HECTARAGE AND OUTPUT RESPONSES OF MAJOR CROPS TO MARKET LIBERALISATION AND PRICE RISK IN NIGERIA                                                                   ABSTRACT:          Liberalization is part of the ongoing domestic market reforms and globalization policies that redefined government responsibility and actions, which affect agricultural development, and the welfare of farmers. This study examined hectarage and output responses of major crops to market liberalization, price risk and financial support. The objectives were to describe trends of output, hectarage and prices of these crops, as well as describe trends of non-price factors and estimate the effects of these factors on hectrage and output of selected crops. The study covered a period of 38 years from 1970 to 2007. Secondary data were obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Statistics Data Base, Publications of Central Bank of Nigeria, (CBN) and National Bureau of Statistics. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and seemingly unrelated regression model estimation. The descriptive statistics results showed that output of rice was the lowest among the cereals. It ranged from 403,000 to 4,165, 070 tonnes. Fluctuations that characterise nominal prices also marked the price risks. The nominal price risks for maize, rice and yam were the highest among the carbohydrate staples from 2005 to 2007. Time series property analysis showed that the variables satisfied criteria for estimation of ECM for the hectarage allocations and output estimates. Regression analysis showed that the coefficient of determination for hectarage and output equations accounted for about 80% and 85% of variation in hectarage and output of the majority of the crops. Price and price risks were major determinants of hectarage allocation and output of the crops. Real exchange rate had positive relationship with hectarage of yam but negative relationship with output of beans, cocoa and coffee. Volume of rainfall had positive relationship with the output of rice, yam and cocoa beans but a negative relationship with those of maize, sorghum and oil palm. Ten percent increase in rice price will lead to about 16 and 24 percent increases in its hectarage and output, respectively. Sorghum showed a similar pattern only that an increase in its output was 9 percent, which was less than that of rice. It was recommended that farmers should cultivate crops such as rice, maize, cassava and yam have positive relationship with the liberalization exercise. The Government should continue to attract FDI since it had positive impact on output of rice, yams, beans and cotton coffee and oil palm as well as increase funding of ACGSF since it had positive impact on hectarage of rice, maize, cassava, groundnut, and oil palm. Nigerians should redirect their taste to local foodstuffs and goods made from local agricultural raw material to limit the effect of market liberalization through substitution with imports. This is because the consumption of imported food products, which has local substitutes, limits demand for local production, which will, results in low hectarage allocation and subsequently lower output.                       TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                PAGE    Title Page     i    Certification     ii    Dedication    iii    Acknowledgments    iv    Abstracts     v    List of table of content     vi    CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION    1.1    Background of the Study     11.2    The Problem     51.3    Objectives of the Study      81.4    Hypotheses     81.5    Justification    81.6    Limitations of the Study    9CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW       102.1    Nigerian Domestic Agricultural Market: The CMB Experience and afterwards      102.2     Trade Policy Reforms and Exchange Rate affecting Agriculture in Nigeria    132.2.1    Trade liberalization Episodes in Nigerian    142.2.2    Trade policy trends between 1960 and 1970's       152.2.3    Trade policy trends between 1980 and 1985    152.2.4     The structural adjustment era 1986-1994      162.2.5    Trade policy under the post SAP: (New Agricultural Policy and the NEEDS Era)    Summary of liberalization policy with emphasis on its quantification     172.3    Theoretical Review       182.4    Theoretical Basis for Economic Deregulation     232.5    Concept of Agricultural Marketing     242.5.1     Markets       252.5.2    Marketing Channel     262.5.3    Market Structure      282.5.4    Market Conduct       282.5.5    Market Performance and basic Constraints of the Marketing System     292.6    Economic Regulation     312.7    Economic Deregulation       322.7.1    Deregulation of the Nigerian Economy     322.8    Definition of Terms Relating to Exchange Rate     332.8.1    Foreign exchange     332.8.2    Nominal exchange rate (NER)      342.8.3    The real exchange rate (RER)       342.8.4    The effective exchange rate (EER)    352.8.5    The Purchasing power parity of exchange rate      352.8.6    The Importance of the Exchange Rate      362.9    Land, Soil Fertility and Shortage of Arable Land      361.1    Population Density, Land Tenure Farm Size       372.11     Population Pressure and Agricultural Intensification     382.12    Theoretical framework        392.13    Analytical  framework        413    CHAPTER THREE:   METHODOLOGY       453.1    Description of Study Area    453.2    Sampling procedure    473.3     Data Collection     483.4     Data Analysis        483.5    The description and measurement of variables:    483.6    Method of Estimation      504    CHAPTER FOUR:   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION        524.1    The Output Level of Carbohydrate Staples     524.1.1    Hectarage of carbohydrate staples     524.1.2    Output levels of legumes, cotton and plantation Crops                                              534.1.3    Hectarage planted with legumes, cotton and