International Journal of Advancement in Development Studies, Volume 16, Number 1, 2021

ISSN: 2276-8246
IMPACT OF NON-OIL SECTOR ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA (1981 – 2018)
Arema, Bunmi Israel and Ofoezie, Kasie Emmanuel
Department of Economics,
Joseph Ayo Babalola University Ikeji-Arakeji, Osun State
ABSTRACT
Economic development is essential in an economy as it is expected to lead to
reduction in the level of poverty, help narrow the inequality gap in the society,
create employment as well as improve livelihoods. The need to investigate the
impact the non-oil sector has had on economic development in Nigeria cannot be
overemphasized. The objectives of the study were (i) to assess the trend in the
contribution of the non-oil sector to the Nigerian economy; (ii) to assess the
impact of the non-oil sector on economic growth; (iii) to investigate the impact of
the non-oil sector on poverty; and (iv) to examine the impact of the non-oil sector
on unemployment in Nigeria. Six (6) regression models were built and estimated
in the study. The findings of the study were: (i) the non-oil sector, economic
growth at lag (1), capital, labour and inflation rate have had positive impact on
economic growth in Nigeria; (ii) the non-oil sector and economic growth have had
negative impact on poverty in Nigeria; (iii) the non-oil sector and economic
growth and interest rate have had negative impact on unemployment in Nigeria. It
was recommended that: (i) the government at all levels in Nigeria should support
the private sector with low interest loans to enable increase production; (ii) the
federal government should consciously reduce the cost of doing business in
Nigeria by providing more infrastructural facilities across the country; (iii) the
government should put incentives in place to attract more foreign investors into
the country.
Keywords: Economic Development, Non-oil Sector, Poverty, Unemployment.
JEL: F14, O11
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The pursuit of economic growth and development has been the most important objective of
developing countries. To facilitate the accomplishment of this objective; emphasis is placed on
external resources and trade. Presumably, this is predicated on the popular view that foreign trade
served as the ‘engine of growth’ for the current developed countries in the nineteenth century and
therefore, it could be relied upon to perform a similar role for the Less Developed Countries
(LDCs) in the twentieth century. Unfortunately, disappointments have been expressed with the
effects of foreign trade on the economies of most LDCs. These have subsequently stimulated a
rethinking among development and foreign trade economists on the need to re-examine the
implication of the theory of international specialization for LDCs.
Foreign trade has often played a crucial role in the historical experience of the developing world.
Throughout Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, primary product exports have
traditionally accounted for a sizable proportion of individual gross national products (Todaro&
Smith, 2003). In some of the smaller countries, up to 25% or more of the monetary Gross National
Product (GNP) is derived from the overseas sale of agricultural and other primary products such as
coffee, cotton, cacao, sugar, palm oil bauxite and copper. In the special circumstances of the oil-
producing nations in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, the sale of unrefined petroleum products to
countries throughout the world accounts for over 70% their national incomes.

