ABR-13767 Camera ready.pdf

Page 1 of 26

Archives of Business Research – Vol. 11, No. 2

Publication Date: February 25, 2023

DOI:10.14738/abr.112.13767. Agri, E. M., Kumo, A. A., Nshe, M. J., & Gabriel, A. A. (2023). Industrial Policies, Manufacturing Sector Development and

Macroeconomic Stability in Nigeria. Archives of Business Research, 11(2). 28-53.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Industrial Policies, Manufacturing Sector Development and

Macroeconomic Stability in Nigeria

Eneji Mathias Agri

Department of Economics, University of Jos.,

China-Africa Science and Technology Foundation, Beijing

Abubakar Abdullahi Kumo

Department of Economics, and Development Studies,

Federal University, Kashere, Gombe.

Manomi Jeremiah Nshe

Department of Economics, University of Jos

Adejor Attah Gabriel

Department of Economics, University of Jos

ABSTRACT

The primary focus of this study is on policy determination of industrialization and

manufacturing, and the latter’s impact on macroeconomic stability in Nigeria. Since

independence, Nigeria’s potential of becoming a global economic giant has been

wasted away due to lack of diversification and sluggish manufacturing sector.

Government appears to be both the problem and solution to Nigeria’s

industrialization. Qualitative and quantitative analysis were applied involving

primary and secondary time series data. Questionnaire survey and multiple

regression analysis (ARCH) were adopted. The model of manufacturing cannot be

complete until political will becomes a major variable/determinant. The survey

attributed 32 percent of industrial failure to political factor and lack of political will.

This is why Nigeria has not been successful in facilitating industrial transformation,

despite the rich endowment. The maximum political commitment to propel

industrialization has been absent. Industrialization and manufacturing is state-led

through policies and interventions, actualized by private sector investments.

Domestic manufacturers invest capital to provide alternative infrastructure for

their operations. Consequently, they bear prohibitive costs which result in loss of

competitiveness and profitability in the domestic and foreign markets. This is

enough dis-incentive to manufacture. It becomes cheaper for them to import from

Asia and Europe to repackage and retail. It is a macroeconomic damage that most of

Nigeria’s entrepreneurs are merely hawkers of foreign goods for foreign

manufacturers, where capital is repatriated in a vicious cycle on daily basis, leaving

Nigeria poor and the economy sick. This study recommends strict policy

implementation, promotion of home-grown technology by investing in education,

skills acquisition, research and development and also bargaining with foreign firms

to enable technology transfer. Expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, tariff and

exchange rate policies to boost domestic manufacturing, domestic demand and

export promotion. The study finally concludes that Nigeria can industrialize with

aggressive expansion of domestic markets for goods locally manufactured.

Page 2 of 26

Agri, E. M., Kumo, A. A., Nshe, M. J., & Gabriel, A. A. (2023). Industrial Policies, Manufacturing Sector Development and Macroeconomic Stability in

Nigeria. Archives of Business Research, 11(2). 28-53.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.112.13767

Keywords: Manufacturing, economic diversification, exchange rate, Inflation rate,

industrial policy, home-grown technology, Macroeconomic stability.

INTRODUCTION

Industrial development in Nigeria is a classic illustration of deficient structure of the economy,

the country has neglected a vital manufacturing sub-sector through policy inconsistencies and

distortions attributed to colonialism and resource curse (Adeola, 2005). For six decades since

independence in 1960, macroeconomic indicators of the level of industrialization in Nigeria are

unimpressive. The British met hand-hoe agriculture in 1904 and left it behind at 1960, without

any significant changes in agricultural technology. It was just the exports of cotton, cocoa,

groundnut and palm oil. Industry was totally ignored. British manufacturers preferred

exporting their manufactured goods to establishing industries in Nigeria, (Atul-Kohli, 2008;

Abba and Alkasum,1985). Economic exploitation was very much a part of colonialism, and the

institutional characteristics acquired from colonialism have adversely affected Nigeria’s

industrialization with numerous political and economic distortions, (Dike and Onwuka, 1985;

Nafziger, 1982). These range from dependency to corruption and wasting of the nation’s scarce

development resources for decades. Macroeconomic convergence and macroeconomic stability

have always been issues of policy without proper implementation. Nigeria’s industrial sector

has been characterized by high import content of industrial inputs, inflation, volatile exchange

rates, dwindling capacity utilization, high cost of production, low value addition, poor quality

control, declining output growth, low employment generation and inadequate linkages with

other sectors of the economy ( Eneji et al,2020; Obioma & Ozughalu, 2005).