plantation crops     544.1.4    Prices of carbohydrate staples     554.1.5    Prices of legumes, cotton and plantation crops         564.1.6    Nominal Price Risk of Carbohydrate Staples        564.1.7    Price Risks of legumes, cotton and plantation crops         574.2    Macro-Economic variables associated with market liberalization         584.3     Determination of hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors      614.3.1     Time Series Properties       614.3.2    Test for cointegration     624.3.3    Rice hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors       624.3.4    Maize hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors          654.3.5    Millet hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors          674.3.6    Sorghum Hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors        694.3.7    Cassava Hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors     714.3.8    Yam hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors         734.3.9    Beans hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors          764.3.10    Groundnut hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factor s        784.3.11    Cotton hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors       804.3.12     Cocoa hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors        824.3.13    Coffee hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors      834.3.14    Palm Kernel hectarage and output responses to price and non-price factors       854.4.0    Responsiveness of Selected Crops to Changes in Own Price     874.4.1    Responsiveness of carbohydrate staples to changes in own price     884.4.2    Responsiveness of legumes and plantation crops to changes in own price        89CHAPTER FIVE:   SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION        5.1    Summary        905.2    Recommendations       945.3    Conclusion      96    References        97                                   LIST OF TABLES  Nigerian Agricultural Export  Performance in Relation to Food Imports    2Possible effects of trade libtalisation on production    21Output Levels of Carbohydrate Staples- Cereals and Tubers in ‘000 tonnes          52Area in ‘000 Hectares of Carbohydrate Staples- Cereals and Tubers     53Output of Legumes,  and cotton  in ‘000  Tonnes       53Output of  Plantation Crops in ‘000  Tonnes       54Area   in ‘000 in Hectares Planted with Legumes  and cotton     54Area planted with Plantation Crops    55Nominal Prices of Carbohydrate staples in Naira per Kilogramme   (Kg)       55Nominal Prices of Legumes and cotton in Naira per Kilogramme         54Nominal price of Plantation crops in Naira per Kilogramme (Kg)    56Nominal Price Risk of Carbohydrate Staples in Naira per Kg         57Nominal Price Risks of legumes and cotton  in Naira per Kg     57Nominal Price Risks of  plantation crops in Naira per Kg     58Macro Economic Variables associated and sources of Funds          56ADF Roots Values at Order  I(1)     61Augmented Engle- Granger Test for Co integration at Order  I(0)         62The Estimates of Rice Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price factors      63The Estimates of Maize Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price  factors    65The Estimates of Millet Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price factors     68The Estimates of Sorghum Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price factors     70The Estimates of Cassava Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price factors    71The Estimates of Yam Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non  Price factors     75The Estimates of Beans Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price Factors    76The Estimates of Groundnut Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price Fcators    79The Estimates of Cotton Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price Factors    81The Estimates of Cocoa beans Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price Factors    82The Estimates of Coffee Hectarage and Output Responses to Price and Non Price factors    84The Estimates of Oil Palm Hectarage and Palm kernel Output Responses to Price and Non Price Factors    86Impact of Responsiveness of carbohydrate staples to changes in own Prices    88Impact of Responsiveness of Legumes, cotton  and plantation Crops to changes in own Prices    89CHAPTER ONE   INTRODUCTION1.1. Background of the Study Okuneye, Aromolaran, Adetunji, Arowolo, Adebayo and Ayinde (2001); Alabi and Chime, (2008) have, attributed the present economic problem in Nigeria to the poor performance of the agricultural sector and have argued that the persistent economic recession in Nigeria since the post oil boom era, could be corrected with improved performance of the agricultural sector. The near collapse of the Nigerian agricultural sector during the era of oil boom (1972 – 1975) and the increasing food insecurity are as a result of inconsistent and unfocused government policies (Alabi and Chime, 2008). The small-scale farmers that dominated the production sector produce about 85% of the total output (Okuneye, 1995). The majority of the farmers are small scale producers who are affected by inconsistent and unfocussed government policies, and poor infrastructure resulting in low production, high prices of food items, and underdevelopment of the sector and poverty of farmers (Alabi and Chime, 2008). Ojo (1994) argued that the Nigerian agricultural sector was rendered less competitive over time through over-valued currency, inappropriate pricing policies and rural-urban migration, which caused the dearth of farm labour. Other factors that can militate against agricultural production in Nigeria include declining arable land area per capita, erratic rainfall and climatic change, poor input supply such as fertilizers, low capital expenditure and poor financial resources (Imahe and Alabi, 2005). Mahendra (2007) aptly noted that