Co-author: Arema, Bunmi Israel , E-mail: biarema@jabu.edu.ng

1
 Impact of Non-Oil Sector on Economic Development in Nigeria (1981 – 2018)

The state of economic development in Nigeria leaves much to be desired. After decades of huge
revenue from foreign trade, Nigeria was adjudged the 40th nation with the largest number of
hungry people among 119 developing countries by a report released to coincide with the activities
marking the 2006 World Food Day by United States based International Food Policy Research
Institute and a German Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), Agro Action. Many Nigerians are
today living a most difficult life with basic amenities such as food, water, electricity and security
almost totally absent. By many counts, Nigeria ranks among the most resource-endowed countries
in the world. Despite its resources, however, Nigeria today ranks among the 20 poorest nations
(UNDP, 2006).
Today, the non-oil sector continues to be a major driver of the Nigerian economy. In the third
quarter of 2011, the sector made a total contribution of 85.73 percent to total GDP. According to
Adulugba (2011), the country exported 1.186 million metric tonnes of non-oil products valued at
$2.765bn in 2011. The non-oil export figure, according to Mr.Adulugba, represents an increase of
19.15 per cent over the $2.32bn (N359.6bn) recorded in 2010, and 61.97 per cent over that of 2009
(Onuba, 2012). Successive Nigerian governments on its part have shown efforts over the years to
grow the non-oil export trade by establishing supportive policies. Some of these policies with
varying degrees of successes include but not restricted to: protectionism policy in the mode of
import substitution policy of industrialization in the 1960s; trade liberalization policy (this took the
form of Structural Adjustment Programme) of the mid 1980s and export promotion policy of 1990s
which was executed through intensified policy support to Small and Medium Scale Enterprises
(SMEs) to enhance productivity and subsequently, export of local products.
The main objective of this study is to examine the impact of the non-oil sector on economic
development in Nigeria. The specific objectives are as follows:
 to assess the trend in the contribution of the non-oil sector to the Nigerian economy;
 to assess the impact of the non-oil sector on economic growth;
 to investigate the impact of the non-oil sector on poverty; and
 to examine the impact of the non-oil sector on unemployment in Nigeria.
To this end, an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) models of economic growth; poverty and
unemployment were built and estimated to ascertain the impact the non-oil sector has had on
economic development in Nigeria. Following the introduction; section two is the conceptual issues
on non-oil sector and economic development. poverty; section three is the methodology; discussion
of results is presented in section four while section five contains the conclusion and
recommendations.

Conceptual Clarifications on Non-Oil Sector and Economic Development

The Non-oil Sector
The non-oil sector of the Nigerian economy can generally be described as those groups of
economic activities which are outside the petroleum and gas industry or not directly linked to them.
These include: telecommunication services; financial sector (banking and insurance) services;
tourism service (hotels, restaurants, parks, carnivals, movies; wholesale and retail trade; Health
services; export trade; agricultural activities; mineral activities; power (conventional and
renewable); Manufacturing; environmental services(cleaning, waste collection and recycling);
R&D activities; ICT, etc. According to Ude and Agodi (2014), the non-oil sector refers to those
groups of economic activities that are outside the petroleum and gas industry. The non-oil sector
has the potential or capacity to provide food for human population, source of raw materials for
industries and thus, promote economic growth.

2
International Journal of Advancement in Development Studies, Volume 16, Number 1, 2021
Economic Development
Several attempts have been made to define economic development. Schumpeter (1934) cited in
Todaro (2000) defines economic development as “a discontinuous and spontaneous change in the
stationary state which forever alters and displaces the equilibrium state previously existing”.
Development requires and involves some sort of direction, regulation and guidance to generate the
forces of expansion and maintain them. Myrdal (1957) states that “Economic development is taken
to mean growth plus change. It is related to quantitative change in economic wants, goods,
incentives, institutions, productivity and knowledge or the ‘upward movement of the entire social
system’. It describes the underlying determinants of growth such as technological and structural
changes. Kindleberger (1965) notes that economic development implies both more output and
changes in the technical and institutional arrangement by which it is produced and distributed.
Economic development is a sustained secular improvement in material wellbeing, which we may
consider to be reflected in an increasing flow of goods and services.
Dudley (1969) posed the basic question about the meaning of development succinctly when he
asserted; the questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore – what has been
happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to
inequality? If all three have declined from high levels, then beyond doubt, this has been a period of
development for the country concerned. If one or two of those central problems have been growing
worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result “development” even if per
capita income doubled.
Thirlwall (1989) asserts that we can say that development has occurred when there has been an
improvement in basic needs, when economic progress has contributed to a greater sense of self-
esteem for the country and individuals within it, and when material advancement has expanded the
range of choice for individuals. Development implies change, and this is one sense in which the
term development is used; to describe the process of economic and social transformation within
countries. This process often follows a well-order sequence and exhibits common characteristics
across countries.
Cipher and Dietz (1997) Development is fundamentally about regime change and about the search
for an optimal growth path, or at least one that is superior to the existing allocation of resources and
current efficiency levels accompanied by the changing institutional patterns and organizational
structures necessary to support such a dynamic process of change. Todaro (2000) Economic
development is regarded as a process whereby the real per capita income increases accompanied by
reduction in inequalities of income and the satisfaction of the preferences of the masses as a whole.
Alan (2000) defines development as a positive word that in everyday parlance is virtually
synonymous with established patterns of living, and there are huge disagreements about how it is
obtained or whether it is occurring. It implies increased living standards, improved health and well-
being for all, and the achievement of whatever is regarded as a general good for society at large.

