Printer Friendly

The money market instruments and money stock in Nigeria: comparative analysis of the regulation and deregulation periods.

INTRODUCTION

The deregulation of the money market and indeed the financial markets in Nigeria has evoked a pervasive and persuasive proposition by various authors and schools of thought. The issues thrown up here have generated much interest especially in view of the crucial role of the market in the intermediation process and in the economic growth of the country. The regulation of the money market is predicated on the fact that there is a need to maintain a stable and sound structure for the mobilization of funds from surplus units for use by the deficit units. Regulations entail the enforcement of rules, regulations and measures to enhance the efficiency of the market especially on such issues as the capital adequacy of the participant, the level of liquidity, management etc. Thus, regulation and Intervention have always been predicated on the need to ensure that the various interests and claimants on the system are adequately protected from market failures and also to ensure that there is a high level of efficiency.

The operation of regulatory measures resulted in various distortions in the system and these prevented the market mechanism from taking precedence in the determination of cost of funds in the market and fund movements. Thus, various rigidities were clearly discernible which impaired the growth and efficiency of the money market. It became apparent that there must be a measure of deregulation to remove these short-comings. Thus, deregulation entails the removal of administrative controls in the system and thus, enhances the level of efficiency and competition in the intermediation process. However, the implementation of the deregulatory measures has brought about other distortions (negative) in the fund flows which have evidently constrained the intermediation process and lowered the level of confidence by the general public in the money market intermediation process.

The central problem which forms the focus of the study relates to the determination of the key variables in the money market which impact positively or negatively on monetary stability and which ultimately affect aggregate economic performance. This framework shall be necessary for us to address some other critical questions like: To what extent have nominated money market instruments used during the deregulation and guided/ post deregulation era enhanced the operational efficiency of the money market? What additional deregulatory measures are necessary to foster and address the distortions in the money markets?

The resolution of these critical issues shall form the central focus of the study and provide a conceptual framework for enriching available literature on financial markets in Nigeria. The resolution of these Issues shall also provide a good background for enhancing economic growth and development in Nigeria in the future. This study, therefore, has a primary objective to conduct comparative analysis of the impact of money market instruments on the money supply during the deregulation and post deregulation eras.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Many authors had written severally on the subject of the money and money markets. Among these include the works of Ndekwu (1995), Ojo (1992), Oduyemi (1993), Obadan (1988), Reeds et al (1982), Nwankwo (1990) and Nzotta (1998). Others include Sanusi (1983), Adegbite (1991), Nzotta (1996), Ezirim (1996), Nzotta (1999), Friedman (1968); Jhingan (1980), Woods (1990), Omoruyi (1990), and the Central Bank of Nigeria. Some issues arising from their theorizing can be captured in a cursory manner as summarized below. First, the money market in any economy consists of the arrangement, structures and institutions put in a place for exchanging claims which are short-term in nature. This market is the short term end of the financial market. The money market performs two key functions:-the financial function and the economic function. The financial function entails the provision of funds to various productive units for their productive activities by various lenders without having to acquire and manage their real assets. Here, the finance function creates financial instruments. In contrast, the economic function entails the transfer of real resources from surplus units (lenders) to borrowers. According to Nzotta (1998), a well-functioning financial market (money or capital market) gives liquidity to financial assets in addition to the mobilization of funds from surplus units to deficit units.

Richardson (2010) contends that regulation is essential to financial reforms, especially following a market failure, even in a developed market like the US. The paper highlights the concept that economic theory of regulation dictates that if there is a market failure, it cannot be resolved privately; the public sector must get involved. Regulation is necessary to address systemic market failures in order to insure retail depositors against losses thus stopping the cycle of bank runs. In Acharya, et al. (2009 &2010) the authors' focus on the causes of the financial crisis and offer proposals for market-based solutions which involve some financial regulations of the US markets. The Dodd-Frank Act is considered the most significant U.S. financial regulation since the 1930s, that critics consider too far reaching. In a campus wide conference in 2010, more than 40 NYU Stern finance, economics and accounting professors stress key flaws in the bill, and how these failures could set the next global financial crisis in motion. Both regulations and deregulations impact the financial markets, globally. Sometimes government regulations come at great cost, not least is the resulting moral hazard. So the government enacts offsetting regulation and charge banks premiums (such as deposit insurance), restrict financial institutions from certain risky activities, and subject them to prompt corrective action.