agricultural GDP in parts of the developed world will benefit from climatic change, whereas in many developing regions it will decrease. The present poor state of agriculture may not necessarily cause the eradication even from the mind, of the positive and significant role it played in the Nigerian economy.The agricultural sector used to be the mainstay of the Nigerian economy. The exports of primary agricultural products dominated its external trade, especially from 1960 to 1970 when the exports of cocoa, palm produce (palm oil and palm kernel), groundnuts, cotton and rubber accounted for about 80% of total exports. It was also recorded that Nigeria was the largest exporter of groundnut, accounting for 40% of the world supply (Oyejide, 1987). The sector was the main source of food for the population and served as means of livelihood for over 70 percent of the population as well as major source of raw materials for agro-allied industries (Alabi, Aigbokhan and Ailemen, 2004). The Dutch disease phenomenon which crept into the economy as a result of the crude oil boom and the neglect of other productive sectors adversely affected agriculture. The neglect of the agricultural sector resulted in a decline in food production, increased rural-urban migration and importation of food. By the mid-seventies, declining output of the agricultural sector and the increasing domestic consumption needs made output of primary commodities such as palm oil, cotton and rubber to fall in the export trade. For example, groundnut completely disappeared from Nigeria’s export while cocoa declined from its 30% contribution to export to about 10% (Olopoeni, 1991).  Before the oil boom in the early 1970, by 1970 itself, the percentage share of agricultural export was 31.62 and proportion of food imports in relation to total imports was 9.1 percent. These values of share of agricultural export have continued to be on the decline while that of food imports has continued to incease.  The nominal value of agricultural export increased from 0.22 billions to 38.57 for the periods under review but the real value when defleted with exchange rate shows that value of agricultural export was more, prior to the oil boom era and shortly during that era. Acomposite view of performance of Nigerian agricultural export is presented in Table 1.1.  Table 1.1: Nigerian Agricultural Export Performance in relation to Food ImportsYear    Total Agric. Export (N' Billions)    Exchange rate     Share of Agric. export in Total export (%)    Tood imports as % of Totl Imports1970-1974    0.228    0.628    14.462    9.0641975-1979    0.323333    0.589    4.308333    12.936671980-1984    0.24    0.763    2.448    18.271985-1989    1.256    4.491    4.476    12.1561990-1994    3.30    19.925    2.148    8.0641995-1999    16.186    81.100    1.516    13.542000-2004    17.18    95.783    0.628    12.1722005 only     38.57    128.27    0.61    9.41Adopted from Idachaba, 2006;  Achike, Mkpado and Arene, 2008.The performance of the crude oil sector improved considerably while that of agriculture and other sectors of the economy fared badly. But by the early 1980s, there was a slump in the world crude oil market. Owing to over-dependence on crude oil export, serious economic crises set in on the economy because of inadequate fund to execute national projects. This led to an increase in Nigeria’s external debt from one million United States dollars in 1970 to 21 million in 1981 (Oyejide 1987). It was recorded that by 1984 there were about 30 importable crops under ban (Oyejide 1987). This measure reduced external debt to US $9.4 billion but by 1986, the external debt rose to about US 12 billion (Olusegun, 2006) The need for complete overhauling of the economic system led to the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1986. The objectives of SAP include to: i.    diversify Nigeria’s production and exports based on promotion of agricultural production  and exports,ii.    liberalize trade and exchange rate so as to achieve relative price structure in the economy which will be suitable for export promotion and import compression. The removal of restrictions or control to ease exchange of goods and services is termed liberalisation, and when such an exercise aids the exchange of goods and services across the boundary of a country it is termed trade liberalisation, but when it aids the exchange within a country, it is termed market liberalisation however, both type of liberalisation are linked. The removal of commodity marketing boards to allow the forces of demand and supply to determine price is a major market liberalisation policy in Nigeria. When the forces of demand and supply interact to set price (instead of government price regulations), producers face higher price fluctuations leading to  price risk and the price risk is a measure of the deviation from the present price.          The libralization of agricultural marketing services has been part of a World Bank/IMF package of economic reforms in developing countries within the SAP period. The argument has been that the agricultural sector in developing countries is inefficient due to various state interventions with respect to marketing, pricing and various forms of subsidies (Chirwa, 2000).The implementation of SAP led to adoption of floating foreign exchange which resulted in depreciation in the relative value of naira by more than 100% (Khan and Knight, 1985; Soludo, 1995). Trade liberalisation was also accompanied with domestic market liberalisation. Thus, the introduction of SAP resulted in the abolition of commodity marketing boards (CMBs). The closure of CMBs, provided a good opportunity for the Nigerian Export Promotion Council to be established and independent or private exporters were also registered to facilitate trade. This exposed farmers to greater price volatility/instability, despite the efforts of the export promotion council, which concentrated on increasing production and exportation of some crops, while domestic demand and supply determine mainly the price of other crops. In other words, market liberalisation, a SAP component can cause financial (exchange rate, interest rate, and price) volatility at least in the short-run and this phenomenon is capable of increasing price risk with adverse consequences on hectarage expansion by agricultural investors.  