FULafia International Journal of Business

and Allied Studies (FIJBAS)

VOLUME 2 ISSUE 3 2024

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION FUNDS ON EDUCATION SECTOR

GROWTH IN NIGERIA

Muhammed-Angulu, Audu
Bingham University, Nigeria
[email protected]

Ezie, Obumneke
Bingham University, Nigeria

Aiyedogbon, John O.
Bingham University, Nigeria

Abstract
This study examined the impact of government intervention funds on the growth of the education
sector in Nigeria, addressing the critical issue of how effective these funds have been in enhancing
the sector's contribution to the nation's GDP. Despite substantial government allocations to
education, the sector’s growth has been inconsistent, raising concerns about the effectiveness of
these interventions. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the influence of three major
government funds: the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), Universal Basic
Education Commission (UBEC) Intervention Fund, and Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF) on
the education sector’s economic performance. The study utilized a Fully Modified Ordinary Least
Squares (FMOLS) regression model to analyse time series data, assessing the relationship between
these intervention funds and the education sector's contribution to GDP. The findings revealed that
PTDF had a positive and significant impact on the sector's growth, indicating that investments in
science and technology education within the oil and gas sector effectively contributed to broader
economic benefits. UBEC also showed a positive and significant effect, emphasizing the critical
role of basic education funding in driving overall sectoral growth. However, TETF exhibited a
significant but negative impact, suggesting inefficiencies in fund utilization and misalignment with
national economic needs. Based on these findings, the study recommended that the Federal
Ministry of Education and PTDF should broaden the scope of PTDF funding to include more
diverse technological disciplines. UBEC was advised to improve resource distribution, particularly
in underserved areas, while TETF, in collaboration with the National Universities Commission
(NUC), should reevaluate and realign its funding strategies to better support education sector

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 249
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

growth. These recommendations aimed to optimize the impact of government intervention funds on
the education sector, ensuring more effective contributions to Nigeria’s development.
Keywords: TET Funds, UBEC Funds, PTDF Funds, Education Sector.

Introduction
Government intervention funds have emerged as a crucial tool for promoting educational de-
velopment and growth worldwide. These funds, typically financial allocations by national govern-
ments, aim to address specific challenges in the education sector, enhance infrastructure, improve
access to quality education, and foster human capital development. They are intended to bridge fund-
ing gaps, address educational disparities, and drive innovation. Around the world, countries imple-
ment various mechanisms to channel these funds into their education systems. For example, in the
United States, the federal government allocates significant resources to education through initiatives
like Title I grants for low-income schools and Pell Grants for students pursuing higher education. In
the United Kingdom, government intervention includes funding streams for early childhood educa-
tion, school improvement programs, and research grants for universities, aiming to ensure broad ac-
cess and high educational standards.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the need for government intervention in education is particularly pro-
nounced due to the region's unique challenges, including high poverty rates, insufficient infrastruc-
ture, and a burgeoning youth population. Governments across the region have initiated various fund-
ing mechanisms to address these issues. For instance, the African Development Bank has provided
substantial funding to support educational infrastructure and teacher training programs. Additionally,
countries like Kenya and Ghana have implemented free primary education policies funded by gov-
ernment resources and international donors, aiming to increase enrolment rates and reduce educa-
tional disparities.
The World Bank (2019) notes that while public education spending in sub-Saharan Africa has
increased from an average of 3.8% of GDP in 2000 to 4.3% in 2018, significant disparities persist
among countries. Nigeria, as a key player in the region, has implemented various intervention funds
to support its education sector. Three notable examples are the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TET-
Fund), the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), and the Universal Basic Education
Commission (UBEC) Intervention Fund.
The Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund), established in 2011, aims to improve the qual-
ity of tertiary education in Nigeria by providing funding for infrastructure development, research, and
staff training. Since its inception, TETFund has allocated billions of naira to various projects across

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 250
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

Nigerian universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education. For instance, in 2020, TETFund dis-
bursed over ₦395 billion to beneficiary institutions (TETFund, 2021). The Petroleum Technology
Development Fund (PTDF), on the other hand, focuses on developing human and institutional capac-
ities in Nigeria's oil and gas sector through scholarships, research grants, and infrastructure develop-
ment in higher education institutions. Between 2015 and 2020, PTDF awarded over 8,000 scholar-
ships to Nigerian students for postgraduate studies both locally and internationally (PTDF, 2021). The
Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) Intervention Fund targets basic education, providing
resources for infrastructure development, teacher training, and instructional materials. UBEC has re-
ported significant investments, with over ₦153 billion disbursed to states for basic education projects
between 2015 and 2019 (UBEC, 2020).
The education sector plays a pivotal role in fostering economic growth, social development,
and human capital formation in any nation. Ideally, a robust education sector should contribute sig-
nificantly to a country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), serve as a catalyst for innovation, and drive
overall national development. In Nigeria, as in many developing countries, the education sector is
expected to be a key driver of economic diversification and sustainable growth, contributing substan-
tially to the nation's GDP and providing a skilled workforce for various industries.
However, the reality in Nigeria presents a stark contrast to this ideal scenario. The education
sector's contribution to GDP has remained persistently low, failing to meet the expectations of poli-
cymakers and stakeholders. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2022), the education
sector's contribution to Nigeria's GDP stood at a mere 1.94% in 2020, showing only marginal im-
provement from 1.69% in 2015. This underwhelming performance is further highlighted by the sec-
tor's inability to adequately address the country's educational needs, as evidenced by high rates of
out-of-school children and poor learning outcomes. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF,
2022) reports that Nigeria has the highest number of out-of-school children globally, with approxi-
mately 10.5 million children aged 5-14 years not receiving formal education.
In light of these challenges, the Nigerian government has implemented various programes and
reforms aimed at boosting the education sector's performance. These initiatives include the Universal
Basic Education (UBE) program, launched in 1999 to provide free, universal basic education for
every Nigerian child of school-going age. The government also introduced the National Policy on
Education in 2004, which emphasized the importance of education for national development and set
guidelines for educational standards across all levels. Additionally, the Teacher Registration Council
of Nigeria (TRCN) was established to enhance teacher quality and professionalism.
Despite these policy interventions, the education sector's growth and contribution to Nigeria's
GDP have not shown significant improvement as evidenced by its decline from 22.78% in 2015 to

