CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

The world economy has entered into a period of adjustment marked by slowing growth.

Governments in all countries are faced with the daunting task of advancing economic

development in a sustainable manner. Both economic theory and practice demonstrate

that infrastructure is a key to promoting growth, creating jobs and enhancing

productivity. Investment in modern and highly efficient infrastructure is paramount for

future prosperity. Investment in infrastructure drives Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a

country and forms its lifeline. It establishes for long haul development by propelling

production and transportation of the material to the production sites and markets, more

employment opportunities and safety for the citizens (Avinash and Arora, 2019;

Unnikrishnan and Kattookaran, 2020 and Seidu, et al, 2020).

The provisions of basic infrastructure facilities, such as roads, water, electricity, security,

drainage system among others, occupy the top agenda of any governments, as the

presence of essential social and infrastructure facilities attracts socioeconomic activities

that could be linked to the improvement of the standard of living. Manggat, Zain and

Jamaluddin (2018) posited that infrastructure enhances a city’s expansion in

socioeconomic activities as evidence seen in the United Kingdom where investment in

infrastructure has stimulated economic growth, increase productivity and provide job

opportunities.
However, amidst the global discussions towards scaling up the development of quality

infrastructure, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

Development Centre and the African Centre for Economic Transformation (ACET)

reported that Africa still needs significant investment in infrastructure development

(OECD/ACET, 2021). Adequate financing of basic public infrastructures with respect to

provision and maintenance is halted by different challenges, which are localized and vary

across countries. Developed countries, such as the United States of America, the United

Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, among others and fast developing economies, such

as Japan, China, Malaysia, Dubai, South Africa and among others enjoy better basic

infrastructure facilities than less developed nations including Nigeria (Han et al., 2020).

OECD (2021) estimated the number of people who lack access to roads, safe drinking

water, reliable sources of energy and sanitation facilities to 1 billion, 1.2 billion, 2.3

billion and 2.4 billion, respectively, while about 4 billion are without modern

communication services. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the infrastructure deficit is estimated at

USD7–12 billion (Infrastructure Consortium for Africa, 2020; Saghir, 2017; Shehu,

2016).

For Nigeria, Deloitte (2018) and Ajia (2020) reported that the country’s infrastructure

stock account for 35% of its GDP, which is lower compared with 85% of GDP in South

Africa and the average minimum benchmark of 70% recommended by the World Bank

for emerging economies. Nigerian infrastructure sector is grossly undeveloped.

Infrastructure Consortium for Africa (ICA) (2020) estimated the country’s infrastructure
deficit to be $3 trillion. This implies that Nigeria needs to be spending a sum of $15

billion annually in the next five to six years in order to bridge its infrastructure gap.

Besides this, infrastructure sector is still facing major financial issues leading to shortage

of investable funds. The concessionaires are confronting huge cost over-run and schedule

overrun because of a variety of regulatory hindrances, led to search for approaches to deal

with financial reporting and provisioning judiciously while meeting fundamental needs in

infrastructure.

Since government is saddled with the responsibility of delivering infrastructure within a

sustainable financial framework, and revenue is scarce, demand cannot be met. Public

funds need to be carefully managed to ensure that sustainability is achieved for the

medium and long term; Strong financial management systems are very germane at all the

levels of budget cycle right from the budget formulation to execution which should also

encompass financial management and control, procurement, and internal audit, and the

existence of an independent external Auditor for examination and scrutiny of public

funds (OECD, 2021).

Financial Management is capable of achieving aggregate fiscal discipline maintenance is

the foremost objective, it achieve aggregate levels of tax collection and ensure consistent

public spending with targets for fiscal deficit and should not produce public borrowings

with unsustainable levels; secondly, a financial management system ensure that allocative

efficiency is achieved that is, public resources should be allocated to approved strategic

priorities; thirdly, it also to achieve operational efficiency, in order to achieve maximum

value for money in service deliveries; and lastly, due process are followed and obvious

by being transparent, giving public accessibility to information, and by adopting checks

and balances which are democratic in nature to enhance accountability (Lawson, 2022).

Thus, financial management refers to applying management concepts to budgeting,

forecasting, managing, and controlling a company’s financial resources to achieve its

objective. It deals with all the areas connected to profitability, expenses, cash, and credit.

Financial Management System should consist of “a strong and well organized Ministry of

Finance equipped with the necessary administrative capacity and supported by a legal

framework that allows it to exercise its role; cost effective public internal financial

control systems, incorporating financial management and control and internal audit,

across the entire public administration; an independent and professional Supreme Audit

Institution supported by a legal framework which allows for high-quality audits that

impact on public sector functioning; public procurement (including public/private

partnerships and concessions) is an integral part of an effective public financial

management, as it is one of the key means by which public money is spent in order to

provide public services, good public procurement requires: a regulatory framework that

contains policies and procedures to guide the work of contracting authorities and helps

ensure economy, efficiency, transparency, accountability and access to justice in public

procurement; institutional structures, operational capacities and market conditions

needed for the effective implementation of the regulatory framework; and sound and

efficient public procurement operations which deliver value for money (SIGMA-

OECD,2014).
However, Proper financial management plays an essential role in helping developing

infrastructure in a nation as well as in Plateau state. A good financial management system

will ensure understandability, relevance, materiality, reliability, and substance over form,

prudence, completeness, comparability, timeliness and a balance between benefit and

cost in infrastructural development.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Nigeria is experiencing a stunted growth due to sluggish infrastructure development.

Resources channeled to the provision of infrastructure services were largely inadequate

and sub optimal. Funds directed to the provision of infrastructures were either embezzled

or out rightly diverted to less productive needs which are susceptible to corruption. This,

however, created a lacuna in infrastructure development process. However, the rise in the

growth rate did not reflected on Nigeria's infrastructure development needs. The growth

rate further declined substantially from 24.2% to 8.48% during the period 2000 and 2014

respectively. The downward trend in the growth rate could be attributed to the poor state

infrastructure development. Recently, it was discovered that one of the major features of

Nigeria's dwindling growth performance has been massive decline in physical

infrastructure development.

There is need to invest on infrastructural development in order to maintain a stable

growth momentum in productivity and at the same time improve the quality of living

standard of the people. In every economy, be it a developing or developed has two major

development questions to answer. One, how would the economy make available basic
core needs of the people? The second question is that how would the economy achieve

higher growth rates and sustainable development? There are only a few studies found to

have investigated infrastructure development using financial management. The

deplorable state of infrastructures and poor state of repairs and maintenance are evident

on electricity, roads, railways and water facilities. The reasons for the deplorable

conditions of the infrastructures are: reduction in government spending on infrastructure,

vandalization of existing ones, corruption, bureaucratic bottlenecks and delay,

maintenance and repairs of damaged facilities. Infrastructure development and

management constitute the critical area which requires efficient developments that the

society heavily relies upon. Therefore, a sound financial management in government will

aid long term economic, social, and infrastructural sustainability in Nigeria. This study

therefore, intended to ascertain the effects of financial management in infrastructural

development of Plateau state.

1.3. Research Questions

1. What is the relationship between financial management and infrastructural

development?

2. Is public Financial management of infrastructure effective in Nigeria?

3. Does public financial management of infrastructure in Nigeria follow the rules

of fiscal prudence?

4. Is public financial management of infrastructure efficient in Nigeria?

1.4. Research Objectives

This research seeks to assess the role of financial management on infrastructure

development in Nigeria’s economic growth. The objectives are:

1. To examine the relationship between financial management and infrastructural

development

2. To assess the effectiveness of financial management of infrastructure in Nigeria

3. To ascertain if rules of fiscal prudence on public financing of infrastructure in

Nigeria is adhered

4. To ascertain the efficiency of public financial management of infrastructure in

Nigeria

1.5. Statement of Hypothesis

Ho: There is no significant relationship between the financial management and

infrastructural development in Plateau State

H1: There is a significant relationship between the financial management and

infrastructural development in Plateau state.

1.6. Scope of the Study

The study is focused on the role of financial management in infrastructural development

(a case study of Plateau State). The study was not able to cover the entire Plateau State,

neither all the urban centers or Government Capitals nor developed areas but limited to

the state capital where lot of infrastructural development are centered and issues related

to identifying the available infrastructural facilities, financial managers/management

involvement as well as its roles in the development of infrastructural projects in the state.
1.7. Significance of the study

Because of the poor nature of infrastructural facilities in the area of study, it is

important for everyone to be aware of the financial management involvement in

development of physical projects in the state and consider the nature of harnessing

available managerial skills to address the issue of its development. As critical element

affecting infrastructural development will be exposed through the outcome of the study, it

is significant for the study to create awareness to the public of projects development

ongoing.

Another significance of the study is the findings of the research will be of benefit

to the state in enhancing quality of life and to policy makers, development partners and

government to developed policies for infrastructural development in the state as a

blueprint.

The study will give insight on the critical natural of infrastructural development,

and its findings could serve as a roadmap for future research on the subject matter. As the

study uncovers the roles of financial management in infrastructural development, right

approach will be considered in carrying out physical development.

This study will also be significance to serve as a foundation for future research on

financial management and contribute in adding recent literature to the body of

knowledge that will aid, researchers, students among others in carry out a research in the

same field of study as it serves as consultation materials for further studies in

management.
1.8. Definition of Terms

- Infrastructure: is the set of facilities and systems that serve a country, city or

other area, and encompasses the services and facilities necessary for its economy,

household and firms to function.

- Development: it involves improvement of the quality of the various components of

infrastructure, such as roads, power, ICT, water and sanitation.

- Finance: The process of raising funds or capital for any kind of expenditure. 

- Financial Management: Financial management is the basic operation of financial

services in a competitive, efficient and cost-effective manner.

1.9. Anticipated Limitation of the Study

This research, however, is subject to some limitations. The study anticipated

limitation in the areas of crucial information from the state government to vividly expose

their income, fund or aid received for infrastructural development and also sample size of

persons to engage at the time of carrying of the study will be limited too. Another

limitation will be communication barriers, time and financed readily available during the

period of the study.

References

OECD (2021), Manila Consensus on Public Financial Management: Partnering to Strengthen

Public Financial Management for Effective States, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/48780763.pdf.

Deloitte (2018), Impact of COVID-19 on infrastructure projects and assets.

www.2deloitte.com/article

Ajia (2020), Infrastructure’s influence – An investment perspective on Nigeria’s

 Economy. Oxford Urbanists. May 19, 2020.

Lawson (2022), Financing Africa’s post-COVID-19 recovery and factors hindering

renewable energy, market growth. ESI-Africa.com

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. CONCEPTUAL FRAME

2.1.1. Concepts of Financial Management

Financial management is the management of finance in order to achieve the objectives of

management. It involves all functions concerned with revenue generation and use of such

financial resources for the attainment of the organizational objectives. Akinsulire (2019)

stated that financial management involves the use of accounting knowledge, economics

models, mathematical rules, systems analysis and behavioral science for assisting

management in its management functions of financial planning, control and management.

