International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2015; 3(2): 57-63 Published online March 10, 2015 (http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/ijaff)
Performance Evaluation of Various Policy Regimes Toward Agricultural Growth in Nigeria Udah S. C.1, 2, Nwachukwu I. N.3, Akpan S. B.4 1
Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Abia State University, Uturu, Abia State, Nigeria Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, U. S. A. 3 Dept of Agribusiness and Management, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State, Nigeria 4 Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Akwa Ibom State University, Uyo, Akwa Ibom, Nigeria 2
Email address
[email protected] (Udah S. C.)
To cite this article Udah S. C., Nwachukwu I. N., Akpan S. B.. Performance Evaluation of Various Policy Regimes Toward Agricultural Growth in Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Vol. 3, No. 2, 2015, pp. 57-63.
Abstract In the last thirty years, the performance of the agricultural GDP in Nigeria has been decimally, declining from 64 percent share of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1960 to 44 percent in 2010. In response to this scenario, this study evaluated the performance of various policy regimes that managed the resources of Nigeria from 1961 to 2010. This is with the goal of identifying the regime that is the best in growing the agricultural sector for recommendation. The study estimated the exponential trend of the agricultural sector and analysed such growth under different policy regimes. Time series secondary data were used. Data analysis involved the use of exponential or log-linear trend. The result of the trend analysis confirmed deceleration of the agricultural sector. The result also showed that the period (1995-2010) of liberalization policy regime topped other policy regime periods in confirming acceleration in agricultural output growth. The result also showed that the mean growth of Agricultural GDP under liberalization policy regime fared better than the rest of the policy regimes. This implied that the liberalization policy is positively related to agricultural output growth and has some structures that could enhance growth. The study advocated for policy of accelerated investment on public goods that supports agricultural production and marketing such as development of human capital through education, rural infrastructure, irrigation and power supply. This is because the deceleration confirmed was as a result of sustained marginalization of the agricultural sector in the past. The study further recommended guided liberalization of the economy.
Keywords Agricultural GDP Growth, Exponential Trend, Policy Regime, Liberalization Policy, Accelerated Investment
1. Background to the Study Agriculture is the most important sector in the Nigerian economy given its contribution, over the past several decades, to employment, foreign exchange, food supply, poverty reduction and its linkages with other sectors of the economy. It can be said that, indeed, the sector’s performance directly mirrors the performance of the overall economy. In 1960 for example, agriculture constituted as much as 64% of Nigeria’s GDP (CBN, 1998; Ekpo and Umoh, 2010; Odhiambo et al., 2004; Emeka 2007). Endowed with huge expanse of arable land, beneficial climate, abundant streams, lakes, forest and grassland, as well as large, active population that can sustain a highly productive agriculture, Nigeria has great potential to become
the food basket of the West African Sub-region (FOA, 2003; Imoudu, 2005).The sector is estimated to be the largest contributor to non-oil foreign exchange earnings. This means that agriculture holds abundant potential for enhancing and sustaining the country’s foreign exchange. Despite the enormous contribution of agriculture to the Nigeria economy over the years, the sector has, however, slipped into a systemic decline, particularly in the past four decades. Agricultural sector contributed 21 percent to GDP in 1980; 32 percent in 1990 and about 41 percent in 2010. This trend contrasts sharply with earlier years when agriculture contributed 64 percent to GDP in 1960 and 53 percent in1968 (CBN, 2010). Figure 1 summarised the trend in agricultural sector growth. Agricultural sector output, proxied by its contribution to GDP, averaged 50.2% during the period 1960-
58
Udah S. C. et al.: Performance Evaluation of Various Policy Regimes Toward Agricultural Growth in Nigeria
70. However, its contribution declined persistently, reaching a low of 21.8% in 1976-1980 before an upward swing to 39.6% in 1981-1985. The contribution increased further to 41.2% in 1986-90 following the introduction of SAP in 1986, but declined to 38.7% in the subsequent period. Its contribution has remained at an average of 41.6 percent between 20012010.
Figure 1. Contribution of agricultural sector to GDP in Nigeria, 1960-2010.