3
 Impact of Non-Oil Sector on Economic Development in Nigeria (1981 – 2018)

Table 1: Graph of Log of Non-Oil GDP and Log of Real GDP (1985 – 2018)

15

14

13

12

11

10

9
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NOG RGDP

Table 2: Graph of Log of Non-Oil GDP and Log of Poverty Rate (1985 – 2018)
16

14

12

10

2
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NOG LOG(POV)

Table 3: Graph of Log of Non-Oil GDP and Unemployment Rate (1985 – 2018)

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

NOG UNEM

4
International Journal of Advancement in Development Studies, Volume 16, Number 1, 2021

METHODOLOGY
The paper makes use of descriptive method of analysis. Static and dynamic models of the impact of
the non-oil sector on economic growth, poverty and unemployment were built and estimated. The
paper adopts a multiple equation approach based on both the traditional and modern views of
economic development. Based on the traditional view, a country’s level of economic development
is determined by its level of real per capita income. The modern view on the other hand sees
economic development in terms of reduction in poverty, inequality and unemployment. The first
model in this study takes growth rate in real per capita GDP as a proxy for economic development
and seeks to establish the relationship between it and non-oil GDP.
The second model seeks to ascertain the contribution the non-oil sector has made to reduction in
poverty in Nigeria. Lastly, the third model establishes the contribution non-oil sector has made to
reduction in unemployment in Nigeria. The contribution non-oil sector has made to ensuring or
enthroning a more equitable distribution of income (i.e. reduction in inequality) could not be
examined due to lack of relevant data.
Model Specification
The models of this study seek to examine the static and dynamic impacts of the non-oil sector on
economic growth, poverty and unemployment in Nigeria. To this end, three (3) models were built.
The static models are specified below.
RGDP = f(K, L, NOG, EXC, INT, INF)
POV = f(RGDP, UNEM, NOG, EXC, INT, INF)
UNEM = f(RGDP, NOG, EXC, INT, INF)
This gives the linear models below;
LOG(RGDPt)= a0 + a1LOG(GCFt) + a2LOG(POPt) + a3LOG(NOGt) + a4EXCt + a5INTt +
a6INFt + Ut
POVt= b0 + b1LOG(RGDPt) + b2UNEM t + b3LOG(NOGt) + b4EXCt + b5INTt + b6INF + Ɛt
UNEM t = c0 + c1LOG(RGDPt) t + c2LOG(NOGt) + c3EXCt + c4INTt + c5INF + Vt
Where:
RGDP= Real GDP
GCF = Gross Capital Formation (proxy for capital)
POP = Population (proxy for labour)
NOG = Non-oil GDP
INT = Interest Rate
EXC = Exchange Rate
INF = Inflation Rate
POV = Poverty Rate
UNEM = Unemployment Rate
at, bt, ct = Co-efficients of independent variables
Ut, Ɛt, Vt = Random Error Terms
The a-priori expectations were that:
a4, a5, a6 < 0; a1, a2, a3> 0;
b1, b3< 0, b2, b4, b5, b6> 0;
c1, c2< 0; c3, c4, c5 > 0.

Estimation Technique
The study examines the time series characteristics of the models’ variables using the Phillips-
Perron Tests. The rationale for these tests is to ascertain whether the variables are stationary or non-
stationary; and therefore, determine the number of times each variable has to be differentiated to
arrive at stationarity.

