ISSN 2582- 564X

Available Online at www.aextj.com

Agricultural Extension Journal 2023; 7(4):160-166

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Impact of Anchor Borrowers Program (ABP) on Smallholder Rice Farmers in Kebbi

State, Nigeria
Gona Ayuba, Maikasuwa Mohammed Abubakar, Kaka Yahaya
Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, Kebbi State University of Science and
Technology, Aliero
Received: 23-08-2023; Revised: 30-09-2023; Accepted: 04-11-2023
ABSTRACT
The study examined the impact of the Anchor Borrowers Programme on smallholder rice farmers in Kebbi
State, Nigeria. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to select 500 beneficiary and non-beneficiary
rice farmers, each giving a sample size of 1000 farmers for the study. Data collected were analyzed using
descriptive statistics such as percentages, frequency distribution, performance indices computation, t-test,
Chow-test, and production function analysis. The results of the analysis of the Chow F computation indicated
that there is a significant difference in the production function of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries,
respectively, since the computed Chow F value of 21.128 was greater than that of the critical F-value at the
0.01 probability level. This is an indication that the anchor Borrowers Programme (ABP) performed well.
The results further revealed that the two groups of rice farmers were not operating on the same production
function. ABP significantly and positively affected the output and income of the beneficiary farmers in the
study area. It is recommended that Policies should be tailored toward inclusiveness of more farmers into the
ABP. The program should also be extended to cater for other sub-sectors of the Agricultural sectors, such
as Livestock and Aquaculture.
Key words: Anchor borrowers program, farmers, impact, Kebbi State, rice

INTRODUCTION smallholders whose lack of capital seems to be a

crucial factor limiting farm development.
Nigeria’s economy took a hit from declining oil Over the years, Nigeria has been grappling with food
revenues in 2015, forcing the Government to insecurity and its attendant consequences, leading to
seek economic diversification. It has set to pursue hunger, massive importation, and social disorders,
agricultural development as one of its key goals to
among others. To overcome the challenges posed
address the country’s dependence on food imports,
by food insecurity, so many agricultural programs
which consume hundreds of dollars annually. It has
were introduced with the sole aim of boosting food
also engaged in a campaign to redirect focus from
production, and stemming the tide of food insecurity.
oil to agriculture, manufacturing, and solid minerals
According to Evbaomwan and Okoye (2017),[1]
development initiatives.
in an effort to solve the challenges facing the
It is generally acknowledged that credit to farmers
agricultural sector and help Nigeria overcome the
is the most important instrument in improving farm
problems of food insecurity that led to importation
productivity. This applies especially to peasant
and over-dependence on oil revenue. The
Nigerian government has implemented a broad
Address for correspondence: range of policies in the rice sector aimed at rice
Gona Ayuba self-sufficiency. These programs include among
E-mail: ayubagona@gmail.com others, the Presidential Initiative on Increased Rice

