Concept of Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria
An agreed framework definition of foreign direct investment (FDI)
exists in theliterature. That is, FDI is an investment made to acquire a
lasting managementinterest (normally 10% of voting stock) in a
business enterprise operating in acountry other than that of the
investor defined according to residency (World Bank, 1996). Such
investments may take the form of either “greenfield” investment (also
called “mortar and brick” investment) or merger and acquisition
(M&A), which entails the acquisition of existing interest rather
than new investment.
In corporate governance, ownership of at least 10% of the ordinary
shares or voting stock is the criterion for the existence of a direct
investment relationship. Ownership of
less than 10% is recorded as portfolio investment. FDI comprises not only merger and
acquisition and new investment, but also reinvested earnings and
loans and similar capital transfer between parent companies and their
affiliates. Countries could be both host to FDI projects in their own
country and a participant in investment projects in other counties. A
country’s inward FDI position is made up of the hosted FDI projects,
while outward FDI comprises those investment projects owned abroad.
One of the most salient features of today’s globalization drive is
conscious encouragement of cross-border investments, especially by
transnational corporations and firms (TNCs). Many countries and
continents (especially developing) now see attracting FDI as an
important element in their strategy for economic development. This is
most probably because FDI is seen as an amalgamation of capital,
technology, marketing and management.
Sub-Saharan Africa as a region now has to depend very much on FDI
for so many reasons, some of which are amplified by Asiedu (2001). The
preference for FDI stems from its acknowledged advantages (Sjoholm,
1999; Obwona, 2001, 2004). The effort by several African countries to
improve their business climate stems from the desire to attract FDI. In
fact, one of the pillars on which the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD) was launched was to increase available capital to
US$64 billion through a combination of reforms, resource mobilization
and a conducive environment for FDI (Funke and Nsouli, 2003).
Unfortunately, the efforts of most countries in Africa to attract
FDI have been futile. This is in spite of the perceived and obvious
need for FDI in the continent. The development is disturbing, sending
very little hope of economic development and growth for these
countries. Further, the pattern of the FDI that does exist is often
skewed towards extractive industries, meaning that the differential
rate of FDI inflow into sub-Saharan African countries has been adduced
to be due to natural resources, although the size of the local market
may also be a consideration (Morriset 2000; Asiedu, 2001).
Nigeria as a country, given her natural resource base and large
market size, qualifies to be a major recipient of FDI in Africa and
indeed is one of the top three leading African countries that
consistently received FDI in the past decade. However, the level of FDI
attracted by Nigeria is mediocre (Asiedu, 2003) compared with the
resource base and potential need. Further, the empirical linkage
between FDI and economic growth in Nigeria is yet unclear, despite
numerous studies that have examined the influence of FDI on Nigeria’s
economic growth with varying outcomes (Oseghale and Amonkhienan, 1987;
Odozi, 1995; Oyinlola, 1995; Adelegan, 2000; Akinlo, 2004).
Most of the previous influential studies on FDI and growth in
sub-Saharan Africa are multi country studies. However, recent evidence
affirms that the relationship between FDI and growth may be country and
period specific. Asiedu (2001) submits that the determinants of FDI in
one region may not be the same for other regions. In the same vein,
the determinants of FDI in countries within a region may be different
from one another, and from one period to another.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is an investment made to acquire a
lasting management interest (normally 10% of voting stock) in a
business enterprise operating in a country other than that of the
investor defined according to residency (World Bank, 1996). Such
investments may take the form of either “greenfield” investment (also
called “mortar and brick” investment) or merger and acquisition
(M&A), which entails the acquisition of existing interest rather
than new investment.
One of the most noticeable features of today’s globalization drive
is conscious encouragement of cross-border investments, especially by
transnational corporations and firms (TNCs). Many countries (especially
developing) now see attracting FDI as an important element in their
strategy for economic development. This is most probably because FDI is
seen as an amalgamation of capital, technology, marketing and
management. Africa as a region now has to depend very much on FDI for
so many reasons, some of which are amplified by Asiedu (2001). The
preference for FDI stems from its acknowledged advantages (Sjoholm,
1999; Obwona, 2001, 2004). The effort by several African countries to
improve their business climate stems from the desire to attract FDI. In
fact, one of the pillars on numerous studies that have examined the
influence of FDI on Nigeria’s economic growth with varying outcomes
(Oseghale and Amonkhienan, 1987; Odozi, 1995; Oyinlola, 1995; Adelegan,
2000; Akinlo, 2004). Most of the previous influential studies on FDI
and growth in sub-Saharan Africa are multi country studies. However,
recent evidence affirms that the relationship between FDI and growth
may be country and period specific. Asiedu (2001) submits that the
determinants of FDI in one region may not be the same for other
regions. In the same vein, the determinants of FDI in countries within a
region may be different from one another and from one period to
another (Kolawole and Henry, 2009).
