ABSTRACT
This research work titled ‘The Problems and prospects of Deregulation of the Nigeria Economy is carried out with objectives such as ascertaining the reasons behind the deregulation process; finding out the impact of deregulation on the economy and to identify the challenges of management in a deregulation economy. To achieve the above, data was collected through the use of questionnaires that were drawn up to reflect the necessary details needed. Materials were gotten from the university state libraries and the questionnaire were distributed to various departments of the company. Data gotten were analyzed using the simple percentage distribution and hypothesis was tested using the chi- square distribution,
The outcome of this research shows that there is a general preference for the telecom industry after deregulation than before; deregulation has brought about increased efficiency and effectiveness of telephony services and that it has increased the nations prospects in international trade. However, the researcher believes partial deregulation as is witnessed in the energy sector should be avoided and that deregulation of other sectors of the economy should be encouraged to increase their productivity and contribution to economic growth.
CHAPTER ONE
ANALYSIS OF DATA PRESENTED
This chapter is designed and aimed at analyzing and interpreting the responses obtained from the administrated questions. Here, the research extracts information that would help in tackling the problems as presented in the hypothesis formulated in chapter one.
Management level No of respondents Percentage % Management staff 6 6.31 Senior staff 31 32.63 Junior staff 48 50.53 Total 85 89.47 |
To get relevant information, a set of 95 questionnaires was administered to 95 persons of this, three (3) were found not to be properly filled while seven (7) were not returned to the researcher Eight five (85) copies were filled correctly and used in this analysis. TABLE 4.01 Distribution of Respondents
From the above table, it is seen that 89. 47% of the total respondents returned their questionnaires correctly filled.3.16% were not properly filled whiled 7.37% were not returned to the researcher.
TABLE 4.02 Sex Distribution Of The Respondents
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
Male | 60 | 70.59 |
Female | 25 | 29.41 |
Total | 85 | 100 |
The above table shows that 70.59% of the total respondents were male while 29.41% were female employees of the company.
Table 4.03 educational qualifications of respondents
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
F.S.L.C | 2 | 2.35 |
WAEC/GCE | 5 | 5.88 |
OND/NCE | 10 | 11.88 |
HMD/BSC | 54 | 63.53 |
PGD/ABOVE | 14 | 16.47 |
85 | 100 |
From the above table, it is seen that majority of the staff of the company, that is, 63.53% have HND and B.Sc. 2.35% have first school leaving certificates. 5.88% have their secondary school certificates in the form of WAEC or GCE. 11.88% are OND and NCE holders while 16.47% have their postgraduate degrees.
TABLE 4.04 Age Distribution of Respondents
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
18-30 years | 30 | 35.29 |
31-40 | 28 | 32.84 |
41-50 | 20 | 23.53 |
51-60 | 6 | 7.06 |
61 and above | 1 | 1.18 |
85 | 100 |
The table above shows 35.29% of the total respondents to be between the age of 18 and 30; 32.94% are between the age of 31-
40; 23.53% are within the age of 41-50; 7.06 are within the age of
51-60 and 1.18% are 61 and above.
Table 4.05 Respondents That Have Professional Training
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
Yes | 65 | 76.47 |
No | 20 | 23.53 |
Total | 85 | 100 |
The table shows that 76.47% of the total respondents have professional training while 23.53% do not have professional training.
Options No of respondents Percentage % 0-15% 10 11.76 16-30% 13 15.29 31-45% 45 52.94 Above 45% 10 11.76 No idea 7 8.24 Total 85 100 |
TABLE 4.06 distribution of govt. effort in promoting deregulation
The above table shows that 11.76% of the total respondents believers the government to be giving 0-15% promotion to the deregulation process. 15.26% believe the government effort should be put between 16-30%; 52.94% believe the government effort in promoting the deregulation process is between 31-45%; 11.76% believe it to be above 45% while 8.24% do not have an idea of government effort in encouraging the deregulations process.