© 2023, AEXTJ. All Rights Reserved 160

 Gona, et al.: Impact, Anchor Borrowers Program, Farmers

Production (2002–2007), the Nigerian National of the program will engender food security, and
Rice Development Strategy (NRDS, 2009-2018), poverty reduction, enhance the income of the farmers
Rice Intervention Fund (RF, 2011), the Agricultural and revitalize the non-oil sector of the economy,
Transformation Agenda (ATA, 2011-2015), the particularly agriculture. The study hopes to analyze
Anchor Borrowers Program (ABP-2015). the success or otherwise of the ABP. Analyzing
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) in line with the impact of the program among the beneficiary
its development function, established the ABP. rice farmers, might likely guide the policymakers
The program which was launched by President on whether the program is successful or not. The
Muhammadu Buhari (GCFR) on November 17, study hopes to also provide information that would
2015, is intended to create a linkage between guide prospective investors on how to appropriate
anchor companies involved in processing and and use scarce resources in their investment drive
smallholder farmers (SHFs) of the required key on rice farming. The sustainability of the program
agricultural commodities. The program thrust of in terms of its spread to other States that have not
the ABP is the provision of farm inputs in kind and been implemented is also premised to depend on
cash (for farm labor) to smallholders to boost the the information that might likely emanate from the
production of some crops such as rice, soybean, and study.
other commodities, stabilize input supply to agro- The ABP is meant to provide funding support to
processors and address country’s negative balance SHFs in the Agricultural sector who lack funds to
of payment on food. At harvest, the SHF supplies keep their business going. It is to be repaid within
his/her produce to the agro-processor (Anchor), who a certain period. According to the CBN Governor,
pays the cash equivalent to the farmer’s account. a total of 3, 107,890 farmers had been financed
The program evolved from consultation with for the cultivation of 3,801,897 hectares across
various stakeholders comprising the Federal 21 commodities through participating financial
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, institutions in the 31 States of the Federation and
State Governors, millers of agricultural produce, and FCT, from the inception of the program till date.
smallholder farmers to boost agricultural production Incidentally, the Program was first launched in
and non-oil exports in the face of unpredictable Kebbi State on the 17th November, 2015. It is
crude oil prices and its resultant effect on the envisaged that proper implementation or execution
revenue profile of Nigeria. These interventions have of the program will engender food security, and
made rice farming inputs (including credit) fairly poverty reduction and revitalize the non-oil sector
available, but the impact, effect or Performance of the economy, particularly agriculture. The study
of such interventions are still scanty and non- hopes to evaluate the success or otherwise of the
documented with limited coordination. ABP. Analyzing the impact of the program on the
A lot of studies have been carried out on the income of rice producers might likely guide the
performance of government programs such as policymakers on whether the program is successful
(Alston and Porde, 2001;[2] Alabi, 2003;[3] Alkire or not.
and Foster, 2007;[4] Ezeokeke et al., 2012[5] among The study will also provide information that would
others). Most studies examined the performance guide prospective investors on how to appropriate
of government programs such as Fadama III, the scarce resources in their investment drive toward
International Fund for Agricultural Development, rice farming. The sustainability of the program,
the National Programme for Food Security, in terms of its spread to other States that have not
Microfinance Banks, and the Bank of Agriculture. been implemented yet, is also premised on the
Consequently, there is a paucity of published work information that might likely emanate from the
in Nigeria generally and Kebbi State in particular on study. Results from the study hope to provide early
the impact of ABP on the beneficiary rice farmers. signals on what interventions are required to sustain
A study directed at evaluating the impact of ABP the program to boost agricultural production and
has become necessary to examine the success or reverse Nigeria’s negative balance of payments
otherwise of the program based on its goal. It is on food. Furthermore, information from this study
envisaged that proper implementation or execution might assist policymakers in determining the extent

