation of pipelines and other equipment by criminal elements. As a result of these obstacles, Government refineries continue to operate below capacity leading to losses in foreign exchange earnings and domestic scarcity of petroleum products.28 Also worthy of mention is the concessioning of Nigerian Ports to private investors in 2006 to, according to the Federal Government, ensure efficiency in terms of timely and prompt cargo clearance, fast delivery of goods, decreased dwell time and mass employment of teeming unemployed youths. One of such private terminal operators (PTO) is the A.P. Moller Terminal, Apapa Limited (APMT)29
In the energy sector, it is estimated that Nigeria’s current power needs stand at about 25,000 MW. Unfortunately, her current installed capacity is 6,000 MW out of which only 3,400 MW is operational to date. Nigeria is said to have lavished about Sixteen billion naira (
N16b) on the sector between 1999 and 2007
and yet the colossal failure in the sector persists. This state of affairs in
the sector informed the Umaru Yar’adua regime’s policy of concessioning power
generation and distribution to private investors with a view to improving
energy supply nationwide so as to at least meet the average power capacity of
10,000 MW. To this end Nigeria entered into an agreement with a team of German firms the aim of which was
28. Tell Magazine no. 46, November 17, 2008, pgs. 24-27
29. The SOURCE Magazine vol. 24 no. 6 December 1, 2008.
expected to inject 6,000 MW into the national power grid by 2013. Aside of this, independent power projects (IPP) operators were under concessions expected to contribute about 4,500 MW to electricity generation and supply by 2010. Similarly the Oil Producers trade section of the Lagos Chamber of the Commerce and Industry had concluded plans under a concessionary arrangement to inject 6,500 MW into the national grid before 2010.30 Federal Government’s resolve to partner with private investors in the energy sector was captured by the assurance given by the then Minister of State for Power during the Nigerian Independent Power Project finance seminar held in Abuja on June 9, 2008, thus:
The private sector has to be partnered with to
help Federal Government develop the power
sector in this country, and President Yar’Adua
has promised that an enabling environment
would be created so that investors can make
profits on their investments.31
The privatization policy as exemplified above is aimed at loosening government grip and opening up major and functional sectors of the economy to private participation both local and foreign.32 The implication of this development is that nationalization and government monopoly as an
30. Business Day Newspaper, December 9, 2008 pgs. 12-13
31. This Day Newspaper, June 10, 2008 vol. 13 No. 4798 pg. 10
32. See for instance The Public Enterprises (Privatization and Commercialization Act (otherwise called Decree No. 28) of 1999 which established both the National Council on Privatization and the Bureau of Public Enterprises with the aim to speed up the privatization and commercialization process.
economic policy in Nigeria has become obsolete and unfashionable even as world economies are now being opened up to competition and to private investors.
The benefits of privatization and market based economy notwithstanding, it is clear now from the benefit of hindsight that privatization for the sake of itself is not and probably will never be the panacea that will turn Nigeria’s economic woes to prosperity. To cite a few examples, the telecommunications sector is still unhealthy in spite of the sale of Federal Government shares in NITEL and the grant of licenses to private operators. On June 1, 2009, the Federal Government of Nigeria through the Bureau of Public Enterprises (B.P.E) rescinded the contract it signed in 2006 transferring its 51 percent stake in NITEL to Transcorp. According to Dr. Emmanuel Ekuwem, then president of the Association of Telecommunications Companies of Nigeria (ATCON), Transcorp failed in its contractual obligation to turn NITEL around principally because the Company did not posses the technical expertise and financial strength to manage the affairs of NITEL.33 Private telecommunications operators have equally not provided satisfactory services. Without exception, their services are epileptic, unreliable, and too exorbitant for the average Nigerian and
33. Sunday Independent June 7, 2009 p. A2
certainly out of the reach of her majority poor.