Financial management draws on related subjects such as financial accounting,

management accounting, economics, law, quantitative techniques and behavioral science.

Financial management entails revenue generation, fund allocation, resources

administration and treasury management (Augustine, 2020). Financial management is the

basic operation of financial services in a competitive, efficient and cost-effective manner.

The word management connotes planning, coordinating, controlling and monitoring

organizational financial resources.

The number of abandon projects in government due to lack of funds because of

mismanagement, misallocation and inefficient uses of funds is enormous, thereby

jeopardizing the well-being of the citizens within the locality. This poor financial

management approach has contributed to the basic failure and inefficiency of some

government in achieving substantial development of their locality; this had led to lack of

trust, faith and confidence in government administration. Besides, the persistent hijack

and control of government statutory allocation and financial resources by some state

governors, has also negatively affects the performance of governments in carrying out

their constitutional responsibilities (Augustine, 2020).

Financial management is beneficial to the government when financial resources are

properly planned and executed in the best interest of the citizens. Financial management

in modern day approach has grown beyond revenue collection and payment of

expenditure but includes the rigorous financial decision making in areas such as

investment, capital budgeting, project management and sound financial control. The main

goal of financial management is also to create sustainability in the organization. The

objective of the sustainable financial management is to make sure that the organizations

are using less resources and capital and producing efficiently their goods by

implementing new innovative technologies. In United Arab Emirates there is a lot of

wealth of oil and also a lot of international businesses which are operating (Alkhyeli et al.

2021). Another goal of financial management in UAE is to control risk in the daily

operations of the organization. Risk is one of the main factors in every organization it can

never be eliminated but it can be avoided by using effective sustainability strategies by

the financial management. Risk also present in every department of financial

management is UAE (Al Breiki & Nobanee, 2019). The main goal of an effective

financial management would be to adopt those types of sustainability strategies which

can avoid risk and continue daily operations of the organization by maintaining the

earnings of the company, implementing financial plans effectively according to the

strategies to sustain the business for a long period of time and to maximize the wealth of

shareholders (Almansoori et al. 2021).

Financial Management System

Financial Management System is concerned with the management of government

expenditures, public debts, taxation borrowing, and liquidity level in the economy,

foreign reserves, foreign exchange system, public debts, and public finance auditing so as

to achieve some specific objectives (Nwezeaku, 2018). It embraces a larger set of

functions which begins with policy design and ends with external audit and evaluation.

Financial Management System (FMS) is very essential to basic economic governance and

important in ascertaining the accountability, legitimacy and performance of functional

states; it deals with the effective funds administration, it’s a basis for all government

activities, and encompasses all components of budget cycle of a nation which includes:

revenue mobilization, fund allocation to various activities and the accounting for

expenditure and spent funds; ineffective FMS hinder development and broadens

corruption risk (Government of Canada,2017; Fawcett, 2018).

Financial Management Practice

Financial management practices are the standard operating procedures developed by an

entity to assist in executing accounting, financial reporting, budgeting and other financial

activities (Wolmorans, 2019). They are the activities performed by the accountant and

financial officers in budgeting and asset management and control. The most frequently

used financial management practices in the organization entail profit retention, fixed asset

control, capital structure management, liquidity management, cash budgets, fixed assets

management, working capital management, financial reporting services and the

application of information systems (Marembo, 2019).

The success is attributed to sound financial practices and management of financial

resources alongside creative marketing skills and good start-up idea. The presence of

adequate initial start-up financing and good accounting system although vital to the

development of effective financial management practices, they are only the starting

points in the process of having a sound financial system (Marembo, 2019). The

implementation of an effective financial practices system enables the business owners to

control and maintain budgetary and future financial forecasting capability.

In most organization, financial practices include: maintaining good financial records

which are used for planning, keeping track of credit history and ensuring business bills

are paid on time, developing a good system to collect funds owed to the business, and

computing and filing the annual tax returns (Kipsang, 2018).

2.1.2. Concept of Infrastructural

Generally, the term “infrastructure” has been given different meanings from different

views in order to reflect its physical, social and economic attributes. Torrisi (2019)

explained that infrastructure has no standard definition, but the general idea is linked to

the basic structures and facilities necessary for a country or an organization to function

efficiently. Such facilities include buildings, transport, water and energy resources,

administrative systems, etc. OECD (2021) described public infrastructures as facilities,

structures, networks, systems, plants, properties, equipment or physical assets, including

the enterprises that employ them, that provide public goods or goods that meet a

politically mandated, fundamental need that the market is not able to provide on its own.

The English Collins Dictionary defines infrastructure as that which includes buildings,

structures and apparatus by which services essential to the development and use of land

are provided by developers and/or statutory authorities’ e.g. railways, roads, bridges, gas,

electricity, sewage/waste disposal and telephone installation etc. Infrastructure is

therefore the aggregation of all amenities, services, facilities and utilities such as water,

electricity, telephones, stadia, parks, nature gardens, cinemas and theatres, sewage and

drainage as well as others relating to health, education, economic and housing which are

essential to and necessary for enhanced human settlements. Infrastructure can be defined

and explain as a set of interconnected elements that issue or provide a framework that

support the entire structure for development, and it is an essential term for judging a

region's or country progress that is around the circle of development. The term refers to

technical structures that guide and support the society, in terms of water supply,

electricity grids, bridges, roads, telecommunications, sewers, and also infrastructure is

explain as the physical components of interrelated systems that provide products and

services essential to sustain, enable, or enhance societal living conditions (Fulmer, 2019).

In addition, Torrisi (2019) classified infrastructure into three major categories;

personal, institutional and material infrastructures. More recently, OECD (2021) defined

personal infrastructure as the knowledge, skills, competencies and attributes embodied in

individuals that facilitate the creation of personal, social and economic well-being.

Institutional infrastructure is referred to as the set norms, institutions, constitutional

provisions and procedures that are linked to the institutional/regulatory framework of any

country. Material infrastructure is identified to comprise two attributes: fulfillment of

social needs and economic necessity, and mass production. Although infrastructure is a

standard definition of infrastructure does not exist. Grimsey and Lewis (2022) say that

infrastructure is easier to identify than describe. The World Development Report (2021)

considers infrastructure as an \umbrella" for several activities. After reviewing myriad

opinions and definitions given by authors, economists and planners, it can be concluded

that infrastructure broadly covers roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, harbors, airports,

tramways, subways, irrigation, networks, dams and canals, water pipelines, water

purification and treatment, plants, potable water supply, power lines, power plants, power

distribution networks, oil and gas pipelines, sanitation and sewage facilities, health and

housing services, urban services, communications and telecommunication.

Infrastructure is classified into sub-groups, depending on the issue of interest. The

division is between economic infrastructure and social infrastructure, and economic

infrastructure includes structures such as roads, railways, port facilities, power facilities

and telecommunications networks, while social infrastructure includes facilities such as

educational institutions, hospitals, justice facilities and community facilities (Shanks &

Barnes, 2018). Infrastructure establishes for long haul development by propelling

production and transportation of the material to the production sites and markets, more

employment opportunities and safety for the citizens. Financing levels miss the mark

concerning the future infrastructure investment expectations, and without government

budget allotments.

Trend of Infrastructural Development

The World Economic Forum’s Positive Infrastructure Report (World Bank, 2022)

discovered that the world would have infrastructure deficit of US$20 billion per annum

over the next two decades. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD, 2021) estimated that additional investment of US$71 trillion

would be required in the infrastructure during 2010–2030. The McKinsey Global Institute

(2018) projected a total infrastructure outlay requirement till 2030, to be between

US$570 billion to US$670 billion. According to McKinsey Global Institute (2018), the

projected portion of infrastructure funding in GDP must be increased approximately from

3.8 per cent to 5.6 per cent in 2020 worldwide.

The European Commission (2018) estimated that, by 2020, it would be essential for

Europe to invest EUR 1.5–2 trillion in its infrastructure. The American Society of Civil

Engineers (2018) quantified an investment gap of US$17 billion in the total infrastructure
and assessed requirement for added capital outlay of about US$36 billion by 2020. While

the advanced economies need to invest to sustain their old power, transport, telecom

networks and water, the emergent nations have bigger difficulty of setting up the

elementary infrastructure. Hence, in the emerging economies, the requirement for

infrastructure investment is much more prominent. G20 recommended that emerging

nations would have to invest additional US$10 billion per annum up to 2020 to meet the

demands of increasing urbanization and cope up with global integration (Ehlersn, 2014;

G20, 2013). According to McKinsey Global Institute (2018) and OECD (2021) from

2008 to 2017, expenditure on infrastructure would be US$90 billion in China, US$27

billion in India, US$20 billion in Russia and US$10 billion in Brazil. Budget estimates to

sustain the available infrastructures has been on the increase as at 1977-1986 and 1997-

2006. Transport and Communication infrastructure grew from a negative 1.84% to 79.6%

and declined sharply to 7.03% during 2007-2014. During the same period, education,

health, construction and water infrastructure grew from 8.78%, 11.1%, 18.8% and 38% to

33.1%, 44.1%, 57.1% and 73.2% respectively. Between2007-2014, the growth of

education, health, construction and water infrastructure stood at 13.3% and 4.96%

respectively.

Classes of Infrastructure

Infrastructure is classified in the following categories:

a) Communication infrastructure: to include air fields, roads, railways,

telecommunications, water ways and the posts. These assure interaction between persons

in fulfillment of mutual endeavors.

b) Health infrastructure: to include hospitals, clinics and training institutions for health

personnel.

c) Technological infrastructure: including research institutes, design and fabrication

studios and workshops. These must be virile for the community in question to be able to

possess its own indigenous technology without depending entirely on outsiders for

sustenance.

d) Educational infrastructure: including educational institution and facilities at all

levels, libraries, printing presses and bookshops. This set of infrastructures must

intimately relate to and able to use all available technological infrastructure. Any

educational system that is not designed to develop, maintain and use all available

infrastructural facilities cannot but produce robots.

e) Social infrastructure: including recreational facilities, playgrounds, sports facilities,

parks, nature gardens, cinemas and theatres.

f) Religious infrastructure: including place of worship, shrines etc.

g) Judicial infrastructure, including court halls, offices and libraries.

h) Sewage and sewerage infrastructure, including facilities for the disposal of soil and

solid waste and the subsequent treatment of these. How well this is handled determines

how healthy the environment is. No man happily lives with his own waste.

i) Agricultural infrastructure, including irrigation and storage facilities.

j) Power or Energy infrastructure, including facilities for generation, storage and

distribution of various types of power.

k) Industrial infrastructure, including industrial layouts, with adequate services and a

good package of legal and tax incentives.

l) Economic infrastructure, including banking facilities, stock exchange, Labour

exchange, entrepreneurial and man power development facilities etc. A strong economic

base is a sine qua non for the urban center.

m) Housing infrastructure, including housing estates, staff quarters and all sorts of

residential accommodations.

