EFFECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: AN EMERGING NATION OUTLOOK

BEN ETIM UDOH

Department of Management, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria

UDO EMMANUEL SAMUEL

Department of Banking, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria 

ABNER ISHAKU PRINCE

Department of Management, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria

IBEKWE UZONNA JOHN

Department of Management, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria

IKE RUBY NNEKA

Department of Management, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author:

UDO EMMANUEL SAMUEL
Department of Banking, University of Nigeria
Enugu Campus, Nigeria
Tel: +23408130455179
E-mail: emmanuelkenrick@gmail.com

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce

Abstract

The study centered and embraces the effect of administrative capital outflow on recurrent outflow on economic development in Nigeria, with the fundamental intent to examine the effect, causes, and affiliation between government overheads on economic growth in Nigeria. Annual data from 1999-2016 is adopted. The Classical Regression Model, Augmented Dickey-Fuller test with an array of a diagnostic test is employ. The Johansen test for co-integration was equally employed with two co-integrating factors. Empirical proof bared a long-run affiliation flanked by government outflow and growth in Nigeria. The Results also document the manifestation of a significant affiliation flanked by real gross domestic product, total recurrent expenditure and community services, with a non-significant affiliation flanked by GDP and economic services. In relation to the findings, surrounded by the sanctions made are that government should and must increase capital overhead and decrease recurrent overhead to propel development. Nevertheless, for government to realize the intent of infrastructural development conglomerate between the private sectors and the government is sine qua non.

Keywords

Community Services; Development; Expenditure; Economic; Nigeria

Introduction

In era bygone, the administrative roles of government globally cuddle; preservation of law and acts; end to end with the delivery of social basic infrastructures. In the contemporary era, empirical and conventional philosophy holds the view that, such roles have shifted to cuddles; the realization of full employment, price stability at a target rate of inflation of 2 percent, economic diversification, the balance of payment with trade equilibrium, with an unbiased circulation of income and wealth. Everything being equal, for such roles to be prized, government overheads becomes the sine qua non.

The active participation of government in trade and industry received ample courtesy in the 1930s. John Maynard Keynes in 1936 institute that, government outflow principally lifts development by means of fund injection. Therefore, government input emanates from the need to balance the imbalances in the economy [1,2].

However, naturally and by humanity Nigeria is enormously, blessed with an estimated land mass of 923,773 km², population of above 180 million 2006 census report and holds within her belly innumerable vegetation, solid mineral and gigantic bond of crude petroleum with natural gas; measure above 27 billion barrels of crude and 120 trillion standard cubic feet of gas, correspondingly [3].

Crude petroleum with natural gas contributes 95% of foreign earnings, 80% to GDP, an above 90% of total export valued at $47.8 billion placed Nigeria as the 49th largest exporter and import at $39.5 billion placed Nigeria as the 51st largest importer, with trade balance rank 82nd globally (Observer of Economic Complicity, 2015). The over-dependence and monoculture pattern of the economy propels the World Bank indices report of 2015 ranking the economy as one of the most unstable in the world with key defy taking on macroeconomic instability, motivated basically by external shocks in relation to trade.

The above is evidence in the abating expenditure rate from 37.9% in 2008, 6.4% in 2009, 21.5% in 2010, 12.3% in 2011, -2.3% in 2012, 5.39% in 2013, while real GDP in 2013 stood at N 941.46 billion (CBN, 2013). The GDP growth on aggregate stood at 6.0% in 2008, 7.0% in 2009, 8.0% in 2010, 7.4% in 2011 and 6.6% in 2012 (CBN, 2012). World Bank Nigeria poverty headcount in 2012 statistical shows that 62.6%, which holds about 63 million populaces live below two dollars per day with live expectancy below average at 45% in Nigeria. The United Nations Human Development Index ranked Nigeria 152nd out of 175th poor nations [3].