However, developing economies of African presents challenging and unique research framework. In Minega (2007) a review of the effects of regulations on financial markets in the Southern African region produced mainly misleading results because of limited data and market inefficiencies (operational, informational, etc.). Up to the end of 1994, there were 14 stock exchanges in the entire African continent. These were Cairo (Egypt), Casablanca (Morocco), Tunis (Tunisia) in North Africa; Abidjan (Cote d'Ivoire), Accra (Ghana), and Lagos (Nigeria) in West Africa and Nairobi (Kenya) in Eastern Africa. In the Southern African region, they were Windhoeck (Namibia), Gaborone (Botswana), Johannesburg (South Africa), Port Louis (Mauritius), Lusaka (Zambia), Harare (Zimbabwe) and Mbabane (Swaziland). In 2005, most of other countries in Southern Africa have developed their own stocks exchange markets. They are Maputo (Mozambique), Dar-Es-Salam (Tanzania) and Luanda (Angola). With the exception of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, and at a different level, the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange and the Namibia Stock Exchange, these markets were found to be too small in comparison to developed markets in Europe and North America, and also to other emerging markets in Asia and Latin America. At the end of 1994 there were about 1150 listed companies in the Africa markets put together. The market capitalization of the listed companies amounted to $240 billion for South Africa and about $25 billion for other African countries.

Regulatory authorities in most of these countries have, over the years, adopted the policy of financial sector intervention in the hope of promoting economic development. Interest rate controls, directed credit to priority sectors, and securing bank loans at below market interest rates to finance their activities, later turned out to undermine the financial system instead of promoting economic growth. The Nigerian financial market has evolved over time, perhaps more than their African counterparts, and therefore presents an interesting case study; hence this study.

The money supply could be defined from two perspectives--the narrow approach and the broad approach. Money supply defined from the narrow perspective could be said to be

[M.sub.1] = C + D + SD.

Where, [M.sub.1] = Money supply, C = Currency in circulation, and D = Demand deposits. This definition takes into consideration the medium of exchange functions of money. The broad definition of money supply on the other hand could be said to be:

[M.sub.2] = C + D + SD.

Where, SD = Savings and time deposit and others as previously defined.

This definition of money supply above takes into consideration the medium of exchange functions of money and the store of value functions of money. To explain the changes in money supply, it is imperative to examine the changes in the total monetary assets plus the quasi money. For Nzotta (1999), the changes in the money supply from the broad definition could be explained thus:

[increment of M] = [increment of Pc] + [increment of Gc] + [increment of NFA] + [increment of OA]

Where,

[increment of Pc] = Private Sector Credit

[increment of Gc] = Government sector credit

NFA = Net Foreign Assets

OA = Other Assets

From the above conceptual framework, he suggested the determinants of the money supply to include; private sector credits, government sector credits, net foreign assets, other assets, money multiplier, income-velocity of money, and exchange rate. It is instructive to note that finance literature appears to support the assertion that the money market instruments significantly affect the level of money supply.

Thus, the monetary authorities seek to influence these instruments in an attempt to influence the level of money supply. It is also believed that the rate of growth in the money supply primarily determines the rate of growth of (nominal) GNP. Based on this, the monetarism proposition was that not only does money matter but that money is the only thing that matters (Ezirim 1996). Thus a study analyzing money and money market in a developing country is not inappropriate at this point.

This study has a primary objective to conduct comparative analysis of the impact of money market instruments on the money supply during the deregulation and post deregulation eras. However, the specific objective is to determine the nature of relationship between money market instruments and aggregate money supply in Nigeria. In other to accomplish these objectives, the following hypotheses are tested:

(i) There is no significant relationship between money market instruments and money supply during the deregulation era.

(ii) There is no significant relationship between money market instruments and money supply during the guided/post- deregulation era.