Unemployment and poverty tend to perpetuate in Nigeria, given the geometric ratio of increase

in population without a corresponding increase in industrial production. Thus, it becomes

worrisome considering that Nigeria started out with similar macroeconomics statistics

(indicators) as countries like Singapore, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Indonesia, and South Korea and

even obtained independence earlier (in the year 1960) than Singapore (in the 1965) but these

countries’ economies have become highly diversified, (Kwan-Suk and Joon-Kyung, 1985; Awyn- Young,1995). Their manufacturing activities are contributing significantly to Gross Domestic

Product in terms of industrial output and industrial employment, while Nigeria’s economy

remainslargely rudimentary with her manufacturing sector accounting for a meager portion of

her GDP and vulnerably import-dependent, (Forest,1992; Olukoshi and Adebayo,1995).

STATMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Given her endowments and the catalog of industrial policies, Nigeria would have been

industrialized. However, since independence, Nigeria’s potential of becoming a global economic

giant has been wasted away due to lack of diversification and sluggish manufacturing sector.

With the inaccurate SAP policies imposed on Nigeria by the IMF and the World Bank in 1986,

de-industrialization has been aggravated with attendant poverty, unemployment, inflation,

increased debts, and balance of payment problems. Nigeria has been a primary commodity

exporting economy that is highly dependent on imports of manufactures and spare parts.

Nigeria has general weakness in the structure of the economy and the business environment

due to poor implementation of industrial policies. About 80 percent of Nigeria’s consumptions

are imported without domestic value addition, and about 90 percent of her products cannot

pass international trade standard to the West. There is urgent need to boost domestic

manufacturing, reduce over-reliance on imports, economic vulnerability, increase exports and

Page 3 of 26

Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 11, Issue 2, February-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

create employment in Nigeria. The sustainable commitment to industrialization and

manufacturing seems to be absent. With 2020 being an unusual year, Nigeria is in a recession,

two times within five months. The chain effects of Covid-19 pandemic, end SARS Protest,

conflict and insecurity, there is need for macroeconomic adjustment of the structure of the

economy, think outside the box and to do things differently about industrial policies. Inflation

and interest rates are on the rise in Nigeria, against apriori expectations of inverse relationship.

Unemployment and poverty rates are surging unsustainably and dangerously too, along with

exchange rate volatility. There is no time that Nigeria needs to emphasize and implement

industrialization and manufacturing than now. 2021 should be the post covid-19 and economic

pandemics recovery and stabilization year for Nigeria. The country faces the challenge of capital

inflows and reckless capital out flow and leakages through imports that needs policy

intervention. Besides, Nigeria seems not to have shown any significant macroeconomic

adjustment towards industrialization and steady economic growth.

Research Questions

The primary focus of this study is on policy determination of industrialization and

manufacturing, and the latter’s impact on macroeconomic stability in Nigeria. Basic to the

established premise and problems, this study sets out to provide answers to the following

research questions:

1. Is there any causal relationship between industrial policies and manufacturing sector

development in Nigeria?

2. Does any causal relationship exist between the manufacturing sector and

macroeconomic stability in Nigeria?

3. What are the impacts of industrial policies on manufacturing sector performance

Nigeria?

Objectives of the Study

The broad objective of this research is to appraise industrial policies on manufacturing sector

development in Nigeria. The specific objectives are stated as follows:

1. To measure any causal relationship between industrial policies and the manufacturing

index in Nigeria.

2. To determine the long-run relationship between manufacturing sector and

macroeconomic stability in Nigeria.

3. To evaluate the impacts of industrial policy on manufacturing sector performance in

Nigeria.

Hypotheses of the Study

The following hypotheses are tested in the study:

1. H01: There is no significant causal relationship between industrial policy and the

manufacturing sector development in Nigeria.

2. H02: There is no significant causal relationship between the manufacturing sector and

macroeconomic stability in Nigeria.

3. H03:Industrial policy has no significant impact on the manufacturing indexand

macroeconomic stability in Nigeria.