In an effort to amend the quagmire in the economy, government over time adopt and implement diverse tactics such as (poverty alleviation program and intensified outflow etc.) to boost development and growth in Nigeria. Government expenditures hug “capital and recurrent” which the former are expenditures on non-financial properties employ for production and revenue generation for more than a fiscal year, whereas, the latter are payments for non-repayable transactions within a fiscal year [4]. Consequently, government overheads can be chatted in the background of public expenditure theory.

In the sweat to boost development government expenditure, has being on the constantly increased bearing in mind budgetary allocations to countless zones of the economy. Such is evident in the unceasing increase of recurrent expenditure at N4, 805.20 million in 1980, N36, 219.60 million in 1990, N1, 589,270.00 in 2007, N 2.98 trillion in 2017 and N 3.494 trillion in 2018 also, capital expenditure at N10, 163.40 million in 1980, N24, 048.60 million in 1990, N239, 450.90 million in 2000 and N759, 323.00 million in 2007, N 2.24 trillion in 2017 and N 2.428 in 2018 trillion respectively. The 2016, 2017 cum 2018 budget as a distinctive specimen equally holds that recurrent overheads hold a greater proportion of allocation than capital overheads that is preordained to bring development by means of provision of social basic infrastructure (Table 1).

Table 1: Economic segments.

The outflow has continued to intensify in geometric proportion, while economic progression has unrelenting develop at a sluggish pace in Nigeria even in the face of a gigantic increase in outflow to boost growth and development economically in Nigeria [5].

The above analysis, therefore, propels and bags the questions; to what degree has the gigantic government outflows impacted on the development of Nigerian economy? What controls the imbalances or incompatibilities between government outflows and development in Nigeria?

The affiliation between government outflows and development has been the strategic theme of debate for economists and policymakers especially in emerging economies like Nigeria. Scholars over time held the view that, government overheads impacts positively on economic progression economically [3,6] accredited, economic progression economically to government capital overheads in developed and developing economies, where such outflows are a productive target.

Nevertheless, on the opposite various researchers oppose that increase in government overheads do not stimulate growth and development economically.

The justification for these researches emanates from the adoption of recurrent outflow as a measure or percentage of the total budget for the financial era along with capital outflow augment growth and development economically.

The based the year 1999 to 2016 play host to power transition from the military to the civilian and the implementation of different monetary blueprint to propel economic progression in Nigeria. The fundamental intent of the study is to scrutinize the bond and effect of government total recurrent overheads on economic development in Nigeria.

Literature Review

Capital overheads are government outflows for the delivery of social basic infrastructure as a measure and as a stimulus for economic progression. This denotes that government outflow is the heart of economic and financial progression globally.

Theoretical Review

The theoretical reinforcement of this study embraces the Wagner and Keynesian public expenditure schools of thought. Adolph Wagner, a legendary Germany economist in 1883, developed a model and officially articulates the determinant of government overheads in developing and developed economies. The Wagner’s law holds the view that government overheads are an endogenous constituent that is fundamentally influenced by means of an increase in national income and not dynamics accompanying growth in national income. The Wagner’s law, however, states that proliferation in administrative overheads translates to progression in national income.

The proposition is that national income energies overheads. The law auxiliary clarified that government overheads might be considered as an endogenous variable, not as an exogenous variable.

The Keynesian in 1936 holds the view that government overheads are a spirited governmental tool for the correction of progression imbalances in any economy by means of financial intermediation borrowing from the surplus unit (private sector) to the scarce unit and repayment by means of fund injection through disbursements programs. Therefore, progression economically is a byproduct of administrative outflow in industrialized and emerging economies.

Empirical Review

Samson, (2013) examine administrative outflow and economic progression proxy by GDP from end to end industrial sector in Nigeria, by means of Vector Error Correction Model and Granger Causality Model. The finding, therefore, shows the manifestation of a negative and significant affiliation between government outflow and the industrial region in Nigeria.

The recommendation of the study holds that for government outflows to impact positively there ought to be the effective and efficient channeling of funds to industrial sectors.