Studies on FDI and economic growth in Nigeria are not complete in
agreement in their submissions. A closer examination of these previous
studies reveals that conscious effort was not made to take care of the
fact that more than 60% of the FDI inflows into Nigeria is made into
the extractive (oil) industry.
Nigeria is a country endowed with arable land and abundant natural
resources. Government policies have been directed towards ensuring
that what nature has provided is harnessed and utilized to the fullest
for the benefit of the citizenry. Thus, Government policies and
strategies towards foreign investments in Nigeria are usually shaped by
two principal objectives: the desire for economic independence and the
demand for economic development (Garba, 1998).
Todaro (1994) notes that the primary factors which stimulate
economic growth are investments that improve the quality of existing
physical and human resources, that increase the quantity of these same
productive resources and that raise the productivity of all or specific
resources through invention, innovation and technological progress.
FDI contributes to GDP growth rates and is seen as a vital tool for
economic progress.
Osaghale and Amenkhieman (1987) conducted an investigation to
determine whether foreign capital inflows, oil revenues and foreign
borrowing had any positive impact on the economic growth of Nigeria.
They found that Nigeria’s revenue from oil export increased between
1970 and 1982 and that there was a substantial growth in her total
foreign debts and FDI. The study also showed that there was a positive
relationship between FDI and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The study
concluded that the economy would perform better with greater inflow of
FDI; and recommended that less developed countries (LDCs) should create
more conducive environments for FDI.
Edozien (1968) stresses the linkages generated by foreign
investment and its impact on the economic growth of Nigeria. He
contends that FDI induces the inflow of capital, technical know-how and
managerial capacity which accelerate the pace of economic growth. He
also observed the pains and uncertainties that come with FDI.
Specifically, he noted that foreign investment could be counter
productive if the linkages it spurs are neither needed nor
affordable by the host country; and concluded that a good test of the
impact of FDI on Nigeria’s economic growth is how rapidly and
effectively it fosters, innovates or modernizes local enterprises.
Aremu (2003) observes that foreign firms can raise the level of
capital formation, promote exports and generate foreign exchange.
Indeed, the role of FDI in capital formation in Nigeria has been
increasing over the years. FDI/GCF (Gross Capital Formation) rose from
7.3% in 1974 to about 17% in 1985, although it was generally low in the
late 1970s and early 1980s. For example, FDI only contributed 1.5% to
GDP growth in 1976 and 0.5% in 1982. The relatively low level of FDI in
total capital formation in these periods was similar to that of Korea
and Taiwan, which had emphasized minimal levels of reliance on foreign
investment. In contrast to this, were some South East Asian countries
which had the policy of attracting FDI, for example, Indonesia. Nigeria
retarded the contribution of FDI to gross capital formation during
this period using infant industry protection, local content rules, FDI
restrictions and other restrictive policies. The relative rise in the
share of FDI in capital formation since 1993 has been due to rapid
loosening of controls and regulations on the activities of
multinational corporations in Nigeria. As a result, FDI/GCF ratio rose
from 6.4% in 1986 to 32% in 1993 and 49% in 1998 (Fabayo, 2003).
The linkage between investment and growth does not mean that
capital accumulation is the sole determination of economic growth in
Nigeria. FDI may also influence investment by domestic firms and by
other foreign affiliates. An IMF study based on 69 countries over the
period 1970–1989 found that FDI from developed countries stimulated
domestic investment (Borensztein et al, 1998).
Thus, Odozi (1995) posits that FDI appears to be the most crucial
component of capital inflow Nigeria should seek to attract in the light
of her current economic circumstances. Many studies, however, indicate
that the impact of FDI is limited or even negative sometimes.
In a study of Nigeria, Onimode et al (1983) found that where FDI
was directed at import substituting firms, the value of imports was
observed to be greater than the value added produced. This type of FDI
would give rise to outflows of investment income and high cost of
imported inputs which adversely affect growth. Ohiorheman (1993)
asserts that with the research and development (R&D) concentrated
in the head offices of multinational corporations (MNCs), technology
transfer was limited. He added that even though the MNCs provided local
training programs, Nigerians were intricacies of machinery
construction or installation. Consequently, their innovative ability was
not enhanced. He concluded that, to the extent the MNCs dominated the
manufacturing sector, their activities generated little multiplier
effects and the linkage effects were generally low in the
(manufacturing) sector.
Using indices of dependence and development as a mirror of
Nigeria’s economic performance, Oyaide (1977) concluded that FDI
engineer both economic dependence and growth. In his opinion, FDI
causes and catalyzes a level of growth that would have been impossible
without such investment. This is, however, at the cost of economic
dependence.
Although a lot of studies indicate that there exists a positive
relationship between FDI and economic growth in Nigeria, there is a
consensus among economists that the country’s growth rate would have a
positive impact on FDI. The prospect that FDI will be profitable is
brighter if the nation’s economic health is better and the growth rate
of GDP is higher.