Despite exchange rate volatility and price risks, the agricultural sector as a whole grew considerably since 1987 after the introduction of SAP and liberalisation of both internal and external markets (Soludo, 1995; Olusegun, 2006). Could this be growth or development and what are the factors that led to it? Agricultural farm gate producer prices were formally fixed by technical department of the marketing boards but for sometime now are purely markets determined. It has been documented that the free market pricing policy under SAP led to increase in agricultural production and nominal income of farmers. (Ajakaiye,1987; Oyejide, 1990; Kwanashie et al, 1998). Given the increased production, the expectation of policy makers is that liberalisation of the market will make price stable since opening up markets will make price stable because it will result in a greater number of producers and consumers adjusting their supply and demand,  respectively thereby reducing adjustment in prices (Olusegun, 2006). There is need to verify whether the experience during SAP was just growth or actually development by examining the effects of the ongoing liberalisation of agriculture.It is not an overstatement to say that agriculture is instrumental to national development in sub-Saharan African developing economies. Consequently, adequate, effective and sustainable funding of agricultural projects especially at micro level, which constitutes the major proportion of the economy, has been a re-occurring issue in development literature. Nigerian governments had adopted various methods to meet this need, one of which is by seeking the assistance of the private sector of the economy. Private financial institutions resent granting loans to small-scale farmers, whether as individuals or as a group, on the premise that such farmers can not provide adequate collateral and also because high risk and uncertainties are the hallmark of agriculture due to its biological nature.  Efforts to improve financing may not produce the desired result if the industry is not lucrative due to poor pricing hence, the need to determine the factors affecting price. The removal of government price support due to liberalisation does not imply that government is no longer interested in price stabilization and increased output. Other non-price incentives, which can increase investment and production that Nigerian government has continued to use, include micro-finance, especially the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (ACGSF), rural infrastructure and attraction of foreign direct investment (FDI).According to World Trade Organization (WTO 1998), a holistic view of agriculture shows that the area under cultivation was about 34 million hectares, representing about 37% of total arable land mass. Post harvest losses are substantial, estimated at 40% of farm gate output (Ogunkola, 2003). Farmers are also characterized by a strong dependence on agricultural labour market, relatively little forms of savings or storage facilities and cultural practices adopted are highly labour intensive. The socio-economic and production characteristics of the farmer, inconsistent and unfocussed government policies, and the poor infrastructural base, all interact in a strong way to destroy the sector, resulting in low production, high prices of food items, inflation, underdevelopment and concomitant poverty (Alabi and Chime, 2008). Due to the fact that the majority practises extensive farming, measurement of agricultural development needs to include consistent increase in hectarage, because given extensive production system, the larger the hectrage, the larger the output ceteris paribus. Thus, hectrage is a major determinant of output and can be very senitive to price risk. Price risk is the proportion of the prevalling price series that farmers can loose or gain due to changes in market.  1.2 The ProblemFood insecurity is threatening the life and health of millions of Nigerians. Food production in Nigeria has not kept pace with population growth. This is because the population is growing at about 3.2 percent per annum while food production rate is at about 2.2 percent (FAO, 2005). Food importation is used to supplement domestic production but this drains the country’s foreign exchange earnings. For example, in 1970, when the economy was not liberalized, food import value was US $81.89 million but by 2003, when liberalisation has reached almost all aspects of the economy, food import bill came to $2,018.38 millions (CBN, 2004). The demise of CMBs as a result of liberalisation has exposed producers to more price risk in addition to production risks. The fluctuations in prices which give rise to price risks can adversely affect production. Are Nigerian farmers risk averse? What are the effect of ongoing libralisation on hectrage and output of major crops?  Many studies on agricultural supply response have neglected the effect of market liberalisation and price risk on gross domestic supply. Instead, a number of studies have examined the effects of price and exchange rate on the volume of agricultural export either holistically or for specific crop or group of crops. To illustrate, Adubi and Okunnmadewa (1999) examined the relationship between price and exchange rate volatility on agricultural exports as a whole. Studies that involved specific crops included those by Philips (1996), Ayichi (1997), Chidebelu et al (1998), Arene and Odusolu (1998), Arene and Okafor (2000), Arene (2000), Okoli and Okoye (2005). These studies have concentrated on the effects of price and exchange rate on the export of one or a few of the following crops: cocoa beans, groundnuts, cotton, palm produce and cassava but ignored measuring effects of libralisation on the exports.Market liberalisation has continued from the principles of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), which ended in 1994.  