1.

Introduction
In the past, Human Resource Development (HRD) was not seen as a development issue partly
because it was viewed as given in the industrialized economies. However, when all efforts at
development failed usefully in the less development economies, especially Nigeria as a case
study renewed attention was paid to the role of human (and social) capital in the development
process and not only attribute to natural resource endowment.
Human resource development tends to improve the quality and productivity of labour which in
turn, leads to economic growth. Sadly enough, development planners have failed to make
investment in HRD a central focus of development strategies. The reason it is sometimes argued,
is the difficulty involved in distinguishing between what part of HRD represent an investment
and what part represent consumption ( Da Silva 1997 and Oshina 1986).
It is now largely and generally accepted that investment in human resources promotes economic
growth. However, a countrys economics capacity also determines its ability to invest in human
resources, so that a good educational system may be the flower of economic development, but it
is also the seed.
Besides acting as an important vehicle of achieving equitable income destribution, human
resource development is also a potent means of addressing the problem of poverty. In the words
of Harrison (1973:3):
Human resource constitutes the ultimate basis for the
wealth of a nations capital. Resources are passive
factor of production; human beings are the actives
agent who accumulate capital, exploit natural
resources, build social, economic and political
organization. Clearly, a country which is
unable to develop the skills and knowledge of its
people and to utilize them effectively in the national
economy will be unable to develop anything else.
Economist had long realized the importance of human resource development in the development
process. For instance, the emphasis on the importance of education at various levels in the wealth
of nation, Adams Smith (1937) specifically includes the acquired and useful ability of all
inhabitants or members of the society in his concept of fixed capital. Alfred Marshal (1930) also
emphasized the importance of education as a national investment and in his view the most
valuable of all capital is that invested in human being. In spite of the scholarly discovery of the
importance of human resources, a more recent effort was tutored to invest in education as a
panacea for economic advancement and improvement.
The United Nation Economics Commission for Africa (UNECA) (1990) describe human
resources as the knowledge, skills, altitudes, physical and management effort required to
manipulate capital, technology, and land among other things, to produce goods and services for
human consumption
In other words, Human resource development can therefore be conceived as the process of
developing the skill, knowledge and the capabilities of all the people of the society which are
needed in the labour market for the production of goods and services. In economics terms, it

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1739492

could be described as the accumulation of human capital and its effectiveness in the development
of an economy (Harrison and Mayers,1964).
On the Nigeria scene, Professor Frederick Harbison introduced the concept of investment in
human capital- his contribution as the manpower consultant to the famous Ashby Commission
(1960). The commission report titled Investment in Education was published in 1960 and for
the first in the history of education development efforts. It is interesting to note that Nigeria was
one of the first developing country to embrace the concept of human capital formation.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of Human Resource
Development (HRD) on economic growth in Nigeria as well as compare and contrast the past
and present government polices towards educational improvement and the rationale for quality
education as a determinant of economic growth in most developing economies and ways of
attaining Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2020 in the host country, Nigeria.
2.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The concept of human capital formation refers to a conscious and continuous process of
acquiring requisite knowledge, education, skill and experience that are crucial for the rapid
economic growth of a country (Harbison 1973; Salleh 1992).The importance of human capital
has been emphasized in the world Bank report on Sub-Saharan African (1989) which calls for a
doubling of public expenditure on human resources development from 4-5 percent of GDP in
1985 to 8-10 percent by years 2000 (world Bank 1989;Okojie 1995).
Therefore, the research work was necessitated to address the problem of inadequate funding of
the educational system in Nigeria, as confirmed in the work of Central Bank of Nigeria (2000).
In term of the extent of very low budget allocations to education as compared to others.
Furthermore, that the federal government allocation to education ranged between 0.6 and 9.0
percent for recurrent and 1.0 to 2.8 percent for capital expenditure of the federal Government
budget for the period of 1992 1996. Thus, the government of Nigeria in the NEEDS
programme recognize that one of the main Challenge facing the educational institution in the
country was inadequate funding.
Another problem that this study addresses is the problem of poor infrastructure for learning in
most institutions, which has adversely affected the role of education in economic growth. The
tremendous increase in enrolment at all levels of education and training have been affected
because of poor and declining quality of the trained manpower concerned without geometric
increase in the public expenditure of most developing countries towards the actualization of the
Millennium Development Goals. (Yesufu 2000; 344)
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main objective of this study is to analyze the impact of human resource development on
economic growth in Nigeria. In line with the above, the specific objective includes:

To examine the importance of channeling more financial resources into human capital
formation.

To evaluate and access the trends of federal Government allocation to both Capital
and recurrent expenditure on education system.

To empirically measure the linkage between human capital formation and economic
growth, especially among developing countries.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1739492

To identify the salient role of human capital development toward the

attainment of
the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2020.
4. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
Given the aforementioned bi-directional nexus between Human resource development and
economic growth in the literature of the world war II and International labour organization (ILO)
respectively.
The following hypothesis formulated and tested for this research work as:
Ho: Human resources development does not have an impact on
economic growth in Nigeria
H1: Human resources development does have an impact on
economic growth in Nigeria
5. LITERATURE REVIEW
Since the rediscovery of the importance of human resource in economic development by Schultz
and others in the early 1960, several studies have emerged in an attempt to empirically determine
the growth-human capital linkage. Most of the studies are macroeconomic and often seek to
explain difference in economic growth rates across countries in terms of levels and changes in
education and human capital, among other variables (Schultz 1999:71). In these studies, a
number of variables have been used as proxy for human resource (capital) accumulation; thus
signifying the existence of measurement problem. These variables include primary and
secondary enrolment level and ratios, literacy rates, educational spending, student-teacher ratio,
stock of educational capital estimated using perpetual inventory method, etc. while each of these
proxies of human capital has its own problem, the results of growth studies incorporating human
capital yield conflicting results. For cross-country (sectional) studies four categories of results
are easily identified:
The first consist of studies which show a positive and significant contribution of human capital
to economic growth. Among these studies are Hicks (1980), Wheeler (1980), Weede (1983),
Landau (1983, 1986), Barros (1991), Mankin, Romer and Weil (1992), World Bank (1995),
Burnett et al (1995), Grammy and Assare (1996), and Ojo and Oshikoya (1995). Barros (1991)
study of 98 countries between 1960 and 1985, used school enrolment rates as proxies for human
capital.
His finding is that the growth rate of real per capital GDP is positively related to initial human
capital proxied by1960 school enrolment rates. For Romer (1990), human capital is the key input
to the research sector which generates the new product or ideas that underlie technological
progress. Thus, countries with greater initial stock of human capital experience a more rapid rate
of introduction of new goods and, thereby, tend to grow faster. Mankin, Romer and Weli (1992)
used augmented Solow growth model with the product of secondary school enrolment ratio and
the proportion of the labour force of secondary school age as a measure of flow of investment in
human capital. Their results show that investment in human capital substantially and
significantly influenced per capital income growth. Even when primary school enrolment was
used as suggested by Romer (1995) and Klenow and Rodriguez-Clare (1997), the results still
show that human capital term is highly significant.
In their own study of East Asia, Burneth, Marble and Patrinos (1995) indicate that massive
investment in both primary and lower secondary education significantly explained the
development miracle experienced in the region. Using varied forms of human capital
investment such as school enrolment, human development index and economic liberty index,