Infrastructural in Nigeria

Nigeria has the potential to house a large number of the world's investments, but due to

poor state of infrastructure development, this potential could not be showcased to a

greater height. The deplorable state of infrastructures and poor state of repairs and

maintenance are evident on electricity, roads, railways and water facilities. As rightly

submitted by Ijaiya and Akanbi (2019), these could result into: low productivity growth,

low income growth, low savings, low level of industrial development and ultimately end
up as vicious cycle of poverty. Infrastructure deficit have decimated Nigeria's growth

potentials and made doing business very difficult and restrictive. For Nigeria to realize its

growth potentials, a fully structured and sustainable infrastructure development policy is

desirable. Infrastructure development and management constitute the critical area which

requires efficient developments that the society heavily relies upon and this would

provide a good yardstick of measuring socio-economic development.

The growth process in Nigeria can be ascertained through the quality of infrastructures

supporting it. Infrastructures could be financed through domestic savings or foreign direct

investment (Sahoo et al, 2018). The bulk of infrastructure financing in Nigeria comes

from direct budget investment from fiscal resources, borrowing and market-based

financing. A large number of urban infrastructures in Nigeria were financed through

direct budget expenditures from the three layers of government (Central, State and

Governments). However, the dimension of finance differs due to constitutional

limitations. Infrastructure development remains grossly inadequate relative to the nation's

requirements due to lack of funds. Revenue inflows from taxation and other income

generating activities have been quiet epileptic and inadequate to address the question of

bourgeoning infrastructural needs in Nigeria. There appears to be a financing gap from

direct budgetary spending on infrastructure. This gap can be filled by borrowing and

market-based financing. To address this challenge, the Central Bank of Nigeria

established the infrastructure finance office to come up with a sustainable financing

framework to stimulate long-term financing for infrastructure development (CBN, 2021).

In Nigeria, Gbadegesin and Aluko (2018) and Enefola (2019) found inadequate

infrastructure in Nigeria’s educational sector because of poor funding. The author

discovered that from 1999 to 2014, the budgetary allocations were far below the

recommended 26% benchmark by UNESCO. In 2019 and 2021, the budgetary allocation

was 7.02% (Amoo, 2018) and 5.6% (Olufemi, 2020). Enefola (2019) suggested that

higher institutions should look inwards to generate income either commercially or

through public private partnerships to fund infrastructure. The author’s recommendation

may deprive the children of the poor that are intelligent from higher educational

qualifications. This is because either of the options will lead to a hike in tuition fees.

Wentworth and Makokera (2019) asserted that an estimated US$66 billion is needed

annually for African nations, including Nigeria, for infrastructure development.

Accessing this fund from international partners, alliances with development finance

institutions, and private investors may be difficult, especially in Nigeria, because of

evidence of disregard for some previous concession projects (Elebiju and Ilesanmi,

2020). Bolomope et al. (2021) found that the popular PPP is not free from weak project

viability, inadequate capacity to manage the project, inconsistent government policies,

lacunas in the legal framework, and low capital base by local financial institutions,

among others.

Despite government's spending on the provision of infrastructures in Nigeria, the

contributions of the existing ones are far from raising the quality of growth. Evidence

show that education, transport, health, electricity and water contributed insignificantly to
growth in Nigeria. Between 1970-1979, the contribution of education, transport, health,

electricity and water stood at 1.49%, 3.01%, 0.52%, 0.43% and 0.07% respectively. This

fell to 0.22%, 2.58%, 0.06%, 0.21% and 0.01% during the period 2000-2009. During

period 2010-2014, the contributions of these infrastructures to growth was not sustained

as it fell to 0.15%, 1.84%, 0.04%, 0.18% and 0.01% respectively. This indicates gross

deficits in infrastructure finance required to catalyzed growth. During the same period,

telecommunication infrastructure recorded massive improvement due to positive

globalization externality.

Infrastructure development is not at an optimal level in Africa, especially in Nigeria.

Indeed, governments and their various development partners recognize the colossal

infrastructure gap and its resultant adverse impact on development efforts in economic

sectors. The huge infrastructure gap speaks to unexploited productive potential, which

could be tapped by upping infrastructure investments. The poor state of infrastructure has

bought lost to growth and development opportunities in region. The setbacks may be

redressing through adequate development of the infrastructure development. Given those

observations, the vital challenges that have resulted in deficiencies in infrastructure is

financing and the management of resource for the development. And given the associated

externalities, researchers must assess the strategic options available, taking into

consideration the interplay among productive infrastructure underpinning the national

economy, urban infrastructure, and rural infrastructure (Foster and Briceño-Garmendia

2020).
For a developing country like Nigeria, with a massive deficit in infrastructure across the

various sectors, including the educational sector, the contributing role of the business

community to the industry that trains its employees becomes inevitable (Amodu, 2018;

Raimi, 2018; Rendtorff, 2019). Nigeria is unfortunately no exception. Although we are

currently investing around 7% of GDP on infrastructure, which is above the average for

sub-Saharan Africa, research has shown the need to increase this figure to at least 12% of

GDP. The current level of infrastructure deficit in the country is perhaps the major

constraint towards achieving the national vision of becoming one of the 20 largest

economies by 2020. Approximately 70 per cent of the 193,000km of roads in the country

are in a poor condition, whilst only 20 per cent are paved. According to enterprise

surveys, the power outages the nation experiences amount to over 320 lost days a year,

with over 60 per cent of the population lacking access to electricity. At the same time,

over $13 billion is spent annually to fuel generators. A country, which once had one of

the most extensive railway systems in Africa, can barely boast of a functional route either

for passengers or freight today. These conditions are unacceptable and pose a significant

threat to the growth of the Nigerian economy (Sanusi, 2018).

Over the years, managing and maintaining these facilities has become a challenge to

many governments with limited resources. In an attempt to proffer a solution to this

challenge, concession came in as an option. This is an understanding involving the

governments and public sector investors. Elebiju and Ilesanmi (2020) avowed that this

model became popular and welcomed by governments in many developing nations

because the investors provided the financing model against the government in the

conventional approach.

Governments are accountable for ensuring access to basic infrastructure facilities for their

citizens. The governments of many developing nations cannot tackle the infrastructure

backlogs over the years (Wentworth and Makokera, 2018). The slow economic growth of

Nigeria’s economy may have been affected by the weak education and worsened by

inadequate infrastructure.

2.1.3. Involvement 0f Financial Management in Infrastructural Development

The way in which public authorities manage public spending on infrastructure through

budget processes and institutions is known as the concept of Public Financial

Management (PFM). This notion of governance in public spending can be summarized as

the procedures, established by law or regulation, for the management of public monies

through the budget process, which includes formulation, execution, reporting and

analysis (Potter and Diamond, 2018, in Prakash and Cabezon, 2018; Lienert and

Fainboim, 2019). Good public financial governance is achieved when these procedures

result in responsive public services through public spending that is affordable, transparent

and accountable, and which funds government priorities without wastage or corruption

(CABRI, 2020). It has to develop policies that will make the process effective and the

policy making process for infrastructure consists of four phases:

1.Planning and prioritization;

2. Execution;

3. Operation and maintenance;

4.Monitoring and evaluation.

The first section of the report focuses on the planning and prioritization stage. This stage

encompasses the budgetary process that will decide the allocation of resources to specific

priorities. A first sub-section covers the process of selection with an emphasis on

appraisal and the notion of value for money in infrastructure investments. The second

sub-section presents the notion of prioritization in infrastructure spending first in a

general way and then by opposing regional/sectorial targets versus national objectives

and development plans.

The project planning phase is usually the most challenging (OECD, 2021). The

effectiveness of infrastructure investment requires a careful selection of projects based on

a rigorous appraisal. This complex and recurrent process aims at providing a

comprehensive assessment of the investment (OECD, 2021). Appraisal should ideally

cover several criteria to assess both the desirability of the infrastructure investment

(“Should it be done?”) and its feasibility (“Can it be done?”). The set of criteria includes

the technical, financial, economic, social, institutional, environmental and political

aspects of the project (CABRI, 2010) and a challenge for decision makers due to the

profusion of information needed to conduct a rigorous approach (CABRI, 2020).

The prioritization of projects is part of the planning phase and forms the premise of the

policy-making process in infrastructure. A better consistency of budget

preparation/authorization with development priorities could ensure higher outcomes

(Dabla-Norris et al., 2019). The main constraint related to Prioritization is that it is a

fundamentally a political process (World Bank, 2022). This reaffirms the need for a

careful and rigorous selection and appraisal of infrastructure projects, consistent with the

resource implications over the life of the policy. This will ensure that the prioritization of

infrastructure investments is actually based on objective and measurable benefits for the

economy that match available resources.

Multi-year budgeting and planning; The time horizon of public finances is more extended

than the fiscal year in which the decisions are made (CABRI, 2020). This is typically the

case for infrastructure projects the lifetime of which may lie between 1 or 2 years and 20

years. Budgeting infrastructure spending over several years is thus crucial to follow the

life cycle of the project. But multi-year planning also requires ensuring the respect of

fiscal discipline based on the yearly budget process and other medium-term resources

while at the same time financing objectives defined on a longer time basis (World Bank,

2022).

The first section of the report focuses on the planning and prioritization stage. This stage

encompasses the budgetary process that will decide the allocation of resources to specific

priorities, after the selection of projects. A first sub-section covers the process of

selection with an emphasis on appraisal and the notion of value for money in
infrastructure investments. The second sub-section presents the notion of prioritization in

infrastructure spending first in a general way and then by opposing regional/sectorial

targets versus national objectives and development plans. In conclusion the third sub-

section defines the role of multi-year budgeting and planning in infrastructure

2.1.4. Role of Financial Management in Infrastructural Development

The role of financial management in infrastructural development is to develop a set of

high quality, understandable and usable financial information about government financial

positions. The resulting financial statements are likely to be useful for preparing tax

returns or determining distributable income only after adjustments to reflect local laws.

Proper financial management plays an essential role in helping developing infrastructure

in plateau state. A good financial management system should ensure the following

qualitative characteristics are met: understandability, relevance, materiality, reliability,

and substance over form, prudence, completeness, comparability, timeliness and a

balance between benefit and cost.

Steps to financial management in Infrastructural development

In order to achieve prudent and sound financial management in infrastructural

development and according to CABRI (2020), the financial adviser needs to:

1. Determine the financial objectives for infrastructural development

2. Outline the plans of action and select the policies for achieving these objectives
3. Carryout financial plans, input these in the government overall plans in infrastructural

development.

4. Compare the actual with plans; evaluate any form of variances from the plans.

5. Establish causes of variances.

6. Review process/plan and redesign/revise the objectives where necessary.

Financial management issues in respect of transparency, accountability, consistency,

integrity, economy and value for money decision. In respect of financial reporting,

financial management ensures that reports are not only timely and reliable but also a

useful document for decision making by the various interest groups or stakeholders.

