0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
34 tayangan20 halaman
This material is a complement to Partnership for Economic policy (PEP) International Policy Forum - Santa Cruz, Bolivia, May 7, 2014 report on Fostering entrepreneurship for inclusive growth and poverty reduction.
This material is a complement to Partnership for Economic policy (PEP) International Policy Forum - Santa Cruz, Bolivia, May 7, 2014 report on Fostering entrepreneurship for inclusive growth and poverty reduction.
This material is a complement to Partnership for Economic policy (PEP) International Policy Forum - Santa Cruz, Bolivia, May 7, 2014 report on Fostering entrepreneurship for inclusive growth and poverty reduction.
Inclusive Growth and Employment Risk 1985-2009: The effect of Unemployment on
economic growth and Development in Nigeria.
Non-Experimental Impact Evaluation using SPSS and R Olorunfemi Oladayo 1 and Raheem Kabir Kola 2
August, 2014 3
Today, graduate-unemployment has taken a new dimension in Nigeria. With scarce jobs, many more seek higher education than the ability of the already saturated labour market to absorb (Augustus N. Gbosi, 2005).
This material is a complement to the PEP International Policy Forum held in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, May 7, 2014. The Annual Conference is based on a special Policy Forum organized by the Partnership for Economic Policy (PEP, www.pep-net.org). It consists of a series of examples illustrating the basic economic policy and labour market reforms and interventions used by Nigeria government between 1985-2009 period of growth and employment issues. Users and researchers are advised to further analyze the data contained in this material, before making adjustment towards policy that limits the potential of 21 st century youth in Sub Saharan Africa.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that unemployment, especially the unemployment of graduates, impedes Nigerias progress in many ways. Apart from economic waste, it also constitutes danger for political stability (Ipaye, 1998). The state of unemployment can even lead to depression, low self-esteem, frustration and a
1 Head of Research and Development: DWIPS Technology Lokoja Nigeria. 2 Head of Software Engineering: DWIPS Technology Abuja, Nigeria. 3 The researchers welcome criticism and suggestion to improve future research directions on the issues analyzed in this study. We also wish to thank the anonymous sponsor of this study. Send critics to dayojohn2004@gmail.com number of other negative consequences (Ipaye, 1998). Youth employment is a crucial issue in Nigeria because the youth constitute a major part of the labour force and they have innovative ideas, which among other factors are important in the development process of the country. Aside the changes in labour market institution, urbanization issues and the rising rate of the population demographics of the country which is faster than the job opportunities, total neglect of the agricultural sectors and consequent mass exodus of able bodied youths from the rural to urban areas has also worsen the effect of unemployment due to continuous search of the none existing white cooler jobs. It is against this backdrop of unemployment problems affecting states and the economy that this research tries to investigate as a contemporary study in Nigeria. This is because employment problem has become chronic and should be a matter of utmost national concern. Research Questions Based on the problem of the study, the following research questions form the basis of this investigation: I. What is the magnitude impact of unemployment on Nigeria economy? II. What step should be taken to ensure that economic growth is such that brings about decrease in unemployment in Nigeria? III. What is the tradeoff between seasonality in agricultural produce and rate of unemployment change in Nigeria?
Objective of the Study The objectives that will guide this study are as follows; I. To determine the relationship between unemployment and economic growth in Nigeria. II. To ascertain how structural changes in agricultural & manufacturing production can affect unemployment rate. III. To measure the likelihood effect of unemployment on Nigeria growth & development IV. To conduct a comparative evaluation of unemployment rate among the 36 state in Nigeria. V. To fill gap in literature and make policy recommendations based on findings of this research.