A major indicator of depressed performance in Nigeria agricultural sector is the food crisis experienced in the country in the contemporary years, forcing the country to resort to increasing food importation at high prices (Ogundari and Ojo, 2007). Thus, by 1975, Nigerian economy had become a net importer of basic food items (Ekpo and Umoh, 2010; Imoudu, 2005; CBN, 2000). N15.68 trillion was spent by Nigerians to purchase food items in 2010. The amount is about four times higher than the national budget and contained in the 2010 report of households’ consumer pattern (Onuba, 2012). The general decline in agricultural share of GDP is, therefore, not because the industrial and manufacturing sector increased its share, but due to neglect of the agricultural sector as the country relied heavily on crude oil; amidst marginalization of agriculture by successive government in Nigeria since the 1970’s. It was therefore not surprising that the neglect of the sector has undermined food security and exacerbated structural imbalances that have constrained economic growth and development in the country (Imoudu, 2005; CBN, 2010b). Nigeria has experienced four policy regimes since independence (Abolagba et al., 2010; Ojiako, 2008). The period of 1961-1970 was characterized by diversification of resources to other sectors other than agriculture. The period of 1970-1985 was characterized by restrictive or regulated economic policy. It witnessed more direct government intervention in agriculture in the face of the noticeable decline in agriculture performance. For example, marketing board was established to handle agricultural produce. The third period, 1986-1994, was that of structural adjustment which became a forerunner to the liberalization of
Nigerian agricultural exports. It marked the beginning of a deregulated economy. Exchange rate deregulation was the major policy instrument. The last and current period, 19952010 was liberalization policy. The three documents that clearly spell out Nigeria’s vision for agricultural development in this regime, especially when the civilian administration took over in 1999, are the National Economic Empowerment Development Strategy (NEEDS), National Agricultural Policy (NAP) and Rural Sector Strategy (RSS), 2004. The overall strategic objective of the NEEDS and NAP is to diversify the productive base from oil and to promote market-oriented and private sector-driven economic development with strong local participation. The Nigerian civilian government that commenced towards the end 1990’s has, in addition to the aforementioned policies, initiated and endorsed many national and international projects, programs, and policies aimed at rapid agricultural growth. These include the implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), the National Food Security Program (NFSP), the Agriculture 5-point Agenda, (Diao et al., 2010). Recent developments, therefore, suggests that Nigeria’s greatest desire is to carry out economic transformation and increase economic growth by reviving and restructuring her neglected agricultural sector as she consolidates on her new democratic institution. To formulate strategies for achieving sustained production and rapid growth necessary for poverty eradication, relevant information is absolutely necessary (Amin, 2002). This study therefore evaluated the performance of the various regimes with the aim of determining which regime contributed more to agricultural growth. This would lead to adoption of appropriate policies instrument that might result in higher growth rates. 1.1. Statement of the Problem The Breton Woods supported structural adjustment programme (SAP) launched in1986 tried to redefine the state of the economy of Nigeria with the main aim of reversing the downward trend of the agricultural sector. The sector was deregulated by abolishing marketing board, eliminating price control, privatization of public enterprise, the devaluation of naira to aid the competitiveness of the export sector. Before SAP was introduced, Nigeria economy was characterized by a weak economic structure arising from frequent changes in economic and financial policies, bad implementation of gigantic agricultural projects, rise in food importation, fall in oil price, increase in foreign debt, and others (Umebali and Akubuilo, 1992). The share of agricultural GDP to the overall GDP has fallen from 64 percent in 1960 to 23 percent in 1976 when operation feed the nation was launched; and 21 percent in 1980 when green revolution programme was launched (CBN, 2010). Despite the adoption of development plans, the economy behaved sluggishly and population grew by leaps and bounds unchecked, with Nigeria having one of the highest growth rates in the world (3-5.5%) (Umebali and Akubuilo, 1992). Various policy regimes in Nigeria had launched
International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2015; 3(2): 57-63