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 251
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

15.17% in 2022 (CBN, 2022). The persistent underperformance of the education sector has far-reach-
ing consequences for Nigeria's economic and social development. It hampers the country's ability to
produce a skilled workforce capable of driving innovation and economic growth.
Given the critical role of education in national development and the potential for significant
positive externalities, the underperformance of Nigeria's education sector clearly poses a substantial
threat to the country's long-term economic prospects and social development. Therefore, it is the in-
terest of this study to conduct an analysis of how government intervention funds have impacted the
growth and development of the education sector in Nigeria between 1999 and 2023 using available
empirical evidence and appropriate econometric techniques.
The following research questions were evaluated to guide the study:
i. What impact does Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) has on growth of the
education sector in Nigeria?
ii. To what extent does tertiary education trust fund impact on the growth of the education sec-
tor in Nigeria?
iii. How has Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) intervention fund impacted on the
growth of the education sector in Nigeria?
In line with the above questions, the following hypotheses were addressed:
H01: Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) has not significantly enhanced the growth
of the education sector in Nigeria
H02: Tertiary Education Trust Fund has no significant impact on the growth of the education sector
in Nigeria
H03: Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) Intervention Fund does not have a signifi-
cant impact on the growth of the education sector in Nigeria
Literature Review
Conceptual Review
Government Intervention Funds: Government intervention funds are financial resources allocated
by governments to stimulate specific sectors of the economy, address gaps, promote equity, and en-
hance overall quality and efficiency. These funds are crucial in sectors like education, where there is
a need to reduce disparities, improve infrastructure, and enhance access and quality. According to
Radelet (2016), government intervention funds can be defined as targeted financial allocations aimed
at correcting market failures, redistributing resources to marginalized sectors, and fostering long-term
economic growth. In the context of education, intervention funds are instrumental in addressing sys-
temic challenges and promoting human capital development, which is essential for national progress
(World Bank, 2018).

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 252
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

In Nigeria, several government intervention funds have been established to support the edu-
cation sector. Among these, the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) plays a significant role.
TETFund was established to provide supplementary support to all levels of public tertiary institutions,
ensuring they have the necessary infrastructure and capacity to deliver quality education. As noted by
Oyelere (2016), TETFund's primary objective is to rehabilitate, restore, and consolidate tertiary edu-
cation in Nigeria through funding for physical infrastructure, research, and academic staff develop-
ment. This intervention is crucial, given that tertiary institutions in Nigeria face challenges such as
inadequate infrastructure, outdated facilities, and insufficient funding for research and development.
Another important government intervention fund in Nigeria is the Petroleum Technology De-
velopment Fund (PTDF). This fund was created to build local capacity and capabilities in the oil and
gas sector through the development of human resources and technology. PTDF achieves this by
providing scholarships for Nigerians to pursue higher education in science and technology, both lo-
cally and internationally. According to Agusto (2019), the PTDF aims to address the skills gap in
Nigeria's oil and gas industry by sponsoring specialized training programs and academic pursuits that
align with the sector's needs. By investing in education, the PTDF not only supports the oil and gas
industry but also contributes to national development through the creation of a skilled workforce.
The Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) Intervention Fund is another critical
mechanism established to ensure equitable access to basic education in Nigeria. UBEC was created
under the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act of 2004, which mandates free and compulsory basic
education for children. The UBEC Intervention Fund supports infrastructure development, teacher
training, and the provision of instructional materials. As highlighted by Eze and Ibekwe (2017), the
fund aims to enhance educational quality and access, particularly in underserved and rural areas, by
addressing disparities in educational resources and opportunities.
These intervention funds are essential measures for addressing the systemic challenges facing
Nigeria's education sector. They provide a framework for targeted investments in infrastructure, hu-
man capital, and research, thereby improving the overall quality and accessibility of education. As
noted by Adeyemi and Akpotu (2019), effective management and utilization of these funds are crucial
for achieving the intended outcomes, including increased enrollment, improved learning outcomes,
and enhanced contributions of the education sector to Nigeria's GDP.
Education Sector Growth: Education sector growth, often measured as the sector's contribution to
a country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is a critical indicator of how investments in education
translate into economic outcomes. The education sector contributes to GDP through various channels,
including employment creation, the enhancement of human capital, and the stimulation of innovation

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 253
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

and technological advancement. The World Bank (2018) defines education sector growth as the pro-
cess by which investments in educational infrastructure, quality, and access lead to improvements in
the economy's productive capacity and output. This growth is indicative of how well a country har-
nesses its human capital to drive economic development.
According to Ogujiuba and Adeniyi (2022), Education Sector Growth refers to the expansion
of educational services and their increasing significance in the national economy, reflected in the
sector's growing share of GDP. This growth is not merely quantitative but also qualitative, encom-
passing improvements in educational outcomes, efficiency, and relevance to societal needs. The au-
thors argue that a growing education sector contribution to GDP often indicates increased investment
in human capital, which is crucial for long-term economic development.
Measuring Education Sector Growth through its contribution to GDP provides a standardized
way to assess the sector's economic significance. Adedeji and Campbell (2021) define this measure
as the total value added by all educational institutions and related services to a country's GDP, typi-
cally expressed as a percentage. This includes the economic output of public and private educational
institutions across all levels, from primary to tertiary education, as well as ancillary services such as
educational consulting, textbook publishing, and educational technology.
Theoretical Review
The theoretical underpinning for this study is Public Choice Theory, developed by economists
James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock in the early 1960s. Public Choice Theory applies economic
principles to the study of political behaviour, emphasizing that political decision-making is driven by
the self-interest of voters, politicians, and bureaucrats. This theory suggests that government inter-
vention, such as the allocation of intervention funds, can be influenced by political incentives and
pressures, which may lead to decisions that prioritize special interests over the public good. Buchanan
and Tullock (1962) argue that government actions are often the result of individuals seeking to max-
imize their own benefits, potentially leading to inefficiencies and misallocations of resources.
Public Choice Theory is particularly relevant to understanding government intervention funds
in the education sector in Nigeria. It provides a framework for examining how political dynamics and
incentives can impact the management and effectiveness of funds like the Tertiary Education Trust
Fund (TETFund), Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), and Universal Basic Education
Commission (UBEC). The theory highlights the potential for government failure, where political de-
cision-making may lead to suboptimal outcomes due to bureaucratic inefficiencies and lack of market
incentives.
One of the strengths of Public Choice Theory is its ability to highlight the challenges and
limitations of government interventions. It offers valuable insights into why government intervention