Table 4.07 Availability Of Telephones
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
Yes | 70 | 82.35 |
No | 5 | 5.88 |
I don’t know | 10 | 11.76 |
Total | 85 | 100 |
The above table shows that 11.76% of the total respondents cannot say definitely if the deregulations process which brought about private participation in the telecommunication industry has increased the availability of telephones. 5.88% think it has not;
82.3% of the total respondents think that private participation in
the telecommunication industry has increased the availability of telephones, since even secondary school students and in some cases primary school pupils now make use of mobile phones which used to be considered a luxury product is the old times.
Table 4.08 comparison of telecom industry before and after deregulation
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
Before deregulation | 20 | 23.53 |
After deregulation | 54 | 63.53 |
The same | 11 | 12.94 |
Total | 85 | 100 |
The above table show that 23.53% of the total respondents believe the performance of the telecom industry before deregulation to be better than that after deregulation; 63.53% of the respondents believe that the performance of the telecom industry after deregulation is better than before deregulation. 12.94% cannot really say which they think is better.
We can conclude from the above that the performance of the telecom industry after deregulation is better than its performance before deregulation.
Table 4.09 Deregulation Of The Other Sectors
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
Yes | 49 | 57.65 |
No | 20 | 23.53 |
Not sure | 16 | 18.82 |
Total | 85 | 100 |
The above table shows that 57.65% of the total respondents would support the deregulation of the other sectors of the economy;
23.53% would not support it while 18.82% are not sure if they would support or stand against further deregulation in the other sectors of the economy.
TABLE 4.10 More Foreign Investment As A Result Of
Deregulation
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
Agree | 55 | 64.71 |
Disagree | 10 | 11.76 |
Not sure | 20 | 23.53 |
Total | 85 | 100 |
From the above table, it is seen that 23.53% of the total respondents are not sure if deregulation of other sectors of the economy would bring about increased foreign investment into the nation. 11.76% do not think that further deregulation would bring about increased foreign investment; while 64.71% of the total respondents believe that deregulating the other sectors of the economy would bring about increased foreign investment in the nation.
We can thus conclude that deregulating the other sectors of the economy would bring about increased foreign investment in the nation.
Table 4.11 Economic Growth And Development
Options | No of respondents | Percentage % |
Yes | 57 | 67.06 |
No | 10 | 11.76 |
Not sure | 18 | 21.18 |
Total | 85 | 100 |
The above table shows that 67.06% of the total respondents believe deregulation would bring about further economic growth and development. 11.76% do not think that deregulating the economy of the nation would bring about its growth and development; while 21.18% of the total respondents are not sure if deregulating the economy would lead to its growth and development.
Since 67.06%, which is above the average of 50% of the total respondents believe that deregulation would lead to economic growth and development, we can conclude therefore that further deregulation of the economy would lead to its continued growth and development.
4.1 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS
Three question as outlined in the formulation of hypothesis in chapter one were tested. The chi- square method was used.
X2 = (fO –f1)2
F1
Where X2 = Chi- Square
FO = Observed frequency
F1 = Expected frequency
The hypothesis stated in chapter one will be tested at 0.05 level of significance, and our final assumption will be based on the following rules:
1. If the calculated chi- square statistic value (X2T) is more than tabulated chi-square statistics (X2T), the null hypothesis will be rejected.
2. If the tabulated chi-square statistics is more than the calculated chi- square statistics, the null hypothesis will be accepted.
HYPOTHESIS 1
Ho: Deregulation brings about effective and efficient production of goods enhanced services.
H1: Deregulation does not brings about effective and efficient production of goods and enhanced services.