Page 4 of 26

Agri, E. M., Kumo, A. A., Nshe, M. J., & Gabriel, A. A. (2023). Industrial Policies, Manufacturing Sector Development and Macroeconomic Stability in

Nigeria. Archives of Business Research, 11(2). 28-53.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.112.13767

Significance of the Study

Dynamic industrial economies are widely regarded as the defining characteristics of a modern

state. Industrial policies seem to be powerful tools to promote rapid economic growth and

development. However, they face taunting challenges in Nigeria. In the light of macroeconomic

instability, economic recession, fiscal deficits, increase in poverty rate and unemployment,

there is an urgent need for the Nigerian government to diversify the economy as well as expand

industrial production in the country taking a clue from the West, and East Asian countries. This

study will be of great importance to the policy makers. In addition, the study will help to provide

a framework for understanding the relationship between industrial policies, manufacturing

sector performance and macroeconomic stability in Nigeria. The study will stimulate further

research into the model of manufacturing sector and economic growth.

CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL LITERATURE

The World Bank Report (1983; 1985) identified five subsectors of the industrial sector to

include: manufacturing, mining, building and construction, electricity, water and gas.

Manufacturing is the most dynamic part of the industrial sector, and without it, industrial

development is impossible. The existing literature defines industrial policy in different ways as

various aspects of state intervention in support of industrialization. Reich (1982) defined

industrial policy as a set of governmental actions designed to support industries that have

major export potentials and job creation capacity. Pack (2000), looks at industrial policy as

actions designed to target specific sectors to increase their productivity and relative

importance within the manufacturing subsector. In the same vein, Lin and Chang, (2009)

defined industrial policy as a guide to government intervention to selectively promote

manufacturing activities with the aim of industrialization. Industrial policies support the

generation of domestic production and technological capacity in industries considered

strategic to national development. It is no doubt that Alexander Hamilton observed that it is not

only wealth, but the independence and security of a country appear to be materially connected

with the prosperity of manufactures. In the context of this study, industrial policy is the

regulatory framework that comprises laws, rules and regulations governing and facilitating the

entry and operation of industries in Nigeria. It refers to deliberate government actions to

directly or indirectly support industrial development. There could be intra-industry policy such

as competition and pricing policy, employment policy and general governmental policy such as

environmental and tax policy, infrastructure policy, laws for registration and standard

regulations. Industrialization is a process of transforming raw materials and intermediate

goods into finished industrial products leading to economic growth and macroeconomic

stability. Its outcomes are; increase in the index of industrial production, economic, social and

political stability, increase in consumption and exports, availability of skilled entrepreneurs,

growing body of technological knowledge and emergence of home and foreign markets for

industrial goods.

Manufacturing is the making of products from raw materials using various processes,

equipment, operations and manpower according to a detailed plan that is cost-effective and

generates income through sales. This definition considers cost effectiveness in the processing

stage. The value added to the material through processing must be greater than the cost of

processing to allow the processing firm to make a profit. Value addition can thus be defined as

the increase in market value resulting from an alteration of the form, location or availability of

a product, excluding the cost of materials and services. According to Balami (2006) Economic

Page 5 of 26

Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 11, Issue 2, February-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

growth used as a proxy by GDP is often conceptualized as increase in output of an economy’s

capacity to produce goods and services needed to improve the welfare of the country’s citizens.

Jhingan (2007) opined that economic growth is related to a quantitative sustained increase in

the country’s per capita output or income accompanied by expansion in its industrial activities,

consumption, capital and volume of trade.

In an attempt to facilitate and sustain industrialization in Nigeria, several policies and

institutions have been put in place: the indigenization policy 1972 (amended 1973), the

Structural Adjustment Program (SAP,1986), The Bank of Industry (BOI), the Standard

Organization of Nigeria (SON), as well as industrial core projects (ICPs) such as the Iron and

Steel Plants in Ajaokuta, Steel Rolling Mills in Jos, Warri, Kaduna; Petrochemical and Fertilizer

Factories in Port-Harcourt, Cement Companies at Calabar, Benue and Nkalagu; Machine tools

company several textile mills across the country and Sugar Plant in Numan. These were meant

to provide the necessary foundation for industrialization in Nigeria, however, empirical

literature shows that the ends has not justified the means. What types of policy are needed to

facilitate Nigeria’s industrialization and manufacturing and what is wrong? Nigeria’s largest

export earnings and contributions to GDP comes from oil and agricultural sectors, not industrial

sector, (CBN, 2012; Ekpo, 2014). According to Duru, (2000), Nigeria has not been able to make

positive progress in sustainable industrial development due to poor policy implementation,

resulting to industrial failure. Adeoye ,(2014) examined the growth and structure of Nigeria’s

industrial sector and revealed that it is far behind due to poor and inconsistent policies

implementation as a result of inadequate attention given to industries by the government.