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 254
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

funds may not always achieve their intended objectives, emphasizing the need for transparency, ac-
countability, and efficiency in their allocation and use. However, the theory has faced criticisms for
its somewhat cynical view of political processes and its assumption that all political actors are moti-
vated primarily by self-interest. Critics such as Amartya Sen (1977) argue that this perspective can
oversimplify the nature of political behaviour and overlook the potential for altruism and public-
spiritedness in policymaking.
The significance of Public Choice Theory in this study lies in its portrayal of how political
and bureaucratic dynamics can influence the allocation and effectiveness of government intervention
funds in the education sector. By understanding the incentives and constraints faced by political ac-
tors, policymakers can design mechanisms to enhance the management and utilization of these funds,
ensuring they contribute effectively to educational growth and economic development. Despite criti-
cisms regarding its assumptions about political behaviour, Public Choice Theory offers a valuable
framework for analysing the complexities of public policy implementation and exploring strategies
for improving the impact of intervention funds in Nigeria's education sector.
Empirical Review
The impact of government intervention funds on the education sector has been widely studied,
highlighting the various ways such interventions can influence educational outcomes and economic
growth. Two empirical studies provide insights into this dynamic relationship, focusing on different
geographical regions and employing distinct methodologies to analyze the effects of government
funding on education sector growth.
In another recent study, Grindle and Niraula (2023) investigated the impact of government
intervention funds on higher education development in Southeast Asia, focusing on Thailand and
Vietnam. This study covered the period from 2010 to 2022 and utilized a comparative analysis of
educational policies and funding mechanisms in the two countries. The authors applied a qualitative
research design, conducting interviews with policymakers, educators, and students to understand the
effects of government funding on university expansion, research output, and international collabora-
tion. The study found that government intervention funds played a crucial role in expanding higher
education infrastructure and enhancing research capacity. In Thailand, investments in higher educa-
tion led to increased international partnerships and improved global rankings of universities. Simi-
larly, in Vietnam, government funding supported the establishment of new research institutes and the
development of advanced curricula. However, the study noted challenges related to bureaucratic in-
efficiencies and the need for greater alignment between educational programs and labour market de-
mands. The research emphasized the importance of strategic planning and policy coherence in max-
imizing the benefits of government intervention funds. Despite providing valuable insights, the study

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 255
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

acknowledged the difficulty of quantifying the direct impact of educational investments on economic
growth.
A study by Durokifa and Ijeoma (2021) examined the effectiveness of government interven-
tion funds on education quality in Nigeria, with a particular focus on the Universal Basic Education
Commission (UBEC) intervention. The study analysed data from 2005 to 2020, employing a mixed-
methods approach that included both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The authors used econo-
metric models to evaluate the relationship between UBEC funding and educational outcomes, such
as enrollment rates, completion rates, and student performance in primary and secondary education.
The findings indicated that UBEC funding significantly improved access to education and infrastruc-
ture, such as the construction of classrooms and provision of learning materials. However, the study
also highlighted issues of corruption and mismanagement, which hindered the full potential of these
funds. Interviews with stakeholders revealed that funds were often delayed and inadequately distrib-
uted, leading to disparities in educational quality across regions. The study showed the importance of
transparency and accountability in the allocation and utilization of government intervention funds.
While the research provided comprehensive insights, it faced limitations in exploring the long-term
impacts of these interventions on economic outcomes.
In a study conducted by Ajayi and Afolabi (2020), the authors explored the impact of govern-
ment intervention funds on the educational sector in Nigeria, specifically focusing on tertiary educa-
tion. The study examined the period from 2000 to 2018, utilizing a mixed-methods approach that
combined both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The authors collected data from various sources,
including government reports, academic publications, and interviews with key stakeholders in the
education sector. The quantitative analysis employed econometric techniques to assess the relation-
ship between government funding and educational outcomes, such as enrollment rates and academic
performance. The study found that government intervention funds, particularly those channeled
through the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund), significantly improved the quality of infra-
structure and access to tertiary education. However, the study also identified issues related to the
mismanagement and allocation of funds, which limited the effectiveness of these interventions. While
the study provided valuable insights into the positive impacts of government intervention funds, its
reliance on secondary data sources and the limited scope of qualitative interviews might have re-
stricted the depth of its analysis.
In their 2020 study, Adebayo and Akintoye examined the impact of sector-specific govern-
ment funds on educational outcomes in Nigeria, employing a quantitative analysis method. The re-
searchers utilized time-series data covering various educational sectors, analyzing the relationship

