The Response of Output of Manufacturing PDF

International Journal in Management and Social Science
Volume 6 Issue 07, July 2018 ISSN: 2321-1784 Impact Factor: 6.178
Journal Homepage: http://ijmr.net.in, Email: irjmss@gmail.com
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal
THE RESPONSE OF OUTPUT OF MANUFACTURING SECTORTO

ECONOMIC GROWTHIN NIGERIA: AN ARDL BOUND TEST APPROACH
ALICE CHINWE OBASIKENE, Ph.D

Department of Banking and Finance
Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT)
ABSTRACT
This study empirically investigated the long-run response of output of manufacturing

sector to economic growth of Nigeria. The study used annual time series secondary data
extracted from Central bank of Nigeria (CBN) statistical bulletin from 1986-2013. Ex-post
facto research design was adopted and Autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bound test
employed. Findings indicate that there is no long run relationship between output of
manufacturing sector and economic growth in Nigeria. Based on these findings, it was
recommended among others that operating environment of the manufacturing sector
should be made conducive so that cost of doing business in Nigeria will be reduced. The
government should ensure adequate power supply so as to reduce the use of generators,
and good roads to reduce accidents which lead to loss of the goods on transit.
KEY WORDS: Output of Manufacturing; Gross Domestic Product; Interest rate ; ARDL Model
263 International Journal in Management and Social Science

http://ijmr.net.in, Email: irjmss@gmail.com
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The manufacturing sector is believed to offer a lot to solving the problems of

unemployment in the country.A boost in manufacturing production offers prospects of a
growing availability of manufactured products, increased employment, greater efficiency
and improved balance of payments. Hence, the need to promote a virile manufacturing
sector has continued to be a major concern of most governments worldwide.
The manufacturing sector, being a capital intensive sector, with longer gestation period
and return on investment (ROI) needs special attention and treatment to maintain
favourable business environments and promote economic growth of the country. The low
share of the manufacturing sector in GDP reflects long- standing problems of
competiveness. The loss of competitiveness of Nigerian industry appeared during the oil
boom period of the early 1970’s with resulting real appreciation of the exchange rate
which led to surge in imports. The inability to compete with imports can also be traced to
high cost of production caused by poor infrastructure and a deficient business
environment. The problems include power shortages, poor transport infrastructure,
widespread insecurity and crime, lack of access to finance, corruption and inefficient trade
facilitation institutions.
Empirical evidence showed that the share of manufacturing value added in the gross
domestic product (GDP) was only 3.2 percent in 1960. Manufacturing production rose to
annual average rate of 25.6 percent between 1974 and 1977, while its share of GDP
increased from 5.4 percent in 1977 to 13 percent in 1982. After this time manufacturing
activities dropped sharply as a result of a fall in foreign exchange inflows which weakened
the ability of manufacturers to import needed inputs. As a result of this development,
manufacturing output fell by an average of 3 percent between 1981 and 1986 and the share
in GDP fell to 5.9, 5.5, 6.9, and 6.2 percent in 1989, 1991, 1993, and 1998 respectively
while overall manufacturing capacity utilization rate fluctuated downwards to 32.4 percent
in 1998. In spite of the spirited efforts made to boost manufactured exports under SAP, the
sub sector did not make any significant contribution to the growth of the economy (Chizea,
2002.).In view of these,the researcher resolved toascertain the long run relationship
between manufacturing output growth and economic growth of Nigeria using data for the
periods of 1986-2013.The remaining part of this paper is divided into review of empirical

literature for part two, methodology for part three, Data presentation, analysis and
interpretation of results for part four, and Conclusion and recommendations for part five.
2.0 REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL LITERATURE
Economic Growth and the Manufacturing sector, has been studied In Latin America, for
example, Libanio (2006) discussed the importance of manufacturing industry for the
growth trajectories of developing countries from a Kaldorian perspective. The author
focused on the relationship between manufacturing output growth and economic
performance from Kaldorian perspective using simple regression analysis. Result indicated
a close relationship between the growth of the manufacturing output and the growth of
gross domestic product (GDP) in Latin America.
Obute (2012) assessed the impact of interest rate deregulation on economic growth in
Nigeria. The objective of the research were to establish the relationship that exists between
deregulated interest rates and economic growth through savings and investment in Nigeria,
and also to make a comparative analysis between the impact of regulated and deregulated
interest rates on economic growth in Nigeria. It was hypothesized that interest rates
deregulation do not have significant influence on economic growth in Nigeria. The
research used Time series data, sourced mainly from Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN)
bulletin and World Bank data base. Four separate models were estimated to capture the
relationship between; Real Deposit Rate (RDR) and Total Savings (TS) (Model 1), Real
Lending Rate (RLR) and investment (INV) (Model 2), INV and economic growth (Model
3), and, RLR and economic growth (RGDP) (Model 4) for both the deregulation era
(1987-2009) and the regulation era (1964-1986). The study revealed that RDR does not
have significant impact on total savings before and after the deregulation exercise, RLR
also does not have significant impact on investment before and after the deregulation
exercise, investment has a positive and significant impact on economic growth before and
after the deregulation of interest rate, and, RLR does not have a significant impact on
economic growth before and after the deregulation exercise.
Imoisi (2012) studied the impact of interest and exchange rates on the Nigerian economy
from 1975-2008. Data for the variables were collected from the CBN statistical bulletin.

