THE ANALYSIS OF OIL PRICE SHOCK IN NIGERIA FROM 1970 TO 2014

ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420

THE ANALYSIS OF OIL PRICE SHOCK IN NIGERIA FROM 1970 TO 2014

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Nigeria gained an extra US$390 billion in oil-related fiscal revenue over the period 1971 - 2005 (Budina and Wijnbergen, 2008). What has the nation got to show for this? Despite such windfall, Nigeria has an increasing proportion of impoverished population and experienced continued stagnation of the economy (Okonjo-Iweala and Osafo-Kwaako, 2007). The country, like many other oil-rich countries (ORCs) economically underperforms many resource poor countries (Karl, 2004). Her oil wealth has not been tapped to launch her onto economic heights; rather, she suffers from what Robinson, Torvik and Verdier (2006) describe as a resource curse a paradox of poverty amidst plenty resources. Why? One popularly identified bane of the country’s economic situation is the Dutch Disease Syndrome (DDS) the structural economic imbalance resulting from poor management of oil revenue, and perhaps its shocks. Windfalls that result from volatile oil price surges/shocks overwhelmingly flow through the economy; expand the oil sector and penalize the non-oil sector (Mieiro and Ramos, 2010). The resulting decline in the non-oil sector reinforces sharp decline in the economic growth rate when the price of crude oil falls. Budina, Pang and Wijnbergen (2007), however, point out that DDS alone does not explain the slow growth of the Nigerian economy, especially her non-oil sector; rather, they identify volatility (or shocks) of oil price and its effect on other macroeconomic variables as the bane.

Prior to the discovery of crude oil in commercial quantity in 1956 (Adedipe, 2004; Odularu, 2007), the Nigerian economy, though largelyagrarian (Canagarajah and Thomas, 2001), was stable and steadily growing. The pleasant situation continued into the 1960s when agriculture played a dominant role in her economy in terms of contribution to GDP and foreign exchange earnings (Kwanashie, Ajilima and Garba, 1998). The stability and gradual growth of the economy reversed in the era of oil-dominant economy. The reversed situation was synonymous with decline in the roles played by agriculture. The sector shrank in GDP contribution from 66% in 1958/59 (Kwanashie, Ajilima and Garba, 1998) to 16% in 2004 (United State Agency for International Development, 2006). Its contribution to the nation’s export revenues and foreign exchange earnings plummeted from 86% in 1955-59 (Aigbokan, 2001) to 1.8% in 1996 (Balogun, 2001). These worrisome declines have been attributed to growing activities of oil and mining industy in the country (Kwanashie, Ajilima and Garba, 1998). Balogun (2001) attributes this problem to the poor management of public resources and inappropriate incentives, which in turn may not be unconnected with overwhelming inflow of oil revenues in the 1970s. Crude oil has metaphorically been referred to as the ‘black gold’ (Bamisaye and Obiyan, 2006). The resource has redefined the global economy in general and the Nigerian economy in particular. The impact of crude oil on Nigerian economy has been double-edged. It has benefited the country in some ways, and has in many other ways turned out to be a curse (Ogwumike and Ogunleye, 2008). Crude oil’s contribution to GDP rose from 1.6% in 1960 to 11% in 2001 (Adenikinju, 2006). This contribution consists of proceed from oil export, local sale of crude oil for domestic refining and local sale of natural gas. However, the contribution has been limited due to substantial involvement of foreign investors in the oil sector, and consequent repatriation of the sector’s profits and dividends abroad (Odularu, 2007). Crude oil also contributes over 90% of foreign exchange earnings in Nigeria (Adedipe, 2004; Adenikinju, 2006). Ogwumike and Ogunleye (2008) concur that the sector dominates other sectors in contributing to export revenues. For instance, it was responsible for over 98% of total export from the country in 2005. Moreover, the sector contributes to provision of employment in the country (Odularu, 2007). The contribution has however not been relatively significant because it has limited linkages with the rest of the economy (Ibrahim, 2007). As a result, the sector employs only 1.3% of the total modern sector employment in Nigeria (Odularu, 2007). The beneficial impacts of oil on Nigerian economy notwithstanding, the country has not significantly developed (Odularu, 2007). This is due to setbacks caused by oil-related activities. As noted earlier, the structure of theeconomy has been mal-altered with the advent of oil. Other sectors have relatively declined in size and contribution to the economy while the oil sector has grown in size. For instance, the United States Agency for International Development (2006) notes the association between sharp rise in oil production in Nigeria in 2003 and decline in agriculture as a percentage of GDP from 29% in 2003 to 16% in 2004. In the same vein, contribution of the manufacturing sector as a percent of GDP has been in decline, in contrast to growth in the oil sector (Adedipe, 2004). Have Nigerian economic setbacks been solely and directly caused by oil activities? Reporting Perrings and Asuategi (2000), Ibrahim (2007) points out that there is weak empirical support for negative impact of natural resources on economic growth and development. Thus, it can be inferred that the poor performance the Nigerian economy may not be entirely due to oil activities, but to factors relating to policy management of oil resources in the country.