Significance of the study One of the macroeconomics goals of any country is the actualization of full employment. Therefore, unemployment in any system is seen as a policy failure. However, there is always concerted effort on the part of the government in checkmating the impact of unemployment in an economy. This study of unemployment is therefore important to the economic policy makers, politicians, and graduates of higher institutions in all discipline most especially graduate of business management. Firstly, to the policy makers, this study will help in ascertaining the rate of unemployment in Nigeria to the desired height. And the policy maker with the knowledge of the state of unemployment in the system stands the best chance of controlling it through appropriate initiative like poverty eradication programmes and creation of employment opportunities that touches the lives of the population. Secondly, to Politicians, this study is informative to would be Nigerian states governors to take decision concerning the formation of policy towards setting-up cottage industry to reduce structural unemployment affecting states that are public sector driven. Thirdly, university graduate of business that have access to the findings of this report will also learn to be proactive in the choice of sector where their managerial skills can be channel to; thereby averting under capacity utilization (underemployment). Data Presentation
Analysis and Interpretations The fundamental reasoning & directions in the measurement of economic development in the 21 st century is, advancement towards equitable opportunities (inclusive) for economic participants during the process of economic growth with benefits to every Year Rate of Unemployment % change of unemployment GDP % change in GDP % Agricultural contribution to GDP % Manufacturing contribution to GDP 1985 6.1 _ 201036.3 _ 32.7 10.95 1986 5.3 -13.11 205971.4 2.45 35 11.04 1987 7 32.08 204806.5 -0.57 33.9 8.24 1988 5.1 -27.14 219875.6 7.36 34.9 9.23 1989 4.5 -11.76 236729.6 7.67 34.1 6.70 1990 3.5 -22.22 267550 13.02 31.5 6.20 1991 3.1 -11.43 265379.1 -0.81 32.97 7.00 1992 3.5 12.90 271365.5 2.26 32.92 5.66 1993 3.4 -2.86 274833.3 1.28 32.96 6.64 1994 3.2 -5.88 275450.6 0.22 33.7 8.54 1995 1.9 -40.63 281407.4 2.16 34.1 6.37 1996 2.8 47.37 293745.4 4.38 34.1 5.68 1997 3.4 21.43 302022.5 2.82 34.6 6.01 1998 3.5 2.94 310890.1 2.94 35 6.30 1999 17.5 400.00 312183.5 0.42 36.69 5.63 2000 13.1 -25.14 329178.7 5.44 35.83 4.18 2001 13.6 3.82 356994.3 8.45 34.32 4.94 2002 12.6 -7.35 433203.5 21.35 43.89 3.89 2003 14.8 17.46 477533 10.23 42.59 3.84 2004 13.4 -9.46 527576 10.48 40.98 3.59 2005 11.9 -11.19 561931.4 6.51 41.19 3.32 2006 12.3 3.36 595821.6 6.03 41.72 3.06 2007 12.7 3.25 634251.1 6.45 42.01 2.99 2008 14.9 17.32 672202.6 5.98 42.12 2.85 2009 19.7 32.21 716949.7 6.66 41.84 3.01 Sources: NBS, 2010, CBN 2005, 2006 and 2009 Annual Reports Table I: Unemployment Rate and Gross Domestic Product (Value Approach) section of the society. Inclusive growth takes a longer-term perspective, as the focus is on productive employment as a means of increasing the income of the poor and excluded groups & raising their standard of living (Wikipedia, 2014). In this case, what is the tradeoff between seasonality in agricultural produce and rate of unemployment change in Nigeria? The insight required to find answers to this research question can be found in exhibit A below. This question hinges on axiom that economic growth cannot be divorced of productive sector development and employment creation.
One objective of this study is to ascertain how structural shift in the productivity of agricultural & manufacturing outputs can affect unemployment rate. Following Wikipedia 2014 report- sustainable economic growth requires inclusive growth. An insight from exhibit A reveals that seasonal growth in agriculture produce ranges Source: Data factbook from Ni geri an bureau of stati sti cs 2010 and Central bank of Ni geri a 2005 - 2009 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 8 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 r a t i o
o f
g r o w t h
p e r
y e a r
Exhibit A: Tradeoff between seasonality of Agricultural produce, downturn in Nigeria Manufacturing output and development issues (1985-2009) % of Agricultural contribution to GDP (left scale axis) % of Manufacturing contribution to GDP (right scale axis) between 32%-43% approximation within twenty five years (1985-2009) of development period. However, due to urbanization & repeated migration of youth (age group of 20- 44) in rural to urban communities adapting Todaro (1985) migration hypothesis; agricultural productivity in relation to economic growth is therefore traceable to activity based predominantly to people living in rural area within specific age limits (age group of 1519, 5559 and 65+). Conversely, the downturn in local productivity of manufacturing sector in Nigeria is a limiting factor