For instance in 1988, the National Fertilizer Company of Nigeria (NAFCON) was established. Due to low production capacity and the fact that fertilizer is the most important tradable agricultural input in Nigeria, the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) continued to import fertilizers till 1994.  From 1995 to 1996, FGN stopped the direct importation of fertilizer and it became the sole responsibility of the private sector while NAFCON and the blending plants were the agents responsible for distributing locally produced fertilizer.  States collected their fertilizer allocation from the fertilizer plants and the FGN reimbursed the transport costs later. In 1997, FGN completely eliminated fertilizer subsidy programmes and adopted a complete privatization/liberalisation of fertilizer sector (Kwa, 2002; Nagy and Edun, 2002). This liberalisation has implications for price risk, hectarage allocation and output. Market liberalisation has reached many aspects of Nigerian agriculture as World Development Report (WRD, 2008) recorded a negative nominal rate of assistance for Nigeria’s agriculture in 2005. United Nations (UN, 2008) was of the view that it is now time to examine impacts of libralisation in developing economics. Studies in Nigeria need to reflect this.Literature on the effects of the degree of openness on hectarage is lacking. Agricultural supply response is yet to be examined in the context of trade intensity especially with respect to gross domestic output. According to Oyejide (1986), the choice of trade policy has significant implications for food demand and supply in an economy. This is because trade and associated policies influence the structure of incentives for agriculture as compared to other sectors of an economy. Trade policy can have impact on the movement of resources to and from agriculture which can encourage or discourage food production. Trade and associated policies have implications for the structure of relative domestic prices, which help to determine whether self-sufficiency in food production is possible or even desirable. The liberalisation of trade and domestic market has exposed domestic producers to price competition with large-scale producers elsewhere. This price competition tends to exert a downward pull on the domestic prices and increases price instability, which gives rise to more price risk.  However, the aspects of trade policy that has attracted the interest of some scholars have not included measuring the policy impact on hectarage expansion. For example, the study by Oyejide (1990) examined theoretical issues in supply response in the context of SAP in sub-Saharan Africa while Kwanashie et al (1998) examined the response of agriculture in Nigeria to adjustment policies. Similarly, Olusegun (2006) examined the effects of price, price risk, and real exchange rate on hectarage response of few crops in the context of SAP. His work did not cover much of Nigerian liberalisation experience as only a dummy variable was used to measure it.  But the effects of degree of openness which is a good measure of trade liberalisation, because it deals with changed in values of exports and imports,  as well as  ACGSF and FDI in agriculture are yet to be examined.  The effects of degree of openness will show the crops, which are affected by trade either positively or negatively. It will indicate the effects of trade policy on the productive sector of the economy, which can give insight into the possible effect of Ducth disease in the sector, but literature need to buttress or refute these facts with Nigerian experience.  In addition, effects of ACGSF and FDI will indicate the responsiveness of crops to such funds. Most of the FDI are given to research institutions whose mandates include production of improved breeds. Positive response of output of crops to FDI could be an indication of production and distribution of improved breeds to farmers and constitute criteria for justification of the invested fund, but research has neither buttressed nor refuted this point.   It may be informative to note that as the economy gets more liberalised; its degree of openness increases and foreign investors can be attracted, thus increasing the volume of FDI. Nevertheless, we do not know which crops loose or benefit from these experiences in Nigeria?Food insecurity, price risk and resource allocation as well as output can be influenced by the price of local produce which the ongoing liberalisation exercise determines. Prior to liberalisation, price is controlled by government regulation, giving rise to minimum price risk, but liberalisation emphasizes market forces by which demand and supply determine price. While government subsidies and trade restrictions distort prices to local farmers’ advantage with little risk, the complex process of price discovery and determination involves different lag periods and fluctuations in a liberalized economy which give rise to high price risk. The cobweb theorem of agricultural prices is mainly a pictorial illustration of price risks occasioned by forces of demand and supply in a liberalized economy.  The determination of prices by market forces posse the question of whether self-sufficiency in food production is desirable or attainable. Given that liberalisation reduces government control of imports/exports, the size of domestic market can exceed the national geographical boundary resulting in price fluctuations and risk. The ongoing liberalisation is believed to attract FDI inflows which can help to increase the quality of inputs and possible output at a lower cost which can reduce price; hence issues involving market liberalisation and price risks appear complex and need critical examination from different paradigms.Methodological issues need to be resolved especially with respect to analytical procedure and model specification when dealing with supply response. Many studies on supply response may have been marred by spurious regression due to lack of testing for stationarity of the roots and possible co-integration, which may lead to adoption error correction mechanisim in the model. Can Nigerian liberalisation episodes be better measured with a dummy or an index?  