It is expected that the results would contributes positively to the existing body of international literature with particular reference to Nigeria and the developing countries in general. Its significance to the government, bank directors and managers, public policy watchers, investors, and researchers cannot be over stressed. Finally, this study is expected to have serious implications for the restructuring of the financial market to enhance its intermediation roles.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

This study evaluates the influence of money market instruments on the aggregate money supply in Nigeria, covering a period of twenty-one years (1986-2006). This time frame is chosen to assist us in articulating the different phases of the deregulation (unguided and guided). The design of this study follows the investigative research procedure--Investigating the relationship between dependent and independent variables. The data for the analysis were generated from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) publications especially; Statistical Bulletin, various issues; Economic and financial review, various issues; CBN Research seminar papers; CBN Bullion; CBN- in -house staff publications; and National Bureau for Statistics estimates. The analytical techniques are the multiple regression analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the student t-test.

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

This section presents the data used for the study. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show data for money supply aggregate and the money market instruments consisting of Treasury Bills, Treasury Certificates, Certificate of Deposits, Commercial Papers and Bankers Acceptances.

Hypothesis 1: Money Market Instruments and Aggregate Money Supply during Deregulation Era

The results in Tables 4.3 and 4.5 reveal that there is no significant relationship between money market instruments and money supply of Nigeria during the deregulation era. However, there is a high correlation (94.8%) among all the variables taken together (see Tables 4.3 & 4.5). Also, following these are the results of the R-square and the adjusted R-square, which are posted as 89.9% and 72.8%, respectively. Suffice it to say, therefore, that from this model, money market instruments as independent variables have been able to explain at least 89.8% of the total variation in the level of money supply in Nigeria and at least 72.8% even after adjusting for errors. The regression results above, shows that a positive relationship exists between money supply and Treasury Bills (TB), Treasury Certificates (TC), Certificates of Deposit (CD), and Bankers' Acceptances (BA) as explanatory variables. However, the order of importance is thus:
CP   >   BA >       CD      >   TC    > TB
[0.184]  [0.167]    [0.080] [0.039]   [0.021]


Hypothesis 2: Money Market Instruments and Aggregate Money Supply during Guided and Post Deregulation Era

The results of Tables 4.4 and 4.5, appear to follow the patterns in Table 4.3. Here, however a significant relationship exists between money market instruments and aggregate money supply in Nigeria. Corroborating this result are the results of such test statistics as R, R-square an adjusted R-square. Evidently, with R-value of 99.9%, a high relationship exists between all the variables taken together. Also, the variations in money market instruments have been able to explain at least 99.8% of the total variation in the level of money supply, and still, up to 99.7% after adjusting for the errors.

The results show that whereas the highest contribution comes from the Treasury Bills with a t-value of 8.484, the least contribution however, is from treasury certificates with a t-value of 0.311.Others are bankers' acceptances, certificates of deposits and commercial papers with t-values of 1 405, 1.147 and 0.930 respectively (see tables 4.4, 4.5).This order of importance is depicted thus;
TB    >   BA   >       CD     >    CP    > TC
[8.484]   [1.405]   [1.147]   [0.930]   [0.311]


Evidently, model 4.2 proves to be more robust than model 4.1. First, it turned significant at even 1% whereas model 4.1 failed at even 5% alpha level. Also, whereas in model 4.2 the explanatory variables have been able to explain about 99% of the total variation in the aggregate money supply, in model 4.1, only about 89% of the total variation in the aggregate money supply was explained by the money market instruments.

First, from model 4.2, there is a significant relationship between money market instruments and aggregate money supply under the guided and post-deregulation era. The model turned out to be significant at even 1% whereas model 4.1 failed at even 5% alpha level, meaning that no significant relationship exists between the money market instruments and aggregate money supply under the deregulation era as evident in model 4.1. Also, whereas in model 4.2 the explanatory variables have been able to explain about 99% of the total variation in the aggregate money supply, in model 4.1 however, only about 89% of the total variation in the aggregate money supply was explained by the money market instruments.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study investigated the impact of money market instruments on aggregate money supply in Nigeria's under two marked periods of deregulation era and the guided and post-deregulation era. Two major hypotheses were formulated and tested with these objectives in mind. First, from model 4.2, there is a significant relationship between money market instruments and aggregate money supply under the guided and post-deregulation era. The model turned out to be significant at even 1% whereas model 4.1 failed at even 5% alpha level, meaning that no significant relationship exists between the money market instruments and aggregate money supply under the deregulation era as evident in model 4.1.Also, whereas in model 4.2 the explanatory variables have been able to explain about 99% of the total variation in the aggregate money supply, in model 4.1 however, only about 89% of the total variation in the aggregate money supply was explained by the money market instruments. The findings above, have therefore informed the conclusions that; evidently, model 4.2 of the guided and post-deregulation era proves to be more robust than model 4.1 of the deregulation era. Money market instruments under the guided and post-deregulation era possess more predictive power than under the deregulation era.