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 256
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

between government funding and educational performance indicators, such as enrollment rates, grad-
uation rates, and infrastructure development. The findings revealed that targeted government funding,
particularly in the areas of science and technology education, had a significant positive impact on
educational outcomes. The study highlighted that increased funding in these sectors led to improve-
ments in both access to education and the quality of educational infrastructure. However, the study’s
reliance on aggregate data might have overlooked regional disparities in the distribution and impact
of funds, which could vary significantly across different states in Nigeria. Additionally, the study
could have benefited from a more comprehensive approach that included qualitative data, providing
deeper insights into the specific challenges and successes of sector-specific funding in the Nigerian
context.
Adelakun’s (2017) study focused on the spillover effects of the Petroleum Technology Devel-
opment Fund (PTDF) on Nigeria’s education sector. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach that com-
bined econometric analysis with case studies, the study explored how PTDF's investments in educa-
tional programs, particularly those related to the oil and gas industry, influenced broader educational
outcomes. The findings indicated that while PTDF had a positive impact on enhancing technical and
vocational education in the oil and gas sector, the broader spillover effects on the general education
sector were limited. The study argued that PTDF’s benefits were mostly confined to specialized in-
stitutions and did not significantly influence other educational sectors, such as basic or tertiary edu-
cation outside the oil and gas focus. Despite its comprehensive approach, the study could have further
examined the potential indirect effects of PTDF on the broader educational landscape, such as its
influence on labor market alignment and regional economic development. Moreover, the study's focus
on the oil and gas sector may have constrained its ability to draw more generalizable conclusions
about PTDF's impact on the overall education sector in Nigeria.
Olaniyan and Okemakinde, in their 2018 study, analyzed the role of education as an instru-
ment for economic growth and development in Nigeria. The authors employed a qualitative research
design, drawing on historical data and policy analysis to evaluate the contributions of education to
Nigeria's economic development. Their findings highlighted the critical role of education in fostering
human capital development, which in turn drives economic growth. The study highlighted the im-
portance of government intervention through educational funding, particularly in basic education, as
a means of achieving long-term economic stability and growth. However, the study’s heavy reliance
on qualitative analysis, without integrating quantitative data, may have limited the robustness of its
conclusions. A more balanced approach that included empirical evidence could have provided
stronger support for the study’s arguments regarding the link between educational investment and

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 257
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

economic development. Additionally, the study primarily focused on the positive aspects of educa-
tion’s role in economic growth, without sufficiently addressing the challenges and barriers that hinder
the effective implementation of educational policies in Nigeria.
In a study by Mlambo and Kamara (2018), the authors explored the effects of government
funding on educational outcomes in Zimbabwe, focusing on the Basic Education Assistance Module
(BEAM) program. This study covered the period from 2005 to 2017 and utilized a longitudinal anal-
ysis approach. The researchers collected data from government reports, school records, and household
surveys to evaluate the impact of the BEAM program, which aimed to provide financial support for
disadvantaged students in primary and secondary schools. The analysis employed difference-in-dif-
ferences and propensity score matching techniques to assess the program's effects on school attend-
ance and completion rates. The study found that government intervention through BEAM signifi-
cantly improved educational access for marginalized groups, leading to higher enrollment and reten-
tion rates. However, challenges such as insufficient funding and delays in disbursement limited the
program's overall effectiveness. The study highlighted the importance of timely and adequate funding
to sustain educational interventions. While the research provided valuable insights into the positive
impacts of BEAM, it faced limitations in addressing the qualitative aspects of educational quality and
student performance.
Yusuf and Alabi (2016) assessed the impact of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF) on
Nigeria’s higher education institutions using a mixed-methods approach that combined quantitative
data analysis with qualitative interviews. Their study covered various aspects of TETF’s influence,
including infrastructure development, research funding, and academic staff training. The findings in-
dicated that TETF had significantly contributed to the improvement of infrastructure and research
capacity in Nigerian universities, which in turn enhanced the quality of education and academic out-
puts. Despite these positive contributions, the study pointed out persistent challenges such as delays
in fund disbursement, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and uneven distribution of funds across institutions.
These issues have limited the overall effectiveness of TETF in driving comprehensive improvements
in the higher education sector. While the study provided a balanced view of TETF’s achievements
and shortcomings, its reliance on data from a limited number of institutions might have constrained
the generalizability of its findings across Nigeria’s diverse higher education landscape.
Bregman and Stallmeister (2015) conducted a comprehensive review of basic education strat-
egies aimed at improving educational outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa. Utilizing a qualitative analysis
approach, the study synthesized findings from various education programs and policies implemented
across the region. The authors highlighted the effectiveness of government and donor-funded initia-
tives in increasing access to primary education, improving teacher training, and enhancing the quality

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 258
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

of educational infrastructure. Their findings emphasized the importance of sustained investment in

basic education as a critical factor in achieving long-term economic growth and poverty reduction in
sub-Saharan Africa. However, while the study provided valuable insights into successful strategies,
it did not sufficiently address the challenges related to the sustainability of these interventions, par-
ticularly in contexts of political instability and economic constraints. Additionally, the study’s focus
on broad regional trends might have overlooked the specific local dynamics that influence the success
or failure of educational strategies in different countries within sub-Saharan Africa.
Dike (2019) explored the role of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF) in enhancing ac-
ademic excellence in Nigeria through a case study approach. The study focused on specific universi-
ties that had benefited from TETF funding, examining the impact of these funds on academic infra-
structure, research output, and student performance. The findings suggested that TETF had played a
crucial role in elevating academic standards by providing essential resources for teaching and re-
search. The study highlighted significant improvements in library facilities, laboratory equipment,
and research grants, which collectively contributed to better academic outcomes. However, the study
also noted that the impact of TETF was not uniformly felt across all institutions, with some universi-
ties experiencing more significant benefits than others due to variations in fund allocation and man-
agement practices. The case study approach provided in-depth insights into the successes of TETF,
but the narrow focus on a few institutions may limit the applicability of the findings to the broader
higher education sector in Nigeria.
Methodology
The study employed a time series research design, which involved collecting and analysing
data points sequentially over a specified period. This approach allowed the researchers to examine
trends and patterns in the impact of government intervention funds on the education sector in Nigeria.
This design enabled the identification of causal relationships and the temporal dynamics of govern-
ment funding impacts, providing a comprehensive understanding of how intervention funds influ-
enced education sector growth between 1999 and 2023.
The study utilized secondary data to analyse the impact of government intervention funds on
the education sector in Nigeria. The data were sourced from reputable and authoritative publications,
including the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Statistical Bulletin, the National Bureau of Statistics
(NBS), and FIRS. These sources provided comprehensive and reliable datasets on financial alloca-
tions, educational outcomes, and economic indicators. The secondary data encompassed various as-
pects of educational funding and performance, allowing the researchers to conduct a thorough analy-
sis of trends and patterns over time. This data-driven approach facilitated a robust examination of the
relationship between government intervention funds and educational growth.