5
Impact of Non-Oil Sector on Economic Development in Nigeria (1981 – 2018)

Nature and Sources of Data

The data used in the estimation of the models in this study are annual time series data. They are
sourced from the Central Bank of Nigeria, Federal Office of Statistics, International Monetary Fund
and other institutions’ publications. Additional data are sourced from published works.
RESULTS
Table 1: Results of Stationarity Tests for the levels of the variables
Variables Phillips-Perron Test Value Decision
RGDP 3.4548 I(1)
GCF -1.2742 I(1)
POP -3.8613 I(())
NOG -0.6164 I(1)
INT -1.4838 I(1)
EXC 1.3092 I(1)
INF -3.1583 I(1)
POV -1.9264 I(1)
UNEM 1.5992 I(1)
Tests conducted at 5% significance level.

Table 1 above shows that all the variables are not stationary at levels except population (POP).
Table 2: Results of Stationarity Tests for the First Differences of the variables
Variables Phillips-Perron Test Value Decision
∆RGDP 3.7741 I(0)
∆GCF -13.8097 I(0)
∆NOG -3.7267 I(0)
∆INT -3.8913 I(0)
∆EXC 3.6043 I(0)
∆INF -3.1468 I(0)
∆POV -3.9264 I(0)
∆UNEM 3.7551 I(0)
Tests conducted at 5% significance level.
Table 2 above shows that all the variables are stationary at first difference. They are therefore
integrated of order 1.
Static Models of Economic Growth, Poverty and Unemployment
Table 3: Economic Growth (RGDP) model Results by OLS
Variable Co-efficient Prob.
LOG (GCF) 0.0004 0.9512
LOG (POP) 0.0297 0.0433
LOG(NOG) 1.0357 0.0000
EXC -0.0004 0.1801
INT -0.0007 0.7446
INF 0.0004 0.3303

R2 = 0.9997 Adj. R2 = 0.9996 DW = 1.3842 F = 46.4

The economic growth model is shown on table 4.3. The result shows that capital proxied gross
capital formation, labour proxied by population, non-oil GDP and inflation rate have positive
impact on economic growth proxied by real GDP.
6
International Journal of Advancement in Development Studies, Volume 16, Number 1, 2021

This is in line with the a-priori expectation. The result also shows that exchange rate and interest
have negative impact on economic growth. These imply that increases in capital, labour, non-oil
GDP and inflation rate will lead to an increase in economic growth. Increases in exchange rate and
interest rate on the other hand, will lead to a decrease in economic growth. While the positive
impacts of labour, non-oil GDP are statistically significant at 5 per cent level of significance, the
positive impacts of capital and inflation rate are not statistically significant. The negative impacts of
exchange rate and interest rate are not statistically significant.
The R-Squared shows that about 99.9 per cent variation in economic growth is explained by
changes in capital, labour, non-oil GDP, exchange rate, interest rate and inflation rate. The Durbin-
Watson statistic of 1.3842 shows the absence of autocorrelation in the regression model. The F-
statistic of 46.4 shows that the model as a whole is statistically significant.
Table 4: The Poverty Model Result by OLS
Variable Co-efficient Prob.
LOG (RGDP) -59.4492 0.0999
UNEM 0.0946 0.8815
LOG (NOG) -66.9414 0.0693
EXC 0.0376 0.5451
INT 0.3143 0.5317
INF 0.0268 0.7514

R2= 0.6849 Adj. R2= 0.6356 DW= 1.4599 F-statistic = 50.7523

The poverty model is shown on table 4.4. The result shows that unemployment, exchange rate,
interest rate, and inflation rate have positive impact on poverty. Economic growth proxied by real
GDP, non-oil GDP and exchange rate have negative impact on poverty. This is in line with the a-
priori expectation. These imply that increases in unemployment, interest rate and inflation rate will
aggravate poverty in Nigeria. Increases in economic growth and non-oil GDP on the other hand,
will lead to increase in poverty. Both the positive and negative impacts are not statistically
significant at 5 per cent significance level.
The R-Squared shows that about 68 per cent variation in poverty is explained by the model. The
Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.4599 shows that there is no autocorrelation in the regression model.