The study employed the ordinary least square (OLS) technique in the analysis but due to
the fact that data are not stationary, a unit root test was employed; it further resorted to co-
integration analysis which establishes the existence of a long run relationship between the
variables in the models. From their findings they discovered that an increase in interest rate
retards investment and subsequently economic growth; and the lag one of exchange rate
shows the expected positive sign, implying that depreciation in exchange rate retarded
growth from 1975 to 2008. Thus, interest and exchange rates exerted negative impact on
the Nigerian economy during the period under review.
Irungu and Muturi (2015) used descriptive statistics, correlation and multiple regression
analysis to examine the relationship between macroeconomic variables and financial
performance of firms quoted in the energy and allied sector in the Nairobi Securities
Exchange. The authors considered macroeconomic variables such as inflation rate,
Exchange rate, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Interest rate and stock index. They used
annual time series data extracted from Central Bank of Kenya, Kenya National Bureau of
Statistics and published annual financial statements from the NSE for the period of 2009 to
2014, and found out that macroeconomic factors have pronounced influence on the
financial performance of firms quoted in the energy and allied sector in the Nairobi
Securities Exchange.
Olweny and Omondi (2011) sought to find out the influence of macroeconomic factors on
the performance of the stock market. The study employed ordinary least squares (OLS)
multiple regression analysis and discovered that foreign exchange rate, interest rate and
inflation rate have a significant effect on stock return volatility.
Ochieng and Oriwo (2012) empirically examined the relationship between macroeconomic
variables and all share index on NSE. Macroeconomic indicators were operationalized as
interest rate, inflation rate and 91 day Treasury bill rate. Multi linear regression analysis
was applied and the study found that there is a negative significant relationship between 91
Treasury bill rate and stock return. Moreover, there was an inverse significant relationship
between inflation rate and stock returns.
Tawose (2012) investigated the effect of bank loans andadvanceson industrialperformance

in Nigeria between1975 and 2009. Co-integration and Error Correction technique was
adopted for the analysis. The results showed that industrial performance co-integrated with
all the identified explanatory variables. Industrial sector as dependent variable is proxied
by real GDP, while Commercial Banks’ Loan and Advances to Industrial Sector (BLM),
Aggregate Saving (SAV), Interest rate(INT), Inflation Rate (INF) are the independent
variables. This suggests that the behavior of real Gross Domestic Product contributed by
industrial sector in Nigeria is significantly explained by the commercial banks’ loan and
advances to industrial sector, aggregate saving, interest rate and inflation rate. The findings
implies that every action towards infrastructural development, strengthening of
commercial banks, deregulation of interest rate, encouragement of saving among rural
dwellers and reduction of inflation rate will boost the performance of industrial sector
significantly. Prominent among the obstacles facing the performance of manufacturing
sector in Nigeria is the lack of effectively bank credits to the manufacturing sector of the
economy. The banks especially the commercial ones have not been contributing
effectively to the output of manufacturing sector of the economy. This study takes into
cognizance the problems of manufacturing the range of one understanding of something,
or awareness of something) Sector in Nigeria. Besides, it looks into the various economics
effects of inefficiency of bank credits to the manufacturing sector in Nigeria over the
period of 1989-2009, using the Nigerian data set. The study employed the ordinary least
square regression method.
Obamuyi, Eden, and Kayode (2011) investigated the effect of bank lending and economic
growth on the manufacturing output in Nigeria using multiple regression model. They
used times series data covering a period of 36 years (1973-2009). They employed co
integration and vector error correction model (VECM) techniques. The findings of the
study showed that manufacturing capacity utilization and bank lending rates significantly
affect manufacturing output in Nigeria. However, the relationship between manufacturing
output and economic growth could not be established in the country.
Osoro and Ogeto (2014) analyzed the effects of macroeconomic fluctuations on the
financial performance of manufacturing firms in Kenya. They used secondary data
extracted from the Nairobi Stock Exchange and the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics;
2003-2012. Using the multivariate regression model, theauthors among other findings
provided enough evidence that foreign exchange, interest rate and inflation rate have