The energy sector is another tale of woes. The problem in this sector appears intractable and the more billions of naira are poured in to salvage it, the less satisfactory the service, no thanks to official corruption and mismanagement. In June, 2010 former Nigerian minister for petroleum Rilwanu Lukman informed the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Committee on Gas that scarcity of gas is threatening the accomplishment of the 6,000 Megawatts (MW) of electricity being touted by the Federal Government. At the time, according to him only 2,000 MW was being generated from a capacity of 4000 MW34. Lukman further claimed that the dismal performance of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) was due to a debt of Seventy billion naira (
N 70 billion) owned
to it by a host of its clientele. Efforts to privatize this Company has not
yielded dividends and interested private investors are frustrated by financial
and other bottlenecks.
We therefore call for a re-thinking of strategies if Nigeria will truly be on the path of development. It is important first of all to tackle the evil octopus of corruption and mismanagement. Without this, the scandalous waste of billions of naira as in the Power Holding Company of Nigeria
34. President Umaru Yaradua according to his much advertised 7 point development agenda pledged to accomplish 6,000MW of electricity in 2009 and 10,000MW in 2010, see Daily Independent June 10, 2009 p. A2
(PHCN) will continue to deliver us into a vicious circle of underdevelopment with wavelength impact on other sectors of the economy.
Furthermore, Nigeria should pick a clue from the financial bailout strategy that is gaining currency internationally. In the light of present global economic recession, developed Countries and less developed ones while maintaining a market economy have not abandoned the private sector to its doom. Governments all over the world retain their unchanging position at the highest command of investment capital and the growing trend is for them to make financial grant to ailing or bankrupt private enterprises in order to bring them back to the path of recovery and productivity. The United States government has done this to their banking and manufacturing sectors. Britain, Germany and France have followed suit in a wide range of sectors. Nigeria must reassess its current course of blind privatization. It must take further steps to guarantee that privatized enterprises are productive and offer services that are affordable to the population. The same applies to public Corporations and service ventures still undertaken by government. It can achieve this in multiple ways including financial bailouts and creation of a regulatory environment that encourages reward on investment and affordability and reliability of services.
Nigeria no doubt is on the path of economic development. But the process is slow being bedeviled by her colonial and neo-colonial experiences, single commodity economy, corruption and mismanagement, lack of political will, and experimentation with multiple economic development strategies ranging from indigenization, nationalization, privatization, to economic liberalization that were and still are never offered the ethical will nor technical expertise to succeed. To attain sustainable economic development, government should encourage public-private sector partnership that is robust, mutual, and dynamic in line with current global trends.
Aka C. (1981) A Political Economy Of Africa, Nigeria, Longman Nig. Plc.
Akpuru Aja A. (2002) Selected Themes In International Economic Relations, Understanding Trends Of Globalization And Regionalization, Enugu, Rhyce Kerex Publishers.
Anyawu J.C et al (1997) The Structure Of The Nigerian Economy (1960-1997), Onitsha, Joanee Educational Publishers Ltd.
Ayida A.A. (1987) Reflections On Nigerian Development, Lagos, Malthouse Press Ltd.
Business Day Newspaper, December 9, 2008
Hanson and Brembeck (ed) (1966) Evaluation And Development Of Nations, New York, Holt, Rinchart & Winston Inc.
Hornby A.S. (1995) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (5th ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Onyemelukwe C.C. (1974) Economic Under-Development: An Inside View, London, Longman Group Ltd.
Pearce D.W., Waford J.J. (1993) World Without End: Economics, Environment, And Sustainable Development, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Shaw M.N. (1997) International Law (4th ed.) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Smith A. (1776) An Enquiry Into The Wealth of The Nations. London, Methuen.
Sunday Independent Newspaper, June 7, 2009.
This Day Newspaper, June 10, 2008.
This Day Newspaper, November 19, 2008.
The SOURCE Magazine vol. 24 No. 6 December 1, 2008.
Tell Magazine No. 46 November 17, 2008.
Ude M.O., Teidi S.S. (2002) Macro-Economics: An In-Depth Analysis of Theory And Its Application To National Economic Problems In Nigeria, Enugu, New Generation Books.
Umozurike U.O (2008) Introduction To International Law (3rd ed.), Ibadan, Spectrum Books Ltd.
Ukeje B.O. in Nwosu E.J. (ed.) (1985) Achieving Even Development In Nigeria: Problems & Prospects, Enugu, Fourth Dimension Publishers.