The F-statistic of 50.7523 shows that the model as a whole is statistically significant.
Table 5: The Unemployment Model by OLS
Variable Co-efficient Prob.
LOG (RGDP) -1.5589 0.8732
LOG (NOG) -2.7624 0.7805
EXC 0.0910 0.0000
INT -0.4301 0.0007
INF 0.0049 0.8332

R-Squared = 0.9659 Adj. R-Squared = 0.9614 F-Statistic = 137.6464

DW= 1.0467

The unemployment model is shown on table 4.5. The result shows that economic growth proxied
by real GDP, non-oil GDP and interest rate have negative impact on unemployment. The result also
shows that exchange rate and inflation rate have positive impact on unemployment in Nigeria.
These imply that increases in economic growth, non-oil GDP and reduction in interest rate will lead
to reduction in unemployment in Nigeria.

7
Impact of Non-Oil Sector on Economic Development in Nigeria (1981 – 2018)

On the other hand, increases in exchange rate and inflation rate will lead to increase in
unemployment. While the negative impacts of economic growth and non-oil GDP are not
statistically significant at 5 per cent that of interest rate is statistically significant that of interest rate
is statistically significant. The positive impact of exchange rate on unemployment is statistically
significant but that of inflation rate in not statistically significant.
The R-Squared shows that about 97 per cent variation in unemployment is explained by the model.
The Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.0467 shows that the test for the absence of autocorrelation in the
regression model is inconclusive. The F-statistic of 137.6464 shows that the model as a whole is
statistically significant.
Dynamic Models of Economic Growth, Poverty and Unemployment
Table 6: ARDL Model of Economic Growth
Variable Co-efficient Prob.
LOG (RGDP (-1)) 0.0540 0.6347
LOG (GCF) 0.0049 0.5200
LOG (POP) 0.4026 0.1288
LOG (NOG) 0.9397 0.0000
EXC -0.0008 0.0453
INT -0.0004 0.8392
INF 0.0007 0.2179
c -1.5788 0.1038
R-squared = 0.9997 Adjusted R-squared = 0.9996 F-statistic = 13357.54
Durbin-Watson Statistic = 1.6448
Table 4.6 above shows that economic growth (RGDP) at lag (1), gross capital formation,
population, non-oil GDP and inflation rate have positive impact on economic growth. Exchange
rate and interest rate on the other hand, have negative impact on economic growth. The positive
impacts of gross capital formation, population and inflation rate are not statistically significant at 5
per cent while that of non-oil GDP is statistically significant at 5 per cent. The negative impact of
exchange rate is statistically significant at 5 per cent while that of interest rate is not statistically
significant.
The coefficient of determination (R2) shows that about 99.9 per cent variation in economic growth
is explained by the model. The F-statistic of 13357.54 shows that the model as a whole is
statistically significant at 1 per cent. Durbin-Watson test statistic of 1.6448 shows that there is no
evidence of serial correlation in the model.

Table 7: ARDL Model of Poverty

Variable Co-efficient Prob.
POV (-1) 0.8301 0.0000
LOG (RGDP) -28.7927 0.2357
UNEM 0.4727 0.2692
LOG (NOG) -30.2156 0.2281
EXC 0.0644 0.2013
INT 0.1127 0.7235
INF 0.0173 0.7731
c -0.3954 0.9562
R-squared = 0.8890 Adjusted R-squared = 0.8622 F-statistic = 33.18
Durbin-Watson Statistic = 1.7747
Table 4.7 above shows that poverty at lag (1), unemployment, exchange rate, interest rate and
inflation rate all have positive impact on poverty in Nigeria.

8
International Journal of Advancement in Development Studies, Volume 16, Number 1, 2021

Economic growth and non-oil GDP on the other hand have negative impact on poverty in Nigeria.
Only the positive impact of poverty at lag (1) is statistically significant at 5 per cent.
The coefficient of determination (R2) shows that about 89 per cent variation in poverty is explained
by the model. The F-statistic of 33.18 shows that the model as a whole is statistically significant at
1 per cent. Durbin-Watson test statistic of 1.7747 shows that there is no evidence of serial
correlation in the model.