hindering inclusive growth. Within 1985-1990, close to 6%-11% productive manufacturing performance was achieved in Nigeria. In contrast, fewer than 4% growth ratio in manufacturing contribution to GDP is the reality in 2004-2009 periods (see exhibit A). Simply put, a significant employment risk factor of 1.3% on average, will impact youth employment potential adversely in manufacturing sector. Employment risk is a comparison of 1.68 average of absolute deviation of 1985-1990 data points to that of 0.37 within 2004-2009 respectively. To this end, one fundamental approach to address youth unemployment as development issues that is peculiar to this study is a prime readjustment of empowerment program for the youth in relation to inclusive growth. For example, using 25-44 age distribution, an optimal scheme for the unemployed with self-employment or SMEs operational interest, should go beyond short-term (1-2 years period) skill training programme addressing technical aspects of business setup; but rather, empowerment program to beneficiary should also be inclusive of 3-5 years cash transfer payment on quarterly basis within entrepreneurial trial period required to risk failure and create sustainable activities for his/her setup venture in support towards productive employment needs in low-income countries, like the case of Nigeria where general unemployment rate is rising (see Exhibit B below). In Nigeria, another instrumental factor to address development issues of youth unemployment is urbanization processes. A situation where many believed that gainful employment opportunity is city bound due to large factories possibilities & high activity rate in the urban communities. Based on the premise where structural unemployment affects many states among the 36 states including federal capital territory (Abuja) that is public sector driven, what step should be taken to ensure that economic growth is such that brings about decrease in unemployment in Nigeria? If given the research objective to determine the relationship between unemployment and economic growth in Nigeria. The ideal approach cannot be divorced of nonlinear correlation estimate threshold found in table II & Exhibit B below. Table II: Correlations
Sig. (2-tailed) . .001 N 25 25 Gross Domestic Product value Correlation Coefficient .612 ** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 . N 25 25 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The result in table II shows that Nigeria economic growth (GDP) and prevailing unemployment rate are both interdependent at 61.2% rank (rho) correlation coefficient measurement. Put differently, that positive relationship exist between this two macroeconomic variables (the reverse is also possible).
Using baseline threshold in Exhibit B aligned with the prime readjustment strategy, this study therefore follow policy analysis on growth and employment report (PAGE Initiative, 2013). Adapting the thematic focus of partnership for economic policy - inclusive growth is about raising the pace of growth and enlarging the size of the economy, while leveling the playing field for investment and increasing productive employment opportunities (PEP, 2013). In this case therefore, the sub-optimal or defunct reform of structural adjustment programme (SAP 1986-1994) and NEEDs (national economic empowerment development strategy 1&2) crafted with key cardinal focus to drive employment generation for youth, did not achieved sustainable impact beyond reform periods (see exhibit B). Why? because the intervention programme/reforms were not planned with impact evaluation & follow-up policy review; Hence, the 32.08% high change in unemployment rate recorded in 1987 after SAP launch, remains the same 32.21% in 2009 immediately after NEEDs programme suspension (see exhibit B) by the new federal government regime in Nigeria by May, 2007. Though, series of reforms inclusive of MDG intervention, had yielded 6.66% GDP growth in 2009 when compare to the adverse growth (-0.57%) level in 1987, this economic growth is not inclusive due to the rise in general unemployment level and population in Nigeria as at 2009 observation. Hypothesis testing What is the magnitude impact of unemployment on Nigeria economy? Considering the learning or research outcome with scientific goals to measure the likelihood effect of unemployment on Nigeria growth & development; the hypothesis restated here is: H 0 : Unemployment does not have significant effect on economic growth & development in Nigeria. H 1 : Unemployment does have a significant effect on the economic growth & development in Nigeria.
Table III: Model Summary and Parameter Estimates Dependent Variable: Gross Domestic Product value Equation Model Summary Parameter Estimates R Square F df1 df2 Sig. Constant b1 d i m en si o n 1 Power .482 21.430 1 23 .000 162713.042 .387 Growth .562 29.548 1 23 .000 12.277 .054 The independent variable is Unemployment rate (%).