Grammy and Assane (1996) have found that human capital formation positively and significantly
contributed to economic growth. In their study of African countries, Ojo and Oshikoya (1995)
found literacy rate and average year of schooling to be positively related, they found that the
signs of their coefficients were either wrong or statistically insignificant. A significant departure
from the cross-sectional or cross-country studies is that of Ncube (1999). Incorporating human
capital variable (proxied by total enrolment) into the standard growth model, he found a very
strong long-run relationship between human capital investment and economic growth in
Zimbabwe.
The second group of studies found negative but significant relationship between education and
human capital. Studies in this category include Benhabib and Spiegel (1994), Spiegel (1994),
Jovanovich and other (1992), Islam (1995), Caselli and others (1996), Hoeffler (1999) and
Pritchett (2001). Benhabib and Spiegel (1994) and Spiegel (1994), use a standard growth
accounting framework that includes initial per capital income and estimates of years of schooling
from Kyriacou (1990) and found a negative coefficient on growth of years of schooling. This
negative effect of educational growth was found by Spiegel (1994) to be robust to the inclusion
of a wide variety of ancillary variables (e.g, dummies for SSA and Latin America, etc.) and to
the inclusion of samples. Using annual data on a different set of capital stocks Jovanovich, Lach
and Levy (1992) found negative coefficients on education for a non-OECD sample. Recent
studies based on panel data to allow for country specific effects such as islam (1995), Caselli,
Esquivel and Lefort (1996) and Hoeffler (1999) consistently found negative impact of human
capital on growth when student-teacher ratios (showing quality of education) and adult literacy
rates were used as proxies for human capital.
Some cross-country studies have shown that the influence of human capital is not uniform for all
countries or group of countries. While a positive relationship exists between human capital and
growth in some countries, in others the relationship is negative. Lau, Jamison and Louat (1991)
pooled data on 58 developing countries from 1960 through 1986 to estimate an aggregate
production function with average educational attainment of the labour force as a proxy for
human capital. Their finding is that primary education has an estimated negative effect in Africa,
Middle East and North Africa, insignificant effects only in South Asia and Latin America, and
positive and significant effects only in East Asia. For Africa, they found secondary education
model. In models with both levels of education, they found a negative and significant
relationship for primary and secondary education. They also found total education (primary plus
secondary) to have negative and insignificant effect on growth for the African region. Other
studies in this category include Psacharopoulos (1985), Romer (1989), Diamond (1989),
Murphy, Shloifer and Vishny (1990), and Otani and Villaneuva (1990).
The fourth category of studies found insignificant relationship between human capital and
economic growth. Behrman (1987) and Dasgupta and Weale (1992), for instance, have found
that changes in adult literacy are not significantly correlated with changes in output. World Bank
(1995) also reports the lack of a partial correlation between growth and educational expansion. In
Pritchett (2001) we find that cross-national data shows no association between increases in
human capital attributable to the rising education attainment of the labour force and the rate of
growth of output per worker. Specifically, he reports that the estimate of the impact of growth in
educational capital on growth per worker is negative and insignificant. However, the association

of educational capital growth with conventional measures of total factor productivity is large, the
general finding is that it has fallen below expectations because of perverse institutional /
governance environment, low expectations because of perverse institutional / governance
environment, low marginal returns to education and poor educational quality. Furthermore Bils
and Klenow (1996) argue that the direction of causality runs from growth to human capital, not
from human capital to growth. Thus, in terms of human capital, the data does not provide strong
for the contention that its accumulation ignites faster growth in output per worker. It is clear
from the foregoing that the impact of human resource (capital or education) is inconclusive and
very sensitive to the measures of human resource.
6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present research study is motivated to examine the effects of human resources development
on economic growth in Nigeria.
The study will make use of secondary data and sample period range from 1980 to 2006. The data
are sourced from central Bank of Nigeria (CBN); National University Commission (NUC) as
well as from various international research institute like World Bank Development indicators,
IMF and others.
This study will make use of inferential analysis like the Augmented Dickey Filler (ADF) test to
test for Unit root and the Co-integrated test is conducted through the Eagle and Grander test
(1988) to ensure that our expression result are spurious output.
In other to reconcile the short tem behaviour, an error correction model (ECM) is used to
determine an accurate predictions relationship between human resource development and
economic growth.
The following model is specified in an attempt to determine the impact of human resources
development on economic growth in Nigeria as:
GDP = F (CEDU, REDU, GCF, HC, DPS) --------------- (1)
Where
GDP = Gross Domestic Product
CEDU = Capital Expenditure on Education
REDU = Recurrent Expenditure on Education
GCF = Gross Capital Formation
HC = Human Capital proxied by total enrolment in educational
institutions.
DPS= Dummy for Political Stability
Hence, the estimating equation used in this model is
InY=Xo + X1 In CEDUt + X2 InREDUt +X3 InGCFt +X4 InHCt + lnDPS + Ut
Xo = A Constant intercept
X1, X2 X3, X4 ,X5are coefficients of the explanatory Variables
In = logarithmic transformation
U = Stochastic