The findings of this study therefore, bring to the limelight the need for the following recommendations: With the perceived weak nature of the deregulation model, for more informative policy the performance of the money Market instruments under the guided and post-deregulation era should be brought to bear. Similarly, for better manipulation of the aggregate money supply, more attention should be focused on the use of treasury bills to achieve desired policy targets, followed by bankers' acceptances and certificates of deposit, in that order. Also, with the perceived weak performance of both the commercial papers and treasury certificates under the guided and post-deregulation era, there is need for the monetary authorities to watch closely their implementation. This implementation lapses as suggested by this study obviously need to be monitored and bridged for a more vibrant monetary policy formulation in Nigeria.

REFERENCES

Acharya, V. A., Cooley, T. F., & Richardson, M. P., & Walter, I. (2009). Restoring Financial Stability (Wiley Finance).

Acharya, V. A., Cooley, T. F., & Richardson, M. P., & Walter, I. (2010). Restoring Financial Stability: How to Repair a Failed System (Wiley Finance).

Acharya, V. A., Cooley, T. F., & Richardson, M. P., & Walter, I. (2010). ""Regulating Wall Street: The Dodd-Frank Act and the New Architecture of Global Finance (Wiley Finance).

Adekanye, F.A. (1986). The Elements of Banking, Bedfordshire, Graham-Burn.

Agu, C.C. (1988). The Nigerian Banking Structure and Performance: the Banking System Contribution Economic Development. Bagor Institute of European Finance, University College of North Wales.

Anyanwu, J.C. (1993). Monetary Economics: Theory of Policy and Institutions, Benin. Hybrid Professional Series.

Central Bank of Nigeria (2008). CBN Statistical Bulletin. Abuja: CBN Press.

Central Bank of Nigeria (Various Years). CBN Annual Report and Statement of Accounts, Abuja: CBN Press.

Central Bank of Nigeria. (Various Years) Monetary and Credit Policies, Abuja: CBN Press.

Crosse, H.G. & Hempel, G.H. (1980). Management Policies for Commercial Banks, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall Inc.

Ebine, P.O. (1997). Asset Management and Profitability in Commercia Banking in Nigeria: 1985-1995- An Empirical Analysis" Owerri, Unpublished MBA Project.

Edward, R. W., Cotter, R. V., Gill, K. E., & Smith, R. E. (1990). Commercial Banking, Illinois, McGraw Hill Publications.

Friedman, M. (1968). "The Role of Monetary Policy" American Economic Review Vol. 58 March.

Jhingan, M.C. (1990). Monetary Theory, New Delhi Konark Publishers PVT Ltd.

Matthew, R. (2010). "Market Failure Cannot Be Resolved Without Regulation." (Wiley Finance).

Minega, C. E. (2007). "The Experience of Financial Markets Regulation in the Southern African Region" Emerging Market Focus http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Charles_Edward_Minega

Nwankwo. G.O. (1991). Bank Management: Principles and Practice, Lagos Malthouse Press Ltd.

Nwankwo, G.O. (1980). The Nigerian financial System, London, Macmillan International College.

Nzotta, S.M. (1996). Money, Banking and Finance: Theory and Practice, Owerri, Intercontinental Books and Educational Publishers.

Qgwuma, P.A. (1996). "Money Supply, Inflation and the Nigerian--Economy" CBN: The Bullion Vol. 20 No.3 July/Sept.

Omoruyi, S.E. (1986). Problems of Monetary and Financial Interpretation in ECOWAS, Economic and Financial Review.

Omoruyi, O. (1990). Methodological Notes for Budget Impact Analysis. CBN Economic and Financial Review, 24, 2.