The model summary result found in table III shows that an estimated 48.2% (R 2 = 0.482) variability in Nigeria economic growth on average (dependent variable being GDP values) is being explained by annual changing rate of unemployment variable (predictor), if power calculation technique is administered. A counterfactual investigation conducted by Tabeuina Daveri (2000) found empirical support by raising a hypothesis that unemployment has a negative effect on economic growth while Layard and Nickell (1999) supported findings that the labour market institution that increase unemployment also lower economic growth. By contrast, following result in table III, the growth equation lacked sufficient impact estimate (b 1 = 0.054) to predict Nigerian economy from changes found in unemployment rate (25 years period: [1985-2009])
Fundamentally, using a causal effect approach in table III, the Interpretation of parameter estimate statistic on average outcome suggest that; each unit group of persons added to unemployment grid thus produces 38.7% impact (see table III: b 1 = 0.387) on economic growth (GDP value). But the average outcome here is without feedback effect to explain development issues relating to inclusive growth and productive employment in the long-run. However, the regression parameter estimate found in the power equation result (see Table III) is statistically significant (Sig.=0.000 < 0.05 level tested) at 95% confidence interval. Hypothesis decision: we reject the null (H 0 ) hypothesis that unemployment does not impact economic growth, and make conclusion to support alternative (H 1 ) hypothesis that Unemployment rate does have a significant short-term effect on the economic growth, but lacked power to explain long-term productive employment in Nigeria. Due to paucity of data, the research objective to carry out comparative evaluation of unemployment rate among the 36 state in Nigeria was a major challenge. This however can be a major area for further research direction towards impact evaluation quest by other researchers. Moreover, we adopted cluster analysis to investigate migration issues across states, based on the data available, unemployment rates by states in Nigeria (2002-2008) for the scope of this study. Source: NBS/CBN Surveys 2007 and 2008, Federal Office of Statistics 2010. > data X2002 X2003 X2004 X2005 X2006 X2007 X2008 ABIA 14.8 11.4 9.65 7.9 13.5 10.9 14.50 ADAMAWA 12.9 11.9 16.65 21.4 17.9 11.9 29.40 AKWA-IBOM 12.3 14.4 14.40 14.4 15.3 13.5 34.10 ANAMBRA 6.6 9.1 9.45 9.8 10.8 11.1 16.80 BAUCHI 10.4 20.5 25.10 29.7 23.9 7.3 37.20 BAYELSA 3.5 7.1 14.00 20.9 16.0 6.9 38.40 BENUE 8.2 4.8 11.70 18.6 10.8 67.4 8.50 BORNO 6.4 0.8 3.55 6.3 5.8 7.8 27.70 CROSS-RIVER 7.9 12.0 11.50 11.1 16.9 11.8 14.30 DELTA 14.9 17.1 10.80 4.5 13.8 18.9 18.40 EBONYI 2.8 16.7 11.80 7.0 10.9 11.5 12.00 EDO 4.8 3.1 6.50 9.9 8.6 5.1 12.20 EKITI 17.5 8.2 7.85 7.5 8.7 15.6 20.60 ENUGU 15.2 16.5 21.60 27.4 20.0 11.5 14.90 GOMBE 13.4 7.6 15.20 22.8 15.6 10.5 32.10 IMO 19.9 22.1 19.30 16.5 21.5 7.6 20.80 JIGAWA 6.1 20.5 19.80 19.1 21.6 17.4 26.50 KADUNA 8.4 19.6 15.90 12.1 14.1 5.9 11.60 KANO 12.8 25.9 22.50 19.1 19.4 12.7 27.60 KATSINA 10.4 20.3 22.10 23.8 19.3 5.8 37.30 KEBBI 12.3 19.8 19.90 19.9 15.2 11.8 12.00 KOGI 19.9 14.9 11.80 8.7 12.5 16.5 19.00 KWARA 8.8 5.4 4.20 2.9 7.5 16.4 11.00 LAGOS 8.0 25.6 16.10 6.5 15.5 10.2 19.50 NASARAWA 1.6 5.1 6.90 8.7 8.1 7.6 10.10 NIGER 6.3 6.7 3.50 0.2 3.6 17.0 11.93 OGUN 9.2 1.3 1.90 2.5 2.3 3.9 8.50 ONDO 16.8 7.3 6.80 6.2 6.7 5.8 14.90 OSUN 1.0 0.4 1.20 1.9 2.7 6.3 12.60 OYO 7.0 0.8 3.10 5.3 4.3 6.5 14.90 PLATEAU 11.8 0.4 1.60 2.8 2.9 8.7 7.10 RIVERS 6.6 15.3 11.20 7.0 25.0 4.7 27.90 SOKOTO 4.1 4.9 4.50 4.1 6.4 12.1 22.40 TARABA 16.8 23.8 13.60 3.4 14.0 5.9 26.80 YOBE 15.0 12.1 10.70 8.0 13.6 19.9 27.30 ZAMFARA 46.4 71.5 61.30 51.1 50.8 12.8 13.30 FCT 14.4 5.3 5.90 6.5 16.4 16.4 21.50
> data.agnes <- agnes(data, metric = "manhattan", method = "average", stand = TRUE) > data.agnes Call: agnes(x = data, metric = "manhattan", stand = TRUE, method = "average") Agglomerative coefficient: 0.8758194 Order of objects: [1] ABIA ANAMBRA CROSS-RIVER EBONYI KADUNA LAGOS [7] DELTA YOBE KOGI EKITI FCT RIVERS [13] TARABA BORNO OYO SOKOTO EDO NASARAWA [19] OGUN PLATEAU OSUN KWARA NIGER ONDO [25] ADAMAWA GOMBE AKWA-IBOM BAYELSA BAUCHI KATSINA [31] ENUGU KEBBI IMO JIGAWA KANO BENUE [37] ZAMFARA Height (summary): Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max. 1.890 2.925 3.804 5.440 5.467 35.260