7. IMPACT OF HRD ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN NIGERIA

The Nigeria educational and training system has witnessed phenomenal growth in the number of
institutions (formal and informal) and enrolment levels. Indeed, the surge has been very
inspiring, even when compared with best performing nations elsewhere in the world. Curiously,
these spectacular growths has not mitigated the growing demand for education at all level both
for general education and acquisition of technical as well as professional skills. In quantitative
terms, Primary School enrolment rise from 2.9 Million in 1960 to about 13.0 million in 1990.
Since 1988, both enrolment and number of Primary School have increased progressively to 26.3
million and 52,815 schools respectively, in 2003.
Post- Primary enrolment also soared from 1.9 million in 1980 to about 4.5 million in 1993. From
1990, Post Primary enrolment had rises steadily, reaching 7.1 million in 2003.
The number of Universities was 13 in 1980, rise to 16 in 1981 and 28 in 1987. In all number of
tertiary institutions increased from 104 in 1988 to 202 in 2003. Similarly, total enrolment rise
from 219,119 in 1988 to 1,274,772 million in 2003. (O.A, Adeniyi, 2005).
This scenario coheres and its historical consistent with the direction of manpower policies and
programmes of government, which stresses expansion of educational / training facilities to meet
the requirement of the economy for skilled or well-trained manpower. The various facets of this
strategy include increased enrolment, enlargement of the number of training institution, and
broadening of academic programmes at the various level of the educational system, and swelling
of graduate outturn by extension.
The expansion of educational facilities has persisted to date. For instance, in the universities,
total student enrolment increased from 276,440 in 1995 /96 to about 319,920 in the 1998 / 99
academic year, showing an average annual increase of about 4.0 percent. Graduate outturn
correspondingly grew from about 49,950 to 61,750 over the same period, representing an
average annual increase of 5.9 per cent. The number of polytechnics, their enrolment and outturn
similarly grew between 1995/96 and 1998/1999. Enrolment increased from 204,954 during the
periods, representing an average annual increase of about 2.0 per cent. In the case of the college
of education, their number increased from 58 in 1995/96 to 61 in 1998/99 and total student
enrolment from about 97,890 to 105,420 over same period. This presented an average annual
increase of about 2.0 per cent. Their graduate outturn also increased from about 19,630 to 21,150
between 1995/96 and 1998 /99 academic years.
Given an annual population growth rate of about 2.6 per cent for the country, the growth of
enrolment or demand for education could be characterized as exemplary.
Of course, the importance and viability of education and training institution could be effectively
determined by reference also to the quantity of output vis--vis enrolments. Also important are
the types, number and quality of the manpower (trained human resources) output and mixes in
terms of the professional and skills required or needed for economics and social development
(Yesufu 2000). It may be useful to explore the relative emphasis placed on the educational
sector in the government budget. It shows sectoral budgetary allocation for capital expenditure
from 1996 to 2000 across all the major sectors and their respective percentage shares.
It can be deduced that the share of education and health are not necessarily abysmal in
comparison to the shares of defense and agriculture in capital expenditure, but when we compare
these figure with those of other Africa countries like Kenya and South Africa, the share of
education in the national budget is clearly disappointing.

In general, it appears that the government is aware of the crucial need to develop human
resources in order to achieve economic and social development. There have been mammoth
developments in terms of institutional framework, physical structures and enrolments at all levels
of education and training. Indeed, until quite recently, the rate of enrolment growth exceeded the
rate of growth of population, which translates into significant improvement in national literacy
and outturn of highly skill and professional manpower.
But inspite of the expansion in the education system, it was accompanied by structural defects,
inefficiency and ineffectiveness which affects Nigerias level of human capital development and
utilization. The inadequacy resulted in decreasing industrial capacity utilization, rising
unemployment, threat of social insecurity by jobless youth.
Other problems include inadequate resource input and consequent low output and
overdependence on government as an employer of labour. In fact the level of literacy is low;
available statistic shows that adult literacy was 50.1 in 1989, rise to 55 in 1993 and 1994. It
remained at 57 from 1995 to 2003. This data indicated that about 43% of Nigerian are illiterate
compared to 40% in china, 33% in Zimbabwe, 23% in Indonesia and less than 20% in Brazil and
Mexico.
However, these deficiencies of variables incorporate led to the recent development in the growth
theory (Romer, 1982). Thus the growth theorists stated acknowledging the importance of
development variables. Recent empirical cross country studies (Young, 1994) also acknowledges
the importance of increased labour forces participation, improvement in education and inter
sector transfer of labour from agriculture, which were easier part of development thinking. Thus,
these have been an increase tendency of convergence between growth economies and
development economics.
These have also been attempts to empirically relate these two concepts of economic growth and
human capital development (Gustaw Ranis and France Stewart, 2001).
This study focuses on the two way relationship between economic growth (EG) and human
capital development (HCD). Thus these two casual chains are examined from this study as the
one that Runs from HCD to EG and other runs from EG to HCD.
However, this research work will be examining only one chain, which runs from HCD to EG.
The investigation will focus on whether HCD via increased public expenditure on social sector
activities, gross capital formation and environment into primary, post primary and tertiary
institution leads to higher EG.
8. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The contributions made to the growth theory by Tobin, Solow, Swan, Meade, Phelps and
Johnson has been given a collective name as The Neo-classical growth theory. The approach
adopted by these growth theorists is based on the assumption usually made by the neo-classical
economists such as Marshall, Wicksell, and Pigou. The assumptions are
(a) Perfect competition in commodity and factor markets.
(b) Factor payments equal their marginal revenue productivity.
(c) A variable capital/output ratio.
(d) Full employment etc.