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 259
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

The study adopted and refined the model framework from Durokifa and Ijeoma (2021), who
examined the impact of government intervention funds on educational quality in Nigeria, specifically
focusing on the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) intervention, represented as:
ELRt = 0 + 1UBECt +  2 EEX t + 3GEBt + ut (1)
Where:
ELR = Enrollment rate
UBEC = Universal Basic Education Commission funds
EEX = Education Expenditure
GEB = Government education budget
In line with the current study's analysis of the impact of government intervention funds on the
growth of the education sector in Nigeria, the mathematical model can be adapted to express the
relationship between key government funding mechanisms and education sector growth, as measured
by its contribution to GDP. Therefore, the model describing the interaction between the Tertiary Ed-
ucation Trust Fund (TETFund), Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), Universal Basic
Education Commission (UBEC) Intervention Fund, and education sector growth is specified as fol-
lows:
EGDPt =  0 +  1PTDFt +  2TETFt +  3UBECt + ut (2)
Where:
EGDP = Return on assets
PTDF refers to Petroleum Technology Development Fund
TETF denotes the Tertiary Education Trust Fund
UBEC signifies the Universal Basic Education Commission Intervention Fund
 0 is the intercept term.
 1 , 2 , 3 are the coefficients of the respective government intervention funds variables.
ut is the error term.
The mathematical formulation of equation (2) using the FMOLS estimator, within the scope of this
study, starts with the cointegrating regression:

EGDPt =  0 + t =11PTDFt* + t =1 2TETFt* + t =13UBECt* + t

T T T
(3)

where PTDFt* , TETFt* , UBECt* , are the transformed variables adjusted for serial correlation and en-

dogeneity.
A key strength of FMOLS lies in its ability to account for potential endogeneity in the inde-
pendent variables - in our case, the various government intervention funds - and serial correlation in

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 260
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

the error terms. This method applies adjustments to mitigate potential biases and serial correlation
issues that often arise in OLS estimations when dealing with non-stationary data, which is common
in time series analyses of economic variables.
Furthermore, FMOLS offers flexibility in terms of the integration order of the variables under
study. Whether our variables - such as TETFund allocations, PTDF expenditures, UBEC interven-
tions, and education sector's GDP contribution - are integrated of order one, mixed, or even fraction-
ally integrated, FMOLS can be effectively applied. This versatility allows for a rigorous analysis
without imposing strict assumptions about the integration properties of our time series data.
Results and Discussion
Descriptive statistics provide a comprehensive summary of the basic features of a dataset,
offering insights into the central tendency, dispersion, and shape of the distribution of the data. In the
context of this study, the descriptive statistics for the variables—education sector contribution to GDP
(EGDP), Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF), Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF),
and Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) funds—shed light on the characteristics of these
variables, including their mean values, variability, and distributional properties.
Table 1: Summary Statistics Result
EGDP PTDF UBEC TETF
Mean 19.66040 58.63120 78.06000 146.6379
Std. Dev. 4.478636 50.49083 41.57062 153.8652
Skewness 1.090242 0.975822 0.650823 2.086366
Kurtosis 3.898824 2.505684 2.296340 8.663979
Jarque-Bera 5.794157 4.222149 1.824515 51.55452
Probability 0.055184 0.121108 0.401616 0.000000
Observations 25 25 20 25
Source: Researcher’s Computation Using EViews-13 (2024)
The mean value of EGDP stands at 19.66040, indicating that, on average, the education sector
contributes approximately 19.66% to Nigeria's GDP over the period under study. The standard devi-
ation of 4.478636 reflects a moderate level of variability in EGDP, suggesting that the contribution
of the education sector to GDP has experienced some fluctuations over time. The positive skewness
of 1.090242 implies that the distribution of EGDP is right-skewed, meaning that there are more in-
stances of EGDP values being lower than the mean, with a few instances of higher values pulling the
mean upwards. The kurtosis value of 3.898824, slightly above 3, indicates a distribution that is some-
what leptokurtic, meaning it has fatter tails than a normal distribution. The Jarque-Bera statistic of
5.794157, with a probability of 0.055184, suggests that EGDP is close to being normally distributed,
although it just marginally exceeds the 5% significance level, indicating a slight deviation from nor-
mality.