Similarly, Garba, (2012) identifies corruption, inadequate finances, multiple taxation and

decayed infrastructure as the root causes of industrial failure in Nigeria.

Jeon (2006) set out to examine the relation between Manufacturing, Increasing Returns and

Economic Development in China from 1979-2004. Both time-series and regional panel data

formats were used to ascertain the relationship between productivity and economic growth

and development. Secondary industry data was used as a proximate for manufacturing sector

data. The study adopted Ordinary Least Square Regression Model in estimating this

relationship. In terms of the first law, the results show the growths of secondary and tertiary

industries are strongly correlated with the growth of GDP. The variation of the growth of

secondary industry explains 90% variation of the growth of GDP.

Obasan and Adediran (2010) investigated the role of the manufacturing sector in the economic

growth and development of the Nigerian economy covering twenty years, from 1980 to 2009.

The study employs Ordinary Least Square Regression (OLS) model for this purpose. The

findings suggest the existence of a very strong relationship between the manufacturing sector

and economic development. Obamuyi, Edun & Kayode (2012) studied the relationship between

the manufacturing output and economic growth, based on time series data from 1973 and 2009,

using the co-integration and vector error correction model (VECM) techniques, they did not

find any significant relationship between both variables in Nigeria. The reasons adduced for the

non-performance of the sector was the massive importation of finished goods and inadequate

financial support for the sector leading to reduction in capacity utilization of the manufacturing

sector.

Page 6 of 26

Agri, E. M., Kumo, A. A., Nshe, M. J., & Gabriel, A. A. (2023). Industrial Policies, Manufacturing Sector Development and Macroeconomic Stability in

Nigeria. Archives of Business Research, 11(2). 28-53.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.112.13767

Again, the works of Olumuyiwa & Oluwasola (2016) examined the importance of the

manufacturing sector for economic growth in some selected African countries. In an attempt to

know whether the manufacturing sector hurt African economic growth in the long-term, they

approached the estimation process by way of testing Kaldor’s first law of economic growth

using panel data for a sample of 28 African countries over the period 1981-2015. Results

obtained from pooled Ordinary Least Squares, Fixed Effects, and System Generalized Method of

Moments provides current evidence to support manufacturing as the engine of growth in Africa.

Theoretical Framework

This study adopts a combination of Bertrand and Cournot models in a profit maximizing

hypothesis with a separation of ownership and control, (Tirole, 1988; Ray and Stiglitz, 1995;

Sutton, 2007). Competition influences industrial policy and vice versa. Competition policy in

the European Union (EU), the USA, China, India and Japan affects industrial policy towards

research and development (R&D). Profits are derivable under quantity setting, (Cournot) and

also under price setting, (Bertrand), though the two models are often interpreted as

representing different degrees of competition, Carol et al, (2016).The basic intuition of the

Bertrand model is that unless prices are the same and equal to the common marginal costs of

“N” firms (in this case domestic and foreign firms), each firm has an incentive to undercut the

other. There are two firms (say Nigeria and Chinese firms) producing a homogeneous product

(say textile). The two firms interact in the market and they simultaneously and independently

set prices p1 and p2, and both firms have the same constant marginal cost “c”. The Chinese firm

with the lowest price (better endogenous characteristics) gets all the market demand at that

price. It is only if the two prices are the same that each firm gets half the market demand at that

price, producing Nash equilibrium outcome of the game; p1*= p2* =c.

The basic assumption of the Cournot model is that under certain conditions regarding demand

and costs, market power and total industry profits increase as concentration in an industry

increases. Higher concentration increases prices and profits because firms have more market

power, though it might also facilitate collusion among firms. This potential link between

concentration and market power has been influential in the practice of competition policy.

Concentration is itself endogenous; both concentration and profitability are determined by

basic industry characteristics such as technology, R&D, advertising, demand and general

enabling environment, which are inadequate in the context of local industries in Nigeria. The

demand is even tilted towards imported products. Increase in marginal cost asymmetry across

firms (foreign and domestic) in a Cournot oligopoly raises both industry concentration and

industry profits. However, the opposite holds as in Nigeria where foreign firms use favorable

industry characteristics to reduce their marginal costs, while domestic industries with

unfavorable characteristics and capacity constraints face increases in marginal costs. The

competition becomes highly skewed and scaled, in favor of foreign multinationals.Nigerian

industries face stiff competition with foreign industries. The Cournot and Bertrand models

provide better approximation to Nigeria’s industry characteristics as in the textile industry,

steel and automobile industry, and manufacturing and telecommunications industries.