From the evidences contained the data, the Dendrogram (using average linkage between groups: see graph below) result suggests that people living in various state like Delta, Yobe, Kogi, Ekiti and FCT (federal capital territory tends to have similar unemployment challenges. These category of states are therefore classified as one group. However, the dendogram suggests further that when the dwellers, particularly the youth living in this particular group of five as one identity, decides to migrate to another neighbor class of group (Abia, Anambra, Cross-River, Ebonyi, Kaduna and lagos), to search and compete for few available jobs in a state with high population density and large number of manufacturing and service firms or industry; such migrants that may be faced with information asymmetric in the labour market might create an unintended job competition among the people in the other states. The possible solution to this issue stated here, is for policy makers to address inclusive growth and employment risk as explained in context found previously in exhibit A model.
Discussion of Findings For policy review, another major example of sub-optimal empowerment program in practice is the graduate internship scheme (GIS) initiative under the SURE-P (Subsidy reinvestment and empowerment programme) intervention of Nigeria federal government in 2011. GIS aims to provide Nigerian graduates with quality temporary work experience that will make them stronger candidates for job openings in the labour market through a one-year internship placement (Papka P.M. August 6, Project Director (GIS) report, 2014). Stating further that, during the period of internship, the Federal Government will provide each intern with a monthly stipend payment of N30,000, and a group life Insurance. Empirically, consequent upon the findings in this study, the rising rate of unemployed persons irrespective of gender, age distribution and geographical location is a signal to measure the unproductive sector in which the youth as a group is more vulnerable. Unemployment rate according to Begg, (2004) is the percentage of people in the labour force without jobs. However, to level up this scientific investigation, the productive sector cannot be left out of research equation. Productive sector of the Nigeria economy in this context is inclusive of Agricultural & manufacturing sectors contribution, but not limited to this critical sector (see Exhibit A). For comparison, the impact of productive sector to the economy which is the unexplained factor (see Model summary in table III) in the curve estimation regression model (1- R 2 statistic: [1-0.482] = 0.518) is put at 51.8% probability estimate approximately for power calculation.
Summary of Findings One major rationale to understand the strong positive correlation (rho= 0.612) between unemployment rate and economic growth indicator in Nigeria is that raising the gross domestic product (value approach) is critical for the control of rising unemployment rate though; the outcome may not be parallel in the long-run (see exhibit C & table II).
Corroborating Walterskirchen (1999) the simple, but wrong argument is: There can be no negative relationship between economic growth and unemployment, because GDP and unemployment are both rising in the long run. Conversely, the macroeconomic policy framework has enhanced the stability (year-on-year change in GDP) of Nigerian economy. In contrast, the shift (year-on-year change in unemployment rate) in labour market issues extends towards an irrational patterns (1988-2000: see exhibit B) hence, the need for prime readjustment strategy to tackle unemployment affecting the standard of living of the youth in Nigeria.
Conclusions The dynamics of impact evaluation in relation to unemployment and economic growth in Nigeria have been fully explained in this study. Although few hindrances to interpret the cause-effect factor (predictive) of labour market supply and economic development in developing countries such as the Nigeria case is still problematic. However, the estimated 38.7% average impact of unemployment on economic growth indicator for twenty five annual period (long-term: 1985-2009) can be approached as implicit cost associated with marginal unit of output that can be produced locally if the unemployed grid of people particularly the youth are nationally motivated to experiment entrepreneurial initiatives to create value to their immediate communities, rather than migrating to urban labour market in search of high rewarding jobs.
