Introduction
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.
Economic Liberalization.
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
Sustainable Development
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.
Conclusion
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.
REFERENCES
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.