Table 8: ARDL Model of Unemployment

Variable Co-efficient Prob.
UNEM (-1) 0.7272 0.0000
LOG (RGDP) -6.6588 0.3415
LOG (NOG) -6.2710 0.3857
EXC 0.0276 0.0317
INT -0.1834 0.0386
INF 0.0147 0.3704
c 0.2855 0.8735
R-squared = 0.9879 Adjusted R-squared = 0.9854 F-statistic = 407.4668
Durbin-Watson Statistic = 1.6565

Table 4.8 above shows that unemployment at lag (1), exchange rate and inflation rate have positive
impact on unemployment in Nigeria. Economic growth, non-oil GDP and interest rate on the other
hand have negative impact on unemployment in Nigeria. While the positive impacts of
unemployment at lag (1) and exchange rate are statistically significant at 5 per cent level, that of
inflation rate is not statistically significant. Only the negative impact of interest rate if statistically
significant.
The coefficient of determination (R2) shows that about 99 per cent variation in unemployment is
explained by the model. The F-statistic of 407.4 shows that the model as a whole is statistically
significant at 1 per cent. Durbin-Watson test statistic of 1.6565 shows that there is no evidence of
serial correlation in the model.

CONCLUSION
The non-oil sector of the Nigerian economy remains an engine room that can generate enormous
growth and development. An efficient and effective functioning non-oil sector will not only spur
development, it will also contribute positively toward poverty reduction and employment
generation in Nigeria. The findings of this study provide evidence that the non-oil sector has had
positive impact on economic growth and it has had negative impact on poverty and unemployment
in Nigeria.

RECOMMENDATIONS
On the strength of the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:
 The government at all levels in Nigeria should support the private sector with low interest
loans to enable increase production;
 The federal government should consciously reduce the cost of doing business in Nigeria by
providing more infrastructural facilities across the country;
 The government should put incentives in place to attract more foreign investors into the
country;
 The federal government should effectively eradicate the problem of insecurity in Nigeria.
 The government at all levels should support the private sector to create more employment
opportunities for the teeming unemployed youths in Nigeria.

9
Impact of Non-Oil Sector on Economic Development in Nigeria (1981 – 2018)

REFRENCES
Adeniyi Aladejare, Samson and Saidi, Abdulwahab, "Determinants of Non-oil Export and
Economic Growth in Nigeria: An Application of the Bound Test Approach" (2014). Journal
for the Advancement of Developing Economies. 4. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/jade/4

Adejugbe, 1997. Stimulating non-oil development through marketing and trading strategies, CBN
economic and financial review, volume 35, no.4, pp. 67-79.

Adekunle J.A., 2012. Non-oil exports can generate N310bn for Nigeria-expert agency reports
August 05.

Adeloye L. 2012. Non-oil exports: role of incentives and challenges. Punch, February 24.

Adewuji, 2005.Trade and exchange policy reform and export performance in Nigeria. Nigerian
Economic Society (NES) annual conference pp.748-771.

Adulagba D., 2011.Executive director/CEO, NEPC.

Aigbokhan B.E, 2008, Growth, Inequality and poverty in Nigeria. United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa (UNECA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ayomide O., 2011. Nigeria’s non-oil exports hit $1.4bn. Tribune November 28.

Basher I.H., 2012.Diversifying Nigeria’s economy through non-oil export promotion. Leadership
newspaper, May 13.

Bhagwati, J. 1978. Anatomy and consequences of exchange control regimes. Foreign trade regimes
and economic development series, vol.11, Cambridge, M.A: Ballinge publishing.

Blecker, 1999, in Onayemi and Ishola, 2009.Diversifying the productive base of Nigeria, an
Econometric Approach to the Assessment of Non-oil Export promotion strategies.

Egwakhide C.I. 2012, The impact of foreign direct investment on Nigeria’s economic growth;
1980-2009: Evidence from the Johansen’s cointegration approach. International journal of
business and social scienceVol.3.No.6.