Also, it is doubtful whether hectarage responses to price and price risks could be modeled independently as if the effects of price and price risks are not simultaneously felt. Olusegun (2006) has estimated independence equations for hectarage responses to price and price risks. Could his result be affected by the methodology? If so, untrue information may have been sent to policy markers due to inefficiency of the estimates. Many studies (such as those by Olopoeni, 1991; Adubi and Okunnmadewa, 1999; Arene and Okafor, 2000) on supply response in agriculture have concentrated on the volume of export without considering hectarage allocation. The study intends to fill this methodological controversy/debate using Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) model.1.3 Objectives of the studyThe broad objective of the study was to examine the hectarage and output responses of major crops to market liberalisation, price risk and financial support for selected crops using descriptive and inferential statistics.   The specific objectives were to:i.    examine the trends of hectarage, output levels, prices and price risks of the selected crops for the period under study; ii.    examine the trends of non-price factors such as market liberalisation indicators and financial support that can affect the development of the crop sub-sector;iii.    determine  hectarage  and output responses of crops to price and non-price factors; iv.    simulate the responsiveness of hectarage and output of selected crops to changes in own price; and   v.    make recommendations towards increasing agricultural output. 1.4 Hypotheses     The null hypotheses that guided the study were:I.    liberalisation exercise has not affected hectarage and output  of crops such as maize, rice, yam, cassava, groundnut, beans, cotton cocoa and oil palm from 1970 to 2007; II.    price and non-price factors such as rainfall, ACGSF and FDI do not affect hectarage  and output of crops listed above. 1.5 Justification Liberalisation policies have been advocated and implemented both at international and national levels. Market liberation has exposed farmers to more price risk than ever before. There is the need to examine how the price risk affects agricultural supply with respect to factor utilization and output. It is generally accepted that as a result of the oil boom, that Dutch disease phenomenon adversely affected not only agriculture but the whole economy. However, this study will shade light on the crops that are adversely affected and explain why such crops are in that state. This thesis is justifiable because it is aimed at examining the effects of liberalisation policy on agricultural supply response with emphasis on price risk which affects the welfare/income of farmers. Over 80% of Nigerians are engaged in agricultural activities. This sector (agriculture) under-employed the largest labour force of the country, which can be mobilized for higher productivity; this demands that policy makers drive the economy with empirical results of effects of the on-going policies on resource allocation, output and price. The ability of small-scale farmers to attain profit maximization goal or satisfy their food security needs is determined by the prevailing policy environment, which influences price and hence the need to examine the effects of this policy on agriculture. Price is an important factor in resource allocation, production and consumption of goods and services within a society. It is the edge that forms a basis for exchange of title to goods and services. Hence, it is important to examine the effects of price.The study will provide empirical results of effects of domestic market liberalisation on agricultural supply response. This will complement other studies on supply response involving international trade. Special interest is placed on degree of openness and real exchange rate, which can help to explain the dynamic of how exchange rates pass through to domestic prices. The degree of effect of exchange rate on the prices of goods in the economy depends on the substitutability and import penetration ratio, which can be a reflection of the degree of openness.  It will also highlight methodological issues that may be of help to other researchers. It will as a result constitute a part of literature on agricultural supply response. Extension workers and farmers will be able to know the responsiveness of crops to institutional factors, thus farmers can choose crops that respond positively to institutional factors in order to maximize their profit. This research can also interest other change agents and policy makers.Limitations of the studyThe study was aimed at examining hectarage and output responses of crops to market liberalisation and price risk in Nigeria. These crops are grown under the same macroecomomic environment.  Its ambition was to examine the responses of both the major and minor crops, but for lack of data especially for the minor crops limited the study to few representatives of major class of crops. However, crops that were viewed as minor such as cocoyam are gaining more economic importance, thus in the next two centuries, more data will be available for almost all the existing crops now. Surprisingly, adequate data was lacking in the case of rubber and little or no data was found on citrus. This shows the need to build up agricultural database via adequate documentation of agricultural data.