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 261
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

The average annual allocation to the PTDF is 58.63120 billion Naira, as indicated by the mean
value. The standard deviation of 50.49083 shows significant variability in PTDF funding, reflecting
substantial fluctuations in the funds allocated over the period. The skewness of 0.975822 indicates a
moderately positive skewness, meaning that the distribution of PTDF funding is slightly skewed to
the right, with a few higher values increasing the mean. The kurtosis value of 2.505684, being below
3, suggests a platykurtic distribution, indicating that the PTDF funding distribution is flatter than a
normal distribution, with thinner tails. The Jarque-Bera statistic of 4.222149 and its probability value
of 0.121108 suggest that PTDF funding is reasonably normally distributed, as the probability value
is greater than 0.05, indicating no significant deviation from normality.
The mean UBEC funds amount to 78.06000 billion Naira annually, which indicates substantial
investment in basic education during the study period. The standard deviation of 41.57062 reveals
that there is considerable variation in the funds allocated to UBEC, although it is less variable com-
pared to PTDF. The skewness of 0.650823 indicates a mild positive skewness, suggesting that the
distribution of UBEC funds has a slight rightward tail, with fewer instances of higher-than-average
allocations. The kurtosis value of 2.296340, less than 3, points to a platykurtic distribution, similar to
PTDF, indicating a flatter-than-normal distribution with thinner tails. The Jarque-Bera statistic of
1.824515 and the probability of 0.401616 confirm that the UBEC funds are normally distributed, as
the probability value is significantly higher than 0.05, indicating no evidence of non-normality.
TETF shows the highest mean value among the funds, with an average annual allocation of
146.6379 billion Naira, indicating substantial government investment in tertiary education. However,
this variable also exhibits the highest standard deviation at 153.8652, reflecting extreme variability
in the funds allocated to tertiary education. The skewness value of 2.086366 indicates a strong posi-
tive skewness, suggesting that there are numerous instances of relatively low allocations, with a few
very high allocations skewing the distribution to the right. The kurtosis value of 8.663979 is substan-
tially higher than 3, indicating a leptokurtic distribution with very fat tails, suggesting that extreme
values (both low and high) occur more frequently than in a normal distribution. The Jarque-Bera
statistic is significantly high at 51.55452, with a probability of 0.000000, strongly rejecting the null
hypothesis of normality, indicating that TETF funds are not normally distributed and are prone to
extreme values.
Unit Root Test
Non-stationary data can lead to spurious regressions, where relationships between variables
appear significant when they are not. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test is a widely used
method for testing the presence of a unit root in a time series, where rejection of the null hypothesis
suggests that the series is stationary.

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 262
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

Table 2: Unit Root Test Results

ADF Test Statis- Critical ADF Test Statis-
Variable tics tics Integration Order
EGDP --4.923596 -4.416345* I(1)
PTDF -3.590338 -3.248592*** I(1)
UBEC -6.938398 -4.571559* I(1)
TETF -3.591795 -3.248592*** I(1)
Note: The tests include intercept with trend; *,**,*** significant at 1, 5 and 10%
Source: Researcher’s Computation Using EViews-13 (2024)
The ADF test statistic for EGDP is -4.923596, which is less than the critical value of -4.416345
at the 1% significance level. This result indicates that the null hypothesis of a unit root is rejected at
the first difference, implying that EGDP is stationary after differencing once, or integrated of order
one, I(1).
For PTDF, the ADF test statistic is -3.590338, which is below the critical value of -3.248592
at the 10% significance level. This result suggests that the null hypothesis of a unit root is rejected at
the first difference, indicating that PTDF funding is also stationary at I(1).
The ADF test statistic for UBEC funds is -6.938398, which is significantly lower than the
critical value of -4.571559 at the 1% significance level. This indicates a strong rejection of the null
hypothesis at the first difference, confirming that UBEC funds are stationary at I(1).
The TETF shows an ADF test statistic of -3.591795, which is below the critical value of -3.248592
at the 10% significance level. This indicates that the series is stationary after first differencing, con-
firming that TETF funding is integrated of order one, I(1).
Cointegration Results
Cointegration enabled the study to ascertain whether variables move together over time, main-
taining a stable long-term relationship. This is particularly important as this study examined the im-
pact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria.
Table 3: Engle and Granger Cointegration Test Result
Residual t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic (@Levels) -2.81369 0.0079
1% level -2.70809
Test critical values: 5% level -1.96281
10% level -1.60613
Note: The tests include intercept with trend; *, significant at 1%
Source: Researcher’s Computation Using EViews-13 (2024)

The results of the Engle and Granger cointegration test reveal that the residuals of the regres-
sion model, which captures the relationship between government intervention funds (TETF, PTDF,
and UBEC) and education sector growth (EGDP), are stationary at the levels. The Augmented

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 263
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test statistic for the residuals is -2.81369, which is higher than the critical value
of -2.70809 at the 1% significance level. This indicates that the null hypothesis of no cointegration is
rejected at the 1% level, meaning that a significant long-term equilibrium relationship exists between
the variables under consideration.

Fully Modified Least Squares (FMOLS)

The Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares (FMOLS) regression results presented in Table 4
offer an insights into the relationship between government intervention funds—specifically the Pe-
troleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC)
Fund, and Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF)—and the growth of the education sector in Nigeria,
as measured by its contribution to GDP.
Table 4: Fully Modified Least Squares (FMOLS) Results
Dep. EGDP
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
PTDF 0.4375 0.1107 3.9503 0.0118
UBEC 0.6508 0.1906 3.4148 0.0269
TETF -0.0537 0.0260 -2.0676 0.0375
Reliability estimates
R-squared 0.9573
Adjusted R-squared 0.8293
Wald -Fstat 21.0459
Wald-pvalue 0.0000
Long-run variance 0.3944
Source: Researcher’s Computation Using EViews-13 (2024)
The coefficient for PTDF is 0.4375, indicating a positive relationship between PTDF alloca-
tions and education sector growth. This suggests that for every 1 billion Naira in PTDF funding leads
to an approximate 0.44 percentage point increase in the education sector's contribution to GDP. The
t-statistic of 3.9503, with a probability value of 0.0118, indicates that this positive impact is statisti-
cally significant at the 5% level. This result highlights the beneficial role that PTDF funding plays in
enhancing the education sector, particularly in supporting science and technology education, which
can lead to broader economic benefits. The significant positive coefficient suggests that PTDF’s focus
on capacity building and skills development in the oil and gas sector is contributing positively to the
overall growth of the education sector in Nigeria.
The coefficient for UBEC is 0.6508, showing an even stronger positive relationship between
UBEC funding and education sector growth. This result implies that every additional 1 billion Naira
allocated to UBEC results in an approximately 0.65 percentage point increase in the education sector's
contribution to GDP. With a t-statistic of 3.4148 and a probability value of 0.0269, this impact is also
statistically significant at the 5% level. The positive coefficient reflects the crucial role of UBEC in