AEXTJ/Oct-Dec-2023/Vol 7/Issue 4 161

 Gona, et al.: Impact, Anchor Borrowers Program, Farmers

to which the Anchor Borrowers Program is on Sampling Procedure and Sample Size
track and to make any needed corrections where
A multistage sampling method was used to select
necessary.
the respondents for the study [Table 1]. Firstly, the
It is against this backdrop that this study attempts to
purposive selection of seven (7) Local Government
provide answers to the following research questions;
areas (LGA) with the highest concentration of
i. What is the performance of ABP in the Anchor Borrowers Programme beneficiary rice
achievement of predetermined objectives? farmers in the State. The LGAs are; Suru, Brinin-
ii. What is the impact of ABP on the output of the Kebbi, Bunza, Argungu, Augie, Dandi and Jega).
beneficiary rice farmers? Second, the purposive selection of two villages/
iii. What specific benefits of ABP accrued to the communities with the highest number of (ABP)
beneficiary rice farmers? beneficiary rice farmers from the seven (7) LGA
giving a total of Fourteen villages/communities.
Third, from each of the 14 villages/communities
Hypotheses of the Study all together, 500 beneficiary and non-beneficiary
H0: There is no significant impact of ABP on the rice farmers each were proportionately selected
output of the beneficiary rice farmers randomly, thus giving a sample size of 1000 rice
farmers for the study.
H1: There is a significant impact of ABP on the
output of the beneficiary rice farmers.
Data Collection
MATERIALS AND METHODS A pretested semi-structured questionnaire was used
to collect data for the study. Data were collected on
Study Area socioeconomic characteristics of the beneficiary rice
The study was conducted in Kebbi State, Nigeria. farmers in the study area. Input-output information
The choice of Kebbi State was premised on the fact was solicited on cost, returns on production, and
that it is the State where the ABP was first launched the benefits of ABP accrued to the beneficiary rice
farmers, among others.
in Nigeria. Kebbi State is located in the north-western
part of Nigeria and occupies a land area of about
37,699 square kilometers of which 36.46% is made of Analytical Techniques
farmland (Kebbi State Government, 2018). The State The specific objectives of this study were achieved
has a population of about 3,630,931 (NPC, 2006).[6] using Descriptive Statistics, Performance Index
Projecting this population to 2022 while increasing at Computation, and Chow F test.
an annual population growth rate of 2.38%, the State
has a projected population of about 5,563,900 people.
Chow F Test
The State lies between latitudes 10°051 and 13°271N of
the equator and between longitudes 3°351 and 6°031E of To assess the performance of the ABP, the Chow
the Greenwich. This area is characteristic of the Sudan test was used to test for significant differences
savannah sub-ecological zone with distinct wet and dry in the intercept of production function between
seasons. Soils are ferruginous on sandy parent materials, the groups sampled. According to Dougherty
evolving from the sedentary weathering of sandstones. (2007)[7], the Chow test statistic is often used in
Over two-thirds of the population are engaged program evaluation to determine whether the
in agricultural production, mainly arable crops program has impacts on different sub-group
alongside cash crops with animal husbandry. The populations.
major crops cultivated include rice sorghum, millet, It is expressed mathematically as;
maize, cowpea, sweet potato, rice, vegetables, and
fruits. Cash crops grown here include soybeans, ( RSS − RSS1 + RSS 2 ) / k
F=
wheat, ginger, sugarcane, tobacco, and gum-arabic. RSS1 + RSS 2 / N1 + N 2 − 2k

AEXTJ/Oct-Dec-2023/Vol 7/Issue 4 162

 Gona, et al.: Impact, Anchor Borrowers Program, Farmers

where F = Chow F X1 is the seed input in kg/ha

RSS = Residual sum of squares for the pooled X2 is the fertilizer input in kg/ha
sample X3 is the agrochemical in liters/ha
RSS1 = Residual sum of square for beneficiaries X4 is the labor input in man-days/ha
RSS2 = Residual sum of square for non-beneficiaries X5 is the capital input/ha/(comprising depreciation
N1 = Number of beneficiaries sampled on agricultural tools and equipment, repairs and
N2 = total number sampled operating expenses of implements, rent, interest,
K = Number of parameters. payments, etc.),
To compute the sum of squares, a four-production ln = Natural logarithm,
function was fitted to the data. The choice of this βo = constant term,
functional form was based on documented evidence β1 – β5 = estimated regression coefficients and
of its wide application in production function e1, e2, e3 = respective error terms for beneficiaries,
estimation in Agriculture. Four production function non-beneficiaries and pooled samples,
equations were estimated for the ABP beneficiaries, respectively.
non-beneficiaries, and the pooled samples as
follows, respectively;
(1) Linear: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Qb = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5 + e1(1)
Qn = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5 + e2(2) Chow Test
Qbn = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5 + e3(3) Chow F statistic was computed to ascertain the
(2) Semi-logarithmic: performance of ABP. Four different functional forms
Qb = lnβ0 + β1ln X1 + β2ln X2 + β3ln X3 + were fitted to the data, and the lead equation was
β4ln X4 + β5ln X5 + e1(4) chosen based on the normal economic, econometric,
Qn = lnβ0 + β1ln X1 + β2ln X2 + β3ln X3 + and statistical criteria. Regression analysis was
β4ln X4 + β5ln X5 + e2(5) carried out to obtain the error sum of squares to
Qbn = lnβ0 + β1ln X1 + β2ln X2 + β3ln X3 + aid in the computation of Chow F. A summary of
β4ln X4 + β5ln X5 + e3(6) the estimated four production functions for the
(3) Cobb-Douglas: beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, and pooled sample
lnQb = lnβ0 + β1ln X1 + β2ln X2 + β3ln X3 are presented in Tables 2-7.
+ β4ln X4 + β5ln X5 + e1(7) The results obtained from the estimated coefficient
lnQn = lnβ0 + β1ln X1 + β2ln X2 + β3ln X3 of the regression analysis in Tables 2 and 3 showed
+ β4ln X4 + β5ln X5 + e2(8) that the lead equation for this category was the cobb-
lnQbn = lnβ0 + β1ln X1 + β2ln X2 + β3ln X3 douglass functional form based on the magnitude
+ β4ln X4 + β5ln X5 + e3(9) of coefficient of multiple determination (R2), the
(4) Exponential: number of significant variables and the magnitude
lnQb = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 of the F-statistics. The (R2), value of 0.621 showed
+ β5X5 + e1(10) that the independent variable accounted for 62%
lnQn = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 of variation in the rice output (y). The F-ratio
+ β5X5 + e2(11) of 10.212 was statistically significant at 1%
lnQbn = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 level. Three inputs (seed, fertilizer, and capital)
+ β5X5 + e3(12) were significant in explaining the rice output of
where; beneficiaries.
Qb = Total value of production for beneficiaries From Tables 4 and 5, the linear function was chosen
(N)/ha as the lead equation following the normal statistical,
Qb = Total value of production for nonbeneficiaries economic and econometric criteria, magnitude of
(N)/ha coefficient of multiple determination (R2), number
Qbn = Total value of production for pooled sample of significant variables, and the magnitude of
(N)/ha F-Statistic. The (R2) value of 0.612 showed that