Q8: How do you see telecommunication services since the advent
of deregulation.
a. | improved [ | ] | |
b. | Unimproved [ | ] | |
c. | Retrogressive | [ | ] |
d. | no idea [ | ] |
Improved | Unimproved | Retrogressive | No idea | Total | |
Management staff | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Senior staff | 22 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 31 |
Junior staff | 25 | 15 | 5 | 3 | 48 |
Total | 50 | 22 | 8 | 5 | 85 |
Expected frequency (f1) = (RT x (CT) GT
RT = Row Total
CT | = | Column Total |
GT | = | Grand Total |
6 x 50 | 6 x 22 | 6 x 8 | 6 x 5 |
85 = 3.529 | 85 = 1.553 | 85 = 0.565 | 85 = 0.353 |
31 x 50 | 31 x 22 | 31 x 8 | 31 x 5 |
85 = 18.24 | 85 = 8.024 | 85 = 2.918 | 85 = 1.824 |
48 x 50 | 48 x 22 | 48 x 8 | 48 x 5 | |
85 = 28.235 | 85= 12.424 | 85 = 4.518 | 85 | = 2.824 |
Observed frequency (f0) | Expected frequency (f1) | F0 –f1 | (f0 –f1)2 | (f0 –f1)2 f1 |
3 | 3.529 | 0.529 | 0.2798 | 0.07929 |
1 | 1.553 | 0-.553 | 0.3058 | 0.1969 |
1 | 0.565 | 0.435 | 0.1892 | 0.3349 |
1 | 0.353 | 0.647 | 0.4186 | 1.1859 |
22 | 18.24 | 3.76 | 14.1376 | 0.7751 |
6 | 8.024 | 2-024 | 4.0966 | 0.5105 |
2 | 2.918 | -0.918 | 0.8427 | 0.2888 |
1 | 1.824 | -0.824 | 0.6790 | 0.3722 |
25 | 28.235 | 3-.235 | 10.4652 | 0.3706 |
15 | 12.424 | 2.576 | 6.6358 | 0.5341 |
5 | 4.518 | 0.482 | 0.2323 | 0.0514 |
3 | 2.824 | 0.176 | 0.0310 | 0.0110 |
X2C | 4.71069 |
Level of significance = 0.05
Degree of freedom = (RN -1) x (CN -1)
= (3 -1) x (4-1)
= 2x 3 = 6
From statistical table, the chi- square value of X2 0.05 with 6 degrees for freedom = 12.59
( X2T) = 12.59 (X2C) = 4.71069
Decisions rule:
If X2C >X2T, reject H0
From above, since X2C >X2T (4.71069 < 12.59), we accept H0
Thus, we conclude that deregulation brings about effective and efficient production of goods and enhanced services.
HYPOTHESIS II
H0: Deregulation of the telecommunication industry has led to an increase in it contribution to national development.
H1: Deregulation of the telecommunication industry has not led to an increase in its contribution to national development.
Q9: To what extent do you think the deregulation telecom industry has contributed to national development
a) To a great extent b) To little extent
c) To no extent
d) No idea
Great extent | Little extent | No extent | No idea | Total | |
Management staff | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Senior staff | 22 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 31 |
Junior staff | 40 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 48 |
Total | 65 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 85 |
Expected frequency (f1) = (RT x (CT) GT
RT | = | Row Total |
CT | = | Column Total |
GT | = | Grand Total |
6 x 65 | 6 x 8 6 x 5 | 6 x 7 | |
85 = 4.588 | 85 = 0.565 | 85 = 0.353 | 85 = 0.494 |
31 x 65 31 x 8 31 x 5 31x 7
85 = 23.706 85 = 2.918 85 = 1.824 85 = 2.553
48 x 65 | 48 x 8 | 48 x 5 | 48 x 7 | ||
85 = 36.706 | 85 = 4.518 | 85 | = 2.824 | 85 | = 3.953 |
Observed frequency (f0) | Expected frequency (f1) | F0 –f1 | (f0 –f1)2 | (f0 –f1)2 f1 |
3 | 4.588 | -1.588 | 2.522 | 0.550 |
1 | 0.565 | 0.435 | 0.189 | 0.335 |
1 | 0.353 | 0.647 | 0.419 | 1.186 |
1 | 0.494 | 0.506 | 0.256 | 0.518 |
22 | 23.706 | -1.706 | 2.910 | 0.123 |
4 | 2.918 | 1.082 | 1.171 | 0.401 |
1 | 1.824 | -0.824 | 0.689 | 0.372 |
4 | 2.553 | 1.447 | 2.094 | 0.820 |
40 | 36.706 | 3.294 | 10.850 | 0.296 |
3 | 4.518 | -1.518 | 2.304 | 0.510 |
3 | 2.824 | 0.176 | 0.031 | 0.012 |
2 | 3.953 | -1.953 | 3.814 | 0.965 |
X2C | 6.088 |
Level of significance = 0.05
Degree of freedom = (RN -1) x (CN -1)
= (3 -1) x (4-1)
= 2x 3 = 6
From statistical table, the chi- square value of X2 0.05 with 6 degrees for freedom = 12.59
(X2T) = 12.59 (X2C) = 6.088
Decisions rule:
If X2C >X2T, reject H0
If X2C <X2T, accept H0
From above, since X2C <X2T (6.088 <12.59), we accept the null hypothesis. .