Financial management decision in infrastructural development

There is need to match expenditure with revenue, this is one principle of financial

management. Money plays a vital role in the management of an organization or

government inclusive of Finance is the lifeblood of any organization. In government,

financial management decision function can be broken down into three major areas of

investment decision, financing decision and efficiency/value for money decision

(efficiency divided). This is called the triangle of financial decision in public sector and

are discussed:

Investment decision – this involves the judicious utilization of financial resources on

existing viable opportunity, with a view of earning good returns to the provider of fund or

resources (Hassan, 2010). In government, investment decision result from the utilization
of (a) internally generated revenue and statutory allocation to finance projects (b)

probably fund raised through loans or bonds from the money and capital market to

finance projects and infrastructural developments. Investment decision on viable projects

is arrived at after due project evaluation. This evaluation is not only based on financial

benefits but also on the economic, social and sustainable benefits to the citizens.

Investment decision making is a core managerial function by the executive committee of

the government. In public sector, the most prominent investment evaluation techniques

are the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). CBA determined the viability of public sector

projects in terms of multitude of benefits derivable from the project with the associated

cost and along with externalities assessment. It is designed to assess economic viability of

projects from the view point of the citizens and the society. It enhanced project appraisal

in public sector with proper investment planning, communal policy and development

policy being evaluated.

Financing decision – Government financing decision focus is on the traditional taxing

power to generate revenue and the collection of statutory allocation. Government in

Nigeria has three sources of revenue, these are external, internally generated revenue and

loan. The Nigeria 1999 constitution section 162 (10) defines revenue as any income or

returns accruing to or derived by the government from any source and includes: any

receipt however described arising from the operation of any law; any receipt however

described from or in respect of any property held by the government; and any returns by
way of interest on loans and dividends in respect of shares or interest held by government

in any company or statutory body.

Efficiency/ Value for money decision- measuring performance in public sector is a

necessity, it is to ensure transparency, accountability and value for money in respect of

public decision on the use of public funds, and effective performance at all levels of

governance. Information on public sector performance is to enhance public interest and

confidence on governance and opportunity for the government manager to assess their

own performance and outputs. Performance measurement in the public sectors takes

account of economy (whether specific inputs are acquired at the least cost and at

appropriate time), efficiency (how productive inputs are translated into outputs),

effectiveness (how output achieve the desired outcomes), quality of service and financial

performance. Efficiency involves the relationship between the inputs and outputs, it is a

vital factor that promote performance in public sector. It measures the citizens returns on

the resources (taxes) invested in governance, it is based on the comprehensive assessment

of outcomes and its longer-term impacts on the citizens, communities and the nation at

large. Citizens’ expectation of public services performances dictates their level of

satisfaction with the government and with its goods and services (James, 2009; Poister &

Thomas, 2011).

Challenges of Financial Management in Infrastructural Development

Several challenges are responsible for the present state of infrastructure in Nigeria. These

include, poor funding, poor governance, corruption and economic sabotage, poor
maintenance culture, population explosion, neglect of urban and regional planning, etc.

These factors are subsequently discussed.

Funding: Funding has become a major challenge to infrastructural development in

Nigeria for decades. As the country’s population soars, demand for additional

infrastructure in all sectors also increases. Unfortunately, the government resources can

hardly meet the increasing demand. Consequently, government has relied on foreign

loans to complement budgetary allocations in the provision of infrastructure. This

situation has led to the country’s indebtedness over the years. At the inception of the

fourth republic in 1999, Nigeria’s foreign debt profile was over $40bn. Although, the

country received debt pardon from her creditors and recorded a zero-debt profile about

five years ago, again, the country has been plunged into debt largely because of need to

develop infrastructure in critical sectors of the economy.

Population Explosion: Nigeria’s population is now 167million and growing at 3.2% per

annum. The physical and social infrastructure required to support this huge population is

enormous and requires huge funding. The huge population which is more than 50% urban

has placed undue pressure on existing infrastructure and on governments’ budgets over

the years. Thus, the infrastructure base is grossly inadequate and suffered from deferred

maintenance. Besides, Nigerian government has failed over time to integrate population

policy with overall development planning

Poor Governance: Apart from poor funding, poor system of governance in the country is

largely responsible for the poor state of infrastructure in all sectors. To realize the 2020
vision, the country’s economy was expected to grow at 14% per annum; but current data

show that the economy is growing at 7%. The low GDP growth is largely due to

inefficient allocation and poor management of the country’s human and natural resources

(The Punch, 2011). Also, the current system of governance in Nigeria has truncated

infrastructural development at the grassroots. Section 7 of the 1999 constitution

empowers states House of Assemblies to make laws for the operations of the Government

Councils. Consequently, this provision gave the state governments opportunities to

control the finance of the Governments, therefore, many Governments across the country

today lacks freedom and financial strength to embark on any infrastructural development

project that can serve as catalyst for economic growth and propel economic

empowerment among the people in the grassroots.

Corruption and Economic: Sabotage Corruption has become a major socio-economic

problem in Nigeria with negative effects on infrastructural development. Embezzlement

of funds allocated for infrastructural development is a common feature in public offices.

Also, many projects for which funds have been allocated and released were never

completed while inflation of project costs is a common experience. The case of

abandoned projects is common because civil servants in charge of such projects collect

bribe from contractors and this either results in sub-standard jobs or abandonment.

According Transparency International Report on Bribe Tax Payers Index for 2011,

Nigerian civil servants received $3bn bribes in 2010. Indeed, the private companies were

also said to be involved in such economic crimes (Saturday Punch, 2011).

Besides corruption, economic sabotage through vandalization of public facilities has

impacted negatively on the nation’s economy. Vandals’ activities are regularly observed

with oil pipelines and power transmission lines. In the same vein, the plundering of the

country’s gas resources due to the failure of foreign oil companies to invest in

infrastructure to utilize natural gas is an act of economic sabotage and needs to be

checked. Gas flaring not only wastes a potentially valuable source of energy; it also adds

significant carbon emissions to the atmosphere. As long as the country intends to be

among the 20 top economies in the next nine years, the country cannot afford to be

wasteful.

Overcoming the infrastructure bottleneck would boost long-term economic growth.

Infrastructure is an input to a wide range of industries and, as such, an important driver of

long-term growth. At the same time, delays in the realization of infrastructure projects

pose potentially large economic and social costs. And those projects which are realized

are sometimes badly designed and cannot deliver the expected performance. In some

emerging markets, the lack of well-performing infrastructure holds back economic

development. But also, in advanced economies, a lack of investment in well-designed

transport, renewable energy, and social infrastructure is becoming more evident.

The challenges of infrastructure development in Nigeria according to Oyedele, (2012)

are:

- Dearth of Visionary Leaders: Visionary leaders are the builders of a new dawn, working

with imagination, insight, and boldness. They present a challenge that calls forth the best
in people and brings them together around a shared sense of purpose. Visionary leaders

are change agents. Nigeria contains few change agents and therefore lacks the needed

infrastructure to develop the nation.

- Demand and supply: Due to poor performances of most past leaders in the area of

infrastructure provision, the agitation for infrastructure development overwhelms the

provision. With a land mass of 9,110,000 square kilometers of land and over 150,000

million people, Nigeria has a total road network of 193,200KM. This comprise of

34,123KM federal roads, 30,500KM state roads and 129,577 KM local government

roads. Unfortunately, over 70% of the federal roads are in bad state of repair. In the area

of housing, Nigeria requires about 17 million housing units and 60 trillion naira in order

to meet its housing needs.

- Development Matrix: The four requirements of any physical infrastructure projects are:

design, finance, technology and management. The appropriate designs that will ensure

value for money are not adopted. The finance is not adequate, is procured at high interest

rates and financial management is lacked by most Nigerian contractors. The technology

of construction is scarce and the management of infrastructure is lacking. The

maintenance culture of Nigerians is poor thereby allowing most projects to decay.

- Capital Flight, Capital Sink and Capital Stagnancy: Infrastructure development projects

in Nigeria suffer from capital flight, capital sink and capital stagnancy. A lot of materials

and managerial services are procured outside the country. The contracts are full of loop-

holes that allow leakages of funds. In some cases, there are over-design for the designers
to earn more professional fees which are percentage of the contract sum. Capital

stagnancy due to abandoned projects are also rampant.

- Project Management: Project management approach in project delivery evolved in the

late fifties in the United States of America (USA) when it was first used by the American

Army for military projects execution. The success recorded through project management

approach in the Defense sector led to its establishment as a reliable method of project

delivery in other sectors like construction, manufacturing, health Information Technology

(IT), media, pharmaceutical, education and entertainment (Oyedele, 2012). The approach

was introduced into United Kingdom (UK) in the early sixties. Countries like Hong

Kong, Malaysia, Canada and Ireland have adopted this approach, but it is still unpopular

in developing countries, especially in Nigeria. Risk management is necessary for all

Nigerian projects.

- Procurement Method: The procurement methods being adopted are prone to criticisms.

The Public Finance Initiatives, especially the Concession Method and Public/Private

Partnership (PPP) are questionable and seems to mortgage others who are not part of the

arrangement to the scheme’s future. The 105-kilometre Lagos-Ibadan Expressway which,

under the PPP scheme, the federal government did concession to Bi-Courtney

Consortium in 2009 for N89.53 billion for 25 years is not the best arrangement possible

and has not change the situation of the road.

- Corruption: Corruption does not only raise the price of infrastructure, it can also reduce

the quality of, and economic returns from, infrastructure investment. The corruption in
Nigeria is very high and unbearable for effective infrastructural development. The Bureau

of Public Procurement (BPP), the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and

Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have not been able to eradicate

corruption in the country. The BPP has saved the country a whopping sum of N216.6

billion during the 2010 Appropriation year from its review of contract processes before

the issuance of Certificate of No Objection.

The challenges are numerous and include finance, technology for development,

maintenance and design. The challenges also include international requirements of

project to be sustainably developed.

2.1. Theoretical Framework

System theory was propounded by David Easton in 1965. He posits that system theory

emphasizes a set of model inter-relationships which involves mutual interactions, and a

high degree of connections among the members of a system. The theory is hinged on the

notion that elements within a group are inter-related to each other and likewise interact

with one another based on specific known processes. The theory establishes mutual

relationships between the elements in a system, therefore, “a holistic, organized unit of

interdependent, transacting and mutually influencing parts (individuals or collectives and

their sub-units) within an identifiable (socio-ecological) environment (Siporin, 1975).

System theory is an interdisciplinary theory which encompasses every system in nature,

in scientific domain and in society and also a framework used to investigate phenomena

as a whole (Capra, 1997). Some researchers recognized system theory that organizations
are made up of complex social systems and an attempt to separate the parts from the

whole lead to reduction in the overall effectiveness of the organization (Schein, 1980).

