Economic Policy Implications of Port Concession in Nigeria
CHAPTER ONE
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The objectives of the study are;
- To ascertain the relationship between economic policy and port concession in Nigeria
- To ascertain the relationship between economic policy and port privatization
- To determine the role of the concession on freight handling efficiency
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
INTRODUCTION
The magnitude, scope and persistence of failure of Nigeria’s public enterprises (PEs) including the Ports became alarming as these enterprises required continuous massive subsidies but delivered only intermittent and substandard services. The returns on these large investments were generally poor, and in some cases negative, with an especially low rate of return relative to the large amount of resources invested in them (FGN, 1986 in Jerome, 2008). Net outflows from the government to the public enterprise sector were estimated at US$2 billion annually (Callaghy & Wilson, 1988, Jerome, 2008). All these pointed to the inefficiencies of the public enterprises of which the ports are part of. The reasons for the poor performance of Nigerian Ports and other public enterprises from history tend to have a uniform pattern globally and range from the presence of conflicting and interwoven roles determined by politicians, prevalence of uncompleted contracts and subsidies from government. These more or less aid internal inefficiencies, issues of excessive bureaucratic controls, to government interference and intervention, and other public service culture of undermining and compromising efficiency and optimum productivity (Ogunsiji & Ogunsiji, 2010; Jerome, 2008). Concessions were born out of the needs for one reform or another. Concession may be considered analogous to public private partnerships (PPPs) and Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) and or seen as an arm of privatization (if defined broadly). Privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has become a key component of the structural reform process and globalization strategy in many economies (Jerome, 2008). It gained popularity in recent times but is an old innovation as it was practiced by the French government as can be seen in the water project of 1776 (Idornigie, 2006). Section 168 of the draft Ports and Harbour Authorities Bill defines a ‘concession’ as an arrangement between an Authority and a third party pursuant to which such third party shall be authorized to provide a port service or operate a port facility in accordance with the bill (Idornigie, 2006). It is argued that privatization of terminals through concession contracts would be a valuable option if port competition is effective, but not necessarily in cases where competition needs to be created by regulation (Niekerk & Henriette, 2005).
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research design
The researcher used descriptive research survey design in building up this project work the choice of this research design was considered appropriate because of its advantages of identifying attributes of a large population from a group of individuals. The design was suitable for the study as the study sought to economic policy implications of port concession in Nigeria
Sources of data collection
Data were collected from two main sources namely:
(i)Primary source and
(ii)Secondary source
Primary source:
These are materials of statistical investigation which were collected by the research for a particular purpose. They can be obtained through a survey, observation questionnaire or as experiment; the researcher has adopted the questionnaire method for this study.
Secondary source:
These are data from textbook Journal handset etc. they arise as byproducts of the same other purposes. Example administration, various other unpublished works and write ups were also used.
Population of the study
Population of a study is a group of persons or aggregate items, things the researcher is interested in getting information on economic policy implications of port concession in Nigeria. 200 staff at Apapa seaport, Lagos state was selected randomly by the researcher as the population of the study.
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Introduction
Efforts will be made at this stage to present, analyze and interpret the data collected during the field survey. This presentation will be based on the responses from the completed questionnaires. The result of this exercise will be summarized in tabular forms for easy references and analysis. It will also show answers to questions relating to the research questions for this research study. The researcher employed simple percentage in the analysis.
DATA ANALYSIS
The data collected from the respondents were analyzed in tabular form with simple percentage for easy understanding.
A total of 133(one hundred and thirty three) questionnaires were distributed and 133 questionnaires were returned.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Introduction
It is important to ascertain that the objective of this study was to ascertain economic policy implication of port concession in Nigeria
In the preceding chapter, the relevant data collected for this study were presented, critically analyzed and appropriate interpretation given. In this chapter, certain recommendations made which in the opinion of the researcher will be of benefits in addressing the challenges of economic policy implication of port concession in Nigeria
Summary
This study was on economic policy implication of port concession in Nigeria. Three objectives were raised which included; To ascertain the relationship between economic policy and port concession in Nigeria, to ascertain the relationship between economic policy and port privatization, to determine the role of the concession on freight handling efficiency. In line with these objectives, two research hypotheses were formulated and two null hypotheses were posited. The total population for the study is 200 staff of Apapa seaport, Lagos state. The researcher used questionnaires as the instrument for the data collection. Descriptive Survey research design was adopted for this study. A total of 133 respondents made clearing agents, marine officers, sub officers and junior staff was used for the study. The data collected were presented in tables and analyzed using simple percentages and frequencies
Conclusion
The lower pure technical efficiency change compared to scale efficiency change after concessions suggests that the inefficiency is due to the inability of ports to meet target outputs (throughput and turnaround time). Therefore, policymakers should hasten the passage of the relevant laws to restore confidence in the terminal operators with concessions
Recommendation
The government should put in place a robust regulatory frame work to ensure that concessionaires bring the required equipment as enshrined the respective concession agreements to improve the performance of the ports.
REFERENCES
- Barros, C. P. 2012. “Productivity Assessment of African Seaports.” African Development Review no. 24 (1):67-78.
- Barros, C. P, A. Assaf, and A. Ibiwoye. 2010. “Bootstrapped technical efficiency of African seaports.” In Essays on port economics, 237-250. Springer.
- Barros, C. P., J. A Felício, and R. Fernandes. 2012. “Productivity analysis of Brazilian seaports.” Maritime Policy & Management no. 39 (5):503-523.
- Barros, C. P., and N. Peypoch. 2012. “Productivity assessment of African seaports with biased technological change.” Transportation Planning and Technology no. 35 (6):663-675.
- Caves, Douglas W, Laurits R Christensen, and W Erwin Diewert. 1982. “Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers.” The economic journal no. 92 (365):73-86.
- Cheon, S. 2007a. “Evaluating Impacts of institutional Reforms on Port Efficiency Changes malquimist Productivity index for World Container Ports.” University of California, Berkeley.
- Cheon, S., D. E. Dowall, and D. W. Song. 2009. “Typology of Long-Term Port Efficiency Improvement Paths: Malmquist Total Factor Productivity forWorld Container Ports.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems no. 15 (4):340-350