For this reason growth theories of Tobin Solow et al are called neo classical growth theories.
8.1
THE MODEL
According to the neo classical model, Total factor productivity is usually considered to
represents output accounted by the productivity in factor inputs (Hornstein and Krusell, 1996).
This, the rate of economic growth depends on the growth rate of:
(i)
Capital |Stock, (K)
(ii)
Labour Supply (L)
(iii)
Technological progress overtime (T)
The relationship between the national output and these variables may be expressed in the form of
a production.
Y = F (K, L, T)
Where
Y = National Output (at constant prices)
K = Stock of capital
L = Labour supply
T = Scale of technological progress.
If it is assumed for the time being that technology remains constant,. The growth rate will depend
on K and L. The Production function then takes the form.
Y = F (K, L) ----------- (ii)
Given the assumption of constant return to scale, the increase in national output (Y) would be
equal to marginal productivity (MP) time K and L. Thus,
Y = KMPK + L MPL -------- (iii)
Wherer MP and MP denote marginal physical products of capital (K) and labour (L),
respectively. By dividing both sides of Eq 3 by Y, we get
Y = K MPK + L MPL -------------- (iv)
Y
Y
Y
If we multiply the first term on the right hand side of Eq 4 by K/K and the second term by L/L, it
will yield useful ratio without altering the equation. By multiplying as indicated above, we get
Y = K KMPK + L LMPL -------------- (v)
Y
K Y
Y Y
Since, neo classical model assumes perfect competition in which factor prices are equal to their
marginal physical product time the product price (i.e. marginal revenue productivity), (MPK K
and MPLL denote the total share of capital (K) and labour (L) in the national output), and
MPK.L/y and MPL.L/y denote the relative share of K and L in Y. Thus,
MPK K + MPL L = 1 --------------- (vi)
Y
Y
If MPK K in eq 6 is assumed to be equal b, MPL L = 1 b equation 6, may now be rewritten as
Y = b K + (1 b) L -------------- (vii)
Y
K
Y
Equation 7 reveals the basic idea of neo-classical growth theory. In this equation, b and (1 b)
show the responsiveness of output to the change in K and L. That is be denotes the elasticity of
output with respect to change in capital stock when labour remains constant. Thus, neo-classical
model suggests that economic growth rate equal the elasticity of output with respect to increase

in capital stock, plus elasticity of output with respect to increase in labour force given the level of
technology.
If we introduce technological progress in the neo classical model and designate the growth rate
of output associate with the technological progress as
I
T
Equ. 7 may be written as
Y = b K + (1 b) L -------------- (vii)
Y
K
Y
After the introduction of technological progress in the model, the growth rate presented in Eq 1
increase by the proportional increase in the output owing to the technological progress. Thus, the
overall growth equals the elasticity of output (Y) with respect to capital expansion, plus elasticity
of output (Y) with respect to labour, plus growth rate of output as a result of technological
progress
To conclude, the neo-classical model, like Harrod Domar Model is based on certain
assumptions, the assumptions no doubt add analytical simplicity to the model, but they also lead
to a very high degree of abstraction from the real problems of growth, particularly in respect of
small and poor countries.
9. ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Our estimation technique is drawn from developments in the co integration theory. This has
especially been developed to overcome the problems of spurious correlation often associated
with non-stationary time series data.
The concept of co integration (Granger 1986; Mill 1990) creates the link between integrated
processes and the concept of steady state equilibrium. The idea behind co integration is that
although two different series may not themselves be stationary, some linear combination of
them may indeed be stationary with the generalization to more than two series (Komolafe
1996). The guiding rule is that variable of different orders cannot be
co integrated, otherwise their linear combination will be stationary.
The theory of co integration arises out of the need to integrate short-run dynamics with long-run
equilibrium. The traditional approach to the modeling of short-run disequilibrium is the partial
adjustment model.
However, an extension of this in the co integration technique is the error correction mechanism
(ECM) (Granger and New bold 1974, Engle and Granger 1987). These authors have proved that
co integration is a sufficient condition for an ECM formulation.
The original co integration regression is specified as follow:
Yt = ao + a1Xt + et
(1)
Where Yt represents the dependent variable, X stands for the independent variable, and et is the
random error term. ao and a1 are intercept and slope coefficients, respectively. To include the
possibility of bidirectional causality, the reverse specification of equation 1 is considered.

To explain the non-stationarity in each time series, the Dickey-Fuller regression is estimated as
follow for a unit root:
et = et-1 + wt
(2)
where is the first difference operator. If equal zero, et is non-stationary. As a result Yt and Xt
are not cointegrated . In otherwords, if is significantly different from zero, Yt and Xt are found
integrated individually.
Given the inherent weakness of the unit root test to distinguish between the null and the
alternative hypothesis, it is desirable that the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test be applied.
This is necessary to correct any series correlation by incorporating lagged changes of the
residuals. To be cointegrated, both Yt and Xt must have the same order of integration (Granger
1986).

The ADF regression is specified as follows:

et = oet-1 + jet-j + t
where is the first difference operator, and , is the new random error term. M is the optimum
number of lags to obtain white noise. This is approximated where the Durbin Watson (DW)
value approaches 2.0 numerically. The null hypothesis of Non-co integration is rejected, if the
estimated ADF statistic is found to be larger than its critical value at 1 or 5 or 10 per cent level of
significance. If Yt and Xt are found to be co integrated, then there must exist an associated errorcorrection mechanism (ECM), according to Engle and Granger (1987). The usual ECM may take
the following form:
T
T
Yt = oECMt-1 + jYt-j + jYt-j + Vt
j=1
j=1
Where denotes first difference operator, ECMt-1 is the error correction term, T is the number of
lags necessary to obtain white noise and Vt is another random disturbance term. If IoI is
significantly different from zero, then Yt and Yt will have long-run relationship. The ECM
depicts the extent of disequilibrium between Yt and Xt.
The ECM reveals further that changes in Yt not only depends on the lagged changes in Xt but
also on its own lagged changes. It is appealing because of its ability to induce flexibility by
combining the short-run long-run dynamic in a unified system. Also, the estimates of the
parameters of the ECM are generally consistent and efficient(Hendry and Richard 1983).
10. ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS AND RESULT INTERPRETATION
10.1
UNIT ROOT ANALYSIS
A Unit root as a time series model often has importance implications for the estimation
techniques, properties of the estimating parameters e.t.c. It is therefore important to evaluate the
presence of a unit root in an economic data before proper estimation of the model in order to
avoid spurious result. In line with this specification, summary of the unit root results and the
Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test result which reveals the order of differencing of each
variable is presented below.