The theory is used in this research work to show how the financial management practices

of budgeting, accounting and reporting system, internal control system, public

procurement laws and external audit and oversight work as a system to make sure that

public funds are utilized efficiently and effectively to provide services to the populace in

a country. Financial management system comprises of major sub-components referred to

as planning and budgeting, collection of revenue, accounting, auditing, and governance

(Broback&Sjolander, 2020). The sub-components are viewed as a system of connected

elements that development of one sub-component relies and conditioned on the other

components state if the objectives of development are to be met by the government

(Andersen &Isaksen, 2018). The PFM sub-components (budgeting, accounting and

reporting system, internal control system, public procurement laws and external audit and

oversight) are very important and needs to be enhanced in achieving development

objectives. Thus, the sub-components in this study were used to examine how PFMS can

influence one another and also influence infrastructural development in Nigeria. The

theory revealed the interactions and the relationships which exist between the

government officials that manage public funds in order to understand government

organization, functioning and outcomes.

2.2. Empirical Review

Prior studies on role of Financial Management on Infrastructural Development are

limited (Bariu, 2020; Bahrini, &Qaffas, 2019; Pradhan, Mallik, &Bagchi, 2018; Bankole,

&Mimbi, 2017). This current study will provide literature on the subject matter and

becomes the basis for future studies, and will empirically analyze the role of Financial

Management on some few infrastructures in Nigeria.

ICT infrastructure causes a boost in the per capita GDP; to improve economic

growth of a nation, ICT infrastructure need to be upgraded and expanded giving specific

audience to broadband adoption and internet users (Pradhan &Bagchi, 2018). The

developing nations did view the industry growth of domestic ICT infrastructure as a

means of achieving effective related development goals, which includes: attracting

foreign direct investments, satisfying the demands for ICTs in the local market, provide

basis for transfer of technologies, and the generation of continuous growth in the

marketing and financial services (upstream and downstream) (Tolica, Sevrani&Gorica,

2015). Africans are advised to invest in ambitious programs like integrated ICT

infrastructure and satellites (Gabreab, 2020), The Infrastructure Consortium for Africa

(ICA) also reported that “ICTs infrastructure are transformational drivers of both

economic and social progress; they have the potential to make Africa a better place, and

to greatly improve the lives of Africa’s people; the growth of mobile telephony across

Africa has been a notable success story, leading to improvement in the lives of Africa’s

people, both urban and rural; however, 75% of the population of Africa are still offline,

denied access to the wealth and breadth of knowledge, information and services that the
internet can bring; access to the internet can play an important role, advancing skills and

capabilities, and increasing awareness, but only 15% of households in Africa have

internet access”. Increase in the usage of ICT infrastructure enhances productivity and

innovations, technical efficiency and scarce resources allocation (Bankole, Osei-Bryson

& Brown, 2021). Ngwenyama, Andoh-Baidoo, and Morawczynski (2019) asserted that

there exists a positive relationship between ICT investments and education and health

sectors and performance on the human development index in some of the Sub-Saharan

Africa countries. This study will help to guide the Nigeria government on how to monitor

spending on ICT infrastructure in order to produce efficient results.

The energy sector which has continue to receive undue castrated ovation and

propaganda in Nigeria as one Government come and go. According to Mahdi (2021) the

most spectacular failure of successive Nigeria Governments from 1966 to date, which

actually boarders on criminality has been in the field of energy and power supply. The

failure reached its peak to date … if there was an area which needed concentration, which

in fact requires the declaration of a state of emergency in the country, should be in the

area of provision of power. In line with the Mahdi’s view, Olayemi Akinwumi and

Patrick Ukase writing on the failure of electricity supply noted that “the electricity

demand in Nigeria far outstrips the supply and the supply is annoyingly epileptic in

nature: a development which is hindering the nation’s development notwithstanding the

enormous vast natural resources in the country”. The situation of power supply has

degenerated so much in Nigeria that one can hardly boast of availability of power for six
hours uninterrupted supply in a day. This can be dangerous and expensive for industries

and domestic users. The effect is enormous. Mahdi 2021 also noted that “it is obviously

impossible and unthinkable that investors would contemplate on investing in Nigeria

when the country has been for most of the time in total black out”. There is no doubt that

many industries folded principally as a result of poor power supply and the high cost of

operating with private generator and plant. The annoying thing about this epileptic power

is that the people are suffering in the mist of plenty. There is no doubt that Nigeria is

blessed with natural resources which included energy. The nation had a proven reserve of

25 billion barrels of crude oil in 1999. This increased substantially to 34.5 billion barrels

in 2004. Sambo (2018) projected that Nigeria’s oil reserve will reach 68 billion barrels by

2030.

The state of agriculture in Nigeria since independence has not only been reduced

to a sorry state but has also been neglected to a decimated state with people engaging in

agriculture as a major source of livelihood seen as local people. The truth is that

agricultural infrastructure especially those considered as British colonial legacies have

been left to dilapidation and decay. The famous groundnut pyramid of the North, cocoa

farms of the West and palm oil trade of the East are now issuing of history. Since the

departure of the colonial government, different successive government in Nigeria has

come up with one high sounding programme in agriculture or the other. There was the

operation feed the nation (OFN) that was famous during the military regime of General

Olusegun Obasanjo, which yielded no result. There was the popular Directorate for Food,
Road and Rural Infrastructure of the General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida government

which was very successful only in mounting of sign post all over the nooks and cranny of

Nigerian territory. Others included the numerous none productive River Basin

Authorities, the failed People’s Banks of Nigeria, the never do well Nigeria Agricultural

Banks, Better Life for Rural Women which the wife of president Ibrahim Babangida used

to project her image. In spite of all these organs, the colonial agricultural legacies were

left to decay and nothing was used to replace them. For instance, the famous Marketing

Boards across the country which were used to coordinate and regulate the prices of

agricultural products were closed down. The famous Shika Government Stock Farm

which served as a British Colonial Government Department of Agriculture was turned to

Archives. As Abubarkar Zaria (2021) noted, in 1928, three sub –stations (of Department

of Agriculture of Northern Province) were established and located at Kano, Mokwa and

Shika-Zaria. The Shika substation was established as Government Stock Farm with the

facilities for research on cattle breeding and management… however, the Nigeria

political class failed to sustain this and other agricultural inclined legacies. Thus, since

independence the agricultural infrastructure has been on the decline especially after the

oil boom of the 1970’s. The objective of the establishment of Shika Government Stock

Farm according to Archival report was essentially for “the improvement of the cattle of

Nigeria”. There is no doubt that if the objective was sustained after the departure of

British Colonial Government, Nigerians will be earning high dividend from cattle export.

Today the state of Shika Stock Farm is better imagined. National Archives Kaduna report

revealed that after the establishment of Shika farm in 1928, the farm started to produce
working bulls to other Europeans and British farm centers in Northern Nigeria. It noted

that British farm centers located at Kano, Gusua, Maigana, Sokoto, Bauchi and Mokwa

benefited from the working bulls produced at Shika Government Stock Farm.

The assertion by Ibrahim Waziri Abubarkar (2019) will serve as a good beginning

in over viewing the state of health service in Nigeria. He contends that, Nigeria’s health

sector has been performing below expectation for so long despite the billions of naira

spent for it. Policies have been produced, refined, panel beaten and changed: agencies

have been created to focus specific health matters: all sorts of foreign aids and assistance

have been into the country for several decades, yet Nigerians still die of health conditions

and diseases that are easily preventable. The obvious truth is that cost of assessing

medical services is very high, and in most cases are affordable to the majority of the

populace. Only few percentages of Nigeria can afford to travel to Overseas for a better

treatment especially for such ailment that may not be treated well in Nigeria or not treated

at all. Problems like heart transplant, kidney and liver problems and some other

complicated ailments may cost over two million naira to treat in India, Pakistan, United

States. The cost is above the total earnings of an average Nigeria civil servant for five

years, assuming he decided not to spend one naira out of his entire earnings. The cost

does not include, transport fare, feeding and accommodation of the sick and his attendant.

The alternative to this high cost is that people resorted to the patronage of quark doctors

and other alternative medical solutions. A victim of heart problem Josephat

Chukwukadibe, on interview revealed that his condition worsened when he was told what
it will cost him to travel abroad for medical solution. He said that his blood pressure rose

to abnormal because, all through his twenty years as a civil servant, he has not been able

to save such amount. He wondered why the government should not take care of people

who are in such condition when the medical solution could not be affordable and in most

cases not available in Nigeria. It is true that the federal government has come up with the

National Health Insurance Service Scheme. This is beneficial and applicable mainly to

the civil servants who are still finding it difficult due to the associated deductions from

their meager salary after other deductions including taxes. Hardly could the National

Insurance Scheme be assessed by the rural dwellers. T. Pearce (2021) noted that “from

colonial period, the pattern of medical care delivery and infrastructural provision favored

the Urban population in particular at the expense and detriment of the rural settlers”. It

should be noted that, most of the medical centers located in the rural areas were built by

the Christian missionaries who were largely for evangelism. According to Ademiluyi and

Aluko (2017) “these medical centers in the real sense were merely mobile clinics and at

most communities’ dispensaries or outposts to treat primary health problems such as

snake bite and minor injuries”.

The state of education in Nigeria could be best described as unhealthy and below

standard. This is so because education standard is fast dropping on daily bases. A

situation where a West African Certificate holder may not be able to express himself well

is not good enough and it is not encouraging especially when compared with a standard

six certificate holder in the 1960’s and 1970’s. According to Benjamin Chuka Osisioma,
(2012) “way back in the 1970’s the quality of education was a thing of pride for the black

race and a standard for the rest of African continent. We were then the envy of many

developed and developing nations”. That was when education was given adequate

attention by both the government, the parent and the students but this glory lost as a result

of neglect, corruption and mismanagement. Osisioma regrets that, “three decades of

diligent mismanagement and less than expert tinkering by military and non-military

hands have reduced Nigerian education to a shadow of its glorious past”. He noted that

the issue of falling standard of education is not questionable as such discussions should

be regarded as a mere debate. In his words “public figures have often indulged

themselves at different times in the academic debate of whether or not the standard of

education has fallen in Nigeria today. We call it a mere debate because every teacher in

Nigeria today knows fully well that educational standards have plummeted perhaps to

their lowest since the 1950’s. That both federal and state governments have not been

paying adequate attention to education is not in doubt. The manifestation is clear because

the constant face-off between the Government and the Academic Staff Union of the

Universities (ASUU) as well as their counterparts in the Polytechnics and Colleges of

Education. On 17th July 2013, Sun News Online reported that Academic Union of

Polytechnics (ASUP) has suspended its nationwide strike following the progress it has

made in its negotiation with the Government and the intervention of the Joint Senates and

House of Representative committee on education… the suspension of the strike was to

enable the joint committee liaise with relevant ministries, agencies and parastatal with a

view to tackling the issues contained in the Union’s demand within one month as against
the two weeks requested by the union. This temporary agreement or suspension took

place after four months of wasted time by lecturers and students. Four months of idleness

and wondering about by students. The suspension came even as the University lecturers

(ASUU) are on strike over non-implementation of Federal Government and (ASUU)

2009 agreement. Still on strike, Sun News Online on 16th of July 2013 reported that the

committee of Pro Chancellors of federal universities on Monday express concern over the

ongoing strike embarked upon by academic staff union of universities and called for its

immediate resolution… the strike by ASUU has lingered because of the non-

implementation of 2009 agreement between the Federal Government and ASUU.