AEXTJ/Oct-Dec-2023/Vol 7/Issue 4 163

 Gona, et al.: Impact, Anchor Borrowers Program, Farmers

Table 1: Sampling frame and sample size of anchor borrower’s program beneficiary rice farmers in the state
Local government areas Sampling frame Villages/communities of the beneficiaries Sample size
Argungu 7364 Argungu 74
Gulma
Augie 5421 Augie 54
Bayawa
Jega 3020 Jega 30
Basaura
Bunza 8446 Bunza 85
Raha
Birnin Kebbi 10,909 Makera 109
Zauro
Suru 11,549 Suru 115
Dakin Gari
Dandi 3347 Kamba 33
Dole Kaina
Total 50,056 500
Source: Kebbi State Anchor Borrowers office, Birnin Kebbi, 2021

Table 2: Regression results for the anchor borrower’s program beneficiaries

Variable Functional forms
Linear Cobb‑Douglass Semi‑log Exponential
Constant 6345.216 (8.817)*** 9.738 (8.243)*** −154,705.652 (−1.735)* 12.024 (82.17)***
Seed 0.650 (1.197) 0.144 (1.907)** 12,108.180 (1.497) 6.3487007 (1.877)**
Fertilizer 0.120 (0.103) 0.316 (2.478)*** 18,260.133 (2.574)*** −2.343E002 (−0.551)
Agrochemicals 0.100 (−0.043) −0.032 (−0.314) −7060.100 (−1.050) 6.966E‑006 (−2.212)
Labour 135 (0.552) −0.009 (−0.770) −5341.105 (−1.008) −2.341E‑005 (−0.121)
Capital 6.187 (4.985)*** 0.249 (6.032)*** 16,342.122 (4.013)*** 6.934E‑004 (5.272)***
R2 210 0.621 0.355 0.172
R2 adjusted 0.087 0.546 0.310 0.104
F‑statistics 3.0054 10.212 4.035 3.660
***, ** and *implies significance at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels, respectively. Figures in parentheses are the respective t‑ratios. Survey data, 2023

Table 3: ANOVA table for the anchor borrower’s program beneficiaries

Model Sum of square Degree of freedom Means square F Significance
Regression 8.934 5 1.786 6.287*** 0.000
Residual 7.057 42 0.153
Total 15.991 47
***Implies statistically significant at the 0.01 probability level. Source: Field survey data, 2023