Table 1 ADF Unit Rot Test Results of the Model

Variables
ADF tests
5% critical
10% critical
Order of
Statistics
Value
Value
Integration
LGDP
-6.7787
-2.9850
-3.7204
I(1)
LCEDU
-6.1636
-2.9850
-3.7204
I(1)
LREDU
-5.3203
-2.9850
-3.7204
I(1)
LGCF
3.3736
-2.9907
-3.7343
I(0)
LHC
-8.6636
-2.9850
-3.7204
I(1)
DPS
-5.0000
-2.9850
-3.7204
I(1)
Source: Own Computation (See Appendix)
The test result in table 4.4.1 reveals that all the variables are not stationary at levels except
Human Capital. However, the remaining variables were found to be stationary at first-order
difference.
Note that the ADF- test statistic of each variable is greater than the critical value of 95% and
99% level respectively. Thus, the variables can affect the Nigerias economic growth at a shortrun determination.
10.2 PRESENTATION OF PARSIMONIOUS REGRESSION RESULT
The regression results presented in the table 45.1 below used ordinary least square (OLS)
technique on time series data covering 1980- 2008. The econometric computer software package,
E-views (Version 4.0) was used for the estimation.
THE ERROR CORRECTION MODEL (ECM)
D(LGDP) = F(D( LCEDU), D(GCF), D(LCEDU), D(LHC), D(LREDU), DPS, ECM(-1) )
Dependent Variable: DLGDP(-1)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 15:40
Sample(adjusted): 1983 2008
Included observations: 25 after adjusting endpoints
Variable
Coefficien Std. Error t-Statistic
Prob.
t
C
1.837600 0.119252 15.40932 0.0000
DPS(-1)
0.028413 0.019323 -1.470436 0.1608
DLCEDU(-1)
0.034325 0.018170 -1.889143 0.0771
DLGCF(-1)
0.171160 0.030296 5.649605 0.0000
DLHC(-1)
-0.033067 0.028213 -1.172060 0.2583
DLREDU(-1)
0.016608 0.035975 0.461663 0.6505
ECM(-1)
-0.018817 0.026871 -0.700287 0.0938
R-squared
0.974910 Mean dependent var 1.980870
Adjusted R-squared 0.965501 S.D. dependent var 0.109000
S.E. of regression
0.020246 Akaike info criterion
4.715974
Sum squared resid
0.006558 Schwarz criterion
4.370388
Log likelihood
61.23370 F-statistic
103.6170
Durbin-Watson stat 1.838262 Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000

From the table ECM (-1) was consistent by assuming a negative values .It is significant at 1%
level of significance. It therefore, follows that the ECM could correctly any deviations from
long-run equilibrium relationship between GDP growth rate and the explanatory variables. The
co-efficient indicates a speedy adjustment 0f around -0.018 which is relatively low. This implies
that following short-run disequilibrium, 1.9% of the adjustment to the long run takes places
within one period.
The above result shows that the R2 is 0.97, which shows that the model explains about 97 percent
of the variations in GDP growth rate are explained by the independents variables during the
period of the study. The f statistic of 1.3.62 with a corresponding Zero probability measures
the overall statistical influence of the explanatory variables in explaining the dependent variable
was found to be statistically significant at 1% level and 5% level respectively, indicating that the
variables included in the model explains approximately the variations caused on economic
growth in Nigeria.
At 1.838; the Durbin Waston statistics does not suggest evidence of auto-correlation, thus fell
within the acceptance region of no auto-correlation in the specification.
The intercept was found to be consistent with the apriori expectation as it assumed a positive
sign. An indication that there is an autonomous component of economic growth not explained by
the independent variables.
The coefficient of lagged GCF is positive and statistically significant at 1% level. Considering
CEDU, the result validates the expected positive relationship between this variable and GDP but
not statistically significant because the f-value is greater than 5per cent level. This result implies
that the portion of total capital expenditure to education is very low or underfunded, in terms of
poor or weak infrastructure in the sub-sector of education in Nigeria.
For Human capital; as proxied for total enrolment in educational institutions from primary
education to post secondary education enrolment, indicates a positive co-efficient as expected,
which implies that it is positively related to economic growth but not statistically significant
because the p value is greater than the 5percent level. This result could be associated with the
decay in most of the institutions, incessant strikes and disruption of academic activities, all
resulted to half baked or unqualified human resources in the country, Nigeria and adversely
affected the GDP of the nation.
The co-efficient of lagged DPS is negative and statistically insignificant. It indicates that
unstable government policies adversely affect the Nigerias economic growth.
Furthermore, the coefficient of lagged REDU (0.016608) is positive and statistically insignificant
because the p-value is greater than 5% level of significance. Therefore, it reveals that an increase
in recurrent expenditure in human capital de-accelerates economic growth of Nigeria due to
poor-funding and embezzlement of the educational state fund at all tiers of government.
11. CONCLUSION
The research work has explored empirically the relationship between human resource
development and economic growth in Nigeria, using a time series data of 1980 to 2008 to obtain
co-integration and error correction techniques for drawing an inference. It reveals that
investment in human capital, in the form of education expenditure and consistent governmental
policies impacts positively on economic growth.
In conclusion, Nigeria can only reposition herself as a potent force through the quality of the
products from the primary, secondary and tertiary school systems, and by making her manpower

relevant in the highly competitive and globalized economy through a structured, well funded
and strategic planning of her educational institutions.