Onakoya and Somoye [7] study the impact of public capital overheads on economic progression proxy by GDP in Nigeria, engaging three-stage-least square (3SLS) technique and macro-econometric model of simultaneous equations. Findings show that capital overheads show a positive and significant bond with economic growth in Nigeria.

Eze and Ogiji explore the impact of fiscal policy on the industrial output in Nigeria, by means of Co-integration, VECM and OLS Method. Findings bare that government outflow significantly affect the manufacturing sector output and there is a long-run correlation between fiscal policy and manufacturing sector output.

Melissa and Dean [8] scrutinize the effect of government outflow on productivity industrial sector in the USA, engaging the simple Cobb-Douglas production model. Findings confirm a strong positive and the statistically significant bond between private capital and labour productivity.

Njoku, et al. [1] deliberated on the effect of government outflow on economic progression in Nigeria 1961-2013. Findings show the manifestation of a significant link between government outflow and economic evolution. Recommendation holds that there ought to be continuous increase outlays that are developed and growthoriented.

Okoro [9] probed the impact of administrative outflow in Nigeria from 1980-2011 by means of Granger Causality Model and OLS technique. Findings and conclusion bare a long run association between the real GDP and total government outflow [10]. Agbonkhese and Asekome [11] evaluated the impact of government outflow on credit to the economy, private capital formation, exchange rate and lagged values of GDP on current Gross Domestic Product, relating OLS econometric technique. Findings hold that, with the omission of exchange rate on the basis of negative impact to GDP, other explanatory variables showcase positive impact to GDP.

Emenini and Okezie, explored the correlation between total government outflow and economic advancement in Nigeria 1980-2012. Findings hold the opinion of cointegration between GDP and total government outflow; therefore, adjustment to equilibrium is 44% within a fiscal year when the variables stroll away from symmetry values.

Onakoya and Somoye [7] inspected the impact of capital outflow on economic evolution in Nigeria in the context of the macroeconomic framework at sectoral levels. Results hold the view that capital expenditure donates positively to economic growth. The relationship shows a positive but non-significant to the services sector. The recommendation is that of privatization of government-owned enterprises, to establish a positive affiliation.

Robinson, et al. [11] scrutinized the bond between government outflow and economic evolution. Government outflow was disaggregated into public debt expenditure, expenditure on health, and Education. Hence, Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test and OLS were taken on. Findings hold, that government outflow increases both foreign and local investments.

Al-Shatti [12] surveyed the impact of government overheads on economic progression in Jordan from 1993-2013, by means of OLS multiple regression models. Government outflow capture capital and recurrent outflow on education, health, economic, housing and community utilities. Findings hold display statistically significant impact of recurrent overheads on health, economic, housing and community utilities and capital expenditure on health and economic affairs. There is a non-significant impact of recurrent expenditure on education and of the capital expenditure on education, housing and community facilities in Jordan. The study submits the presence of positive affiliation between government outflows on economic growth in Jordan.

Shuaib, et al. studied the impact of innovation on an educational subdivision in Nigeria. By means of Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) tests, Co-integration tests and Error Correction model from end to end over-parameterization and parsimonious of the variable to qualify the researcher to make certain short-run and long-run equilibrium.

Shuaib, et al. studied the impact of government agricultural outflow on the Nigerian economy, by means of Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF), Co-integration and OLS technique. The outcomes bare that government agricultural outflow has an undeviating bond with economic growth which statistically significant at 5% level.

Shuaib and Dania, studied capital formation: impact on the economic expansion in Nigeria from 1960-2013. By the adoption of Harrod-Domar model to whether there is significant bond with the Nigerian economy. Empirical findings show a significant bond between capital creation and economic expansion in Nigeria.

Shuaib, et al. scrutinized the impact of corruption on growth economic in Nigeria from 1960-2012, by means of Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF), Co-integration and OLS technique to define the long-run affiliation in the study. Empirical findings show that corruption has an inverse bond with growth in Nigeria.