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 264
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

driving improvements in basic education across Nigeria. UBEC funding likely contributes to the ex-
pansion of educational infrastructure, increased student enrolment, and better educational outcomes,
which together enhance the sector's contribution to the economy.
In contrast, the coefficient for TETF is -0.0537, indicating a slight negative relationship be-
tween TETF funding and education sector growth. The coefficient for TETF is -0.0537, indicating
that each additional 1 billion Naira allocated to TETF is associated with a slight decrease of approx-
imately 0.05 percentage points in the education sector's contribution to GDP. The t-statistic of -2.0676
and a probability value of 0.0375 show that this negative impact is statistically significant at the 5%
level. The negative coefficient raises concerns about the effectiveness of TETF in contributing to
broader education sector growth. It could indicate potential inefficiencies or misalignments in the use
of TETF funds, where the investments in tertiary education might not be translating effectively into
economic growth. The negative impact, though small, suggests that while TETF supports tertiary
institutions, its influence on the overall education sector, particularly in economic terms, might be
limited or counterproductive.
The R-squared value of 0.9573 indicates that approximately 95.73% of the variance in the
education sector's contribution to GDP can be explained by the variations in PTDF, UBEC, and TETF
funding.
The Wald F-statistic of 21.0459, coupled with a Wald p-value of 0.0000, further highlights the
overall reliability and significance of the model. This result implies that these government interven-
tion funds have a statistically significant impact on the education sector's contribution to GDP, rein-
forcing the validity of the model.
The long-run variance of 0.3944 provides an estimate of the variability of the residuals over
the long term. A relatively low long-run variance indicates that the residuals (or errors) in the model
are stable over time, suggesting that the model is reliable for predicting the long-term relationship
between government intervention funds and education sector growth.
Discussion of Findings
The study's findings revealed several key insights regarding the impact of various government
intervention funds on the growth of Nigeria's education sector. Firstly, it was established that the
Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) exerts a positive and significant influence on the
education sector's growth. This positive impact suggests that PTDF, which focuses on capacity build-
ing in the oil and gas sector through educational initiatives, has effectively contributed to enhancing
the education sector's output. The significant influence of PTDF on educational growth may be at-
tributed to its investments in science and technology education, which have become increasingly cru-
cial in a knowledge-driven economy. This finding is consistent with the work of Adebayo and

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 265
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

Akintoye (2020), who found that sector-specific government funds, especially those targeted at tech-
nological advancement, significantly boost educational outcomes and economic growth. However, it
contrasts with the study by Adelakun (2017), who argued that the benefits of PTDF are often skewed
toward the oil and gas sector, with limited spillover effects on the broader education sector.
The study also revealed that the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) Intervention
Fund has a significant and positive impact on the growth of the education sector in Nigeria. The
implication of this finding is that UBEC's efforts to improve basic education, through enhanced in-
frastructure, teacher training, and increased access to schooling, have effectively contributed to the
sector's overall growth. The positive and significant relationship between UBEC funding and educa-
tion sector growth aligns with the conclusions of Olaniyan and Okemakinde (2018), who found that
government intervention at the basic education level is crucial for fostering long-term educational
development and economic sustainability. This outcome highlights the importance of continuous in-
vestment in basic education as a foundation for higher educational attainment and economic progress.
Similarly, Bregman and Stallmeister (2015) observed in their study across several African countries
that basic education funding significantly correlates with improved educational outcomes and sector
growth. This consensus among scholars highlights the critical role of UBEC in driving educational
progress in Nigeria.
Conversely, the study found that the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF) has a significant
but negative impact on the growth of the education sector. This finding suggests that despite substan-
tial investments in tertiary education, TETF may not be effectively contributing to the broader growth
of the sector. The negative impact could be due to several factors, such as inefficiencies in fund utili-
zation, misalignment between tertiary education outputs and labour market needs, or challenges in
managing large-scale educational projects. This finding aligns with the work of Yusuf and Alabi
(2016), who reported that while TETF has supported infrastructural development in universities, its
impact on the overall quality of education and economic growth has been limited due to governance
issues and poor alignment with national economic priorities. On the other hand, the outcome contrasts
with the findings of Dike (2019), who argued that TETF has positively influenced research output
and academic excellence in Nigeria’s tertiary institutions, thereby contributing to the education sec-
tor's growth. The discrepancy between these findings may highlight the nature of TETF’s impact,
suggesting that while there may be benefits in specific areas, the overall contribution to sector-wide
growth remains debatable.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion, the study aimed to examine the impact of government intervention funds on
the growth of Nigeria's education sector. The findings reveal distinct influences from the three key

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 266
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

funds examined: PTDF, UBEC, and TETF. Firstly, the positive and significant impact of PTDF on
education sector growth highlights the importance of sector-specific investments, particularly in sci-
ence and technology, which contribute meaningfully to economic development. Secondly, UBEC's
significant positive effect highlights the critical role of basic education funding in driving overall
sector growth, emphasizing that foundational investments are crucial for sustained educational devel-
opment. Lastly, the significant but negative impact of TETF suggests that while tertiary education
funding is substantial, inefficiencies and misalignment with broader economic needs may hinder its
contribution to growth. These findings collectively demonstrate that while government funding is
essential for education sector development, strategic allocation and effective management are key to
realizing its full potential in contributing to Nigeria's economic growth.
The following recommendations, based on the findings of the study were suggested:
i. To sustain the positive impact of PTDF on education, the Federal Ministry of Education and
PTDF should expand funding to broader technological disciplines. Collaborations with uni-
versities to support research in renewable energy and environmental science will diversify
economic benefits.
ii. UBEC should enhance equitable resource distribution by focusing on underserved regions.
The Federal Ministry of Education and UBEC should strengthen monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms to ensure funds improve educational infrastructure and teaching quality, partic-
ularly in rural and disadvantaged urban areas.
iii. Addressing the negative impact of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF) requires a stra-
tegic overhaul of fund allocation and utilization practices. The Tertiary Education Trust
Fund (TETF) and National Universities Commission (NUC) should reevaluate fund alloca-
tion strategies (to accommodate private universities) and align better with national priorities.
Implementing independent audits and targeted funding for Science, Technology, Engineer-
ing, and Mathematics (STEM) education and innovation will optimize TETF's contribution
to education sector growth.

