IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/povpop/v14y2022i1p69-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nigerian economic policy response to COVID‐19: An evaluation of policy actors' views

Author

Listed:
  • Makuachukwu G. Ojide
  • Chigozie O. Agu
  • Precious Ohalete
  • Emmanuel Chinanuife

Abstract

COVID‐19 has caused economic hardship globally. Several economies are making efforts to cushion these negative effects. Following the lockdown and downward trend of global oil prices, the Nigerian economy has been hard hit. This paper sheds light on policy actors' views vis‐à‐vis what should be the economic policy response of the Nigerian government to cushion the effects of COVID‐19 and ensure quick economic recovery. A multistage random sampling method was used to select and interview 635 policy actors drawn from academia/research institutes, civil society organizations, development partners, international NGOs, national NGOs, the private sector, and the public sector. The study adopted a participatory development approach. Descriptive and deductive analysis methods were used. The results support direct cash transfers to households, and small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) as the policy option that would have huge impact in mitigating the economic effects of COVID‐19 in Nigeria. The second most recommended policy option is the eradication of corruption among government officials. The paper recommends that pragmatic actions towards eradicating corrupt practices among government officials should be an integral part of any economic recovery policy in Nigeria and other emerging economies. 2019冠状病毒病（COVID‐19）已造成全球经济困难。多个经济体正努力缓解这些消极效果。在限制出行和全球油价形势走低之后，尼日利亚遭受重创。就尼日利亚政府为缓解COVID‐19和确保快速的经济复苏而应采取的经济政策响应而言，本文阐述了政策行动者的观点。使用多阶段随机抽样法，选取并采访了635名政策行动者，他们来自学术/研究机构、公民社会组织、发展伙伴、国际非政府组织、国家非政府组织、私人部门和公共部门。本研究采用了参与式发展法。使用了描述性分析法和演绎分析法。研究结果支持将“对家庭和中小型企业（SMEs）发放直接现金转移”一事作为政策选项，这将对缓解尼日利亚COVID‐19经济效果产生巨大影响。第二个政策选项则是消除政府官员腐败。本文建议，用于消除政府官员腐败实践的实际行动应成为尼日利亚以及其他发展中经济体的经济恢复政策不可缺少的一部分。 COVID‐19 ha causado dificultades económicas a nivel mundial. Varias economías están haciendo esfuerzos para amortiguar estos efectos negativos. Tras el bloqueo y la tendencia a la baja de los precios mundiales del petróleo, la economía nigeriana se ha visto muy afectada. Este documento arroja luz sobre las opiniones de los actores políticos con respecto a cuál debería ser la respuesta de política económica del gobierno de Nigeria para amortiguar los efectos de COVID‐19 y garantizar una recuperación económica rápida. Se utilizó un método de muestreo aleatorio de etapas múltiples para seleccionar y entrevistar a 635 actores políticos provenientes de instituciones académicas/de investigación, organizaciones de la sociedad civil, socios para el desarrollo, ONG internacionales, ONG nacionales, el sector privado y el sector público. El estudio adoptó un enfoque de desarrollo participativo. Se utilizaron métodos de análisis descriptivo y deductivo. Los resultados respaldan las transferencias directas de efectivo a los hogares y las pequeñas y medianas empresas (PYME) como la opción de política que tendría un gran impacto en la mitigación de los efectos económicos de COVID‐19 en Nigeria. La segunda opción de política más recomendada es la erradicación de la corrupción entre los funcionarios del gobierno. El documento recomienda que las acciones pragmáticas para erradicar las prácticas corruptas entre los funcionarios del gobierno deben ser una parte integral de cualquier política de recuperación económica en Nigeria y otras economías emergentes.