Agricultural policies and programmes to boost food production. Some of them are: National Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP), launched in 1972; Operation Feed the Nation, launched in 1976; River Basin and Rural Development Authorities, established in 1976; the promulgation of a Land Use Decree in 1978 which nationalized all land, and established new Commodity Boards; Green Revolution Programme, inaugurated in 1980. The reason for deregulation as the policy trust of SAP and other aforementioned programmes was to put the agricultural sector and the economy on a sustainable growth path. This has not been achieved as intended since food supply could not meet up with demand. When SAP policies were executed as intended by the IMF, the Nigerian economy actually did grow as was expected. The growth manifested between 1986 and 1988, with the export sector performing especially well. However, the falling real wages in the public sector amongst the urban classes, along with a drastic reduction in expenditure on public services, set off waves of rioting and other manifestations of discontent that made sustained commitment to the SAP difficult to maintain (Umebali and Akubuido, 1992). Post SAP projects, programs, and policies by Nigerian government also included the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies (NEEDS I and NEEDS II), the implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) and the National Food Security Program (NFSP) (Diao et al, 2010). Despite all these efforts by various policy regimes, the agricultural sector has not been able to achieve the expected results as food supply is unable to keep pace with demand (Diao et al., 2010; Tanko et al., 2006; FAO, 2004). If N15.68 trillion could be spent by Nigerians to purchase only food items in 2010 (Onuba, 2012), there is definitely a need for an appropriate policy instrument for a sustained agricultural growth. 1.2. Justification of the Study Agriculture is the most important sector in the Nigerian economy. Since the sector’s performance directly mirrors that of the overall economy, the result of the study are expected to assist researchers, policy makers, and relevant government agencies in their planning, research, development, and the use of agricultural products towards attaining food security (Ekpo and Umoh, 2010; Odhiambo et al., 2004; Ojiako, 2008). For a proper design of growth enhancing policies, policy makers should have good knowledge of the best and workable policy instrument. They should know what accounts for variation in different policy instruments and their implementation; including the roles of such factors in agricultural growth. With the necessary information, policy makers can evaluate and select the best instrument for positive effects on productivity. Evaluating the various policy regimes to decipher the best instrument for Agricultural Growth is an appropriate way of finding where policies can rightly respond to the issues of
59
decimal performance of Nigeria agricultural sector. The outcome would therefore assist in gaining better understanding concerning a more beneficial and appropriate public policy.
2. Research Methodology 2.1. Study Area The study was conducted in Nigeria which is one of the largest countries in Africa and lies wholly within the tropics along the Gulf of Guinea on the western coast in SubSaharan Africa. Nigeria lies between 40 and 140 North of the equator and between longitudes 30 and 150 east of the Greenwich. Nigeria has a total land area of 923,768.622 km or about 98.3 million hectares, and population of 149,229,090140 million people (NPC, 2009; Lafiagi, 1984). Nigeria has a highly diversified agro-ecological condition, which makes possible the production of a wide range of agricultural products. Smallholder and traditional farmers who use rudimentary production techniques, with resultant low yields, cultivate most of this land (Manyong et al., 2003). 2.2. Sources of Data This study relied on the use of aggregate secondary data with a span of 50 years (1961-2010). Time series annual data on real agricultural GDP and other relevant information were obtained from Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) several issues. 2.3. Method of Data Analysis In order to evaluate the performance of various policy regimes towards growth in Nigerian agriculture, this research adopted linear and quadratic time variables. Linear time variable indicates the circular path in the dependent variable, real agricultural GDP (AGR), while the quadratic term (t2) allows for the possibility of acceleration, deceleration or stagnation in growth during the period under study (Sawant, 1983; Onyenweaku and Okoye, 2005) 2.4. Model Specification AGR = exp (β0 + β1t+ ξ)
(2.1)
Where AGR = Real agricultural GDP (N/Million), t = Time trend measured in years; β0 = Intercept or constant of the trend equation; β1 = Slope or trend coefficient; ξ = The error term. If linearized by taking the natural logarithm of both sides, equation (2.1) becomes: InAGR = β0 + β1t+ ξ
(2.2)
Where lnAGR is the natural logarithm of real agricultural GDP; and all other variables were as previously defined. To ascertain growth pattern, and consequently test the hypothesis of whether there will be acceleration, stagnation
60
Udah S. C. et al.: Performance Evaluation of Various Policy Regimes Toward Agricultural Growth in Nigeria
or deceleration in growth of real agricultural GDP, the quadratic equation, fitted to the data for the periods covered, is specified as: InAGR = β0 + β1t+ β2t2+ e
(2.3)
Where the variables lnAGR and t are as previously defined, and β0, β1 and β2 are unknown parameters to be estimated. In testing the specified hypothesis in (2.3), If β2 is positive and statistically significant there is acceleration in growth; if β2 is negative and statistically significant there is deceleration in growth; if β2 is positive or negative but not statistically significant there is stagnation in the growth process (Onyenweaku and Okoye, 2005; Anyaegbunam et al., 2006; Ojiako, 2008). 2.5. Apriori Expectations β2 > 0 and statistically significant