References

Adebayo, M., & Akintoye, I. R. (2020). Sector-specific government funds and their impact on edu-
cational outcomes in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(2), 45-56.
https://doi.org/10.7176/jep/11-2-06
Adedeji, S. O., & Campbell, O. A. (2021). The impact of education expenditure on economic growth
in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 12(10), 62-71.
Adelakun, K. (2017). The spillover effects of Petroleum Technology Development Fund on Nigeria’s
education sector. Energy Policy Journal, 15(4), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
pol.2017.02.013

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 267
 Muhammed-Angulu, A., Ezie, O. & Aiyedogbon, J. O. (2024)

Ajayi, O. B., & Afolabi, O. A. (2020). Impact of government intervention funds on the educational
sector in Nigeria: A case study of Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund). Journal of Edu-
cation and Development, 5(3), 34-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/joed.2020.3450
Bregman, J., & Stallmeister, S. (2015). Improving education outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa: A re-
view of basic education strategies. World Bank Working Paper, 15(1), 50-69.
https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0158-4
Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional
democracy. University of Michigan Press.
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). (2022). Statistical bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.cbn.gov.ng
Dike, V. E. (2019). The role of TETF in enhancing academic excellence in Nigeria: A case study.
Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 17(2), 120-138. https://doi.org/10.4314/jhea.v17i2.10
Durokifa, A. A., & Ijeoma, E. O. C. (2021). Examining the impact of government intervention funds
on education quality in Nigeria: A case study of UBEC. African Journal of Governance and
Development, 10(1), 50-69. https://doi.org/10.31920/2516-5320/2021/v10n1a3
Eze, T. I., & Ibekwe, C. (2017). Universal basic education in Nigeria: Challenges and prospects. In-
ternational Journal of Education and Research, 5(8), 201-215.
Grindle, M. S., & Niraula, M. (2023). Government intervention funds and higher education develop-
ment in Southeast Asia: Lessons from Thailand and Vietnam. Journal of Asian Education and
Development Studies, 12(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEDS-12-2022-0208
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2022). Nigerian gross domestic product report (Q4 and full
year 2021). Abuja: NBS.
Ogujiuba, K., & Adeniyi, A. O. (2017). Economic growth and human capital development: The case
of Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 8(16), 35-44.
Olaniyan, D. A., & Okemakinde, T. (2018). Education as an instrument for economic growth and
development in Nigeria. African Journal of Education and Developmental Studies, 3(1), 34-
45. https://doi.org/10.15408/ajed.2018.3-1-04
Oyelere, R. U. (2016). Africa's education enigma? The Nigerian story. Journal of African Develop-
ment, 18(2), 29-56.
Radelet, S. (2016). The great surge: The ascent of the developing world. Simon and Schuster.
Sen, A. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philoso-
phy & Public Affairs, 6(4), 317-344.
Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund). (2021). 2020 performance report. Abuja: TETFund.
Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC). (2020). 2019 national personnel audit report on
public and private basic education schools in Nigeria. Abuja: UBEC.
UNICEF. (2022). Education in Nigeria. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/nigeria/education
World Bank. (2018). World development report: Learning to realize education's promise. World Bank
Publications.
World Bank. (2019). The World Bank in Africa. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/re-
gion/afr/overview
Yusuf, A., & Alabi, T. (2016). An assessment of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETF) in Nige-
ria’s higher institutions. Journal of Educational Management, 8(3), 78-89.
https://doi.org/10.5897/jem.2016.0837

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 268
 Impact of government intervention funds on education sector growth in Nigeria

Appendices
Table 7: Data Presentation
Education con-
TET Funds (An- UBEC Funds (An- PTDF Funds (An- tribution to GDP
Year nual (₦' Billion)) nual (₦' Billion)) nual (₦' Billion)) (%)
1999 5.7 na 9.2 19.19
2000 8.3 na 15.15 29.46
2001 16.2 na 13.56 31.92
2002 10.1 na 15.6 24
2003 9.7 na 18.06 22.4
2004 17.1 30 21.28 18.77
2005 21.8 30.5 23.76 16.77
2006 28.4 35.2 21.76 14.55
2007 59.6 35.8 23.75 14.32
2008 59.5 39.3 24 14.68
2009 139.54 43.4 31.08 16.14
2010 89.18 47.6 33 15.14
2011 130.74 54.3 35.19 17.64
2012 188.44 68.4 39.25 17.47
2013 279.36 76.3 41.6 19.35
2014 189.61 70.5 44.55 20.26
2015 206.04 68.7 55.16 22.48
2016 130.12 77.1 75 24.1
2017 154.96 95.2 94.55 22.78
2018 203.28 109.06 115.84 21.41
2019 221.06 112.47 119.13 20.59
2020 259.56 111.79 128.86 17.77
2021 189.54 153.51 143.15 16.16
2022 328.67 139.17 149.4 15.17
2023 719.44 162.9 173.9 18.99
Sources: CBN, 2022; PTDF, 2024 (ttps://www.ptdf.gov.ng/); UBEC, 2024 (www.ubec.gov.ng);
FIRS, 2024

FULafia International Journal of Business and Allied Studies Vol.2. Issue3. 2024 269