significant effects on the performance of the firms in the construction and manufacturing
sectors in Kenya.
Njoroge (2013) investigated the relationship between interest rate and firm performance
among listed companies in NSE. The study employed judgmental sampling technique to
select all companies which were actively trading in 2008 to 2013 and ordinary least
squares(OLS) regression analysis. The findings revealed a positive but not significant
relationship between interest rate and return on equity.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
The dynamic Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bound test model for data series
which are integrated was used. Relevant diagnostic tests such as unit root test,
autocorrelation test, and other higher diagnostic tests were considered. Annual time series
secondary data for the period of 1986-2013 was used. The data was extracted from the
central bank of Nigeria (CBN) statistical bulletin Research design adopted was ex-post
facto since the study is relied on historical data.
The basic unit ADF root model (Dickey and Fuller, 1979; 1981) is specified as follows:
Yt = Pyt-1 + et - - - - - - - - - (3.1)
Where,
P=1
However, the researcher regressed Yt on its (one period) lagged value yt-1 and find out if
estimated p is statistically equal to 1.Additional lag terms were also included to ensure that
the errors are uncorrelated. The decision was based on 5% level of significance.
The ARDL is specified thus:
Ln(OMS)t = 𝛼o + 𝛼1Ln(GDP)t-1+ 𝛼2Ln(INTR)t-1 + 𝛽1 𝐿𝑛(𝑂𝑀𝑆)𝑡−𝑖 + 𝛿1 𝐿𝑛(𝐺𝐷𝑃)𝑡−𝑖

+ 𝜃2 Ln(INTR)𝑡−𝑖 + 𝜀t - - - - - - - -
(3.2)

Where,
Ln(OMS) = Output of Manufacturing sector, the dependent variable
Ln(GDP) = Gross Domestic Product, the independent variable
Ln(INTR) = Interest rate, control variable
𝛼0 = Constant term
𝛼1 = Partial slope or the coefficient GDP in the regression

equation.
𝛼2 = Partial slope or the coefficient INTR in the regression

equation.
𝑒𝑡 = Random error associated with the model
Ln = Log transformation operator
t = time

4.0 PRESENTATION OF DATA AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.1 Presentation of Data
The annual time series data on output of manufacturing sector gross domestic product and
interest rate for the periods (1986-2013) were presented in table 1 below
Table 1: Data of OMS GDP and INTR from 186-2013

YEAR OMS (ℵ BILLION) GDP (ℵ BILLION) INTR (%)
1986 32.0 134.6 10.50
1987 46.4 193.1 17.50
1988 61.2 263.3 16.50
1989 77.2 382.3 26.80
1990 40.8 328.6 25.50
1991 98.6 545.7 20.01
1992 144.4 875.3 29.80
1993 165.9 1089.7 18.32
1994 219.9 1399.7 21.00
1995 295.8 2907.4 20.18
1996 350.6 4032.3 19.74
1997 382.6 4189.2 13.54
1998 395.8 3989.5 18.29
1999 426.2 4679.2 21.32
2000 468.0 6713.6 17.98
2001 535.8 6895.2 18.29
2002 507.8 7795.8 24.85
2003 465.8 9913.5 20.71
2004 349.3 11411.1 19.18
2005 408.4 14610.9 17.95
2006 478.5 18564.6 17.26
2007 520.9 20657.3 16.94
2008 585.6 24296.3 15.14
2009 612.3 24794.2 18.99
2010 643.1 33984.8 17.59
2011 694.8 37409.9 16.02
2012 761.5 40544.1 16.79
2013 823.9 42396.8 16.72
Source: CBN Statistical bulletin (2013)

4.2 Analysis of Results
Fig. 1: Graphical Representation of Study variables
11
10
2
86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08 10 12
LNOMS LNGDP LNINTR
The trend (line) graph of the variables under investigation indicates that OMS and GDP
are on a steady rise within the period. The interest rate shows a fluctuating decline from
2004 to 2013. However, from the graph, growth in GDP is envisaged to cause growth in
output of manufacturing sector and vice versa.
Table 1 Descriptionof variables under study

Variable No of obs. Mean Std dev. Skewness Kurtosis Prob. (JB)
Ln(OMS) 28 5.62 0.96 -0.99 2.67 0.0939
Ln(GDP) 28 8.63 1.78 -0.45 1.98 0.3400
Ln(INTR) 28 2.93 0.21 -0.14 4.32 0.3469
SOURCE: Researcher’s extract from E-views output (See Appendix 1)
The descriptive statistics result indicates that the variables are not volatile (with low
standard deviation). The skewness result shows that all the variables are negatively with
interest rate having excess kurtosis (k>3). Jarque-Bera test of normality of the data series
indicates that the dataset comes from a normal and smooth distribution.