3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Policy of Economic Diversification (1961–1970) The results under this regime showed that the slope coefficient of both the time trend and quadratic equations in time variable were negative and statistically insignificant confirming stagnation. This is in line with the findings of Daromola et al. (2008). They reported that there was minimum direct government involvement in agriculture as the sector was left with the regional government and being taxed to develop other sectors like education, health, construction etc. Agricultural sector therefore saw itself being neglected to the nation’s detriment. 3.2. Policy of Reconciliation, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Stabilization (1971-1985) The result of the second policy regime showed that the slope coefficient of the time trend was positive and statistically significant indicating acceleration; while the quadratic equations in time variable was positive and statistically insignificant confirming stagnation. The significant increase observed in time trend could be explained by the frantic effort of the regime in power to address the problem of domestic food shortages brought about by lowered agricultural productivity and rapidly developing petroleum oil sector at the expense of agriculture. Omeje, (2008) observed that during this period the government introduced the Green Revolution Programme (GRP) and the National Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme to encourage massive food production and mechanized farming. Other policy thrust of the government include: Accelerated Food Production Programme (NAFPP) in 1972; Operation Feed the Nation in 1976; Nigerian Agricultural and Co-Operative Bank (NACB) in 1973 (Omeje, 2008; Daramola et al., 2008).
In spite of these programmes, it was observed that the quadratic equation confirmed stagnation in growth which implied that the agricultural sector was increasing at a constant rate. Two reasons could explain this: The windfall from the oil wealth was not invested in agriculture, but in commerce, construction and manufacturing. Currency overvaluation led to Nigerian agricultural exports being uncompetitive in the foreign market. 3.3. Policy of Structural Adjustment (1986-1994) The result of the third policy regime presented another acceleration in time trend and stagnation in quadratic equations in time variable. The result could be explained as follows: In 1986 the regime in power took a bold step in introducing Britton Wood supported Structural Adjustment Programme popularly known as SAP. Directorate of Food Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) was established, coupled with National Agricultural Insurance Corporation and Peoples’ Bank. With the said reforms, agricultural producers had an incentive to boost their exports. It was, however, observed that this period confirmed stagnation in growth of the agricultural sector. The introduction of SAP was a plausible one but the outcome of the devaluation of the currency made the growth in agricultural export earnings to merely become a price effect, with little output effect. The latter effect is what is required to give real sustained growth in agricultural export. Economic theory suggests that exchange rate devaluation is good for exports as it makes export prices more competitive because it leads to a higher farm gate (domestic) price. At the same time, devaluation makes imports more expensive. So, for an economy as in Nigeria that is dependent on imported inputs, devaluation has a dual impact (Daramola et al., 2008). It was this dual impact that made the programme in this period ran contrary to expectation as real wage plummeted and agricultural raw material import became more expensive for agricultural production; hence the stagnation that was observed. 3.4. Policy of Liberalization (1995-2010) The result of the forth policy regime showed that the slope coefficient of the time trend was positive and statistically significant indicating acceleration; while the quadratic equations in time variable was also positive and statistically significant confirming acceleration. The implication of the result is that the regime experienced accelerated growth. The significant increase observed in the trend results coupled with the acceleration confirmed in the quadratic equation, say a lot about the characteristics of this policy regime. This is the only regime that confirmed acceleration and there must be something worth adopting and emulating that this regime did. Ojiako (2008) noted that although the early part of this period witnessed the highest social, economic and political instability; but the democratic dispensation that emerged later
International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2015; 3(2): 57-63
on from 1999 till date trickled in hope. The overall strategic objective of the NEEDS and NAP that emerged at this period, is to diversify the productive base from oil and to promote market-oriented and private sector-driven economic development with strong local participation. A combination of these factors coupled with improved inputs such as fertilizers, seeds, credit and so on has explained the growth in both agricultural productivity and export sub-sectors
61
(Daramola et al.,2008). Having stood out among the other regimes as the one that has demonstrated acceleration, it means that the liberal policy of this period which had root from the SAP period has growth enhancing elements inherent in it. This particular regime could therefore be the one whose policies could be recommended for adoption as the Nigeria grapples to consolidate her democratic institution.