Enoma, A. and Isedu, M. 2011. The Impact of Financial Sector Reforms on Non-Oil Export in
Nigeria, Journal of Economics Vol. 2 (2) Pp 115-120

Ikpe M., 2012, “Determinants of Nigeria’s Non-Oil Import Demand” An M.Sc Thesis, University
of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Iwayemi, A. (2019). The Nigerian Fuel Subsidy Puzzle: Facts, Fallacies and the Way Forward.
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Public Lecture of the NES delivered at CBN
International Training Institute, Abuja on May 16, 2019. Ibadan: NES

Koester, U. 1986. “Regional cooperation to improve food security in southern and eastern African
countries”. Research report 53, international food policy research institute, Washington DC.

10
International Journal of Advancement in Development Studies, Volume 16, Number 1, 2021

Krueger A., 1978, Liberalization attempts and consequences; Foreign Trade Regimes and
Economic development series, Vol. 10, Cambridge M.A.: Ballinger publishing.

Obwona M.B. 2001.“Determinants of FDI and their impact on economic growth in Uganda”.
African development review 2001. Blackwell publishers oxford. UK. pp.46-80.

Olayiwola, K and Okodua, H. 2010. Foreign Direct Investment, Non-Oil Export, and the Economic
Growth in Nigeria: A causality Analysis, Ota Nigeria: Covenant Faith University.

Balassa, B. (1978) Exports and Economic Growth: further Evidence. Journal of Development
Economics Vol. 5.

Chenery, B. H. (1970). Structural Change and Development Policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Cohen, B. S. (1970) The Less-Developed Countries’ Export of Primary Products. Economic

Journal. 78.

Cypher, J. M. and Dietz, J. L. (1997) The Process of Economic Development. London: Routledge.

Fuller, W. A. (1976). Introduction to Statistical Time Series. New York: John Wiley.

Deadman, D. F. and Cherenza, W. W. (1997). New Direction in Econometrics Practice. New York:
Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.

Egwaikhide, F. O. (1997). Export Promotion Nigeria in 2010. Nigeria Institute of Social and
Economic Research (NISER) Publication.

Ekpo. A. H. and Egwaihkide, F. O. (1994) Export and Economic Growth in Nigeria: A

Reconsideration of the Evidence. Journal of Economic Management. Vol. No. 1.

Emery, R. (1967).The Relation of Export and Economic Growth. Kyklo

Heller, P. S. and Porter, R. C. (1978). Exports and Growth: An Empirical Re-Investigation. Journal
of Development Economics. Vol. 5.

Hensley, R. J. (1971). Trade and Development in Nigeria, 1960 – 1965. Economic Internationale;
May.
Jhingan, M. L. (2003). The Economics of Development and Planning. New Delhi: Vrinda
Publications Ltd.

Kindleberge, C. P. (1965). Economic Development. USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Kravis, I. B. (1970).Trade as a Handmaiden of Growth. Economic Journal, 80.

Krueger, A. (1978). Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Liberalization Attempts
and Consequences, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.

Langley, K. M. (1968). The External Resources Factor in Nigerian Economic Development. The
Nigerian Journal of Economics and Social Studies Vol. 10.
11
Impact of Non-Oil Sector on Economic Development in Nigeria (1981 – 2018)

Lewis, W. A. (1954). Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour Manchester

School 22.

Lewis, W. A. (1966) Development Planning: The Essentials of Policy. New York: Harper and Row
Inc.

Massel, B. F. Et al (1972). Foreign Exchange and Economic Development: An Empirical Study of

selected Latin American Countries. Review of Economics and Statistics. May.

Michaely, M. (1977). Export and Growth: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Development

Economic Vol. 4.

Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic Theory and Underdeveloped regions. London: Gerald Duckworth
and Co. Ltd.

Uche, J. (2021). Non-oil sector is critical to Nigeria’s economic recovery in 2021. Retrieved from
https://nairametrics.com/2021/01/15/non-oil-sector-is-critical-to-nigerias-economic-
recovery-in-2021-cordros-capital/ on 23/02/21

DEV-2021-020/devonjournal@yahoo.com/10-08-2021/*****91138

12