References:

World Economic Forum (2018), African strategic infrastructure: Managing transnational

infrastructure programmes in Africa – challenges and best practices, The World
Economic Forum, Geneva.

CABRI (2021), Ensuring Value for Money in Infrastructure in Africa – Report 1: The
Appraisal of Infrastructure Projects, Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative.

OECD (2021), Manila Consensus on Public Financial Management: Partnering to Strengthen

Public Financial Management for Effective States, OECD, Paris,
 www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/48780763.pdf.

UNCTAD (2021), The Least Developed Countries Report 2009: The State and Development
Governance, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2009.

Ijaiya,G.T and Akanbi,S.B.(2019). An Empirical Analysis of the Long-run Effect of

Infrastructure on Industrialization in Nigeria. Journal of International Economic
Review, 2: 1-2.Pp 135-149.

Akinsulire (2019), Financial Management. 10th Edition. Ceemol Nigeria Ltd, Abuja
Augustine (2020), Public Private Partnership in emerging Economies. 1st Edition.
Routledge. Lagos

Alkhyeli et al. (2021). Infrastructural Development and Economic Growth in Nigeria:

Using Simultaneous Equation. Journal of Economics, 5(3), pp. 325-332.

Al Breiki & Nobanee, (2019). Infrastructure Development and Economic Growth in

Nigeria. IDE Discussion Paper No. 261.

Nwezeaku (2018), Infrastructure Development and Economic Growth: Prospects and

Perspective. Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences Research (JBM
& SSR), Vol. 2, No. 1. ISSN No.:2319-5614.

Torrisi (2019). Understanding the Ghanaian Telecom Reform: An Institutional Theory

Perspective. 21st European Regional International Telecommunications Society
(ITS) Conference, Copenhagen.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2013).

Development Co-operation Report 2013: Ending Poverty, Paris.

Gbadegesin and Aluko (2018). Conceptual paradigm and rethinking project finance
strategy for highway projects financing in Ghana. PentVars Business Journal, 3(3):
85–93.

Almansoori et al. (2021). Infrastructure and development. In Annual World Bank

Conference on Development Economics, 153-181.

WEF, (2012). Strategic Infrastructure. World Economic Forum, Sep 2012.

Wolmorans, 2019). Immigration, Economic Growth and Unemployment in Greece. An
application of the ARDL bounds testing approach to cointegration. available at
SSRN 2297466. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2297466.
Grimsey and Lewis (2022). Infrastructure development and economic growth: Prospects
and perspective. Journal of business management and Social sciences research,
2(1):
81-91.

World Development Report (2021). World Development Indicators. The World Bank
Group http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
(accessed on 17.12.21).

Shanks & Barnes, (2018). Financing and Management of Roads in Sub-Saharan Africa–
A
Hopeless Case? Bonn: Transport Policy Advisory Services, GTZ (German
Technical Cooperation Agency). available at:
http://www.zietlow.com/gtz/Africa%20road%20reform.pdf

Potter and Diamond, (2018). Understanding the Ghanaian Telecom Reform: An

Institutional Theory Perspective. 21st European Regional International
Telecommunications Society (ITS) Conference, Copenhagen.

European Commission (2018). Infrastructure and development: A critical appraisal of the

macro level literature, 4590. World Bank Publications.

Sahoo et al, (2018). Infrastructure development and economic growth: Prospects and
perspective. Journal of business management and Social sciences research, 2(1):
81
91.

Enefola (2019). Editorial: We can, and must, end poverty. Development Co-operation
Report, 15-18. DOI: 10.1787/dcr-2013-3-en.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the methods and procedures used to conduct the

study. Thus, the chapter is organized according to the following sub topics: research

design, population of the study, sample size and sampling technique, method of data

collection and method of data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

The research design used is descriptive and scientific, since it will enable the researcher to

systematically conduct this study in such a manner that could be scientifically verified , to permit

easy combination of ideas, facilitation of understanding as well as making congruence to

the research methodology. The research uses both Primary data and secondary data. The

secondary data includes journals on Public Sector financial management as well as

previous research studies on the topic in concern. The primary data formed the responses

from the research respondents through the administration of questionnaire.

3.2. Population and Sample

The population of this study will be resident of Jos-North Local Government Area

(LGA), in particular, those that have reside in the location for over 10 years.

3.3. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

The study employed the use of Simple Random Sampling technique. This is because

every member of the population stands the chance of being selected. As the definite

population size of the study population is not known and the population of the study is

less than 10,000, we had to find the desired sample size when the population is more than

10,000 (n) first before calculating the final sample estimate (nf) (Araoye, 2003).
 n = Z2pq

d2

Where,

n = sample size

p =Proportion of both elected and appointed officials. 50% (that is 0.50)

q =Proportion of both non-elected and appointed officials = 1 - p = 50% = 0.50.

z =Standard normal deviation = 1.23,

d =Degree of accuracy desired and was taken as 5% = 0.05

n = 1.2252×0.5×0.5

0.052

n = 1.5006×0.5×0.5 = 150

0.0025

For populations <10,000

nf = n

1+n/N

Where,

nf =The desired sample size when the population is less than 10,000.

n =The desired sample size when the population is more than 10,000.

N =The estimate of the population size.

Nf = 150 = 150

1+150/2000 1.08 = 138

3.4. Method of Data Collection

 The research instrument used to collect data is the questionnaire. The role of the

government can be evaluated in the use of public funds for infrastructure financing in

terms of effectiveness, fiscal prudence and efficiency. The questionnaire was designed to

elicit relevant information from the respondents.

3.5. Method of Data Analysis

The Standard package for Social Science (SPSS) software was used to analyze the data

derived. Effectiveness, fiscal prudence and efficiency was used to evaluate the Role of

Government in infrastructure development. Linear Regression analysis was adopted to

achieve the four specific objectives of the study. Analysis was performed on data

collected. Descriptive analysis was performed with descriptive statistics.

Conceptual Model

Independent Variables Independent Variables

Effectiveness of public financing

Rules of fiscal prudence Infrastructure

Development
Efficiency of public financing

3.6. Model specification

Y is Infrastructure Development

X is Financial Management

Budget was used to measure Infrastructure financing.

Where Financial management was measured by:

Effectiveness (EF) is represented by x1;

Fiscal prudence (FP) is represented by x2 and

Efficiency (EC) is represented by x3;

X = (x1, x2, x3, x4)

Hence, Y = f (x1, x2, x3) ……………………………….….1

Bit = β0 + β1 EFit +β2 FPit +β3 ECit + ℮it……………………2

β0 = constant

β1-3 = co-efficient of independent variable

e = error term

i=cross sectional script (i=10)

t = time series variable script (t=7)

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1. Data Presentation

4.1.1. Is public financing of infrastructure effective in Plateau State?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 748 60.2% 60.2 60.2
No 346 27.9% 27.9 88.1
N. A 148 11.9% 11.9 100.0
Total 1242 100.0 100.0
Source: Field Surveyed, 2023

In respect to the above table, 60.2% of the respondents agreed that public

financing of infrastructure is effective in Plateau State but 27.9% answered no while

11.9% were neutral. It was revealed also that among the 138 respondents, the use of

public funds to finance infrastructure is globally effective. Out of the 138 respondent 130

accept, the national infrastructure policy is formulated in terms of specific targets against

which achievements in the use of funds can be measured (question Q1c). The monitoring

of target achievements is quite widespread in Nigeria as 108 respondents out of 138 in

the survey reported that the Government is using this process (question Q1d). Moreover,

the great majority of respondent (with 130 out of 138) attest that government implement

the infrastructure projects with the highest priority, meaning that the most important

targets are supposed to be achieved first (question Q1f).

4.1.2. Does public financing of infrastructure in Nigeria follow the rules of fiscal
prudence?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 641 66.4% 66.4 66.4
No 169 17.5% 17.5 83.9
N. A 156 16.1% 16.1 100.0
Total 966 100.0% 100.0
Source: Field Surveyed, 2023
 The centralization of revenue collection is dominant in every state in the country

as 66.4% respondents said yes having all revenue collection carried out by the same

authority, 17.5% said no while 16.1% have no answer. It is a first step towards ensuring

fiscal prudence as in one snapshot, the authority in charge knows what the total available

resources are.

4.1.3. Is public financing of infrastructure efficient in Nigeria?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Yes 746 54.1% 54.1 54.1
No 399 28.9% 28.9 83
N. A 235 17.0% 17.0 100.0
Total 1380 100.0% 100.0
Source: Field Surveyed, 2023

The table above revealed that 54.1% of respondent agreed that public financing of

infrastructure is efficient in Nigeria while 28.9% did not agreed and 17% have No

Answered. Thus, the monitoring of expenditures, information on available resources and

the adaptation of the remaining resources to the core objectives are well established. It is

relatively easy to track expenditures by category to identify cost overruns and/or issues in

delivery for 97 respondents out of 138 (question Q3H). Nigeria use accrual-based

information to report investments expenditures (question Q3J). This method helps to

improve effectiveness as it allows considering money as an expense even if it is not

actually paid. Consequently, it prevents over-spending when using money not already

paid but intended for another expense. 80 respondents said yes that even when funds are

insufficient for the project, the highest priority items are included so as to meet the main
objectives with the available resource (question Q3G). 90 respondents said yes that

Nigeria government integrate all public funds in infrastructure in the public finance

system (question Q3C). This is a source of efficiency as it allows knowing in one

snapshot what the total available resources are to direct funds to the achievement of

infrastructure projects’ targets.

The survey also asked directly what the major sources of inefficiency were in the use of

public funds for infrastructure spending (Q3K). Inattention to maintenance and the issue

of hidden costs were quite equally reported by respective respondents.

4.2. Data Analysis

Using Multiple Regression Analysis method of data analysis

4.2.1. Model Summary

Mode Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-
l R R Square Square the Estimate Watson
1 .989 a
.979 .978 .09664 .237
Source: IBM SPSS

The R Square 97.9% of the variance account for infrastructural development by its effectiveness,

rule of fiscal prudence and efficiency.

4.2.2. ANOVA

Sum of Mean
Model Squares Df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 57.890 3 19.297 2066.26 .000b
3
Residual 1.251 134 .009
Total 59.141 137
Source: IBM SPSS
In the above table, P-Value is .000. Therefore, the model result is significant. This is

because Generally, 95% confidence interval or 5% level of the significance level is

chosen for the study. Thus, the p-value should be less than 0.05. F-ratio from the table

show an improvement in the prediction of the variable by fitting the model after

considering the inaccuracy present in the model. A value is greater than 1 for F-ratio

yield efficient model. In the above table, the value is 2066.263, which is good.

4.2.3. Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -.165 .035 -4.695 .000
Effectiveness .179 .121 .145 1.470 .144 .016 61.303
Rule of Fiscal .392 .061 .397 6.441 .000 .042 24.002
Prudence
Efficiency .468 .088 .455 5.309 .000 .021 46.578

This table shows what variable significantly predict the dependable variable and how the

predictable variable impact the dependable variable. The Sig. value should be below the

tolerable level of significance for the study i.e. below 0.05 for 95% confidence interval in

this study. Based on the significant value the null hypothesis is rejected or not rejected. If

Sig. is < 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. If Sig. is > 0.05, then the null hypothesis is

not rejected. If a null hypothesis is rejected, it means there is an impact. However, if a

null hypothesis is not rejected, it means there is no impact.

From the above table, significant value for effectiveness depict 0.144 which means Null

Hypothesis not rejected (0.144>0.05). Significant value for Rule of fiscal Policy is 0.000

which means Null Hypothesis rejected (0.000<0.05) while Significant value for

Efficiency is 0.000 which means Null Hypothesis rejected (0.000<0.05). Hence, there is a

significant relationship between the financial management and infrastructural

development in Plateau state.

4.3. Discussions of Findings

As explained earlier, the notion of effectiveness measures the differences

between the objectives targeted and the results actually achieved. The first way to

achieve effectiveness is therefore to state credible, sustainable and quantifiable

objectives in the first stages of the project. Defining precise and quantifiable targets

provides tools and indicators to measure the degree of effectiveness of public funds.

Measuring effectiveness then stems from monitoring the progress in the fulfilment of the

objectives. In respect to table 4.1.1, among the 138 respondents, the use of public funds

to finance infrastructure is globally effective. Out of the 138 respondent 130 accept, the

national infrastructure policy is formulated in terms of specific targets against which

achievements in the use of funds can be measured (question Q1c). The monitoring of

target achievements is quite widespread in Nigeria as 108 respondents out of 138 in the

survey reported that the Government is using this process (question Q1d). Moreover, the

great majority of respondent (with 130 out of 138) attest that government implement the

infrastructure projects with the highest priority, meaning that the most important targets

are supposed to be achieved first (question Q1f). The effectiveness of governments in

using public funds to finance infrastructure is also questioned through the existence of

alternative means to achieve the same objectives. To some extent, the effectiveness of

this financing mode is weakened according to the answers to questions Q1A and Q1B.

Only 40 respondents consider that funds for financing infrastructure based on public

resources could not be available through other means (question Q1A) and 90

respondents think the same objectives could have been achieved through policy reforms

(question Q1B). However, this last point is not a concrete re-assessment of public action

in infrastructure: it emphasizes the fact that governments may have other means at their

disposal than direct funding to achieve infrastructure targets.

Fiscal prudence policies aim at maintaining proper balance between borrowing,

expenditure and saving in order to support economic growth and achieve other social

objectives in a sustainable way. The centralization of revenue collection is dominant in

every state in the country as 87 respondents out of 138 said yes having all revenue

collection carried out by the same authority. It is a first step towards ensuring fiscal

prudence as in one snapshot, the authority in charge knows what the total available

resources are. The second modality of fiscal prudence is the application of the same laws

and fiscal discipline to all sources of funding. Here again, government apply fiscal

prudence rules widely. Only 11 respondents disagreed that government do not impose the

same fiscal discipline on all the fund sources and only 34 respondents out of 138

disagreed that government do not require allocation rules for earmarked and off-budget

funds as close as possible to those for budget funds. Finally, 100 respondents agreed that

government apply national procurement laws to all infrastructure funds. The last modality
of fiscal prudence concerns the controls imposed on infrastructure spending. Also, on this

modality Nigeria have good practices. Indeed, infrastructure spending is subject to

control to avoid quasi-fiscal deficit as 90 respondents agreed, to audit 120 respondents

agreed and to ex post reporting 99 respondents said yes.

The notion of efficiency in the use of public funds for infrastructure financing compares

the results of the spending to the initial resources mobilized for the said infrastructure.

The role of the government here is therefore to first provide adequate resources to

achieve the infrastructure targets and to design the projects properly so as to ensure their

efficiency. During the different phases of the project, the role of the government is also to

gather information on whether and how the funds are actually used. This monitoring

exercise is needed in order to adapt the subsequent spending to the resources still

available and to ensure delivery of the highest priority items.

Generally, governments of Nigeria are efficient in the use of public funds for

infrastructure spending even if the funds spent for infrastructure are close to those

collected (question Q3I). This specific result confirms the alarming situation regarding

the match between available resources and the definition of objectives in the planning

stage illustrated in question Q3E: infrastructure projects are designed to match the

available funds at the planning stage. The monitoring of expenditures, information on

available resources and the adaptation of the remaining resources to the core objectives

are well established. It is relatively easy to track expenditures by category to identify cost

overruns and/or issues in delivery for 97 respondents out of 138 (question Q3H). Nigeria

use accrual-based information to report investments expenditures (question Q3J). This

method helps to improve effectiveness as it allows considering money as an expense even

if it is not actually paid. Consequently, it prevents over-spending when using money not

already paid but intended for another expense. 80 respondents said yes that even when

funds are insufficient for the project, the highest priority items are included so as to meet

the main objectives with the available resource (question Q3G). 90 respondents said yes

that Nigeria government integrate all public funds in infrastructure in the public finance

system (question Q3C). This is a source of efficiency as it allows knowing in one

snapshot what the total available resources are to direct funds to the achievement of

infrastructure projects’ targets. The survey also asked directly what the major sources of

inefficiency were in the use of public funds for infrastructure spending (Q3K). Inattention

to maintenance and the issue of hidden costs were quite equally reported by respective

respondents.

The issue of maintenance is long lasting and common to all infrastructure sectors

in Nigeria. The legacy of underfunding maintenance is resulting in the need for

rehabilitation of about 30% of a typical Nigeria infrastructure asset (World Bank, 2010).

Although identified for a while, the issue of proper maintenance is crowded-out by a

capital bias that favors new and visible investments. The issue of hidden costs requires

improvements in different stages of the infrastructure plan. Under-pricing should be

avoided thanks to more attention in the planning and design phases of the project, while

under-collection and excessive technical losses relate to the execution stage of the

project.
 CHAPTER FIVE:

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary of Findings

The key findings of the report are the following:

1. The selection of projects could be improved. In particular the process of appraisal

needs a more extensive use of Cost-Benefit and/or Cost-Effectiveness Analyses; the

selection of projects is not sufficiently based on the improvements of physical

indicators; civil society is generally not consulted. The selection phase of an

infrastructure project is crucial to ensure its viability. The selection of a project

should ideally rely on a rigorous and careful appraisal of the investment that

compares its specific attributes between costs and benefits. In the same vein, the

selection should be based on objective measurements and objectives. The selection

should also integrate a consultation of all the economic and social actors of the

society in order to ensure the desirability of a project.

2. Highest priority projects are implemented first and the different plan levels (national,

state, local) generally overlap even though local objectives are given less priority.

Concerning prioritization between different plan levels (national, state, regional), the

results show that there is no deep opposition between state priorities and national

plans, and that they generally overlap. Yet the survey yet shows that local priorities

are lagging behind, possibly due to a lack of resources at the decentralized level.

3. Regarding how Nigeria government use public funds for infrastructure financing, the

survey underlines the fact that their action is overall effective, efficient and subject to

the rules of fiscal prudence. Effectiveness in infrastructure spending in Nigeria stems

from three modalities according to the survey. First, the formulation of infrastructure

policy in terms of specific targets against which achievements in the use of funds can

be measured. Second, the monitoring of targets achievements. Third, the

 implementation of highest priority projects. Efficiency in infrastructure spending in

Nigeria is related to the monitoring of expenditures, the control of information on

available resources and the adaptation of the remaining resources to the core

objectives Finally, fiscal prudence rules are found in the centralization of revenue

collection by the same authority, the application of the same fiscal rules to all the

sources of funds and the use of controls and audits.

5.2. Conclusion

This study assessed the role of financial management on infrastructure development in

Nigeria. The need for this appraisal arises from dwindling government resources which

has resulted in ineffectiveness of the traditional methods of infrastructure financing

through budgetary provisions and execution by direct contract award. In this analysis,

the role of the government was evaluated by the use of public funds for infrastructure

financing in terms of effectiveness, fiscal prudence and efficiency. The questionnaire

was designed to elicit relevant information from the respondents. Public financing of

infrastructure accounts for two thirds of the total amount of infrastructure spending in

Nigeria. Given the crucial role of infrastructure for economic development, growth and

poverty reduction, the report used a qualitative survey to ask whether or not budgetary

processes and institutions in Nigeria are hampering infrastructural development.

Overall, the results reveal that there is a significant role financial management lead to

infrastructural development.

5.3. Recommendation
Granted that financing Nigeria’s infrastructure is one of the critical challenges facing the

country, the government can take certain steps to enable a greater number of

infrastructure development projects attract adequate financing. These steps, which are the

way forward, include:

3. Proper Project Appraisal. In deciding which infrastructure development projects to

undertake, emphasis should be laid on identified public needs which can only be met

by direct public private partnership intervention. These are the types of projects that

will provide the requisite cash-flows from which private sector investment will be

recouped.

4. Government Intervention. Government can provide support in a number of ways

including giving guarantees on the continuity of the project, which acts as an

assurance to investors. Some State Governments in Nigeria such as Lagos State, Imo

State and Delta State have also adopted this approach, raising state bonds for

infrastructure development.

5. The Viability Gap Fund. Government can provide active financial support through

schemes such as the Viability Gap Fund. The Viability Gap Fund is a sovereign grant

to close the commercial gap on a PPP infrastructure development project. This is

necessary where the cost of infrastructure financing is so high that the revenue stream

therefrom may be insufficient to yield sufficient returns.

6. Excellent Legal Framework. The Government must establish and implement a

coherent and comprehensive framework for such projects at both the State and
 Federal level covering recurring issues including risk allocation and mitigation

strategies and government support and guarantees.

7. Policy makers has to ensure that infrastructure assets are structured to an investment

grade level, hedged against macroeconomic risks and are regulated or licensed in

some form.

8. Enhance the capacity of Nigerian capital markets to supply long-term debt capital in

form infrastructure bond, which is critical for the financing of infrastructure projects

with long-term assets whose costs may take 10 to 30 years to recoup. The

Infrastructure bond could be issued in the local or international capital markets

secured by and serviced from the cash-flows of a specific project or a portfolio of

projects without recourse to the sponsors.