Table 1. Estimated trend equations for Nigeria’s agricultural sector GDP, 1961-2010 Estimated Parameter Period 1961-1970 (n=10) 1971-1985 (n=15) 1986-1994 (n=9) 1995-2010 (n=16) 1961-2010 (n=50)
β0 7.46*** (115.66) 6.84*** (24.49) 11.14*** (515.33) 50.60*** (5.36) 6.75*** (37.31)
β1 -0.02 (-1.76) 0.27*** (9.38) 0.04*** (9.37) 1631*** (16.85) 0.13*** (21.38)
R2 0.30
F-value 3.10
Sig. 0.12
0.86
87.98
0.000
0.93
87.86
0.000
0.98
341.15
0.000
0.90
456.96
0.000
***=significant at 1%;**significant at 5%; t-values are in parentheses. Source: estimate from data (CBN 2010) 1961–1970= Policy of economic diversification 1971-1985 = Policy of reconciliation, rehabilitation, reconstruction and stabilization 1986- 1994= Policy of Structural adjustment 1995-2010 = Policy of liberalization 1961-2010 = Aggregate Table 2. Estimated quadratic equations in time variable for Nigeria’s agricultural sector GDP, 1961-2010 Periods 1961-1970 (n=10) 1971-1985 (n=15) 1986-1994 (n=9) 1995-2010 (n=16) 1961-2010 (n=50)
β0 7.37 (67.47) 7.25 (16.09) 11.10 (309.91) 74845 (5.65) 6.00 (23.01)
β1 0.04 (0.80) 0.16 (1.11) 0.06 (3.51) 8088 (2.25) 0.21 (9.21)
β2 -0.01 (-1.24) 0.01* (1.14) -0.002 (-1.25) 484* (2.36) -0.002*** (-3.64)
R2 0.45
F-value 2.43
Sig. 0.26
0.88
45.59
0.27
0.95
50
0.226
0.97
191.01
0.035
0.93
293.59
0.000
***=significant at 1%;**significant at 5%; t-values are in parentheses. Source: estimate from data (CBN 2010) 1961–1970= Policy of economic diversification 1971-1985 = Policy of reconciliation, rehabilitation, reconstruction and stabilization 1986- 1994= Policy of Structural adjustment 1995-2010 = Policy of liberalization 1961-2010 = Aggregate
3.5. The Aggregate Period (1961-2010) The result of the aggregate period showed that the slope coefficient of the time trend was positive and statistically significant indicating acceleration; while the quadratic equations in time variable was negative and statistically significant confirming deceleration. Thus, in spite of the efforts of the various policy regimes in the past to address the anomalies of Nigerian agricultural GDP, the result confirmed deceleration of overall agricultural sector. The result is in line with the empirical work of Muhammed-Lawal and Atte (2006). In their analysis of
agricultural production in Nigeria, they showed that between 1981– 2003, aggregate agricultural production only grew by 5.4%. This shows that all the component of the agricultural sector of the economy have not had any appreciable growth in production. From the results so far, the trend in agricultural production can be described as not impressive, and that agricultural growth has been slow and not even steady. According to Izuchukwu (2011), despite these laudable efforts, Nigeria’s agricultural sector is still characterized by low yields, attributable to the use of crude implements, a low level of inputs and limited areas under cultivation, among others.