Table 2 Summary of ADF Unit root test
Variable ADF- C.V p-value Order of Inference

Stat @5% integration
Ln(OMS) -6.11 -3.60 0.0002 I(1) Stationary
Ln(GDP) -5.20 -3.60 0.0015 I(1) Stationary
Ln(INTR) -5.55 -3.59 0.0006 I(0) Stationary
Source: Author’s Extract from E-views 9.0 output (See Appendix II)
The ADF unit root test results in table 2 shows that the ADF statistics of the variables were
more negative than the critical values at 5% hence, they are said to be integrated of order
one (i.e., I(1)).In other words, they are stationary at first differencing.
Table 3 ARDL bound test result and interpretation

ARDL Bounds Test
Sample: 1990 2013
Included observations: 24
Null Hypothesis: No long-run relationships exist
Test Statistic Value k
F-statistic 2.781423 2
Critical Value Bounds
Significance I0 Bound I1 Bound
10% 3.17 4.14

5% 3.79 4.85
2.5% 4.41 5.52
1% 5.15 6.36
Source: Researcher’s Extract from E-views 9.0 output (See Appendix III)
The ARDL bound test of long run relationship is guided by the decision rules as stated
below:
F-statistic > Upper bound = Cointegration,
F-statistic < Lower bound = No cointegration,
F-statistic between Upper and Lower bound = Inconclusive,
The ARDL bound test with F-statistic = 2.78< lower bounds at 10%, 5%, 2.5% and 1%
levels of significance indicates that there is no long run relationship between output of
manufacturing sector and economic growth in Nigeria.

Fig. 2 ARDL Model selectionGraph
Akaike Information Criteria (top 20 models)

-.56
-.58
-.60
-.62
-.64
-.66
-.68
ARDL(4, 1, 2)
ARDL(1, 1, 1)
ARDL(4, 1, 1)
ARDL(4, 1, 3)
ARDL(4, 2, 2)
ARDL(4, 2, 3)
ARDL(1, 1, 2)
ARDL(2, 1, 1)
ARDL(1, 2, 1)
ARDL(1, 2, 2)
ARDL(1, 4, 1)
ARDL(2, 1, 2)
ARDL(4, 3, 2)
ARDL(1, 4, 2)
ARDL(4, 2, 1)
ARDL(1, 4, 4)
ARDL(3, 1, 1)
ARDL(4, 1, 4)
ARDL(1, 1, 3)
From the model selection graph, it was ascertained that the best model for this relationship ARDL(4, 2, 4)
is ARDL (4, 1, 2). This is Ln(OMS) at lag 4, Ln(GDP) at lag 1, and Ln(INTR) at lag 2.
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
This study explored the responsiveness of output of manufacturing sector to economic

growth in Nigeria. Using Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bound test approach, the
study provided evidence that Gross domestic Product (GDP) has no long run relationship
with manufacturing sector output in Nigeria. Hence, the researcher recommended that
operating environment of the manufacturing sector should be made conducive so that cost
of doing business in Nigeria will be reduced. The government should ensure adequate
power supply so as to reduce the use of generators, and good roads to reduce accidents
which lead to loss of the goods on transit.

REFERENCES
Chizea (2002). Policy options for financing the manufacturing sub-sector in Nigeria.CBN
Bullion26.4 Oct/Dec.
Dickey, D. A.& Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive

time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical
Association,74(366a), 427-431.
Imoisi, A.I., Chika,U.P. &Moses, O. L. (2012).An analysis of interest and exchange

rates effecton Nigerian Economy.Asian Economic and Financial Review,2(6),
648-657.
Irungu, S. M. & Muturi, W. (2015). Impact of macroeconomic variables on performance of
firms quoted in the energy and allied sector in the Nairobi securities exchange.
InternationalJournal of Education and Research, 3(10),321-336.
Libanio,G. (2006). Manufacturing industry and economic growth in Latin America: A

Kaldoran approach, Retrieved 30, January, 2014 from
https://ufmg.academia.edu/Gilbertolibanio.
Njoroge, K. A. (2013). The relationship between interest rate and firm performance among
companies listed in NSE. MBA Thesis. University of Nairobi, Unpublished.
Obamuyi, T.M, Edun, A.T. and Kayode, O.F. (2011). Bank lending economic growth
and the performance of the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. European
Scientific Journal 8(3).
Obute, C., Adyorough, A. & Itodo, A. I. (2012). An assessment of the impact of
interest rates deregulation on economic growth in Nigeria (1964-2009).
Journal of Business and Organizational Development, 4, 39-57.
Osoro, C. & Ogeto, W. (2014). Macroeconomic fluctuations effects on the financial

performance of listed manufacturing firms in Kenya. International Journal of
Social Sciences, 21(1), 26-40.
Tawose, J.O.B (2012). Bank credit and the manufacturing sectorJournalof
International Business andManagement,(2), 158-168.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 4th
edition. SOUTH-WESTERN CENGAGE learning publishers: USA.