Onveka, C.A. (1996). An introduction to Applied Statistical Methods, Enugu, Nobern Avocation Publishing Co.

Ojo, Ade T. (September 1994). An Overview of the Nigerian Banking System. Economic and Financial Review, Lagos CBN, 32(3).

Umole, A. (1985). Monetary and Banking Systems in Nigeria, Benin, Adi Publishers. Woods, O. (Jnr.). (1980). Introduction to Money and Banking, New York, D. Van Nostrand Co.

About the Authors:

Edith Azuka Amuzie is Director in the Office of the Accountant General, Ministry of Finance, Owerri, Imo state, Nigeria. She is also a doctoral candidate of the Department of Finance and Banking, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Michael I. Muoghalu is a University Professor of Finance and MBA Program Director at the Kelce College of Business of Pittsburg State University, Pittsburg, Kansas.

Uchenna Elike is a Professor of Economics and Finance and MBA Program Director of the College of Business, Alabama A&M University, Normal, Alabama.

Edith Azuka Amuzie

Ministry of Finance, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria

Michael Muoghalu

Pittsburg State University Kansas

Uchenna Elike

Alabama A & M University, Normal AL
Table 4.1
Deregulation Era Data for Money Supply Aggregate and the Money
Market Instruments, All in Millions of Naira, 1986-1994.

          Money       Treasury     Treasury     Cert of       Comm.
        Supply (Y)     Bills         Cert       Deposits     Papers
                     [X.sub.1]    [X.sub.2]    [X.sub.3]    [X.sub.4]

1986      36,820       16,976       6,655        261.9        259.0
1987      46,926      25,226.0     6,664.1       1328.3        496
1988      57,326       35,476       6,795         38.4        1,861
1989      49,259       24,126       5,945         11.6       1,309.8
1990      57,675       25,476       34,215        3.6         1,743
1991      83,824      56,728.3      34,215         0          1,107
1992     15,970.3     103,327      35,241.4       537         1,575
1993    118,753.4     103,327      36,584.3        91          3372
1994    169,391.5     103,327       37,343        15.2         5253

           Banker
        Acceptances
         [X.sub.5]

1986         18
1987         9
1988        669
1989       737.2
1990       953.4
1991       1,032
1992        127
1993      1,858.2
1994      4,660.2

Source: CBN Statistical Bulletin and CBN, Annual Report
and Accounts.

Table 4.2
Guided and Post-Deregulation Era Data for Money Supply Aggregate
and the Money Market Instruments, All in Millions of Naira,
1995-2006.

            (Y)         [X.sub.1]     [X.sub.2]    [X.sub.3]

1995     201,414.5       103,324        23,596         48
1996     227,464.4       103,327          0           105
1997     268,622.9      221,800.5         0            0
1998     318,576.0      221,801.5         0            0
1999     393,078.8      361,758.4         0            0
2000     637,731.1      465,535.8         0            0
2001     816,707.6      465,535.8         0            0
2002     946,253.4      584,535.8         0            0
2003    1,225,559.3     825,050.0         0            0
2004    1,330,657.8     871,577.0         0            0
2005    6,017,824.4     3,469,605         0            0
2006    5,939,066.9    3,631,978.4        0            0

        [X.sub.4]    [X.sub.5]

1995      10,035        8102
1996     8,023.7      12,199.9
1997     13,595.3     11,956.4
1998      72,522      17,473.9
1999     20,476.4      11,972
2000     19,003.0      31,775
2001     35,377.2     36,501.2
2002      37,144      42,622.1
2003      37,300       32,900
2004      88,830       41,620
2005     679,965      192,704
2006     742,925      268,801

Source: CBN Statistical Bulletin, 2008 & CBN, Annual Report
and Accounts, various years.