Please feel free to carefully review some written and captured responses from our satisfied clients.

  • "I love what you guys are doing, your material guided me well through my research. Thank you for helping me achieve academic success."

    Sampson, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
  • "researchwap.com is God-sent! I got good grades in my seminar and project with the help of your service, thank you soooooo much."

    Cynthia, Akwa Ibom State University .
  • "Sorry, it was in my spam folder all along, I should have looked it up properly first. Please keep up the good work, your team is quite commited. Am grateful...I will certainly refer my friends too."

    Elizabeth, Obafemi Awolowo University
  • "Am happy the defense went well, thanks to your articles. I may not be able to express how grateful I am for all your assistance, but on my honour, I owe you guys a good number of referrals. Thank you once again."

    Ali Olanrewaju, Lagos State University.
  • "My Dear Researchwap, initially I never believed one can actually do honest business transactions with Nigerians online until i stumbled into your website. You have broken a new legacy of record as far as am concerned. Keep up the good work!"

    Willie Ekereobong, University of Port Harcourt.
  • "WOW, SO IT'S TRUE??!! I can't believe I got this quality work for just 3k...I thought it was scam ooo. I wouldn't mind if it goes for over 5k, its worth it. Thank you!"

    Theressa, Igbinedion University.
  • "I did not see my project topic on your website so I decided to call your customer care number, the attention I got was epic! I got help from the beginning to the end of my project in just 3 days, they even taught me how to defend my project and I got a 'B' at the end. Thank you so much researchwap.com, infact, I owe my graduating well today to you guys...."

    Joseph, Abia state Polytechnic.
  • "My friend told me about ResearchWap website, I doubted her until I saw her receive her full project in less than 15 miniutes, I tried mine too and got it same, right now, am telling everyone in my school about researchwap.com, no one has to suffer any more writing their project. Thank you for making life easy for me and my fellow students... Keep up the good work"

    Christiana, Landmark University .
  • "I wish I knew you guys when I wrote my first degree project, it took so much time and effort then. Now, with just a click of a button, I got my complete project in less than 15 minutes. You guys are too amazing!."

    Musa, Federal University of Technology Minna
  • "I was scared at first when I saw your website but I decided to risk my last 3k and surprisingly I got my complete project in my email box instantly. This is so nice!!!."

    Ali Obafemi, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Niger State.
  • To contribute to our success story, send us a feedback or please kindly call 2348037664978.
    Then your comment and contact will be published here also with your consent.

    Thank you for choosing researchwap.com.