5.4. Limitation of the Study

This study was exposed to the following limitations:

i. Delay in filling and returning questionnaire by respondents

ii. Limited use of varied analytical techniques due to size of the sample

iii. Difficulty in accessing significant researchable materials.

iv. Financial and time constraints also majored as the limitation of the work

Appendix 1

Bibliography

Ajia (2020), Infrastructure’s influence – An investment perspective on Nigeria’s

 Economy. Oxford Urbanists. May 19, 2020.

Akinsulire (2019), Financial Management. 10th Edition. Ceemol Nigeria Ltd, Abuja
Al Breiki & Nobanee, (2019). Infrastructure Development and Economic Growth in
Nigeria. IDE Discussion Paper No. 261.

Alkhyeli et al. (2021). Infrastructural Development and Economic Growth in Nigeria:

Using Simultaneous Equation. Journal of Economics, 5(3), pp. 325-332.

Almansoori et al. (2021). Infrastructure and development. In Annual World Bank

Conference on Development Economics, 153-181.

Augustine (2020), Public Private Partnership in emerging Economies. 1st Edition.

Routledge. Lagos

CABRI (2021), Ensuring Value for Money in Infrastructure in Africa – Report 1: The
Appraisal of Infrastructure Projects, Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative.

Deloitte (2018), Impact of COVID-19 on infrastructure projects and assets.

www.2deloitte.com/article

Enefola (2019). Editorial: We can, and must, end poverty. Development Co-operation
Report, 15-18. DOI: 10.1787/dcr-2013-3-en.

European Commission (2018). Infrastructure and development: A critical appraisal of the

macro level literature, 4590. World Bank Publications.

Gbadegesin and Aluko (2018). Conceptual paradigm and rethinking project finance
strategy for highway projects financing in Ghana. PentVars Business Journal, 3(3):
85–93.

Grimsey and Lewis (2022). Infrastructure development and economic growth: Prospects
and perspective. Journal of business management and Social sciences research,
2(1):
81-91.

Ijaiya,G.T and Akanbi,S.B.(2019). An Empirical Analysis of the Long-run Effect of

Infrastructure on Industrialization in Nigeria. Journal of International Economic
Review, 2: 1-2. Pp 135-149.
Lawson (2022), Financing Africa’s post-COVID-19 recovery and factors hindering
renewable energy, market growth. ESI-Africa.com
Nwezeaku (2018), Infrastructure Development and Economic Growth: Prospects and
Perspective. Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences Research (JBM
& SSR), Vol. 2, No. 1. ISSN No.:2319-5614.

OECD (2021), Manila Consensus on Public Financial Management: Partnering to Strengthen

Public Financial Management for Effective States, OECD, Paris,
www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/48780763.pdf.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (2013).

Development Co-operation Report 2013: Ending Poverty, Paris.

Potter and Diamond, (2018). Understanding the Ghanaian Telecom Reform: An

Institutional Theory Perspective. 21st European Regional International
Telecommunications Society (ITS) Conference, Copenhagen.

Shanks & Barnes, (2018). Financing and Management of Roads in Sub-Saharan Africa–
A
Hopeless Case? Bonn: Transport Policy Advisory Services, GTZ (German
Technical Cooperation Agency). available at:
http://www.zietlow.com/gtz/Africa%20road%20reform.pdf

Sahoo et al, (2018). Infrastructure development and economic growth: Prospects and
perspective. Journal of business management and Social sciences research, 2(1):
81
91.

Torrisi (2019). Understanding the Ghanaian Telecom Reform: An Institutional Theory

Perspective. 21st European Regional International Telecommunications Society
(ITS) Conference, Copenhagen.

UNCTAD (2021), The Least Developed Countries Report 2009: The State and Development
Governance, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2009.

World Economic Forum (2018), African strategic infrastructure: Managing transnational

infrastructure programmes in Africa – challenges and best practices, The World
Economic Forum, Geneva.

WEF, (2012). Strategic Infrastructure. World Economic Forum, Sep 2012.

Wolmorans, 2019). Immigration, Economic Growth and Unemployment in Greece. An
application of the ARDL bounds testing approach to cointegration. available at
SSRN 2297466. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2297466.

World Development Report (2021). World Development Indicators. The World Bank
Group http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators
(accessed on 17.12.21).
 Appendix B

Questionnaire

Univerity of Jos,
Department of Accountancy,
School of Management and Social Sciences
May, 2023
Sir,

Letter of Introduction

This research work is aimed to identify the role of financial management on infrastructure

development of Nigeria.

Your honest and accurate responses to this questionnaire will highly be appreciated. kindly tick

where necessary. Please note that the information needed is highly confidential and will be used

for the research purpose.

Yours faithfully,

Iveh Mary Barry

 Section A. (personal data):

Department: ___________________________________________________

Grade Level: ______________________________

Qualification: ________________________

Section B. Question

1. Is public financing of infrastructure effective in Plateau State?

S/N Question Yes No N.A.

Q1a Could funds for financing infrastructure based on
public resources be available through other means (for
example, private companies’ investment)?
Q1b Could the objectives attained on infrastructure through
the use of public funds be achieved through policy
reforms (for example, removal of subsidies)?
Q1c Has national infrastructure policy been formulated in
terms of specific infrastructure targets against which
achievement in the use of funds can be measured?
Q1d Is there monitoring of target achievement in national
infrastructure policy?
Q1e Are the infrastructure projects designed to match the
available funds at the planning stage?
Q1f Are the infrastructure projects which are implemented
those with higher priority?
Q1g Do line ministries prepare internal multi-annual
investment plans in infrastructure?
Q1h Is the Ministry of Finance systematically consulted
before committing the government to infrastructure
plans to ensure that the infrastructure project can be
realistically financed?
Q1i Is there verification on whether infrastructure plans are
compatible with Medium-term Expenditure Plans?
2. Does public financing of infrastructure in Nigeria follow the rules of fiscal prudence?

S/N Question Yes No N.A.

Q2a Are all public funds used to finance infrastructure
subject to the same fiscal discipline?
Q2b Are earmarked and off-budget funds required to adopt
allocation rules as close as possible to those for other
budget funds?
Q2c Is infrastructure spending subject to control to avoid
quasi-fiscal deficit?
Q2d Is all revenue collection in infrastructure carried out
by the same authority?
Q2e Do national procurement laws apply to all
infrastructure funds?
Q2f Is infrastructure spending subject to audit?
Q2g Is infrastructure spending subject to ex-post reporting?

3. Is public financing of infrastructure efficient in Nigeria?

S/N Question Yes No N.A.

Q3a Are infrastructure projects selected to obtain the
maximum improvement in any physical indicator per
Naira spent?
Q3b Are infrastructure projects designed and monitored
based on cost-benefit (CBA) and/or cost effectiveness
analyses (CEA)?
Q3c Are all public funds for infrastructure integrated into
the public finance system?
Q3d Are there issues of lack of compliance with taxes
and/or fines related to infrastructure?
Q3e Do you consider there to be a high number of different
fund sources for infrastructure?
Q3f Are policies based on extensive consultation with
major actors (civil society, private sector, industry...)?
Q3g Does the method of fund allocation prioritize items
within a project, so that when funds are not sufficient
to cover the whole project, the highest priority items
are included?
Q3h Is it easy to track expenditures by category to know
when a spending unit has not delivered or has overrun
 the cost?
Q3i Are funds for infrastructure spent close to where they
are collected?
Q3j Is accrual-based information on the progress of
infrastructure projects used to report investment
expenditures?
Q3k What are the major sources of inefficiency in
infrastructure?

Appendix C
LIST OF TABLES
 1. Respondents on Effectiveness of Public Financing of infrastructural development

S/N Question Yes No N.A. %

Q1a Could funds for financing infrastructure based on 91 40 7 65.94
public resources be available through other means
(for example, private companies’ investment)?
Q1b Could the objectives attained on infrastructure 20 90 28 65.22
through the use of public funds be achieved through
policy reforms (for example, removal of subsidies)?
Q1c Has national infrastructure policy been formulated in 100 34 4 72.46
terms of specific infrastructure targets against which
achievement in the use of funds can be measured?
Q1d Is there monitoring of target achievement in national 89 30 19 64.49
infrastructure policy?
Q1e Are the infrastructure projects designed to match the 38 97 3 70.30
available funds at the planning stage?
Q1f Are the infrastructure projects which are implemented 130 2 6 94.20
those with higher priority?
Q1g Do line ministries prepare internal multi-annual 110 5 23 79.71
investment plans in infrastructure?
Q1h Is the Ministry of Finance systematically consulted 99 19 20 71.74
before committing the government to infrastructure
plans to ensure that the infrastructure project can be
realistically financed?
Q1i Is there verification on whether infrastructure plans 71 29 38 51.45
are compatible with Medium-term Expenditure Plans?

2. Respondents on Rule of fiscal policy

S/N Question Yes No N.A. %

Q2a Are all public funds used to finance infrastructure 111 11 16 80.43
subject to the same fiscal discipline?
Q2b Are earmarked and off-budget funds required to adopt 34 80 24 57.97
allocation rules as close as possible to those for other
budget funds?
Q2c Is infrastructure spending subject to control to avoid 90 28 20 65.22
quasi-fiscal deficit?
Q2d Is all revenue collection in infrastructure carried out 87 23 28 63.04
by the same authority?
Q2e Do national procurement laws apply to all 100 8 30 72.46
infrastructure funds?
Q2f Is infrastructure spending subject to audit? 120 8 10 86.96
Q2g Is infrastructure spending subject to ex-post reporting? 99 11 28 71.74

3. Respondents on efficiency of public financing of infrastructural development

S/N Question Yes No N.A. %

Q3a Are infrastructure projects selected to obtain the 30 90 18 65.22
maximum improvement in any physical indicator per
Naira spent?
Q3b Are infrastructure projects designed and monitored 55 50 33 39.86
based on cost-benefit (CBA) and/or cost effectiveness
analyses (CEA)?
Q3c Are all public funds for infrastructure integrated into 90 8 40 65.22
the public finance system?
Q3d Are there issues of lack of compliance with taxes 88 22 28 63.77
and/or fines related to infrastructure?
Q3e Do you consider there to be a high number of 80 38 20 57.97
different fund sources for infrastructure?
Q3f Are policies based on extensive consultation with 18 100 20 72.46
major actors (civil society, private sector, industry...)?
Q3g Does the method of fund allocation prioritize items 80 38 20 57.97
within a project, so that when funds are not sufficient
to cover the whole project, the highest priority items
are included?
Q3h Is it easy to track expenditures by category to know 97 33 8 70.30
when a spending unit has not delivered or has overrun
the cost?
Q3i Are funds for infrastructure spent close to where they 120 8 10 86.96
are collected?
Q3j Is accrual-based information on the progress of 80 20 38 57.97
infrastructure projects used to report investment
expenditures?
Q3k What are the major sources of inefficiency in Failure to spend
infrastructure? budgeted funds