IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bcp/journl/v4y2020i10p15-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Government Expenditure on Agriculture on Agricultural Sector Output in Nigeria (1981-2018)

Author

Listed:
  • EDEH, Chukwudi Emmanuel, Ph.D

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Agbani Enugu)

  • OGBODO, Joseph Charles Ph.D

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Agbani Enugu)

  • ONYEKWELU, Uche Lucy Ph.D

    (Department of Accountancy, Faculty of Management Sciences Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Agbani Enugu)

Abstract

The present study evaluated the impact of government expenditure on agriculture on agricultural sector output in Nigeria for the period 1981-2018with time series data obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin and Annual Reports. Agricultural value added was specified as a function of labour force, capital expenditure, recurrent expenditure, agricultural loans, average annual rainfall, interest rate and economic reforms. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller unit root test used to test for stationarity of the data reveals that the time series data were stationary at I(0) and I(1). Bound test cointegration indicates a long run relationship in the model. The result of the ARDL model technique analysis reveals that capital expenditure is positively related to agricultural output and it is also statistically significant at 5 % in the current year (P(t) = 0.0080). It was understood that the impact of capital expenditure on agricultural output begins to weaken after one year (P(t) = 0.0815). However, recurrent expenditure has a negative and insignificant impact on agricultural output (P(t) = 0.6657). The study recommends that governments at all levels should intensify and increase expenditure on capital items in Agriculture sector. Procurement of capital expenditure by government should be effectively monitored. This will ensure that the right and durable equipment are procured. With respect to recurrent expenditure which negates output in the agricultural output, there is need for reorganization of overhead expenditures in the sector. Close monitoring and cut of overhead spending in the agricultural should be instituted in all government agencies related to agriculture in Nigeria.

Suggested Citation

  • EDEH, Chukwudi Emmanuel, Ph.D & OGBODO, Joseph Charles Ph.D & ONYEKWELU, Uche Lucy Ph.D, 2020. "Impact of Government Expenditure on Agriculture on Agricultural Sector Output in Nigeria (1981-2018)," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 4(10), pages 15-26, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:4:y:2020:i:10:p:15-26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/Digital-Library/volume-4-issue-10/15-26.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://rsisinternational.org/virtual-library/papers/impact-of-government-expenditure-on-agriculture-on-agricultural-sector-output-in-nigeria-1981-2018/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    2. T. W. Swan, 1956. "ECONOMIC GROWTH and CAPITAL ACCUMULATION," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(2), pages 334-361, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kawalec Paweł, 2020. "The dynamics of theories of economic growth: An impact of Unified Growth Theory," Economics and Business Review, Sciendo, vol. 6(2), pages 19-44, June.
    2. van de Klundert, T.C.M.J. & Smulders, J.A., 1991. "Reconstructing growth theory : A survey," Other publications TiSEM 19355c51-17eb-4d5d-aa66-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    4. George Halkos & Iacovos Psarianos, 2016. "Exploring the effect of including the environment in the neoclassical growth model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 18(3), pages 339-358, July.
    5. Martina Vukašina & Ines Kersan-Škabiæ & Edvard Orliæ, 2022. "Impact of European structural and investment funds absorption on the regional development in the EU–12 (new member states)," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 17(4), pages 857-880, December.
    6. Liu, Tung & Li, Kui-Wai, 2006. "Disparity in factor contributions between coastal and inner provinces in post-reform China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 449-470.
    7. Kevin S. Nell & A.P. Thirlwall, 2017. "Why does the productivity of investment vary across countries?," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 70(282), pages 213-245.
    8. Asongu, Simplice & Amavilah, Voxi & Andrés, Antonio R., 2014. "Economic Implications of Business Dynamics for KE-Associated Economic Growth and Inclusive Development in African Countries," MPRA Paper 63793, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Robert M. Solow, 2000. "La teoria neoclassica della crescita e della distribuzione," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 53(210), pages 149-185.
    10. Tisdell, Clem, 2011. "Biodiversity conservation, loss of natural capital and interest rates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2511-2515.
    11. Tommy Lundgren, 2009. "Environmental Protection and Impact on Adjacent Economies: Evidence from the Swedish Mountain Region," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 513-532, September.
    12. Lichner, Ivan & Lyócsa, Štefan & Výrostová, Eva, 2022. "Nominal and discretionary household income convergence: The effect of a crisis in a small open economy," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 18-31.
    13. Ghada Gomaa A. Mohamed & Morrison Handley Schachler, 2017. "Population Growth and Transitional Dynamics of Egypt Theoretical Analysis & Time Series Analysis from 1981 To 2007," International Journal of Asian Social Science, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 7(2), pages 110-118, February.
    14. Cristina Brasili & Luciano Gutierrez, 2004. "Regional convergence across European Union," Development and Comp Systems 0402002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Matthew Higgins & Daniel Levy & Andrew T. Young, 2003. "Growth and Convergence across the US: Evidence from County-Level Data," Working Papers 2003-03, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Economics.
    16. Irmen, Andreas, 2018. "A Generalized Steady-State Growth Theorem," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 779-804, June.
    17. Ramesh Chandra Das & Sujata Mukherjee, 2020. "Do Spending on R&D Influence Income? An Enquiry on the World’s Leading Economies and Groups," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1295-1315, December.
    18. Carolina Arteaga Cabrales, 2011. "Human Capital Externalities and Growth," Revista ESPE - Ensayos sobre Política Económica, Banco de la Republica de Colombia, vol. 29(66), pages 12-47, December.
    19. Jaewon Lim & Changkeun Lee & Euijune Kim, 2015. "Contributions of human capital investment policy to regional economic growth: an interregional CGE model approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 55(2), pages 269-287, December.
    20. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ganau, 2022. "Institutions and the productivity challenge for European regions," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-25.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bcp:journl:v:4:y:2020:i:10:p:15-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dr. Pawan Verma (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.