62
Udah S. C. et al.: Performance Evaluation of Various Policy Regimes Toward Agricultural Growth in Nigeria
Table 3, presents the contribution of each policy regimes to agricultural GDP. The result equally showed that the regime period with the liberal policy registered the highest mean growth (188847.5) and also contributed a greater percentage (73.2 percent) of agricultural output better than other regimes. This is in line with the result of the exponential and quadratic growth trend earlier discussed. This indicates that there are factors that are growth enhancing inherent in liberalization policy. Table 3. Mean and percentage contribution of each policy regime period to aggregate agricultural GDP. Policy Regime Periods 1961-1970 (n=10) 1971-1985 (n=15) 1986-1994 (n=9) 1995-2010 (n=16) 1961-2010 (n=50)
Mean Agricultural GDP 1606.7 23237.58 82666.44 188847.5 102853.1
% Contribution to Agricultural GDP 0.4 8.4 18.0 73.2 100
Source: Computed by the author, data from the CBN statistical Bulletin (2010) 1961-1970 =Policy of economic diversification 1971-1985 = Policy of reconciliation, rehabilitation, reconstruction and stabilization 1986- 1994= Policy of Structural adjustment 1995-2010 = Policy of liberalization aggregate agricultural GDP
4. Summary of Findings This study evaluated the performance of various policy regimes towards agricultural growth in Nigeria. The result of the trend and quadratic analysis (Table 1 and 2) of the agricultural GDP confirmed deceleration of the agricultural sector. This implied that Nigeria agricultural GDP has declined over time. The result of the mean and percentage contributions of each policy regime to aggregate agricultural GDP, (Table 3), favoured liberalization policy regime. They showed that liberalization policy regime (1995-2010) topped other policy regimes in confirming acceleration in agricultural output growth. This implied that the liberalization policy is positively related to agricultural output growth and has some structures that could enhance growth better than other policies.
4.2. Recommendations Based on the findings from the analysis, the following recommendations are made: 1. The study advocated for policy of accelerated investment on public goods that supports agricultural production and marketing such as development of human capital through training in agriculture, rural infrastructure, irrigation, rural hospital, banking, cottage industries and power supply. This could be made possible through instituting agricultural trust fund (akin to educational trust fund) where certain percentage of proceeds from oil is saved towards agricultural development. It is also necessary to adhere to Food and Agricultural Organization’s (FAO) recommendation that 25 percent of government capital budget allocation be assigned to agricultural development. Embarking on these will counter the effect of the sustained marginalization of the agricultural sector in the past. 2. Sustaining liberalization policy is advocated. These points towards international trade as a veritable instrument in achieving agricultural growth and wealth to the nation. For an economy to be agricultural export oriented there has to be surplus commodities made possible through economy of scale by provision of functional ports, telecommunication, agro allied industries and sound security outfit.
References [1]
Abolagba, E.O., Onyekwere, N.C., Agbonkpolor, B.N. and Umar, H.Y (2010). Determinants of Agricultural Exports Rubber Research Institute of Nigeria, P.M.B. 1049, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria.
[2]
Amin, A. (2002). An Examination of the Source of Economics Growth in Cameroon. AERC Research Paper 116 African Economics Research Consortium, Nairobi.
[3]
Anyaegbulam, H.N., Onwumere, J., and Korieocha, D. S. (2006). Comparative Trends Analysis of Yam and Cassava in
[4]
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), (1998). The Challenging Structure of Nigeria Economy and Implications for Development. The Research Department, Abuja, Nigeria.
[5]
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). (2000). Nigerian Economy and Implications for Development. Realm Communication Limited, Lagos, Nigeria.
[6]
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), (2010b). Statistical Bulletin. 50 Years Special Anniversary Edition.
[7]
Daramola, A. Ehui, S., Ukeje E., and Mclntine J. (2008). Agricultural Export Potential in Nigeria” www.csae.ox.ac.uk/books//. Agriculturalexportpotential in Nigeria.pdf.
[8]
Diao, X.Fan, S.Kanyarukiga, S.Yu, B. (2010) Agricultural Growth and Investment Options for Poverty Reduction in Rwanda. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
[9]
Diao, X, Wafer, M. and Vida, A. (2010). Strategic Issues on Growth in the Agricultural Sector and Reducing Poverty in Nigeria. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRIAbuja).