Industry profits and specific firm’s profits vary. There may be profits in the industry, but these

profits are hi-jacked by foreign firms, while Nigerian firms run at a loss.

The major weakness of these models is that firms do not take their business decisions

simultaneously, and due to operational secrets, firms usually do not know their rivals’ costs,

Page 7 of 26

Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 11, Issue 2, February-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

hence increase in marginal costs asymmetry across firms is not realistic. Also technology

transfer from foreign firms to local firms is difficult. As a solution to these weaknesses,

government needs to regulate firms with market power under asymmetric information to

balance market and industry competition. There should be regulation of trade liberalization in

favor of domestic infant industries. Government, through its policies, needs to have firm control

of domestic demand for imports. There should also be strict regulation of technology transfer

and industry employment policy.

METHODOLOGY

The methods of analysis used in this research are descriptive and quantitative analysis. A total

of 380 questionnaire survey was carried out, with 361 valid ones received. These methods of

analysis were adopted to allow for proper and detailed analysis of data using tables, simple

percentages evaluation, models, charts and graphs. Also, regression analyses were used to

estimate the models formulated.

MAJOR INDUSTRIAL POLICIES AND MANUFACTURING SECTOR DEVELOPMENT IN

NIGERIA

Table 1: Catalog of some of the Industrial Policies/Institutions in Nigeria

POLICY YEAR

Customs Duties(Dumped and Subsidized Goods) Act 1958

Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) 1960s

Exchange Control Act 1962

Companies Act 1968

Industrial Development(Income Tax) Act 1971

Industrial Training Fund Act 1971

Nigerian Enterprise Promotion Decree (Indigenization Policy) 1972(1977)

National science and technology (S&T) policy 1986

Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) 1986

The Raw Materials Research and Development Council 1987

Nigerian Export Credit Guarantee and Insurance Decree 1988

The New Industrial Policy of Nigeria 1989

Trade and Financial Liberalization Policy 1989

Small and Medium Enterprises Equity Investment Scheme (SMIEIS) 2000

The Bank of Industry 2000

National Economic Empowerment & Dev. Strategy (NEEDS) 2004

National Integrated Industrial Development (NIID) 2007

The Nigeria Vision 20:2020 Industrial Strategy & 7-Point Agenda 2007

Nigeria Bank for Commerce and Industry 1973

The Standards Organization of Nigeria (SON) 1971

Industrial Park Development Strategy(IPDS) 2009

The National Information Technology Development Agency(NITDA)Act 2007

The Nigerian Export Promotion Council Decree 1976

A national science and technology (S&T) policy was formulated and launched in 1986.The

objectives of this policy were to increase public awareness in S&T and their vital role in national

development and well-being; direct S&T efforts along identified national goals; promote the

Page 8 of 26

Agri, E. M., Kumo, A. A., Nshe, M. J., & Gabriel, A. A. (2023). Industrial Policies, Manufacturing Sector Development and Macroeconomic Stability in

Nigeria. Archives of Business Research, 11(2). 28-53.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.112.13767

translation of S&T results into actual goods and services, and to create, increase and motivate

output in the S&T community. The S&T policy marked the beginning of the recognition of S&T

efforts as a vehicle for successful industrial development in Nigeria. In order to facilitate the

achievement of the ‘self-reliance’ aspiration of the S&T policy, the Raw Materials Research and

Development Council, was established by Decree No. 39 in 1987. The Standards Organization

of Nigeria (SON) was also established for the purpose of ensuring standardization and adequate

quality control in industrial production. The S&T policy emphasized the transfer of foreign

technology to local firms, via the licensing and registration of patents, trademarks, technical

assistance, research and development, training, and operations.

In line with the NEEDS and Vision 20:2020 that sets the direction of Nigeria’s industrial policy,

industrialization strategy aims at achieving global competitiveness in the production of

processed and manufactured goods. This was to be achieved by linking the industrial activities

with primary sector activities, integration of domestic and foreign trade, and service activities.