Recommendations One main recommendation based on evidences in this study is that government policy relating to labour market reforms in Nigeria should be integrated with a baseline & follow-up actions of reforms impact evaluation to curb policy shock or unintended effect of empowerment scheme. Policy makers especially in Nigeria and particularly the policy interventions at the state level should acknowledge the fact that civil service jobs extension is not likely to account for productive employment creation for 21 st century youth. This explains the missing link of inclusive growth approach. The Nigerian youth are likely to be left behind when short-term skills acquisition program is not planned with sustainable Prime readjustment strategy that can absorb failure risk of self-employed or green entrepreneurial drives to create activity based business that can employ more people locally. The employment risk factor attributed to loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector in Nigeria on a long-term measurement approach should be controlled through optimal labour market reforms and economic development policies review.
REFERENCE Adelodun, S. (2006). How to be your own boss. Daily Sun: The Sun News Online 2005. Retrieved from http://www.a:/unemployment.htm Anyanwu, J. C., (2005). Rural Poverty in Nigeria: Profile, Determinants and Exit Paths. African Development Review, Vol. 17, Issue 3, December 2005, 435-460. ISHR, (2006). Activities Report. ISHR Group Nigeria 2001; Retrieved from http://www.ishrgroup.com Omotosho, (2009). Problems and counseling needs of unemployed youths in Nigeria. Bajoma, O. (1996), Manpower Utilization in Nigeria: Analysis of some causes and consequences of Unemployment. Lagos, FBN Bi-Annual Review. Bello, (2003). Meeting the Challenge Of Risking Unemployment In Employment, Policy & Strategy Formulation Mission To Nigeria. Report Submitted By The Ilo. 21st Oct- 22nd November. Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Statistical Bulletin (Volume 16, 2005 Edition, & Volume 19, 2008 Edition) Retrieved From Www.Cenbank.Org Davidson, & Mackinnon. (1993). Theory of Employment, Interested & Money. London: Macmillan. Downess. (1998). Oxford Economics Papers. 19(15) 24-25. Gbosi, A.N. (2005). The Dynamics of Managing Chronic Unemployment in Nigerias depressed Economy. Inaugural Lecture Series. Gujarati, (1995). Growth & Employment, in Development Problem Countries. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, Publishers. Ipaye, B. (1998). Counseling the unemployed: Some exploratory ideas for the Nigerian Counselors. Levin & Wright, (2000). Nigeria Unemployment Problem Tim Int. Journal, Sept,19 Vol.1 No 1. Lindbeck, A. (1999). Unemployment Structural: Institute of International Economic Studies. Stockholm University; Seminar Paper No. 676, October. Lindbect. (1999). Unemployment In Developing Countries: An Over-View. New York: Mc- Grow-Hill Publishers. Machin, S and Manning, A. (1998). The Causes and Consequences of Long Term Unemployment in Europe. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics; July. Meier, G. (1988). International Economics: The Theory of Policy, New York: Oxford Press. National Bureau of Statistics. (2012), National Unemployment Rates (1995 - 2011). Retrieved from www.nigerianstat.gov.ng Nickel. (1999) Issues on Unemployment & Violence, Second Edition. New York Grow-Hill. Okafor, E.E. (2011). Youth Unemployment and Implications for Stability of Democracy in Nigeria. Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan: Ibadan, Nigeria. Olison, (1984). The Federal Solution Political Studies Vol.1. Olueye78, (2006).Management & Unemployment in Nigeria. Osinubi, (2006).The Political Crisis & Solution Vanguard july 19 Todaro, M. R. (1989), A Model of Labour Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less- Developed Countries, American Economic Review. Geddes, Barbara (1990). How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics. Political Analysis. Vol. 2: 131-150. Geddes, B. (2003). Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics, University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. George, and McKeown, (1985). Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision Making, in Advances in Information Processing in Organizations. A Research Annual, Vol. 2, ed. Robert F. Coulam and Richard A. Smith (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1985): 3441. NPC Report, (2004). National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS), National planning Commission. Abuja, Nigeria. PEP, (2013). Policy Analysis on growth and employment: thematic focus towards Inclusive growth. PEP, (2014). Fostering Entrepreneurship for Inclusive Growth and Poverty Reduction: Conclusions and Recommendations from discussion panels, International Policy Forum, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, May 7, 2014. Wikipedia, (2014) Sustainable and Inclusive growth Papka P.M. August 6, Project Director (GIS) SURE-P: info@gisurep.gov.ng