APPENDIX
SELECTED MACROECONOMIC VARIABLES DATA FOR 1980-2008
(IN LOGARITHMS)
obs
LGDP
LCEDU
LREDU
LGCF
LHC
1980
1.980000
-0.022000
-0.222000
1.045000
4.150000
1981
1.850000
-0.357000
-0.268000
1.088000
4.220000
1982
1.850000
-0.310000
-0.187000
1.040000
4.250000
1983
1.820000
-0.456000
-0.208000
0.911000
4.270000
1984
1.800000
-0.854000
-0.143000
0.734000
4.250000
1985
1.840000
-0.745000
-0.174000
0.746000
4.210000
1986
1.860000
-0.357000
-0.188000
0.867000
3.790000
1987
1.850000
-0.854000
-0.292000
1.028000
4.170000
1988
1.890000
-0.553000
-0.097000
1.093000
4.120000
1989
1.920000
-0.658000
0.236000
1.265000
4.200000
1990
1.960000
-0.481000
0.292000
1.486000
4.230000
1991
1.980000
-0.658000
0.104000
1.549000
4.240000
1992
1.990000
-0.420000
0.225000
1.768000
4.270000
1993
2.000000
0.193000
0.809000
1.908000
4.310000
1994
2.010000
0.382000
0.897000
1.930000
3.790000
1995
2.010000
0.520000
0.974000
2.058000
4.370000
1996
2.030000
0.508000
1.084000
2.236000
4.410000
1997
2.040000
0.581000
1.084000
2.313000
4.440000
1998
2.050000
1.107000
1.144000
2.286000
4.470000
1999
2.060000
0.930000
1.363000
2.245000
4.490000
2000
2.070000
1.368000
1.650000
2.430000
4.510000
2001
2.100000
1.298000
1.601000
2.570000
4.350000
2002
2.120000
0.965000
2.000000
2.642000
4.490000
2003
2.140000
1.167000
1.811000
2.633000
4.390000
2004
2.170000
1.333000
1.859000
2.660000
4.660000
2005
2.200000
1.438000
1.967000
NA
4.490000
2006
2.150000
1.554000
2.112000
NA
4.810000
2007
2.145000
1.457000
3.211000
N/A
4.820000
2008
2.230000
1.321000
2.670000
N/A
5.120000

DPS
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
1.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000

APPENDIX
DESCRIPTIVE STATISITCS
LGDP
LCEDU
Mean
1.990370
0.245148
Median
2.000000
0.193000
Maximum
2.200000
1.554000
Minimum
1.800000 -0.854000
Std. Dev.
0.116470
0.826914
Skewness
0.000722
0.190597
Kurtosis
1.927964
1.508519

LREDU
0.719741
0.809000
2.112000
-0.292000
0.851945
0.246797
1.544676

LGCF
1.701240
1.768000
2.660000
0.734000
0.676337
0.013063
1.485618

LHC
4.309259
4.270000
4.810000
3.790000
0.219070
-0.354758
4.024071

DPS
0.703704
1.000000
1.000000
0.000000
0.465322
-0.892218
1.796053

Jarque-Bera
Probability

1.292921
0.523897

2.666054
0.263678

2.656803
0.264900

2.389619
0.302762

1.746151
0.417665

5.212912
0.073796

Observations

29

29

29

25

29

29

MATRIX CORRELATIONS RESULT

LGDP
LCEDU
LGDP
1.000000
0.889791
LCEDU
0.889791
1.000000
LREDU
0.930561
0.933826
LGCF
0.959593
0.914802
LHC
0.595045
0.608847
DPS
-0.716456 -0.764156

LREDU
0.930561
0.933826
1.000000
0.968255
0.647230
-0.795305

LGCF
0.959593
0.914802
0.968255
1.000000
0.648194
-0.702795

OLS REGRESSION RESULT

Dependent Variable: LGDP
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 13:59
Sample(adjusted): 1980 2008
Included observations: 28 after adjusting endpoints
Variable

Coefficien
t
C
1.885524
LCEDU
0.006631
LREDU
-0.035916
LGCF
0.177093
LHC
-0.037891
DPS
-0.036655
R-squared
0.929140
Adjusted R-squared 0.910493
S.E. of regression
0.032189
Sum squared resid

0.019686

Log likelihood
Durbin-Watson stat

53.86060
1.297060

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.

0.188872 9.983087 0.0000

0.024257 0.273376 0.7875
0.045452 -0.790195 0.4392
0.044995 3.935844 0.0009
0.044693 -0.847793 0.4071
0.028803 -1.272624 0.2185
Mean dependent var 1.975600
S.D. dependent var 0.107590
Akaike info criterion
3.828848
Schwarz criterion
3.536318
F-statistic
49.82709
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000

LHC
0.595045
0.608847
0.647230
0.648194
1.000000
-0.576866

DPS
-0.716456
-0.764156
-0.795305
-0.702795
-0.576866
1.000000

UNIT ROOT TEST ON D (DPS) AT 1ST DIFFERENCE

ADF Test Statistic -5.000000 1% Critical Value*
5% Critical Value
10% Critical Value

-3.7204
-2.9850
-2.6318

*MacKinnon critical values for rejection of hypothesis of a unit

root.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(DPS,2)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 14:06
Sample(adjusted): 1982 2008
Included observations: 27 after adjusting endpoints
Variable
Coefficien Std. Error t-Statistic
Prob.
t
D(DPS(-1))
-1.041667 0.208333 -5.000000 0.0000
C
-0.041667 0.041667 -1.000000 0.3277
R-squared
0.520833 Mean dependent var 0.000000
Adjusted R-squared 0.500000 S.D. dependent var 0.288675
S.E. of regression
0.204124 Akaike info criterion
0.263558
Sum squared resid
0.958333 Schwarz criterion
0.166048
Log likelihood
5.294480 F-statistic
25.00000
Durbin-Watson stat 2.003623 Prob(F-statistic)
0.000047

UNIT ROOT TEST ON D (LCEDU) AT 1ST DIFFERENCE

ADF Test Statistic -6.163566 1% Critical Value* -3.7204
5% Critical Value
-2.9850
10% Critical Value
-2.6318
*MacKinnon critical values for rejection of hypothesis of a unit
root.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(LCEDU,2)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 14:10
Sample(adjusted): 1982 2008
Included observations: 27 after adjusting endpoints
Variable
Coefficien Std. Error t-Statistic
t

Prob.