However, by the end of 2020, the Nigeria industrial sector contributes less than 6 percent to

aggregate economic activities, while manufacturing subsector of the industrial sector accounts

for about 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

Challenges of Manufacturing Sector in Nigeria.

Does manufacturing sub-sector contribute to economic growth? It depends on its development.

It is evident that the manufacturing sector contributes to economic growth. There are basically

two possible reasons why manufacturing sector exerts positive influence on economic growth.

The first relates to the fact that the expansion of manufacturing output and employment leads

to the transfer of labor from low productivity and low sustainable sectors such as agriculture

and oil respectively, to industrial activities that present higher sustainability and productivity

levels. The outcome is an increasing overall productivity in the economy, with positive

multiplier effects on the output of the former traditional sectors, (agriculture and oil sectors).

The second reason for the relation between manufacturing growth and productivity relates to

the existence of static and dynamic increasing returns in the industrial sector.

Table 2: Comparative Relevant Indicators: % Manufacturing

& Agriculture to Real GDP in Selected Countries

Years/Countries 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s

Nigeria 56.94

(6.53)

30.01

(6.90)

31.17

(6.63)

33.87

(5.07)

41.14

(3.95)

38.4

(6.55)

22.12

(11.6)

Brazil 16.83

(28.16)

12.69

(30.00)

10.45

(32.72)

6.87

(20.28)

6.09

(16.96)

6.6

(20.7)

4.44

(18.5)

South Korea 33.78

(15.57)

26.06

(21.61)

13.43

(27.51)

6.64

(27.14)

3.44

(27.52)

4.9

(30)

1.7

(33)

India 42.53

(14.25)

38.91

(15.75)

31.99

(16.57)

27.64

(16.29)

19.74

(15.30)

18.3

(15.4)

27.4

(17.4)

South Africa 10.03

(21.68)

7.26

(21.52)

5.48

(22.84)

4.11

(20.96)

3.19

(17.73)

2.8

(29.7)

1.8

(16.2)

Sources: World Bank 2012; CEIC Global Economic Data Indicators; Trading Economics Data, 2020.

Page 9 of 26

Archives of Business Research (ABR) Vol. 11, Issue 2, February-2023

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Static returns relate mainly to economies of scale internal to the firm, whereas dynamic returns

refer to increasing productivity derived from learning by doing, ‘induced’ technological change,

and external economies in production. Energy supply and energy consumption in the Nigerian

manufacturing and industrial sector is comparatively low, far below global standard in support

of effective industrialization. Nigeria has innovation deficiency in the energy sector, which also

affects the agricultural sector and other sectors. However, Nigeria’s energy resources

endowments ought to be converted and utilized for industrial production.

The figures outside the brackets represent the percentage contribution of agriculture to GDP,

while the figures in brackets represent percentage contribution of manufacturing to GDP.

Table 3a: Some Industrial potentials operating, but yet to attain full Capacity Utilization

Tie and die clusters in Oshogbo and Abeokuta Capacity under-utilized,

challenged by imports and

unfavorable domestic policies

Aba leather and footwear clusters Capacity under-utilized,

challenged by imports and

unfavorable domestic policies

Aba fashion and garment clusters Capacity under-utilized,

challenged by imports and

unfavorable domestic policies

Rice processing clusters in Ebonyi, Kebbi, Cross River,

Lagos, Benue, Nasarawa, Niger and Anambra States

Capacity under-utilized,

challenged by imports and

unfavorable domestic policies

Wood and furniture processing clusters in Calabar,

Uyo, Ibadan and Osun.

Capacity under-utilized,

challenged by imports and

unfavorable domestic policies

Nnewi automobile industry cluster Capacity under-utilized,

challenged by imports and

unfavorable domestic policies

Sea foods processing clusters in Borno, Niger, Cross

River, Benue, Akwa-Ibom, Kebbi, Rivers and Kogi

States.

Capacity under-utilized,

challenged by imports and

unfavorable domestic policies

Computer hardware village , Nigeria Silicon Valley,

Otigba, Lagos, Abuja

Capacity under-utilized,

challenged by imports and

unfavorable domestic policies

Page 10 of 26

Agri, E. M., Kumo, A. A., Nshe, M. J., & Gabriel, A. A. (2023). Industrial Policies, Manufacturing Sector Development and Macroeconomic Stability in

Nigeria. Archives of Business Research, 11(2). 28-53.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/abr.112.13767

Table 3b: Other industrial endowments

Fishery and sea foods Capacity under-utilized, challenged by