1.2 Statement of the problem

This study is prompted by fewness of studies on the impact of energy shocks on economic growth of oil-exporting countries like Nigeria, unlike studies on oil-importing countries (Olomola and Adejumo, 2006). Besides, the study attempts to query into the general conclusions of many recent studies that oil price fluctuations/market disequilibria have no impact on the Nigerian economy (see Ikla et al, 2012; Chuku, Effiong and Sam, 2010; Olomola and Adejumo, 2006, for a survey). Moreover, the study disagrees with these studies on explanation of the impact of oil price on economy via monetary variables like monetary supply and interest rates, having noted that their premise derive from Bernanke et al (1997), a study that focuses on an oil importing country, USA, rather than oil exporting countries like Nigeria. This study aims to extend the frontier of knowledge by estimating the impact of the oil price shocks on the Nigerian economic growth using aggregate demand framework that theoretically connect analytical variables, rather than just explaining output behaviour by oil price and host of arbitrarily suggested variables as done by earlier studies.

1.2 Objectives of the study

1. To examine the impact of oil price shock on the economy of Nigeria.

2. To analyze oil price shock in Nigeria from 1970 to 2014.

1.4 Research questions

1. Does oil price shock have any significant impact on Nigerian economy?

1.5 Research hypotheses

Ho: Oil price shock has no significant impact on Nigerian economy.

Hi:Oil price shock has significant impact on Nigerian economy.

1.6 Significance of the study

The impact of oil price shock on world economy has been larger (Hamilton, 2003). In the past three decades, the price of oil has been volatile and given the role in the Nigerian economy, the effects of oil price shock have been very significant and dis-stabilizing. Nigeria has been the major oil producer in African continent but the attacks on oil refineries and the kidnapping of foreign engineers by the movement for emancipation of the Niger Delta in the Niger Delta region was reported to be one of the causes of oil price increase from 2006 to 2007. This notwithstanding, in general, Nigeria’s production can be considered to be not enough to affect the international oil price, thus this assumption is appropriate (CBN, 2008).

1.7 Scope/Limitations of the study

This study is concerned with oil price shock in Nigeria.The analysis covers the period from 1970 to 2014, within which occurred many oil market equilibrium-disturbing events.

Limitations of study

1. Financial constraint- Insufficient fund tends to impede the efficiency of the researcher in sourcing for the relevant materials, literature or information and in the process of data collection (internet, questionnaire and interview).

2. Time constraint- The researcher will simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This consequently will cut down on the time devoted for the research work.

1.8 Definition of terms

Oil Price:Refers to the spot price of a barrel of benchmark crude oil.

Fluctuation:An irregular rising and falling in number or amount, it refersto the deviations along the path from one point to another.

HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK

PLEASE, print the following instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written material(s).

HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)

After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to

08068231953 or 08168759420

(1) Your project topics

(2) Email Address

(3) Payment Name

(4) Teller Number