We can thus conclude that deregulation of the telecommunication industry has led to an increase in its contribution to national development.
HYPOTHESIS III
H0: Deregulation have the impact of creating more employment opportunities.
H1: Deregulation does not have the impact of creating more employment opportunities.
Q10: Do you think deregulation of the Nigeria telecom industry has created more job opportunities?
a) Yes b) No
c) Not sure
Yes | No | Not sure | Total | |
Management staff | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
Senior staff | 20 | 5 | 6 | 31 |
Junior staff | 36 | 4 | 8 | 48 |
Total | 60 | 10 | 15 | 85 |
Expected frequency (f1) = (RT x (CT) (GT)
RT | = | Row Total |
CT | = | Column Total |
GT | = | Grand Total |
6 x 60 | 6 x 10 | 6 x 15 | |
85 = 4.235 | 85 = 0.706 | 85 = | 1.059 |
31 x 60 | 31 x 10 | 31 x 15 |
85 = 21.882 | 85 = 3.647 | 85 = 5.471 |
48 x 60 | 48 x 10 | 48 x 15 | |
85 = 33.882 | 85 = 5.647 | 85 = | 8.471 |
Observed frequency (f0) | Expected frequency (f1) | (f0 –f1) | (f0 –f1)2 | (f0 –f1)2 f1 |
4 | 4.235 | 0.055 | -0.055 | 0.01304 |
1 | 0.706 | 0.294 | 0.0864 | 0.1224 |
1 | 1059 | -0.059 | 0.00348 | 1.00329 |
20 | 21.882 | -1.882 | 3.5419 | 0.1619 |
5 | 3.647 | -1.353 | 1.8306 | 0.5019 |
6 | 5.471 | 0.529 | 0.2798 | 0.05115 |
36 | 33.883 | 2.118 | 4.4859 | 0.1324 |
4 | 5.647 | -1.647 | 2.7126 | 0.4804 |
8 | 8.471 | -0.471 | 0.2218 | 0.02619 |
1.49267 | 6.088 |
Level of significance = 0.05
Degree of freedom = (RN -1) x (CN -1)
= (3 -1) x (4-1)
= 2x 2 = 4
From statistical table, the chi- square value of X2 0.05 with 4 degrees for freedom = 9.49
(X2T) tabulated value = 9.49 (X2C) calculated value = 1.4927
Decisions rule:
If X2C >X2T, reject H0
If X2C <X2T, accept H0
We can thus conclude that deregulation has the impact of crating more employment opportunities.
This material content is developed to serve as a GUIDE for students to conduct academic research
Project 4Topics Support Team Are Always (24/7) Online To Help You With Your Project
Chat Us on WhatsApp » 09132600555
DO YOU NEED CLARIFICATION? CALL OUR HELP DESK:
09132600555 (Country Code: +234)
YOU CAN REACH OUR SUPPORT TEAM VIA MAIL: [email protected]
09132600555 (Country Code: +234)