Ainabor, et al. scrutinized the impact of capital materialization on economic evolution in Nigeria from 1960-2010, by adoption of Harrod-Domar growth model in relation to Nigerian growth to test if there is a significant affiliation with the Nigerian economy. By means of Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) tests, Co-integration tests and Error Correction model to define the long-run affiliation. Findings support the Harrod- Domar model which substantiated that national income growth rate is directly associated with saving ratio and capital formation.

Uma, et al. [3] empirical investigate the influence of government outflow on administration, economic services, social and community services and total recurrent expenditure on economic development in Nigeria by the adoption of quarterly data ranging from 1980Q1-2010Q4. Augmented Dickey-Fuller test and co-integration where equally adopted. Finding bared a long-run association between government outflow and GDP, and expenditure on administration and total recurrent outflow impact significantly on the GDP, while outflow on economic services and social and community services have an insignificant effect on the real GDP.

Okyeuzu, et al. [5] review the impact of government recurrent outflows on economic evolution in Nigeria from 1961-2008, by means of bivariate co-integration analysis. Findings and results in signposts presence of co-integrating with the decision that there is a long-run bond flanked by economic progression and recurrent (GDP and RECURREXP) in Nigeria.

Patricia [13] premeditated on the effects of administrative outflow on educational economic advancement in Nigeria form 1977-2012. Findings show that outflow on education has a significant and positive effect on economic growth, whereas, recurrent outflow on education does not highly correlate with economic progression in Nigeria.

Contribution to Body of Knowledge

This study contributes to the body of knowledge by means of estimation techniques adopted and/or the data used which is extended to 2016, along with effort made to empirically scrutinize the effect and bond between the Government outflows on growth economically. The equation was estimated using a variability of analytical tools, along with an arrayed series of battery tests taking on Augmented Dickey- Fuller test for stationary, Johansen co-integration test for a long-run relationship, White test for heteroscedasticity (WGH) to signpost any potential abuse of the homoscedasticity assumption of Classical Linear Regression Model (CLRM). Breusch Godfrey LM serial correlation test, Ramsey Reset Test and CUMSUM model for Model Stability test. The method of estimation is fundamentally the OLS Technique [14-19].

Methodology

Model Formulation/Specification

On model formulation cum specification it can, however, be theorized that government outflows: on economic services (ECONS), community services (COMSR), and total recurrent outflows (TOTREC) revealed and established a nonsignificant effects cum bond on economic expansion in Nigeria. However, economic development is therefore measured by Real Gross Domestic Product (rgdp).

Nevertheless, it can equally be theorized that satisfactory government outflows bare a positive and significant effect cum bond on Real Gross Domestic Product and therefore can boost growth and development in Nigeria.

Linear Function

This study adopts the model of Uma, et al. [3] in their study; Government Expenditure in Nigeria: Effect on Economic Development as;

Rgdp=f (Gea, Ges, Gscs, Gtre).

That is Rgdp=a0 + a1 Gea + a2 Ges + a3 Gscs + a4 Gtre + et (1)

Where; Rgpd=Real gross domestic product;

Gea=Government expenditure on administration; Ges=Government expenditure on economic services; Gscs=Government expenditure on social and community services;

Gtre=Government total recurrent expenditure.

The above model was modified to capture our study and the functional affiliation of the variables is specified as:

RGDP=f (ECONS, COMSR, TOTREC)

RGDP=a0 + a1ECONS + a2COMSR + a3TOTREC + et (2)

Where: RGPD=Real gross domestic product; ECONS=Economic services; COMSR=Community services; TOTREC=Total recurrent outflows, a0=intercept; a1, a2 a3, a4=coefficients of the independent (explanatory) variables; et=stochastic error term.

On priority foundation, the coefficient of the independent variables (a1, a2, a3, and a4) is projected showcase a positive and significant affiliation with economic development (RGDP).

Method of Data Analysis

The study by means of analysis adopts time series data from 1999-2016 as published by the Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin and Annual Statement of Account 2016. Along with an arrayed series of battery tests embracing Augmented Dickey-Fuller test for stationary, Johansen co-integration test for a long-run relationship, White test for heteroscedasticity (WGH) to signpost any potential abuse of the homoscedasticity assumption of Classical Linear Regression Model (CLRM). Breusch Godfrey LM serial correlation test, Ramsey Reset Test for Model Stability, the method of estimation is fundamentally the Ordinary Least Square Technique (OLST).

Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results

The descriptive statistics in Table 2 above displays elementary aggregative averages of mean, and median, as well as the measures of spread and variation embracing standard deviation for all the observation at differenced series. Skewness measures the degree of departure from symmetry. While kurtosis measures the degree of peakedness. Jacque Bera Statistical test for normality parades that all the distributions are platykurtic as their kurtosis are all less than two (<2) and the p values of the JB Statistics are greater than (>5%). This submits a departure from normality and is therefore dependable with behaviour economic and financial time series data.

Table 2: Description of the characteristics of the variables under study.

Figure 1 above, shows that community services and economic services (logCOMSR and logECONS) have the maximum peak and data also confirm that COMSR and ECONS have the observation with the highest value. The plot equally illustrates that other variables fall with a range that is not extremely low with their values. The above therefore established a possible linear affiliation conceivable.

Figure 1: Histogram (Polygon) plot of the differenced series.

Tests for Unit Root

To ensure that the dataset is stationary enough to allow for meaningful analyses, the variables were subjected to a unit root test following the Augmented Dickey Fueler Statistics as adopted by Dickey and Fuller (1979, 1981), and Phillip Perron (pp) test to guard against spurious affiliation of variables. Nonstationarity variables will yield spurious outcomes if used in the analysis.

Table 3 shows test for stationarity assets of the series following the Augmented Dickey Fueler statistics. All the variables were found to be stationary in order (1). The p-values (0.000) are all less than 0.05 for which cause, the null hypothesis to be rejected convincingly. This test fundamentally guarantees that the regression result would not be spurious.

Table 3: Summary of ADF unit root tests.

Other OLS Estimates

R²=98.85%,

Adjusted R²=98.60%,

F-Statistic=402.9418

Prob(F-Statistic)=0.000000

(DW Stat 1.43).

The estimated above results in Table 4 shows the affiliation between government recurrent capital outflows and economic development in Nigeria within the scope of the formulated model tested. A positive and significant affiliation was found between ΔGDP, ΔCOMSR, and ΔTOTREC. This is inconsonant with our apriori expectation. Nevertheless, a negative and non-significant affiliation was found between ΔECONS and ΔGDP. This is a departure from our expected sign and direction. The R² holds the view that 98.8% of the variation in GDP within the framework of this model is explained by regressors. The Adjusted R² of 98.6%, this confirms goodness of fit in the model. Unexplained variation is less than 3%. The F-test 402.9418 (0.0000*) holds that the overall regression is statistically significant at 5% level rule of thumb. Moreover, the DW statistics which is 1.48 approximately 2, by the rule of thumb, rules out the suspicion of AR (1) autocorrelation and proves that the data used for the analyses are well behaved. Further confirmatory test for autocorrelation, the Breusch Godfrey LM serial correlation Test was used as a validity test for the DW statistics (Table 5).

Table 4: Regression results.

Table 5: Breusch Godfrey serial correlation LM test result.

The result of the BG LM serial correlation test done with a lag of 9 which by the rule of thumb represents one-third of the number of observations indicates that the pvalues of the F and Chi-square tests are all greater than 5%. This means that we accept the null hypothesis of no autocorrelation and reject the alternative hypothesis. This confirms the DW results and absolves the regression results of all forms of spuriousness.

The results of the White Test for heteroskedasticity as shown in the table above could not allow us to accept the null hypothesis of homoscedasticity. To remedy this problem which is a clear `violation of one of the cardinal assumptions of the Linear Regression Model, we used in the regression as reported in Table 6, the white heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors and covariance. This gives us a more robust standard error and t-estimates as reported above.

Table 6: Test for Heteroskedasticity.

Equation: UNTITLED

Specification: LOGRGDP LOGECONS LOGCOMSR LOGTOTREC C

Omitted Variables: Powers of fitted values from 2 to 3.