D(LCEDU(-1))
C

-1.203865
0.088346

R-squared
0.622886
Adjusted R-squared 0.606490
S.E. of regression
0.274164
Sum squared resid
1.728813
Log likelihood
-2.080454
Durbin-Watson stat 2.048901

0.195320 -6.163566
0.056007 1.577416

0.0000
0.1284

Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Akaike info criterion
Schwarz criterion
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)

0.018040
0.437051
0.326436
0.423946
37.98954
0.000003

UNIT ROOT TEST ON LGCF AT LEVEL

ADF Test Statistic 0.373621
1% Critical Value*
5% Critical Value
10% Critical Value

-3.7343
-2.9907
-2.6348

*MacKinnon critical values for rejection of hypothesis of a unit

root.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(LGCF)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 14:17
Sample(adjusted): 1981 2008
Included observations: 28 after adjusting endpoints
Variable
Coefficien Std. Error t-Statistic
Prob.
t
LGCF(-1)
0.012668 0.033905 0.373621 0.7123
C
0.046247 0.060438 0.765198 0.4523
R-squared
0.006305 Mean dependent var 0.067292
Adjusted R-squared -0.038863 S.D. dependent var 0.105303
S.E. of regression
0.107330 Akaike info criterion
1.546158
Sum squared resid
0.253435 Schwarz criterion
1.447987
Log likelihood
20.55390 F-statistic
0.139593
Durbin-Watson stat 1.036829 Prob(F-statistic)
0.712263

UNIT ROOT TEST ON D (LGDP) AT 1ST DIFFERENCE

ADF Test Statistic -6.778686 1% Critical Value* -3.7204
5% Critical Value
-2.9850
10% Critical Value
-2.6318
*MacKinnon critical values for rejection of hypothesis of a unit
root.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(LGDP,2)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 14:20
Sample(adjusted): 1982 2008
Included observations: 27 after adjusting endpoints
Variable

Coefficien
t
D(LGDP(-1))
-0.899505
C
0.011116
R-squared
0.666428
Adjusted R-squared 0.651925
S.E. of regression
0.021991
Sum squared resid

0.011123

Log likelihood
Durbin-Watson stat

60.99715
1.650826

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.

0.132696 -6.778686 0.0000

0.004551 2.442716 0.0227
Mean dependent var 0.003200
S.D. dependent var 0.037274
Akaike info criterion
4.719772
Schwarz criterion
4.622262
F-statistic
45.95058
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000001

UNIT ROOT TEST ON LHC AT 1ST DIFFERENCE

ADF Test Statistic -8.663637 1% Critical Value* -3.7204
5% Critical Value
-2.9850
10% Critical Value
-2.6318
*MacKinnon critical values for rejection of hypothesis of a unit
root.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(LHC,2)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 14:23
Sample(adjusted): 1982 2008
Included observations: 26 after adjusting endpoints
Variable
Coefficien Std. Error t-Statistic
Prob.
t
D(LHC(-1))
-1.569820 0.181196 -8.663637 0.0000
C
0.031350 0.038170 0.821311 0.4199
R-squared
0.765446 Mean dependent var 0.010000
Adjusted R-squared 0.755248 S.D. dependent var 0.384968
S.E. of regression
0.190453 Akaike info criterion
0.402209

Sum squared resid

0.834260

Schwarz criterion

Log likelihood
Durbin-Watson stat

7.027607
2.136019

F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)

0.304698
75.05860
0.000000

UNIT ROOT TEST ON D (LREDU) AT 1ST DIFFERENCE

ADF Test Statistic -5.320263 1% Critical Value* -3.7204
5% Critical Value
-2.9850
10% Critical Value
-2.6318
*MacKinnon critical values for rejection of hypothesis of a unit
root.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(LREDU,2)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 14:26
Sample(adjusted): 1982 2008
Included observations: 25after adjusting endpoints
Variable

Coefficien
t
D(LREDU(-1)) -1.092601
C
0.103308
R-squared
0.551702
Adjusted R-squared 0.532211
S.E. of regression
0.177583
Sum squared resid

0.725322

Log likelihood
Durbin-Watson stat

8.776725
2.051873

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.

0.205366 -5.320263 0.0000

0.039809 2.595079 0.0162
Mean dependent var 0.007640
S.D. dependent var 0.259643
Akaike info criterion
0.542138
Schwarz criterion
0.444628
F-statistic
28.30520
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000021

UNIT ROOT TEST ON D (ECM) AT 1ST DIFFERENCE

ADF Test Statistic -4.351501 1% Critical Value* -3.7497
5% Critical Value
-2.9969
10% Critical Value
-2.6381
*MacKinnon critical values for rejection of hypothesis of a unit
root.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(ECM)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 14:33
Sample(adjusted): 1984 2008
Included observations: 24 after adjusting endpoints
Variable
Coefficien Std. Error t-Statistic
Prob.
t
ECM(-1)
-1.325691 0.304651 -4.351501 0.0003
D(ECM(-1))
0.284907 0.212314 1.341914 0.1947
C
0.005436 0.037617 0.144502 0.8866
R-squared
0.559989 Mean dependent var 0.007326
Adjusted R-squared 0.515988 S.D. dependent var 0.259273
S.E. of regression
0.180378 Akaike info criterion
0.466412
Sum squared resid
0.650728 Schwarz criterion
0.318304
Log likelihood
8.363733 F-statistic
12.72673
Durbin-Watson stat 2.097902 Prob(F-statistic)
0.000272

CO-INTEGRATIONS RESULT (USING JOHANSEN COINTEGRATION TEST METHOD)

Date: 10/14/09 Time: 15:04
Sample: 1980 2008
Included observations: 25
Test assumption: Linear deterministic trend in the
data
Series: LGDP LCEDU LREDU LHC LGCF DPS
Lags interval: 1 to 1
Likelihood
5 Percent
1 Percent Hypothesized
Eigenvalue
Ratio
Critical
Critical
No. of CE(s)
Value
Value
0.807778
111.3341
94.15
103.18
None **
0.718133
73.40475
68.52
76.07
At most 1 *
0.594288
44.27936
47.21
54.46
At most 2
0.447591
23.53079
29.68
35.65
At most 3
0.322962
9.881071
15.41
20.04
At most 4
0.038811
0.910432
3.76
6.65
At most 5
*(**) denotes rejection of the hypothesis at
5%(1%) significance level
L.R. test indicates 2 cointegrating equation(s) at 5%
significance level

PAIRWISE GRANGER CAUSALITY TEST

Pairwise Granger Causality Tests
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 15:20
Sample: 1980 2008
Lags: 1
Null Hypothesis:
Obs F-Statistic Probability
LCEDU does not Granger Cause LGDP 26
0.01512
0.90321
LGDP does not Granger Cause LCEDU
6.32442
0.01935
LREDU does not Granger Cause LGDP
LGDP does not Granger Cause LREDU
LHC does not Granger Cause LGDP
LGDP does not Granger Cause LHC
LGCF does not Granger Cause LGDP
LGDP does not Granger Cause LGCF
DPS does not Granger Cause LGDP
LGDP does not Granger Cause DPS
LREDU does not Granger Cause
LCEDU
LCEDU does not Granger Cause LREDU
LHC does not Granger Cause LCEDU
LCEDU does not Granger Cause LHC
LGCF does not Granger Cause LCEDU
LCEDU does not Granger Cause LGCF
DPS does not Granger Cause LCEDU
LCEDU does not Granger Cause DPS
LHC does not Granger Cause LREDU
LREDU does not Granger Cause LHC
LGCF does not Granger Cause LREDU
LREDU does not Granger Cause LGCF

26
26
24
26
26

26
24
26
26
24

DPS does not Granger Cause LREDU

LREDU does not Granger Cause DPS
LGCF does not Granger Cause LHC
LHC does not Granger Cause LGCF
DPS does not Granger Cause LHC
LHC does not Granger Cause DPS

26

DPS does not Granger Cause LGCF

24

24
26

11.3761
1.84466
1.39139
13.2369
12.7793
3.16647
0.90032
2.59460
11.3400

0.00263
0.18758
0.25023
0.00137
0.00179
0.08964
0.35256
0.12087
0.00266

0.22159
3.72860
13.6977
14.4984
2.11949
0.41379
9.37095
0.22162
11.0607
8.04039
0.00480

0.64226
0.06591
0.00118
0.00103
0.16022
0.52642
0.00553
0.64224
0.00294
0.00991
0.94545

0.03479
3.89869
11.0240
2.70857
5.86770
2.71021

0.85366
0.06045
0.00325
0.11470
0.02371
0.11331

0.02403

0.87830

LGCF does not Granger Cause DPS

3.32324

0.08258

ERROR CORRECTION MODEL (ECM)

D(LGDP) = F(D( LCEDU), D(GCF), D(LCEDU), D(LHC), D(LREDU), DPS, ECM(-1) )
Dependent Variable: DLGDP(-1)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/14/09 Time: 15:40
Sample(adjusted): 1983 2008
Included observations: 25 after adjusting endpoints
Variable
Coefficien Std. Error t-Statistic
Prob.
t
C
1.837600 0.119252 15.40932 0.0000
DPS(-1)
0.028413 0.019323 -1.470436 0.1608
DLCEDU(-1)
0.034325 0.018170 -1.889143 0.0771
DLGCF(-1)
0.171160 0.030296 5.649605 0.0000
DLHC(-1)
-0.033067 0.028213 -1.172060 0.2583
DLREDU(-1)
0.016608 0.035975 0.461663 0.6505
ECM(-1)
-0.018817 0.026871 -0.700287 0.0938
R-squared
0.974910 Mean dependent var 1.980870
Adjusted R-squared 0.965501 S.D. dependent var 0.109000
S.E. of regression
0.020246 Akaike info criterion
4.715974
Sum squared resid
0.006558 Schwarz criterion
4.370388
Log likelihood
61.23370 F-statistic
103.6170
Durbin-Watson stat 1.838262 Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adenuga, A.o. (1998).Analysis of Educational Expenditure and performance in Nigeria.
Proceedings of the Nigerian statistical Association.
Adenuga, A.O. (2002). Educational Expenditure and performance in nigeria (1970 2000).
proceedings of the Nigerian Economic Society, Ibadan : NES.
Agrawala, A. N. and K. Lal (1997) Economic Planning New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Awopegba, P . O (2009). Human resources, high level manpower and the development of the
Nigeria economy.
Beckers, G.S; K.M. Murphy and R Tamura (1990) Human capital Fertility and economic growth,
journal of political economy 98 (5). PP. 12-237
Cannoned NewYork: Random House INC; PP 265-266.

Domain. Salleh, S.H. and S. B. Gurung, eds Kuala Lumpur: Asian Pacific and Development
centre.
Grammy, A.P. and D. Assane. (1996) . New evidence on the effects of human capital on
economic growth Applied Economic Letter 4, 121- 124.
Harbison, F. and C.A Myers (1964): Education, Manpower and Economic Growth. New York;
Mc Graw Hill Book of Company.
Mankiw, G.D. Romer and D. Weil (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth:
Quartely journal of economics 107, pp. 407 37.
Odusola, A.F.(1998). Human capital Investment and the Empirics of economic Growth in
Nigeria. Proceedings of the Nigerian Economic society. Ibadan: NES
Ojo, Folayan (1987) Human Resources Management: Theory and
Publishing Inc

Practice, Lagos: Panaf

Okojie, C.E.E.(1995). Human Capital formation for productivity growth in Nigeria: in the
Nigerian Economic and financial Review, (1), p. 44
Oladeji, S.I and A.A. Adebayo (1996) the scope for human resources development under the
adjustment programme in Nigeria, selected papers of the 1996 NES Annual conference. Ibadan
: NES.
Psacharopolaus. G. (1994). Returns to investment in education: A global update.World
Development 22, pp 1325- 44.

Salleh, S,H, (1992) Overview of Human Resources Development: In human Resources

Development in South Asia : The much Taken for Granted
Taiwo, C.O. The Nigerian Educational System: Past, present and future.

Lagos: Nelson

Udo- Aka, U. (1992). Human resources Development and Utilization Policies and practices in
Nigeria. In Human Resource Development and utilization. A. D. Yahaya and C.I. Akinyele, PP.
70-97.
Uwatt, B. Uwatt(2002). Human Resource Development and economic growth in Nigeria, 1960
2000. Proceedings of the Nigerian economic society, Ibadan, NES.
Schultz, T. (1961) Investment in human capital American Economic Review 5 (1). PP 1-17.
Smith, A. (1937) An inquiring into the nature and cause of the wealth of

nation, BookII:

Todaro, M.P. (2000) Economic Development, 7th edition New York: Longman.
United Nations Economics Commission for Africa (UNECA) 1990; Hand book of Manpower
planning in Africa Addis Ababa. UNECA.
UNDP (1997). Nigeria Human Development Report 1996. Lagos : UNDP
Wheeler, D. (1980). Human resources development and economic growth in developing
countries: A simultaneous model. World Bank WP 407.
Yesufu, T.M (2000) The Human Factor in National Development Nigeria Ibadan Spectrum
Books Limited.