APPENDIX 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS RESULT
LNOMS LNGDP LNINTR

Mean 5.618650 8.325314 2.926596
Median 5.996578 8.631387 2.906354
Maximum 6.714049 10.65483 3.394508
Minimum 3.465736 4.902307 2.351375
Std. Dev. 0.960716 1.782436 0.206693
Skewness -0.993597 -0.447503 -0.139688
Kurtosis 2.673269 1.976033 4.317897
Jarque-Bera 4.731641 2.157803 2.117387

Probability 0.093872 0.339969 0.346909
Sum 157.3222 233.1088 81.94469

Sum Sq. Dev. 24.92035 85.78115 1.153489
Observations 28 28 28

APPENDIX II
UNIT ROOT TEST RESULT
Null Hypothesis: D(LNOMS) has a unit root

Exogenous: Constant, Linear Trend
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=6)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -6.108251 0.0002

Test critical values: 1% level -4.356068
5% level -3.595026
10% level -3.233456
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(LNOMS,2)
Method: Least Squares
Sample (adjusted): 1988 2013
Included observations: 26 after adjustments
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
D(LNOMS(-1)) -1.232608 0.201794 -6.108251 0.0000

C 0.285008 0.118534 2.404433 0.0246
@TREND("1986") -0.010069 0.006783 -1.484578 0.1512
R-squared 0.619203 Mean dependent var -0.011262

Adjusted R-squared 0.586090 S.D. dependent var 0.385882
S.E. of regression 0.248261 Akaike info criterion 0.159492
Sum squared resid 1.417567 Schwarz criterion 0.304657
Log likelihood 0.926609 Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.201294
F-statistic 18.69983 Durbin-Watson stat 2.096810
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000015

Null Hypothesis: D(LNGDP) has a unit root

t-Statistic Prob.*

5% level -3.595026
10% level -3.233456

Dependent Variable: D(LNGDP,2)
D(LNGDP(-1)) -1.081213 0.208061 -5.196615 0.0000

C 0.367687 0.106723 3.445254 0.0022
@TREND("1986") -0.009827 0.005140 -1.911884 0.0684
R-squared 0.540059 Mean dependent var -0.012162

S.E. of regression 0.183320 Akaike info criterion -0.446996
Sum squared resid 0.772946 Schwarz criterion -0.301831
Log likelihood 8.810953 Hannan-Quinn criter. -0.405194

Null Hypothesis: LNINTR has a unit root

t-Statistic Prob.*

5% level -3.587527
10% level -3.229230

Dependent Variable: D(LNINTR)
LNINTR(-1) -0.846223 0.152473 -5.549997 0.0000

C 2.627997 0.460064 5.712243 0.0000
@TREND("1986") -0.009340 0.004024 -2.321120 0.0291
R-squared 0.578751 Mean dependent var 0.017231


APPENDIX III
ARDL BOUND TEST
ARDL Bounds Test

Sample: 1990 2013
Null Hypothesis: No long-run relationships exist
Test Statistic Value k
F-statistic 2.781423 2
Critical Value Bounds
Significance I0 Bound I1 Bound
10% 3.17 4.14

5% 3.79 4.85
2.5% 4.41 5.52
1% 5.15 6.36
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: D(LNOMS)
Sample: 1990 2013
D(LNOMS(-1)) -0.183068 0.147831 -1.238367 0.2359

D(LNOMS(-2)) 0.113123 0.175805 0.643461 0.5303
D(LNOMS(-3)) -0.285144 0.154501 -1.845589 0.0862
D(LNGDP) 0.963607 0.190560 5.056717 0.0002
D(LNINTR) -0.282263 0.295804 -0.954226 0.3562
D(LNINTR(-1)) -0.264396 0.215726 -1.225607 0.2406
C 4.269844 1.781873 2.396267 0.0311
LNGDP(-1) 0.008060 0.084363 0.095544 0.9252
LNINTR(-1) -1.044640 0.481850 -2.167979 0.0479
LNOMS(-1) -0.223751 0.136535 -1.638781 0.1235
R-squared 0.799176 Mean dependent var 0.098652