Suggested Citation

  • Makuachukwu G. Ojide & Chigozie O. Agu & Precious Ohalete & Emmanuel Chinanuife, 2022. "Nigerian economic policy response to COVID‐19: An evaluation of policy actors' views," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 69-85, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:14:y:2022:i:1:p:69-85
    DOI: 10.1002/pop4.332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/pop4.332
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pop4.332?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Crotty, 2012. "The great austerity war: what caused the US deficit crisis and who should pay to fix it?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 36(1), pages 79-104.
    2. Jörg Bibow, 2013. "At the crossroads: the euro and its central bank guardian (and saviour?)," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 37(3), pages 609-626.
    3. Ricardo J. Caballero & Mohamad L. Hammour, 2005. "The Cost of Recessions Revisited: A Reverse-Liquidationist View," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 313-341.
    4. Lutz Kilian & Bruce Hicks, 2013. "Did Unexpectedly Strong Economic Growth Cause the Oil Price Shock of 2003–2008?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 385-394, August.
    5. Hamilton, James D, 1989. "A New Approach to the Economic Analysis of Nonstationary Time Series and the Business Cycle," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 357-384, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valerie Cerra & Sweta Chaman Saxena, 2008. "Growth Dynamics: The Myth of Economic Recovery," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 439-457, March.
    2. Chatziantoniou, Ioannis & Filippidis, Michail & Filis, George & Gabauer, David, 2021. "A closer look into the global determinants of oil price volatility," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Charfeddine, Lanouar & Klein, Tony & Walther, Thomas, 2018. "Oil Price Changes and U.S. Real GDP Growth: Is this Time Different?," QBS Working Paper Series 2018/03, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's Business School.
    4. Agu Osmond Chigozie & Omolade Adeleke, 2022. "Restructuring and Reshaping Africa Oil Exporting Countries Post COVID-19 – A Participatory Development Strategy Approach," Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia, Sciendo, vol. 22(2), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Milan Kumar Das & Anindya Goswami, 2019. "Testing of binary regime switching models using squeeze duration analysis," International Journal of Financial Engineering (IJFE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(01), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Carstensen, Kai & Heinrich, Markus & Reif, Magnus & Wolters, Maik H., 2020. "Predicting ordinary and severe recessions with a three-state Markov-switching dynamic factor model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 829-850.
    7. Chkili, Walid & Nguyen, Duc Khuong, 2014. "Exchange rate movements and stock market returns in a regime-switching environment: Evidence for BRICS countries," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 46-56.
    8. Manuela Goretti, 2005. "The Brazilian currency turmoil of 2002: a nonlinear analysis," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 289-306.
    9. David Andolfatto & Paul Gomme, 2003. "Monetary Policy Regimes and Beliefs," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-30, February.
    10. Valentina Aprigliano & Danilo Liberati, 2021. "Using Credit Variables to Date Business Cycle and to Estimate the Probabilities of Recession in Real Time," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 89(S1), pages 76-96, September.
    11. DAVID E. ALLEN & MICHAEL McALEER & ROBERT J. POWELL & ABHAY K. SINGH, 2018. "Non-Parametric Multiple Change Point Analysis Of The Global Financial Crisis," Annals of Financial Economics (AFE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(02), pages 1-23, June.
    12. Mariam Camarero & Juan Sapena & Cecilio Tamarit, 2020. "Modelling Time-Varying Parameters in Panel Data State-Space Frameworks: An Application to the Feldstein–Horioka Puzzle," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 56(1), pages 87-114, June.
    13. Xi, Xiaojing & Mamon, Rogemar, 2011. "Parameter estimation of an asset price model driven by a weak hidden Markov chain," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1-2), pages 36-46, January.
    14. Reitz, Stefan & Rülke, Jan & Stadtmann, Georg, 2012. "Nonlinear Expectations in Speculative Markets," VfS Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century 62045, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    15. Anne Morrison Piehl & Suzanne J. Cooper & Anthony A. Braga & David M. Kennedy, 2003. "Testing for Structural Breaks in the Evaluation of Programs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(3), pages 550-558, August.
    16. Sarah Arndt & Zeno Enders, 2023. "The Transmission of Supply Shocks in Different Inflation Regimes," CESifo Working Paper Series 10839, CESifo.
    17. Hendry, David F. & Clements, Michael P., 2003. "Economic forecasting: some lessons from recent research," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 301-329, March.
    18. Perron, Pierre & Wada, Tatsuma, 2016. "Measuring business cycles with structural breaks and outliers: Applications to international data," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 281-303.
    19. Reitz, Stefan & Rülke, Jan-Christoph & Stadtmann, Georg, 2012. "Nonlinear expectations in speculative markets – Evidence from the ECB survey of professional forecasters," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1349-1363.
    20. Claudio Morana, 2014. "Factor Vector Autoregressive Estimation of Heteroskedastic Persistent and Non Persistent Processes Subject to Structural Breaks," Working Papers 273, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised May 2014.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:povpop:v:14:y:2022:i:1:p:69-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1944-2858 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.