Table 4.3
Hypothesis 1 Result/Output

Variables                Coefficients                   Std Error

Intercept                [[beta].sub.0] =   37901.608   21798.348
[X.sub.1] = [TB.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.1] =   0.011       0.526
[X.sub.2] = [TC.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.2] =   0.038       0.98
[X.sub.3] = [CD.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.3] =   1.92        23.983
[X.sub.4] = [CP.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.4] =   -4.37       23.737
[X.sub.5] = [BA.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.5] =   34.926      20.916
ANOVA Table
Source                   SS                 DF          MS
Regression               1.60E+10           5           3185620871
Residual                 1.80E+09           3           603296992.9
Total                    1.80E+10           8

Variables                t(df=3)     Significance

Intercept
[X.sub.1] = [TB.sub.t]   0.021NS     0.33
[X.sub.2] = [TC.sub.t]   0.039NS     0.334
[X.sub.3] = [CD.sub.t]   0.080NS     0.369
[X.sub.4] = [CP.sub.t]   -0.184NS    0.211
[X.sub.5] = [BA.sub.t]   0.1670NS    0.578
ANOVA Table
Source                   F=5.280     0.101
Regression
Residual
Total

R = 0.948, [R.sup.2] = 0.898, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = 0.728
NB: *** = significant at 1%; ** = significant at 5%;
NS = Not significant. F-ratio tabulated df
(5, 3) 1% = 28.2, 5% = 9.01, t-ratio 1% = 5.841; 5% = 3.182.

Table 4.4
Hypothesis 2 Result/Output

Variables                Coefficients                    Std Error

Intercept                [[beta].sub.0] =   -71978.3     77331.315
[X.sub.1] = [TB.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.1] =   1.74         0.205
[X.sub.2] = [TC.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.2] =   1.765        5.667
[X.sub.3] = [CD.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.3] =   1461'.337    1273.512
[X.sub.4] = [CP.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.4] =   0.906        0.975
[X.sub.5] = [BA.sub.t]   [[beta].sub.5] =   -3.365       2.395

ANOVA Table

Source                   SS                 DF           MS
Regression               4.90E+13           5            9.82E+12
Residual                 8.20E+10           6            3.36E+10
Total                    4.90E+13           11

Variables                t(df=3)      Significance

Intercept
[X.sub.1] = [TB.sub.t]   8.484 ***    0
[X.sub.2] = [TC.sub.t]   0.311NS      0.766
[X.sub.3] = [CD.sub.t]   1.147NS      0.295
[X.sub.4] = [CP.sub.t]   0.930NS      0.388
[X.sub.5] = [BA.sub.t]   1.405NS      0.21
ANOVA Table
                         F=721.303    0.000 ***
Regression
Residual
Total

R = 0.999, [R.sup.2] = 0.998, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = 0.997
NB: *** = significant at 1%; ** = significant at 5%;
NS = Not significant. F-ratio tabulated df
(5, 6) 1% = 5.841, 5% = 3.182, t-ratio 1% = 3.707; 5% = 2.447.

Table 4.5
Summary of Regression Results/Output for the hypotheses I and II
All Explanatory Variables against Aggregate Money Supply

Statistic                R      [R.sup.2]   Adj.        [F-.sub.cal]
Model                                       [R.sup.2]

Deregulation Era       0.948    0.898       0.728       5.280

LEVEL OF
SIGNIFICANCE

Guided & Post-         0.999    0.998       997         721.303
Deregulation Era

LEVEL OF

Statistic              [t.sub.cal]   [t.sub.cal]   [t.sub.cal]
Model                  [TB.sub.t]    [TC.sub.t]    [CD.sub.t]

Deregulation Era       0.021         0.039         0.080

LEVEL OF               NS            NS            NS
SIGNIFICANCE

Guided & Post-         8.484         0.311         1.147
Deregulation Era

LEVEL OF               1%            NS            NS

Statistic              [t.sub.cal]   [t.sub.cal]   MODEL
Model                  [CP.sub.t]    [BA.sub.t]    SIGNIFICANCE

Deregulation Era       -0.182        0.1670

LEVEL OF               NS            NS            NS
SIGNIFICANCE

Guided & Post-         0.930         1.405
Deregulation Era

LEVEL OF               NS            NS            1%
SIGNIFICANCE
COPYRIGHT 2011 International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Amuzie, Edith Azuka; Muoghalu, Michael; Elike, Uchenna
Publication:International Journal of Business, Accounting and Finance (IJBAF)
Geographic Code:6NIGR
Date:Dec 22, 2011
Words:4349
Previous Article:Management accounting practices in the gulf cooperative countries.
Next Article:Preface.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters