(+234)07060722008 
sales@graciousnaija.com
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Privatization
of state-owned enterprises has become an important phenomenon in both developed
and developing countries. Over the last decade, state-owned enterprises (SOEs)
have been privatized at an increasing rate, particularly in developing
countries (DCs). Privatization has become an important phenomenon in both
developed and developing countries. Over the past decade, privatization
attempts have been occurring at an increasing rate, especially in developing
countries. The compound annual average growth rate was around 10% between 1990
and 2000, with global privatization revenues jumping from $25 billion in 1990
to $200 billion in 2000. The number of countries that have implemented
privatization policies has exceeded 110, not to mention that privatization has
touched almost every aspect of economic activity (Shadeh, 2002).
Privatization of
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has become a key component of the structural reform
process and globalization strategy in many economies. Several developing and
transition economies have embarked on extensive privatization programmes in the
last one and a half decades or so, as a means of fostering economic growth,
attaining macroeconomic stability, and reducing public sector borrowing
requirements arising from corruption, subsidies and subventions to unprofitable
SOEs. By the end of 1996, all but five countries in Africa had divested some
public enterprises within the framework of macroeconomic reform and
liberalization (White and Bhatia, 1998). In line with the trend worldwide, the
spate of empirical works on privatization has also increased, albeit with a
microeconomic orientation that emphasizes efficiency gains (La Porta and López-de-Silanes,
(1997); Boubakri and Cosset, (2001); Dewenter and Malatesta, (2001) D'Souza and
Megginson, (2007). Yet, despite the upsurge in research, our empirical
knowledge of the privatization programme in Africa is limited. Aside from
theoretical predictions, not much is known about the process and outcome of
privatization exercises in Africa in spite of the impressive level of activism
in its implementation.
Current
research is yet to provide useful insights into the peculiar circumstances of
Africa, such as the presence of embryonic financial markets and weak regulatory
institution efforts. Most objective observers agree, however, that the high
expectations of the 1980s about the "magical power" of privatization
bailing Africa out of its quagmire remain unrealized (Adam et al., (1992);
World Bank,(1995); Ariyo and Jerome, (1999); Jerome, (2005).
As in most developing
countries, Nigeria until recently witnessed the growing involvement of the
state in economic activities. The expansion of SOEs into diverse economic
activities was viewed as an important strategy for fostering rapid economic
growth and development. This view was reinforced by massive foreign exchange
earnings from crude oil, which fuelled unbridled Federal Government of Nigeria
(FGN) investment in public enterprises. Unfortunately, most of the enterprises
were poorly conceived and economically inefficient. They accumulated huge
financial losses and absorbed a disproportionate share of domestic credit. By
l985, they had become an unsustainable burden on the budget. With the adoption
of the structural adjustment programme (SAP) in 1986, privatization of public
enterprises came to the forefront as a major component of Nigeria's economic
reform process at the behest of the World Bank and other international
organizations.
Consequently, a Technical
Committee on Privatization and Commercialization (TCPC) was set up in 1988 to
oversee the programme. In the course of its operations, the TCPC privatized 55
enterprises. Sufficient time has elapsed since the start of reforms to allow an
initial assessment of the extent to which privatization has realized its
intended economic and financial benefits, especially with the commencement of
the second phase of the programme. This is particularly important in view of
the lessons of experience revealing interesting features that may alter earlier
notions as to the most appropriate way to implement privatization programmes
(Nellis, 1999). Concerns about globalization, in some transition economies
(notably the former Soviet Union and Czech Republic) and disappointment with
infrastructure privatization in developing countries are spawning new critiques
of privatization (Shirley and Walsh, 2000). Among the pertinent issues to be
addressed are: What is the extent and pattern of cost performance and
accountability of privatized firm? What have been the results of these
performance? Has privatization improved the cost and accountability of firm?
Finally, what policy lessons are to be learned from the privatization experience
so far? These are the issues that come into focus in the study.
1.2 Statement of Problem
The
issue of cost performance and accountability of privatized public enterprise
have been a serious subject of the debate and different interest group that is
the “stakeholders”. The post privatization effect this enterprise have been the
subject of public scrutiny and criticism by the public and others alike.
Majority are of the view that their performance is not different from the way
it was when they were under public enterprise.
In response to this in
recent national assembly committee, that was set up to look into this
enterprise partially supported public concern on their performance. It is
against these background that this research is carried out to determine or find
out if these view are true as the research is intended to look at this research
is intended to look at this privatized firms cost performance and
accountability.
Public enterprise before
their recent privatization where perceived to be bedeviled by numerous
challenges ranging from political interference, inefficiency in the management
of resources, conflict of objectives, overdependence on subvention for survival
etc. these over the years have been the main source of criticism of public enterprises
and the reason why they are poorly managed . is this issue the same after the
privatization o these enterprises? This study is intended to establish it.
TABLE 0F CONTENT
Title
page 1
Approval
page 2
Certification
3
Dedication
5
Acknowledgement
6
Table
of content 7
Abstract
11
CHAPTER ONE
1.0
Introduction 12
1.1
Background of the Study 12
1.2
Statement of problem 16
1.3 Research questions 17
1.4
Objective of the study 18
1.5 Statement of hypothesis
18
1.6 Significance of the study 19
1.7 Scope of the study 20
1.8 Limitation of the study 20
1.9
Definition of key terms 21
CHAPTER TWO
2.0
Introduction 24
2.1 Literature review 24
2.2 The nature and concept of public enterprises 24
2.3 Performance of public enterprises in Nigeria 28
2.4 Problems of public enterprises in Nigeria 35
2.5 Public enterprises privatization in Nigeria 41
2.6
Concept of privatization 52
2.7
Types of privatization 55
REFERENCES 57
CHAPTER THREE
3.0
Introduction 59
3.1
Research Questions 59
3.2 Source of Data 60
3.2.1
Primary source of data 60
3.2.2
Secondary source of data 60
3.3
Area of Study 61
3.4
Population of the study 61
3.4.1
Sampling design and technique 61
3.5
Instrument of data collection 63
3.6
Reliability of the test Instrument 63
3.7
Validity of the research instrument 63
3.8
Method of data Analysis 64
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0
Analysis of data and testing of hypothesis 66
4.1
Data presentation and analysis 66
4.2
Test of hypothesis 73
4.3 Tabulating the result 84
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation 86
5.1
Summary 86
5.2
Conclusion 87
5.3
Recommendation 88
BIBLIOGRAPHY 90
APPENDIX I 93
APPENDIX
II
94
TOPIC: AN ASSESSMENT OF COST PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN PRIVATIZED PUBLIC ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA A STUDY OF OANDO (UNIPETROL) PLC IN ENUGU STATE
Chapters: 1 - 5
Delivery: Email
Delivery: Email
Number of Pages: 65
Price: 3000 NGN
In Stock
No comments:
Post a Comment
Add Comment