APPENDIX IV
MODEL SELECTION TABLE
Model Selection Criteria Table

Dependent Variable: LNOMS
Sample: 1986 2013
Model LogL AIC* BIC HQ Adj. R-sq Specification
18 18.143908 -0.678659 -0.187803 -0.548435 0.955171 ARDL(4, 1, 2)

94 14.077652 -0.673138 -0.378624 -0.595003 0.951069 ARDL(1, 1, 1)
19 16.920880 -0.660073 -0.218303 -0.542872 0.953670 ARDL(4, 1, 1)
17 18.848809 -0.654067 -0.114126 -0.510821 0.954477 ARDL(4, 1, 3)
13 18.801359 -0.650113 -0.110172 -0.506867 0.954296 ARDL(4, 2, 2)
12 19.739390 -0.644949 -0.055922 -0.488680 0.954210 ARDL(4, 2, 3)
93 14.625372 -0.635448 -0.291849 -0.544291 0.950503 ARDL(1, 1, 2)
69 14.572786 -0.631065 -0.287466 -0.539909 0.950285 ARDL(2, 1, 1)
89 14.493919 -0.624493 -0.280894 -0.533336 0.949958 ARDL(1, 2, 1)
88 15.478303 -0.623192 -0.230507 -0.519013 0.951017 ARDL(1, 2, 2)
79 16.296815 -0.608068 -0.166298 -0.490866 0.951197 ARDL(1, 4, 1)
68 15.069329 -0.589111 -0.196426 -0.484931 0.949319 ARDL(2, 1, 2)
8 19.036006 -0.586334 0.002693 -0.430065 0.951446 ARDL(4, 3, 2)
78 17.014453 -0.584538 -0.093682 -0.454314 0.950746 ARDL(1, 4, 2)
14 16.939280 -0.578273 -0.087418 -0.448049 0.950437 ARDL(4, 2, 1)
76 18.916748 -0.576396 0.012631 -0.420127 0.950961 ARDL(1, 4, 4)
44 14.860218 -0.571685 -0.179000 -0.467506 0.948428 ARDL(3, 1, 1)
16 18.851181 -0.570932 0.018095 -0.414663 0.950693 ARDL(4, 1, 4)
92 14.761391 -0.563449 -0.170765 -0.459270 0.948002 ARDL(1, 1, 3)
11 19.760976 -0.563415 0.074698 -0.394123 0.950138 ARDL(4, 2, 4)
7 19.755890 -0.562991 0.075122 -0.393699 0.950116 ARDL(4, 3, 3)
64 14.612933 -0.551078 -0.158393 -0.446898 0.947355 ARDL(2, 2, 1)
43 15.530679 -0.544223 -0.102453 -0.427022 0.947980 ARDL(3, 1, 2)
84 14.507228 -0.542269 -0.149584 -0.438090 0.946889 ARDL(1, 3, 1)
87 15.502330 -0.541861 -0.100091 -0.424659 0.947856 ARDL(1, 2, 3)
63 15.484432 -0.540369 -0.098599 -0.423168 0.947779 ARDL(2, 2, 2)
83 15.480160 -0.540013 -0.098243 -0.422812 0.947760 ARDL(1, 3, 2)
54 16.387467 -0.532289 -0.041433 -0.402065 0.948105 ARDL(2, 4, 1)
91 15.325995 -0.527166 -0.085396 -0.409965 0.947085 ARDL(1, 1, 4)
86 16.306962 -0.525580 -0.034724 -0.395356 0.947755 ARDL(1, 2, 4)
3 19.300648 -0.525054 0.113058 -0.355763 0.948188 ARDL(4, 4, 2)
67 15.085297 -0.507108 -0.065338 -0.389906 0.946012 ARDL(2, 1, 3)
77 17.025611 -0.502134 0.037807 -0.358888 0.947007 ARDL(1, 4, 3)
53 17.018344 -0.501529 0.038413 -0.358282 0.946975 ARDL(2, 4, 2)
38 15.964203 -0.497017 -0.006161 -0.366793 0.946241 ARDL(3, 2, 2)
9 16.943497 -0.495291 0.044650 -0.352045 0.946643 ARDL(4, 3, 1)
51 18.931731 -0.494311 0.143802 -0.325020 0.946570 ARDL(2, 4, 4)
39 14.885692 -0.490474 -0.048704 -0.373273 0.945107 ARDL(3, 2, 1)
2 19.806437 -0.483870 0.203328 -0.301556 0.945359 ARDL(4, 4, 3)
28 17.803882 -0.483657 0.105370 -0.327388 0.946196 ARDL(3, 4, 2)
6 19.778908 -0.481576 0.205622 -0.299262 0.945233 ARDL(4, 3, 4)
29 16.760767 -0.480064 0.059877 -0.336817 0.945824 ARDL(3, 4, 1)
66 15.736040 -0.478003 0.012852 -0.347779 0.945209 ARDL(2, 1, 4)
59 14.625488 -0.468791 -0.027020 -0.351589 0.943904 ARDL(2, 3, 1)
4 17.578130 -0.464844 0.124183 -0.308575 0.945174 ARDL(4, 4, 1)
42 15.566982 -0.463915 0.026941 -0.333691 0.944432 ARDL(3, 1, 3)
62 15.520394 -0.460033 0.030823 -0.329809 0.944216 ARDL(2, 2, 3)