The Ramsey RESET test as shown in Table 7 below, conducted on a lag of 2, shows that there is no model specification error. Indicating that irrelevant variables were not included and essential variables were not omitted.

Table 7: Ramsey RESET test.

Table 8 above, shows the Trace statistic, maximal Eigenvalue statistic, and probability. The signpost direct existence of two co-integrating equation at (5%) significance level, which therefore denotes that real gross domestic product (RGDP) adopted as proxies for economic development is co-integrated with government outflows. The assume dismissal of null hypothesis holds no co-integration and acceptance of the alternative hypothesis of co-integration. Thus, the results suggest the existence of a stable long-run relationship between government outflow and real gross domestic product.

Table 8: Co-integrating test result between RGDP and government expenditure variables.

Table 9: Result of granger causality test.

Table 9 above, shows that there is a uni-directional relationship between recurrent expenditure and economic development.

Test for Model Stability

To confirm the stability of the model over the sample period and the absence of wrong functional form and model specification error, we used Ramsey RESET (Regression Specification Error Test) and the Recursive Estimates Bound Graph. The recursive graph shows the two red lines which are the upper and lower bounds and the blue line which is the model. This indicates that the model is blue and within bounds (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Test for model stability.

References

1. Njoku CO, Ugwu KE, Chigbu EE (2014) Government public expenditures: effect on economic growth (the case of Nigeria, 1961-2013). International Journal of Research in Management, Science, and Technology 2: 16-29.
2. Nwaeze C, Njoku R, Nwaeze OP (2014) Impact of government expenditure on Nigeria’s economic growth (1992 - 2011). The Macrotheme Review.
3. Uma KE, Eboh FE, Nwaka ID (2013) Government expenditure in Nigeria: effect on economic development. American Journal of Social Issues and Humanities.
4. Modebe NJ, Okafor RG, Onwumere JUJ, Ibe IG (2012) Impact of recurrent and capital expenditure on Nigerian economic growth. European Journal of Business and Management 4: 66-75.
5. Okoyeuzu CR, Egbo OP, Onodugo VA (2012) The impact of current expenditure on nation building: a developing nation perspective. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research 2: 2249-8672.
6. Nurudeen A, Usman A (2010) Government expenditure and economic growth in Nigeria, 1970-2008. Business and Economics Journal.
7. Onakoya AB, Somoye ROC (2013) The impact of public capital-expenditure and economic growth in Nigeria. Global Journal of Economics and Finance 2: 1-11.
8. Melissa Y, Dean S (2013) Is public expenditure productive? evidence from the manufacturing sector in U.S. cities. Cato Journal 33: 1-28.
9. Okoro AS (2013) Government spending and economic growth in Nigeria (1980-2011). Global Journal of Management and Commerce 13: 35-42.
10. Agbonkhese AO, Asekome MO (2014) Impact of public expenditure on the growth of Nigerian economy. European scientific journal 10: 1857-7881.
11. Robinson MO, Eravwoke KE, Ukavwe A (2014) Government expenditures and economic growth: The Nigerian experience. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5: 89-94.
12. Al-Shatti AS (2014) The impact of public expenditure on economic growth in Jordan. International Journal of Economics and Finance 6: 157-166.
13. Patricia CN, Izuchukwu CD (2013) Impact of government expenditure on economic growth in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Management Review 1: 64-71.
14. Central Bank of Nigeria (2013) Statistical bulletin.
15. Ditimi A, Babalalo JA, Philip N, Adebayo AT (2011) Components of government spending and economic growth in Nigeria-an error correction modeling. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development.
16. Review of 2016, 2017 and 2018 Budget proposal of federal government of Nigeria (2016) National Assembly, Budget and Research Office, Abuja.
17. Samson AA (2013) Government spending and economic growth in Nigeria. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) 2: 1-23.
18. United Nations Development Programme (2013) Human development report: The rise of the south: Human progress in a diverse world.
19. World Bank (2012) Nigeria: Development Indicator.