Table 4: Regression result for the anchor borrower’s program nonbeneficiaries

Variable Functional forms
Linear Cobb‑Douglass Semi‑log Exponential
Constant 10325.210 (6.124)*** 10.454 (7.223)*** 100271.014 (0.610) 10.886 (52.167)***
Seed −0.549 (−0.342) −0.018 (−0.673) −2137.910 (−317) −8.567E‑004 (−1.024)
Fertilizer −6.319 (−1.896)* 0.057 (0.477) −505.156 (−0.018 4.006E‑005 (−2.011)**
Agrochemicals −7.188 (−0.610) −0.176 (−1.551) −16540.118 (−1.561) −7.404E‑005 (−0.564)
Labour −0.766 (−0.318 −0.358 (−1.544) −1656.103 (−1.553) −8.035E‑005 (−0556)
Capital 23.788 (4.019)*** 0.437 (3.008)*** 41321.034 (3.877)*** 0.010 (2.984)***
R2
0.612 0.311 0.315 0.255
R2 adjusted 0.515 0.225 0.264 0.194
F‑statistics 5.466 4.377 5.007 3.770
***, **and *implies significance at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels, respectively. Figures in parentheses are the respective t‑ratios. Survey data, 2023

AEXTJ/Oct-Dec-2023/Vol 7/Issue 4 164

 Gona, et al.: Impact, Anchor Borrowers Program, Farmers

Table 5: ANOVA table for the anchor borrower’s program nonbeneficiaries

Model Sum of square Degree of freedom Means square F Significance
Regression 136,781,042,310.532 5 27,880,357,911.342 5.466*** 0.000
Residual 302,243,668,740.346 46 5,101,432,990.108
Total 439,024,711,050.878 51
***Implies statistically significant at the 0.01 probability level. Source: Field survey data, 2023

Table 6: Regression results for the anchor borrower’s program pooled sample
Variable Functional forms
Linear Cobb‑Douglass Semi‑log Exponential
Constant 1,211,380.410 (8.457)*** 9.787 (6.445)*** 20,639.405 (0.145) 10.557 (42.381)***
Seed −11,346.002 (−3.214)*** −0.166 (−0.0427) 8431.253 (0.413 −0.112 (−2.720)***
Fertilizer −0.031 (−0.448) 0.030 (0.329) 3284.010 (0.546) −0.001 (−0.710)
Agrochemicals −0.116 (−0.523) −0.812 (−0578) −6284.110 (−1.005) −0.003 (−0.614)
Labour 0.221 (0.301) −0.042 (−0.539) −2.4420 (−0235) −0.089 (−0.557)
Capital 8.624 (4.702)*** 0.123 (3.418)*** 13,047.105 (2.422)*** 0.000 (4.661)***
R2 0.566 0.186 0119 0.114
R2 adjusted 0.510 0.128 0.064 0.100
F‑statistics 6.287*** 2.843 1.701 5.010
***Implies significance at 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 probability levels, respectively. Figures in parentheses are the respective t‑ratios. Survey data, 2023

Table 7: ANOVA table for the anchor borrower’s programme pooled sample
Model Sum of square Degree of freedom Means square F Significance
Regression 148,632,452,419.387 5 29,375,440,653.780 6.287*** 0.000
Residual 729,833,543,810.450 171 4,651,077,321.086
Total 878,465,996,229.837 176
***Implies statistically significant at the 0.01 probability level. Source: Field survey data, 2023

the independent variable accounted for 61% of the production function, and by implication, there is no
variation in the rice output (y). shift in the intercepts of the production functions of
The F-ratio of 5.466 was statistically significant at beneficiary and non-beneficiary farmers. However,
1% level. Two inputs (agro-chemical and capital) results showed that the computed chow F was
were significant in explaining the rice output of 21.128, which is greater than the critical F value
non-beneficiaries. of 6.287 at the 0.01 probability level and 4° of
From Tables 6 and 7, the linear function was also freedom. The study concluded that the two groups of
chosen as the lead equation based on its favorable farmers were not operating on the same production
disposition in teams of statistical, economic, and function. ABP significantly and positively affected
econometric criteria. The linear functional form the output, income, and livelihood of the beneficiary
was chosen/selected based on the magnitude of rice farmers in the study area.
coefficient of multiple determination (R2), number
of significant variables, and magnitude of the
Benefits of Anchor Borrowers Programme
F-statistic. The (R2) value of 0.566 showed that
the independent variable accounted for 56.6% of The study found that farmers under the Anchor
variation in rice output (y). The F-ratio of 6.287 was Borrowers Programme benefitted from the in one
statistically significant at a 1% level. Two inputs way or the other. The results of the Benefits that
(improved seed and capital were significant in accrued to the beneficiary farmers are presented in
explaining the rice output of the pooled sample. Table 8.
The chow F was computed to further investigate the Results in Table 8 showed that majority (99.8%)
performance of ABP. It was hypothesized that the of the beneficiary farmers had access to credit
two groups of farmers were operating on the same facilities. The implication is that, the respondents