82 15.504111 -0.458676 0.032180 -0.328452 0.944140 ARDL(1, 3, 3)

58 15.486754 -0.457229 0.033626 -0.327005 0.944059 ARDL(2, 3, 2)
61 16.337083 -0.444757 0.095184 -0.301510 0.943877 ARDL(2, 2, 4)
81 16.321711 -0.443476 0.096465 -0.300229 0.943805 ARDL(1, 3, 4)
33 16.213291 -0.434441 0.105500 -0.291194 0.943295 ARDL(3, 3, 2)
52 17.036313 -0.419693 0.169334 -0.263424 0.942642 ARDL(2, 4, 3)
37 16.030347 -0.419196 0.120746 -0.275949 0.942424 ARDL(3, 2, 3)
26 19.026865 -0.418905 0.268293 -0.236592 0.941691 ARDL(3, 4, 4)
1 19.936910 -0.411409 0.324874 -0.216073 0.939944 ARDL(4, 4, 4)
34 14.913546 -0.409462 0.081394 -0.279238 0.941322 ARDL(3, 3, 1)
41 15.874386 -0.406199 0.133742 -0.262952 0.941671 ARDL(3, 1, 4)
27 17.813191 -0.401099 0.237013 -0.231808 0.941350 ARDL(3, 4, 3)
57 15.523865 -0.376989 0.162953 -0.233742 0.939942 ARDL(2, 3, 3)
36 16.456672 -0.371389 0.217638 -0.215120 0.939803 ARDL(3, 2, 4)
56 16.347513 -0.362293 0.226734 -0.206024 0.939253 ARDL(2, 3, 4)
95 9.286797 -0.357233 -0.111805 -0.292121 0.930899 ARDL(1, 1, 0)
32 16.213940 -0.351162 0.237865 -0.194893 0.938573 ARDL(3, 3, 3)
90 9.993543 -0.332795 -0.038282 -0.254661 0.931232 ARDL(1, 2, 0)
31 16.585351 -0.298779 0.339333 -0.129488 0.935031 ARDL(3, 3, 4)
70 9.371029 -0.280919 0.013594 -0.202785 0.927570 ARDL(2, 1, 0)
65 10.151085 -0.262590 0.081009 -0.171434 0.928136 ARDL(2, 2, 0)
85 10.036034 -0.253003 0.090596 -0.161846 0.927444 ARDL(1, 3, 0)
45 9.536228 -0.211352 0.132247 -0.120195 0.924358 ARDL(3, 1, 0)
40 10.281143 -0.190095 0.202589 -0.085916 0.924468 ARDL(3, 2, 0)
60 10.192666 -0.182722 0.209962 -0.078543 0.923909 ARDL(2, 3, 0)
80 10.142592 -0.178549 0.214135 -0.074370 0.923591 ARDL(1, 4, 0)
20 9.547638 -0.128970 0.263715 -0.024790 0.919707 ARDL(4, 1, 0)
35 10.441281 -0.120107 0.321663 -0.002905 0.920500 ARDL(3, 3, 0)
15 10.282004 -0.106834 0.334937 0.010368 0.919438 ARDL(4, 2, 0)
55 10.249237 -0.104103 0.337667 0.013099 0.919218 ARDL(2, 4, 0)
96 8.937230 -0.078102 0.314582 0.026077 0.915517 ARDL(1, 0, 4)
30 10.455441 -0.037953 0.452902 0.092271 0.914922 ARDL(3, 4, 0)
10 10.453739 -0.037812 0.453044 0.092413 0.914910 ARDL(4, 3, 0)
71 9.263790 -0.021982 0.419788 0.095219 0.912304 ARDL(2, 0, 4)
98 5.973207 0.002233 0.296746 0.080367 0.903863 ARDL(1, 0, 2)
99 4.927144 0.006071 0.251499 0.071183 0.900627 ARDL(1, 0, 1)
100 3.609109 0.032574 0.228917 0.084664 0.894636 ARDL(1, 0, 0)
46 9.608176 0.032652 0.523508 0.162876 0.908698 ARDL(3, 0, 4)
5 10.511780 0.040685 0.580626 0.183932 0.908807 ARDL(4, 4, 0)
97 6.418788 0.048434 0.392033 0.139591 0.901918 ARDL(1, 0, 3)
73 5.984426 0.084631 0.428230 0.175788 0.898303 ARDL(2, 0, 2)
74 4.948305 0.087641 0.382155 0.165776 0.895291 ARDL(2, 0, 1)
21 9.672939 0.110588 0.650530 0.253835 0.902204 ARDL(4, 0, 4)
75 3.609183 0.115901 0.361329 0.181013 0.889091 ARDL(2, 0, 0)
72 6.593481 0.117210 0.509895 0.221389 0.897294 ARDL(2, 0, 3)
48 5.986592 0.167784 0.560469 0.271963 0.891967 ARDL(3, 0, 2)
49 4.973112 0.168907 0.512506 0.260064 0.889361 ARDL(3, 0, 1)
50 3.904720 0.174607 0.469120 0.252741 0.885778 ARDL(3, 0, 0)
47 6.594142 0.200488 0.642258 0.317690 0.890453 ARDL(3, 0, 3)
23 6.282568 0.226453 0.668223 0.343654 0.887572 ARDL(4, 0, 2)
24 5.100242 0.241646 0.634331 0.345826 0.883685 ARDL(4, 0, 1)
25 3.938499 0.255125 0.598724 0.346282 0.879399 ARDL(4, 0, 0)
22 6.734897 0.272092 0.762948 0.402316 0.883997 ARDL(4, 0, 3)