4.1. Conclusion The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of various policy regimes towards agricultural growth in Nigeria. The underlying fact and from the result of the trend analysis is that the performance of the agricultural sector has declined considerably over the years from an all time high of 64% of Nigeria’s GDPat independence to 20% in 1979 and 46% in 2010. Having presented liberalization policy as the best one for Nigeria based on the result, this study calls on all government, non-governmental organizations, policy makers, stakeholders, and every citizen to sustain liberalization policy and to embark upon the noble task of returning agriculture to its former glory being the mainstay of the economy.
International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2015; 3(2): 57-63
[10] Ekpo, A. H. and Umoh, O. J. (2010). An Overview of the Nigerian Economics Growth and Development. OnlineNigeria.Com. [11] Emeka, O.M. (2007). Improving the Agricultural Sector towards Economic Development and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria. CBN bulletin 4:23-56. [12] Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), (2003). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. An FAO Perspective, Rome. [13] Imoudu, P. B. (2005). Government Policies towards the Sustainability Rebirth in Nigeria: Challenges and Opportunities. Proceedings of the 39th conference of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria held in Benin, Edo State, Nigeria. Pp 31 – 35. [14] Izuchukwu, O. (2011). Analysis of the Contribution of Agricultural Sector on the Nigerian Economic Development World Review of Business Research 1(1): 191-200. [15] Manyong, V.M, Ikpi, A. Olayemi, J.K, Yusuf, S.A. Omonona, R, Idachaba, F.S. (2003). Agriculture in Nigeria: Identifying Opportunities for Increased Commercialization and Investment in Nigeria. A commissioned Study by IITA, U.I and USAID. [16] Muhammed-Lawal, A. and Atte, O. A. (2006). An Analysis of Agricultural Production in Nigeria. African Journal of General Agriculture 2(1): 1-6. [17] National Population Commission (NPC), (2009). [18] Odhiambo, W, Nyangito H.O. and Nzuma J. (2004). Sources and Determinants of Agricultural Growth and Productivity in Kenya. Kenya Institute for Policy Research and Analysis. Bishops Garden Tower Bishops Road, Nairobi Kenya. [19] Ogundari, K. and Ojo, S. O. (2007). Economic Efficiency of Small Scale Food Crop [20] Production in Nigeria: A Stochastic Frontier Approach. Journal of Social Science, 14(2):123-130.
63
[21] Ojiako, I.A (2008). Analysis of Acceleration, Deceleration and Stagnation in Output, Land area, and Yield of Sweet Potato [Ipomoea Batatas (L.) Lam] in Nigeria, 1961-2007 Sweat Potato in Nigeria Conference, Ibadan; Sweet Potato Promotion Group, Ibadan. [22] Omeje, I.S (2008). Policy Driven Agricultural Development in Nigeria: Reform, Reversal and Globalisation Imperatives. Invited Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Conference of Agricultural Society of Nigeria held at Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki, Nigeria; 19th – 23rd October, 2008. [23] Onuba, I. (2012). Nigeria Spent N15.68 Trillion on Food in 2010-NBS nbf (at) Nigerianbestforum.com. [24] Onyenweaku, C.E and Okoye B.C. (2005). Trends in Cassava Output, Area and Productivity in Nigeria, 1960/61-2003/04. Pages 19-21 In: Orheruata A.M., Nwokoro, S.O., Ajayi, M.T., Adekunle, A.T. and Asumugha G.H. (eds). Agricultural Rebirth for Improved Production in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria held at the University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria, October 9-13. [25] Sawant, S.D. (1983). Investigation of the Hypothesis of Deceleration in Indian Agriculture. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 38(4): 475- 496. [26] Tanko, L., Onyenweaku, C. E. and Nwosu, A. C. (2006). Optimum Crop Combination under Limited Resource Condition: A Micro Level Study in Yauri, Kebbi State. The Nigerian Agricultural Journal Vol 37. p. 170–188. [27] Umebali, E.E. and Akubuido (1992). Nigerian Economy and Structural Adjustment: Effect on the Agricultural Sector. In: Aham Anyanwu the Nigerian Structural Adjustment Programme a Multi Sectorial Analysis. Abic Books and Equipment Limited Enugu, Nigeria in Conjunction with Area Global Research Consult Abia State University.