AEXTJ/Oct-Dec-2023/Vol 7/Issue 4 165

 Gona, et al.: Impact, Anchor Borrowers Program, Farmers

Table 8: Accrued benefits of anchor borrower’s programme farming practices. This enhances the skill of the
to smallholder rice farmers farmers leading to more expertise in farming.
Benefits Frequency (%)* Ranking Results also showed that 63% of the beneficiary
Credit facilities 499 (99.8) 1 farmers benefitted from pumping machines. These
Improved seed 496 (99.2) 2
machines aided their farming operations particularly
Agrochemicals 488 (97.6) 3
during the dry season, making it possible for many
Fertilizer 437 (87.4) 4
of the farmers to go into dry season farming.
Marketing services 385 (77.0) 5
Extension services 350 (70.0) 6
Pumping machine 315 (63.0) 7 CONCLUSION
*Multiple responses were recorded. Source: Survey data, 2023
Based on the findings, the study concludes that the
will be able to expand their farm sizes, hire labour, performance of Anchor Borrowers Programme was
purchase more agro-inputs and have enough capital high in the following component; ABP significantly
bases that could improve their living conditions. improved the crop output of beneficiaries as
Results in Table 8 showed that majority (99.2%) of the compared with the non-beneficiaries. The study
beneficiary farmers obtained improved seed from the further revealed that ABP had significant impact on
programme. Secured improved seed has a tendency the output of the beneficiary rice farmers. Although
to increase their yield and also improve their income. there were benefits that accrued to the beneficiaries
Furthermore, 7.6% of the total respondents of the programme, which translated into increased
benefitted from Agrochemicals such as herbicides, outputs, certain problems were identified to be
pesticides, among others. These agrochemicals constraining the attainment of the overall objectives
enhance the productivity of the farmers. of the programme.
Results further revealed that majority (87.4%) of the
respondents benefitted from Fertilizer. This suggests REFERENCES
that ABP beneficiary farmers received support of
fertilizer in order to improved their performance. 1. Evbaomwan G, Okoye L. Studied the Prospects of Anchor
Borrowers Programme in Nigeria. Vol. 2. In: Proceedings
Results further revealed that 77% of the beneficiary
of the International Farm Management Congress; 2017.
farmers benefitted from marketing services. These 2. Alston JM, Parde PG. Attribution and other problems
marketing services involve the anchor companies in assessing the returns to agricultural research and
such as WACOT rice mill, Labana rice mill serving development. Agric Econ 2001;25:141-52.
as a market for their paddy rice. The beneficiary 3. Alabi RA. Human capital as determinant of technical
farmers do not need to take their paddy to the efficiency of cocoa-based agroforestry system. Food
Agric Environ 2003;1:277-81.
market for sales as the companies automatically
4. Alkire S, Foster J. Counting and Multidimensional
serve as market for their products. The implication Poverty Measurement. OPHI Working Paper No. 7; 2007.
of selling directly to the anchor companies reduces 5. Ezeokeke C, Anyanwu N, Okoro V. Impact of Fadama II
transportation cost and other charges in the market project on feed, food and poverty in Imo state, Nigeria. Int
thus also leading to higher profit/income being J Appl Sociol 2012;2:2-24.
realised. 6. National Population Commission (NPC). Population
Figure. Federal Republic of Nigeria, Abuja; 2006.
Results further revealed that 70% of the respondents
Available from: https://www.npc.gov.ng [Last accessed
benefitted from extension services. These extension on 2021 May 27].
services include trainings in the form of capacity 7. Dougherty C. Introduction to Econometrics. Oxford:
building particularly on new innovations and Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 194.

AEXTJ/Oct-Dec-2023/Vol 7/Issue 4 166