The Response of Output of Manufacturing PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Response of Output of Manufacturing PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Response of Output of Manufacturing PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal in Management and Social Science

THE RESPONSE OF OUTPUT OF MANUFACTURING SECTORTO

ALICE CHINWE OBASIKENE, Ph.D

This study empirically investigated the long-run response of output of manufacturing

263 International Journal in Management and Social Science

The manufacturing sector is believed to offer a lot to solving the problems of

264 International Journal in Management and Social Science

2.0 REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL LITERATURE

265 International Journal in Management and Social Science

Tawose (2012) investigated the effect of bank loans andadvanceson industrialperformance

267 International Journal in Management and Social Science

The ARDL is specified thus:

Ln(OMS)t = 𝛼o + 𝛼1Ln(GDP)t-1+ 𝛼2Ln(INTR)t-1 + 𝛽1 𝐿𝑛(𝑂𝑀𝑆)𝑡−𝑖 + 𝛿1 𝐿𝑛(𝐺𝐷𝑃)𝑡−𝑖

268 International Journal in Management and Social Science

Ln(OMS) = Output of Manufacturing sector, the dependent variable

Ln(GDP) = Gross Domestic Product, the independent variable

Ln(INTR) = Interest rate, control variable

𝛼1 = Partial slope or the coefficient GDP in the regression

𝛼2 = Partial slope or the coefficient INTR in the regression

𝑒𝑡 = Random error associated with the model

Ln = Log transformation operator

269 International Journal in Management and Social Science

4.0 PRESENTATION OF DATA AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

4.1 Presentation of Data

Table 1: Data of OMS GDP and INTR from 186-2013

270 International Journal in Management and Social Science

4.2 Analysis of Results

Fig. 1: Graphical Representation of Study variables

LNOMS LNGDP LNINTR

Table 1 Descriptionof variables under study

271 International Journal in Management and Social Science

Table 2 Summary of ADF Unit root test

Variable ADF- C.V p-value Order of Inference

Table 3 ARDL bound test result and interpretation

Test Statistic Value k

Critical Value Bounds

Significance I0 Bound I1 Bound

10% 3.17 4.14

272 International Journal in Management and Social Science

Fig. 2 ARDL Model selectionGraph

Akaike Information Criteria (top 20 models)

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

This study explored the responsiveness of output of manufacturing sector to economic

273 International Journal in Management and Social Science

Dickey, D. A.& Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive

Imoisi, A.I., Chika,U.P. &Moses, O. L. (2012).An analysis of interest and exchange

Libanio,G. (2006). Manufacturing industry and economic growth in Latin America: A

Osoro, C. & Ogeto, W. (2014). Macroeconomic fluctuations effects on the financial

274 International Journal in Management and Social Science

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS RESULT

LNOMS LNGDP LNINTR

Jarque-Bera 4.731641 2.157803 2.117387

Sum 157.3222 233.1088 81.94469

275 International Journal in Management and Social Science

UNIT ROOT TEST RESULT

Null Hypothesis: D(LNOMS) has a unit root

Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -6.108251 0.0002

*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.

Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation