Assessment Of Nigeria's Foreign Policy On Foreign Direct Investment 2000 - 2020

Assessment Of Nigeria's Foreign Policy On Foreign Direct Investment 2000 - 2020

Assessment Of Nigeria's Foreign Policy On Foreign Direct Investment 2000 - 2020




Foreign direct investment has always been acknowledged as one of the sources of economic growth of a country as it has been noted to have a positive and significant relationship with economic growth. However, the FDI inflow and the economic growth of Nigeria seem to be operating inversely in the current decade. This study examines the impact of foreign direct investment in the economic growth of Nigeria between 2000 and 2020 as it is believed that the impact of FDI is location and period-specific. Regression analysis was carried out using time series secondary data. The model specification for the regression analysis was derived from the Solow growth model. The results of the analysis revealed all independent variables having a positive relationship with economic growth for the scope of the study but with only FDI being statistically insignificant to the economic growth of the country during the period. The R2 of the model was 0.96 implying that 96% of the variations in economic growth can be explained by the model. The study, therefore, recommends that to make sure foreign direct investment trickle down Nigeria’s economy; the flow of FDI into the economy has to be monitored and influenced to direct it into sectors that need massive investment in the country such as the Agricultural sector which has been noted over the years for its failure or inability to attract foreign direct investment and whereas the sector is the first point of contact if Nigeria is to enjoy sustained economic growth.




The importance of literature review to all research works cannot be overemphasized. It help the researcher to know how others have written on the areas related to his/her topic and make the researcher seen where gaps occur, so as to make contributions to fill them.

As far as this chapter is concerned it’s going to look at the general concept of foreign policy as well as the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) literatures by different ideological perspective of scholars. Foreign Policy is one of the wheels with which the process of international politics operates. Foreign policy is not separated from the national policy; instead, it is a part of it. It consists of national interests that are to be furthered in relation to other states. On the other hand, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is the investment that is made to acquire a lasting management interest in an enterprise and operating in a country other than that of the investors.


Development of Nation-states and increasing interactions among them has resulted into the formation of foreign policy in modern times. Establishment of United Nations and process of decolonization that has liberated many states into sovereign entities have further provided impetus to interrelationships among states.

There are many definitions of foreign policy as there are interested scholars and writers. There is no universally satisfactory definition of the term, they have certain common views. Foreign policy of any country deals first with the preservation of its independent and security, and second, with the pursuit and protection of its economic interest.

In the words of Northedge (1986) foreign policy is viewed as interplay between the outside and inside”. This definition suggests that foreign policy is a reaction to external stimuli while reflecting on domestic realities. It is also referring to the general principles by which a state. Governs its reactions to the international environment.

Moreover, Frankel (1973) sees foreign policy as “a dynamic process of interaction between the changing domestic demands and the changing international environment”. This definition sees foreign policy consisting of decisions and actions which involve, to some appreciable extent, relations between one state and other. It is a dynamic process involving interaction between the domestic and the external environment and in accordance with the national interest of the states concerned.

Thus, foreign policy is the analysis of the actions of a nation-state toward the external environment and the domestic conditions formulated. It is the essential instrumentality by which states influence or seek to influence the external world and to attain objectives that are in conformity with their perceived national interest.

According to Modelski (1962:6-7) “Foreign policy is the system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment... foreign policy must throw light on the way in which states attempt to change, and succeed in changing the behaviour of other states”.

Therefore, the behaviour of each state affects the behaviour of every other state in one form or the other, directly or indirectly, with greater or lesser intensity, favourably or adversely. The function of foreign policy is to try to minimize the adverse effects and maximize the favourable effects of action of other states. Foreign policy is not only to change but also to regulate behaviour of other state by ensuring continuity of their favourable actions.

Notwithstanding, foreign policy is a complex and dynamic political interaction that a state gets involved in pursuing relations with other states and entities outside the purview of its own jurisdiction. As Frankel puts it “Foreign policy consists of decisions and actions which involved to some appreciable extent relations between on state and others” (Frankel, 1968:1). It implies that foreign policy involves set of actions by the force working within states borders and intended towards forces existing outside the country’s borders. It is a set of tools employed by the state to influence exercise of law making power be other states as well as actions of non-state actors outside the purview of its jurisdiction it comprises the formulation and implementation of a set of ideas that govern the behaviour of state actors while interacting with other states to defend and enhance its interests.

Gibson (1944) says “Foreign policy is a well-rounded comprehensive plan based on knowledge and experience for conduction the business of government with the rest of the world. It is aimed at promoting and protection the interests of the nations. This calls for a clear understanding of what those interests are and how far we hope to go with the means at our disposal. Anything less than this falls short of being a foreign policy”. (Gibson, 1944:9).

In the words of Padelford and Lincoln (1967), Foreign policy is the key element in the process by which a state translates its broadly conceived goals and interest into concrete courses of action to attain these objectives and preserve its interests. (Padeltford and Lincoln, 1967:197). In view of such definition, it is very pertinent to know that, foreign policy consists of achieving the national objectives through the available national means by interacting with other states.

Moreover, it is as important as necessary that all nations harness their needs and resource within both their countries and outside their national boundaries. Thus, every nation as a matter of obligation, must have both internal and foreign policy. A nation’s level of involvement in various international issues is often the expression of its general orientation towards the rest of the world. Foreign policy is the sum total of the principle, the interests and objectives which a state formulates in conduction its relations with other states. All the foreign policy decisions aimed at achieving either cooperation or conflict or neutrality towards a particular state or group of states or rest of the world.

It is quite revealing from the few perceptions disclosed above that, foreign policy is a dynamic process involving interaction between the domestic and the external environment. This of course will be in accordance with the national interest of the state concerned.


Foreign policy and national interest are inseparable concepts in international relations, and indeed, the foundation of a states, foreign policy is her national interest which in turen directs the course of the foreign polcy. The concept of national interest has continued to play a significant role in the foreign policies of sovereign states. A state’s foreign policy is not operated in vacuum. The main policy instrument in the conduct of foreign policy is invariable the promotion and pursuit of national interest.

Morgenthau (1954:718), opined that “as long as the world is politically organised into nations, the national interest is indeed the final word in world politics”. This is to say that the starting point in foreign policy making is the national interest.

In addition to the above Morgenthau (1973:6) stated that “no nation can have true guide as to what it must do and what it needs to do in foreign policy without accepting national interest as that guide”. What it means is that, national interest is the key concept in foreign policy, and it is the nerve centre of any country’s foreign policy. No nation, no matter how lofty its deals and how genuine its desire to abide by its interactions with other states can base its foreign policy on considerations other than its own national interest.

According to Mahan (1935:1) “Self-interest is not only a legitimate, but a fundamental cause for national policy... it is useless to expect governments to act continuously on every grounds other than national interest... they have no night to do so being agents not principals”. Since every nation-states of the world has its sovereignty, people, territory and government, it is expected to have its own national interest that drives its principles and policies.

Generally, the relationship between national interest and foreign policy cannot be overemphasizes. The issue of national interest has always been a key concerning foreign policy of nations and commands great attention in international relations where it is considered as a force propelling the actions of actors. National interests are the bedrock upon which government base their foreign policy objectives; this means that foreign policies are formulated in order to promote national interest.


According to Halilu (2015:63), every action or in action of a state actor in the international system is guided by a set of principles or rules regulating it. Therefore, it varies from state to state. Principles are platform which a country’s following policy is laid down; even though it changes at times, most of the elements guiding it remain static. Most foreign policy decisions incorporate several of principles, each principles adding its portion to shaping the final foreign policy decision.

For every independent state, in the bid to pursue its foreign policy guide jealously it sovereignty and territorial integrity. This includes respect for the state independence, protection of its citizens both home and abroad and respect for its national interest. A state can go to war or device any other mean either through diplomacy or propaganda to protect its sovereign and territory when it is threatened by any internal or external force. Upholding the sovereignty and integrity of the state is the foundation and integrity of the state is the foundation of the international state system; so in the realm of foreign policy, the sovereignty of the state is taken seriously. Upholding the sovereignty as well as the integrity of the state is an extension of the right of self-government.

Notwithstanding, every state want to maintain its pride of been capable of protecting its country from internal and external attack or aggression irrespective of its actual weakness, militarily, economically or politically. Nations that seeks to achieve a viable and succeeding foreign policy towards the actualization of national interest, should ensure capable national security and defence. National security as well as the defence of any state is the paramount element in the formulation and implementation of a nation’s foreign policy when a country cannot maintain its national security in the process of pursuing it foreign policy, it makes it vulnerable to any form of attack; this therefore could hamper with its territorial integrity.

Moreover, in international relations and practical, politics, every state’s foreign policy is guided by its interest; therefore, they tend to consider their national interest first in its foreign policy irrespective of the fact that could clash with other state’s interest. The starting point of foreign policy making is the promotion of national interest; national interest is what makes foreign policy going and foreign policy makes world politics possible. Nowadays, states could compromise their interest for the sake of peace and friendliness. Most importantly, if a state compromises its interest, it is because of another interest. The promotion and achievement of national interest is the key element in foreign policy.


According to Obi (2006), Foreign policy is a product of many factors and force. Some of these factors and forces are natural, while some are man-made. Also while some are permanent others are temporary. It is the sum total of these that are referred to as components of foreign policy. Rodee in Obi (1957:8). States that in devising foreign policy, a nation must consider certain fact of its existence. The frame of reference includes its geographical situation, population potential, economic endowment and ideological environment.

Breacher in Obi (1987:9) summed the components as geography, external and global environment, personalities, economic and military position and public opinion as the major components of foreign policy. Rosenau in Obi (2005) differs a bit in his own components. He listed size, geography, economic development, culture and history, great power structure alliances, technology, social structure, moods of opinion, political accountability, governmental structure, and situational factors (both external and internal).

The Foreign policy of a nation is formulated and implemented by its policy makers. The geographical characteristics of size, topography, shape and climate are important factors. A state with a sizeable territory, good climate, natural defence boundaries, arable land for food production and a shape which is compact and easier to depend is seen as possessing the necessary power potential that enables a state to prosecute independent foreign policy. The geographical location of a country, to a very large extent determines its defence policies. Also, the military strength of a nation to a large extent influences its foreign policy. Countries that are militarily strong often adopt aggressive postures on issues that feel strongly about.

Moreover, the level of economic endowment also determines the scope of relations that a nation wishes to establish with other nations. Economic power constitutes a fundamental dimension of national power in contemporary times and at present; it can be used more effectively for securing foreign policy goals Nations necessity to engage in trade with other nations reflects their economic interest. The ability of every state to pursue its foreign policy successfully defends on its economic position.


Foreign Direct Investment is a key element in this rapid evolving international economic integration, also referred to as globalization. According to the organization for economic cooperation and development (2008), foreign direct investment (FDI) provides a means for creating direct, stable and long-lasting links between economies. Under the right policy environment, it can serve as an important vehicle for local enterprise development, and it may also help improve the competitive position for both the recipient (host) and the investing (home) economy.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) provides an opportunity for the host economy to promote its products more widely in international markets. In addition to its positive effect on the development of international trade, is an important source of capital for a range of host and home economies. The significant growth in the level of FDI and its international pervasiveness, reflect both an increase in the size and number of individual FDI transactions, as well as the growing diversification of enterprises across economies and industrial sectors.

Large Multi-National Enterprises (MNEs) are traditionally the dominant players in such cross border FDI transactions. This development has coincided with an increased propensity for MNEs to participate in foreign trade. In recent years, it is believed that small and medium size enterprises have also become increasingly involved in foreign direct investment (OECD, 2008).

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) according to World Economic Report (2007:245), is defined as an investment involving a long term relationship and reflecting a lasting interest and control by a resident entity in one economy (foreign direct investor or parent enterprise) in an enterprise resident in an economy other than that of the foreign direct investor (FDI) enterprise or affiliate enterprise or foreign affiliate. FDI implies that the investor exerts a significant degree of influence on the Management of the enterprise resident in the other economy or economies.

According to Morisset (2000: Vol.2481) FDI is a type of investment that involves the injection of foreign funds into an enterprise that operates in a different country of origin from the investor. Investors are granted management and voting rights if the level of ownership is greater than or equal to 10% of ordinary shares.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is the process where people in one country obtain ownership of assets for the purpose of gaining control over the production, distribution and other activities of a firm in a foreign country (Moosa, 2002).

In addition, OECD (1996) defines FDI as “the objectives of obtaining a lasting interest by a resident entity in one economy (direct investor) in an entity resident in an economy other than that of the investor (direst investment enterprises)”. The lasting interest reflects the continuation of a long term relationship between the direct investor and the enterprise and a considerable level of influence on the management of the enterprise.

According to Egbo (2012), FDI is an investment made to acquire a lasting management interest in a business enterprise in a given country other than that of the investor defined according to residency. He added that FDI is a combination of merger and acquisition and new investments as well as the reinvestment earnings and loans from the similar capital transfer between parent companies and their affiliate. This is to say that, FDI is seen to play a key role in the growth and development process of developing nations, like Nigeria, whose human and material resources are underemployed or not fully employed.

According to Shiro (2008), Foreign investment consist of foreign resources such as technology, managerial and marketing expertise and capital which have considerable impact on the host nation’s production capacity. FDI occurs when a firm invests directly in the production of other facilities in foreign country in which it has effective control. It requires the establishment of production facilities abroad and on the other hand the service facilities or establishment of an investment presence through capital contribution and building office facilities.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is an investment behaviour when an individual or industrial firm has expanded asset resources from one country to the other in compliance with the legislation of the host country. FDI is facilitated primarily by multi-national corporations. FDI serves as one of the engines of successful transition, mot FDI’s have market seeking and efficiency seeking motives. Findings reveal that FDI continues to increase at a global level that as Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) integrate their business operations throughout the world.

Notwithstanding, there are two major types of FDI (i.e. horizontal and vertical FDI). The horizontal FDI is undertaken when the company want to expand horizontally to produce the same or comparable goods in the host country as in the home country. On the other hand, the vertical FDI is undertaken when a country seeks to exploit raw materials, or want to be closer to the consumer by acquiring distribution outlets. The idea is to make the production process more cost-efficient by reallocating some stage to low-cost location. By establishing their own network in the host country, it is easier for the Multi-National Companies to market their products (Brackman, Garretsen and Van Marrewijk, 2006).

Moreover, Moosa (2002), expressed that, Foreign Direct Investment can take the form of Green-field investment – (the process whereby the investing company establishes new production and distribution facilities in a foreign country), Merger and acquisitions and lastly, joint venture.


For the purpose of this study, David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage was adopted in this work for theoretical framework of analysis. Ricardo (1817) pointed out that, the theory of comparative advantage is an economic model about the work gains from trade for individuals, firms, or nations that arise from differences in their factor endowments or technological progress.

Ricardo developed the classical theory of comparative advantage in 1817 to explain why countries engaged in international trade (Foreign Direct Investment inclusive) even when one country is more efficient at producing every single good than the other. Ricardo opined that, things being equal a country tends to specialise in, and exports those commodities in the production of which it has maximum comparative cost advantage or minimum comparative disadvantage. He further demonstrated that, if two countries are capable of producing two commodities engaged in the free market, then each country will increase its overall consumption by exporting the goods for which it has a comparative advantage while importing the other goods provided that there exist differences in labour productivity between both countries.

The central assumption of the theory postulated that, there are two countries and two commodities, whereby each country will specialise in the production of that commodity in which its comparative cost of production is the least; it also assumed that, no cost of transport as well as trade barriers.

With regards to the applicability of this theory, no nation can survive as an island of its own, it must relate with others towards the actualization of its national interest. This is to say that, the Nigerian government should design policy that can best suits the interest of its economic situation toward attracting foreign investors or multi-national companies which in turn could serve as relative advantage for both the recipient and the investing economy. Hence, the government of the federation periodically promulgated or design a policy and implement it so as to encourage Foreign Direct Investment from developed and developing countries

Therefore, considering the central assumption of the theory, it is well-known facts that, Nigeria is a country with abundant natural resources and human capital. The Nigerian policy makers may seek to adopt clear and practical policy that can attract foreign companies thereby achieving relative advantage. For instance, a foreign company may invest or establish a firm or industry in Nigeria, such investment will serve to some extent a relative advantage for both the recipient and the investing economy. This is to say that; the foreign company could have the advantage of boosting its economy as well as the level of its development. Thereinafter, the host economy i.e. Nigeria in particular, could generate revenue which in turn leads to its economic growth and development; therein, the level of unemployment will decrease to the bearing level and per-capita income will increase among the nationals.

The Ricardian theory as explained above is very much important to this study. For, the theory explained how nations derived relative advantage which is said to be responsible for international trade relations, Foreign Direct Investment, Technical and Educational Corporations among nation-states.


The principle of comparative advantage has been the very basis of international trade and economic relations. Nevertheless, the theory is not free from some defects. In particular, it has been severally criticized by Berlin Ohlin and Frank D. Graham on the ground that the Ricardian Model (theory of comparative advantage) is related to trade between two countries on the basis of two commodities. This is unrealistic because in actuality, international trade and economic relations exists among many countries trading in many commodities. The model also ignores logistic expenses, technical impediments that discourage Foreign Direct Investment between investors and determining comparative advantage in trade. This is highly unrealistic according to Graham, because logistics play an important role in determining the pattern of world trade and economic relations. Thus, the assumption of complete specialization by Ricardo’s model has been criticised and condemned by Graham in which he pointed out that, complete specialization will be impossible on the basis of comparative advantage in producing commodities in the international economic relations.

Moreover, the theory has been castigated on the other basis that, it’s unrealistic assumption of free trade and exploitation of hosting countries which resulted to unequal benefit. Whereas in reality, world trade and economic relation is not free. Every country applies restrictions on the free movement of goods from one country to another. Thus, tariff and other trade restrictions affect world imports and exports more and more, products are not homogeneous but varied. Thus, neglecting these aspects, the Ricardian theory became unrealistic and incomplete.

Nevertheless, in spite of all limitations apportioned to the theory that, comparative advantage theory has remained the basic principle of international economic relations. Despite these weaknesses, the theory has stood the test of this research thereby explaining the reflection of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy and Foreign Direct Investment.



This chapter will discuss the reflections of Nigeria's Foreign Policy under Obasanjo, Umaru Yar'Adua, Good luck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari administrations as well as the factors that determine the inflows of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The pursued of foreign policy is essentially designed or geared towards the achievement of national interests. The pursuit of Nigeria's Foreign Policy began in earnest after the attainment of Independence in October 1, 1960. At independence, the country's foreign policy sought to achieve the following objectives: promoting of the economic well-being of Nigerians and Africans; promotion of Nigeria'a territorial integrity; eradication of all forms of racism and colonialism from African continent; protection of the rights of black men all over the world; and promotion of international peace and security (Ogwu, 1986:8). It is very pertinent to note that, Nigeria's foreign policy since independence was geared toward attracting Foreign Direct Investment into the economy in order to diversify the economy, increase Growth Domestic Product of the country, create more jobs opportunities for her teaming population and increase her exports and foreign earnings. These objectives or goals of the Nigeria's foreign policy have constantly been maintained despite numerous changes in government.


According to Umara (2014:25), Foreign policy are formulated towards attaining specific objectives infused on national interests across the globe. Indeed, both foreign policy and government pronouncements in the country emphasize the priority of national interest in its foreign relations.

As regards to the reflection of Nigeria's foreign policy under the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo was merely a shift from an African-centred to a global-focused. Akinterinwa (2004) argued that, with the emergence of President Obasanjo, there was a paradigm shift from an African-centred to a global-focused foreign policy. According to him, Nigeria's foreign policy still remained essentially African-focused at the political level, while it was globally centered at the economic level. The poor situation of the Nigerian economy inherited by Obasanjo, coupled with political vulnerability at the time demanded new tactics and strategies, and indeed, prompted the need to focus greater attention on extra-African actors without necessarily implying any form of neglect of Africa. Thus, Nigeria emphasized the economic factor to the detriment of political consideration.

The central focus in Obasanjo's administration fundamental shift of Nigeria's foreign policy thrust in a globalizing international environment is that Nigeria and more importantly, the Nigerians, stood to benefit from globalization as thrust of Nigeria's foreign policy. Put differently, the "concentric circles" principles that had guided the Nigeria's foreign policy was inadequate and needed to be reconceptualised to reflect contemporary realities by making its epicentre consideration to the Nigerian people. In view of this, Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji considers that, " concentricism as a foreign policy guide, has to be made constructive and beneficial, and that the focus of a constructive and beneficial foreign policy should first of all be the Nigerian people". By implication, anything Nigerians should be the real focus (Akinterinwa, 2004:452).

In essence, constructive and beneficial foreign policy direction of the Obasanjo administration was intended to address and redress the perceived inadequacy inherent in concentricism was not at all an objective but a means, it was more or less a foreign policy tactics that had not been fully taken advantage of, and as a means to an end, concentricism had have focus (Akinterinwa , 2004:453).


President Obasanjo was succeeded by the Late Umaru Musa Yar'Adua, who was reputed to have introduced the concept of " Citizen Diplomacy" as the thrust of Nigeria's foreign policy (Ogunsanwo, 2009:19). According to Agbu (2009:52), citizen diplomacy is a political concept depicting involvement of average citizens engaging representatives of another country or cause either inadvertently or by design. He stressed that the concept sometime refers to ''Track Two Diplomacy'', which connotes unofficial contact between people of different nations, as differentiated from official contacts between governmental representatives. He argued that the concept was construed by Nigeria under Yar'Adua to mean that, Nigeria's foreign policy would henceforth be the Nigerian citizens at home and in the Diaspora.

Recalling the observation by Nwakama(2007), Chief Ojo Maduekwe, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs articulated what he called the new framework of Nigeria's foreign policy under Yar'Adua's administration known as ''Citizen Diplomacy". This was in response of feelings and reactions of the citizens that the past endeavours have not been felt by the ordinary Nigerian citizens. In a statement made by the Late President, Umaru Musa Yar'Adau, he said that, " the thrust of my foreign policy will first of all be Nigerians interest because our policy must be well defined under our national interest and then the interest of our sub-region and then the Africa and then the interest of world peace. That is the progression of my foreign policy thrust and that would inform interaction in foreign affairs".

Notwithstanding, at the time when President Yar'Adua was fully committed to fulfilled the objectives of his foreign policy, it was worthy of note that his health had been severely threatened. While he was trying to manage his ill-health, Yar'Adua made no provisions for the Vice President to act in his absence. Thus, the consequence was that, the ship of the Nigerian state was sailing rudderless on the international waters of foreign policy; without functional institutions and without a leader, Nigeria's foreign relations and indeed the state of Nigeria went into coma, thereof, Yar'Adua also went into coma in Saudi-Arabian hospital. This eventually led to the death of Late Yar'Adua on May 5th, 2010. After the demise of the Late Yar'Adua, his Vice President, Good luck Ebele Jonathan, took over the Mantle of leadership as a substantive president where he continued to handle the administration of the state respectively.


The foreign policy position of the administration of President Good luck Jonathan who succeeded the Late Yar'Adua has generally perceived to be a continuation of the foreign policy thrust of his predecessor (Chidozie et al, 2004). In his capacity, Jonathan embark on a number of diplomatic shuttles, as part of a deliberate attempt to reassure the world that Nigeria was well and secure despite the internal political challenges the country was going through.

After president Goodluck completed the tenure of Late Yar'Adua, he then contested and won the presidential election during the 2011 general elections with massive support and expectations among many Nigerians. The president development emphasis was anchored on transformation programs (Transformation Agenda) which according to him was to totally transform every decaying sectors in Nigeria. It was also the time Nigeria was witnessing high level of insecurity occasioned by the activities of BOKO-HARAM in the North East, corruption and youth restiveness among other problems. all these factors contributed negatively to the global perception of Nigeria and Nigerians. In order to address these problems, president Good luck's foreign policy direction focused on investment and economic cooperation within the global community. The foreign policy direction was then propelling the economic and industrial development of the country.

Nonetheless, Good luck renewed diplomatic and bilateral relationship with many countries of the world toward mutual relationship which in turn would lead to the realization of his foreign policy. He also addressed international gathering to help Nigeria in fighting BOKO-HARAM terrorist activities as well as corruption. He also urged Europe and Asian giants to invest in Nigeria's private sectors especially in the key areas of energy, downstream sector and agriculture. According to Ajaebili (2011) President Goodluck stressed that, "there is urgent need for a holistic effort by the government, corporate bodies and individuals to stamp out the evils of insecurity, crime and corruption, so that the country will be relatively safe for both Nigerians and foreigners".


President Muhammadu Buhari who assumed office on 29th May, 2015 as a democratically elected president of Nigeria has taken some new directions in his foreign policy largely in line with his party's campaign manifesto which promised the electorate that Nigeria's national interest will guide his foreign policy, after which his administration will focused on the sub-region of West Africa. Immediately after taking oath of office, he wasted no time in embarking on a high level of diplomatic mission to the Lake Chad countries viz: Chad, Niger and Cameroon to drum up support for the fight against insurgency that nearly overwhelmed his predecessor's administration.

Worthy of note is that, the president has not deviated from his three cardinal agenda (i.e. fight against insecurity, corruption, economy/job creation) even in his foreign policy implementation. This can easily be tracked from the president's foreign travels, which have to do with the fight against corruption and negotiations to repatriates Nigeria's money stashed abroad back to the country, to securing international commitment in the fight against terrorism that has become a global phenomenon. He equally embarked upon finding ways of making Nigeria an economically viable country through diversification from oil dependency, and the increase in its technological advancements.

Notwithstanding, according to the Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, when Mr. President came on board, the immediate challenges that was faced was very clear and it was those challenges that informed the priorities of the government. The insurgency in the Northeast was presenting existential challenge to the country as well as serious economic issues. As far as these existing challenges are concerned, efforts were made to. minimize the contentious challenges that bedevilled the country.


The issue of the determinants of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is somehow difficult to understand and generalize because the nature of business differs with their different requirements, so it is of great assignment for the foreign investors to find a better environment suitable for their investments. But generally, it can be agreed upon that, those factors suitable for domestic investments could be of great importance to foreign investments as well as the political, economic, sociocultural and geographical location of the country. It is also true that some determinants maybe more important at a given time than to another investors (Ajayi,2006).

Moreover, while it is difficult to determine the exact quantity and quality of FDI determinants that should be present in a location for it to attract a given level of inflows, it is nevertheless clear that a minimum of these determinants must be present before FDI inflows begins to occur. The suggested factors that could enhance the inflow of FDI according to Ajayi (2006) are as follows:


Poor infrastructure is one of the main hindrance and obstacles of the FDI inflow in any country (Nigeria inclusive) , and good infrastructural facilities will surely make a nation more attractive to foreign investors, thereof, improve the qualities of domestic investment. Infrastructure covers many dimensions, ranging from roads, ports, railways and telecommunication systems to institutional development.

Ajayi (2006) stated that, good infrastructure increases the productivity of investment and can therefore stimulate FDI inflows. FDI depends on the infrastructure of the host country (Nigeria in particular), so , it is very imperative for every nation to develop her infrastructure in order to improve her domestic investment and also to attract foreign investors.


The availability of natural and human resources is of great interest to any nation domestically and also to bring the foreign investors into the country. Nigeria had the influence of FDI basically because of the presence of resources in the country. Traditionally, about 60% of Africa's FDI is located to oil and natural resources (UNCTAD,1999). The rising profits in the sector induced a flow of investment. Asiedu (2006) concludes that, besides market size, natural resources are the key determinants for foreign direct investment in Africa. Thereof, Nigeria is blessed with enough resources to attract the interest and inflows of FDI in the country. The availability of natural resources in a given country played an important role in attractive the level of FDI inflows. This is to say that natural resources are important determinant that attract the interest of foreign investors within a given country.


The stability of political administration of a nation (Nigeria in particular) is of great significant to the operations of Multinational companies. The issue of security is also very paramount to foreign investors because failure attempt of the government to assure high level of security will discourage them to operate without undue risk of their both capital and personnel. A nation (Nigeria in particular) must ensure good and favourable policies that can ensure effective and successful inflows of foreign investors. This is to say that high level of political stability gives room towards attracting the inflows of FDI.


This is another important factor that attract the interest of foreign investors. Some foreign investors can be attracted by privatization. This has to do with the fact that, some governmental companies are taken over by the private individual which could led to competition among the private ownership of productions. Competition is of great advantage to the final consumers because it gives room for multiple options and better environment for some foreign direct investment to operate successfully.  


This is also another considering factor that determines the inflow of FDI. Macroeconomic variables played an important role towards attracting the interest of foreign investors. These macroeconomic variables include income, investment, consumption, export, imports and so on. When they are not put in place, they will surely hinder the FDI inflows, and when they are perfectly taken into consideration, they facilitate the operations of FDI. Ajayi(2006) stated that the stability of macroeconomic variables such as ; low level of inflation, little external debt, stable currency, better GDP rate will surely encourage the interest of the FDI inflows in any country (Nigeria in particular). This is to say that; the absence of stable macroeconomic variables hinders the flow of FDI in a country respectively.

Notwithstanding, there exist other related factors to the above discussed as the determinants of FDI inflow in any country (Nigeria in particular). Like; Salako and Adebusuyi (2001:21) examined the empirical determinants of FDI in Nigeria. Their results indicated that, exchange rate; infrastructures development and credit to domestic economy were some of the main factors that influence FDI flows to Nigeria. It was also observed that, FDI was sensitive to domestic interest rate and real per capita income, while there is need to maintain political stability in order to attract foreign direct investors to Nigeria.



This chapter discusses the impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in economic growth of Nigeria, as well as the role of Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) in the promotion of Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria.  Over the year, foreign direct investment is increasing in importance in the global economy due to the additional resources they pooled for development of the host country. FDI has attracted the attention of most governments in the desire to extend the market system because many developing countries (Nigeria inclusive) are heavily indebted externally. The problem of external debt is not solved by borrowing more, but by attracting more private flows in the form of FDI. The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) as an agency of the government played a vital role to coordinate, encourage and promote investment in and outside Nigeria through effective promotional means.


The impact of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the country has always been focal issues of different scholars. There have been some studies on investment and growth in Nigeria with varying results and submissions. FDI is often seen as an important catalyst for economic growth in developing countries and Nigeria in particular, because it affects the economic growth by stimulating domestic investment, increase in capital formation as well as facilitating the transfer of technology in the host.

Aremu (2003:28), observes that foreign firms can raise the level of capital formation, promote exports and generate foreign exchange. This is to say that FDI is an important machinery that increases the level of capital formation of a given economy thereby enhancing and promoting exports and foreign exchange.

Moreover, Todaro (1994:28) emphasized that, the primary factors which stimulate economic growth are investments that improve the quality of existing physical and human resources, that increase the quality of these same resources and that raise the productivity of all or specific resources invention, innovation and technology progress. This is to say that, FDI is seen as a vital tool for economic progress or growth of a nation. Notably it must be said that economic growth is reliant on both domestic and foreign investments. Economic growth is the basic determinant of the rate of inflow of foreign direct investment.

Notwithstanding, Osaghale and Amenkhieman (1987:29) in their research conducted to determine whether foreign capital inflows, oil revenues and foreign borrowing had any positive impact on the economic growth of Nigeria. They found out that, there was a positive relationship between foreign capital inflow and economic growth. And the conclusion of their study was of the view that the economy would perform better with greater inflow of FDI; and it also recommended that, less developed countries should create more conducive environment for FDI.

Akinlo (2004:29) observed that, foreign capital has a small and statistically insignificant effect of economic growth in Nigeria. His own result was of the negative impact of FDI on the economic growth of the country. Some research has shown that most developing countries (Nigeria inclusive) have not appreciably exploited foreign direct investment as a source of external financing of the economy due to a non-conducive investment climate and the attitude of the host nations. (Asiedu, 2002; Balasubramanyam, 2001).

In addition to the above, Boyd and Smith (1992) argued that, FDI can affect resource allocation and growth negatively where there is price distortion, financial, trade and other forms of distortions existing prior to FDI injections.

Endozien (1968:30) stresses the linkages generated by foreign investment and its impact in the economic growth of Nigeria. He contends that FDI induces the inflow of capital, technological know-how and managerial capacity which accelerate the pace of economic growth. He also observed the pains and uncertainties that come with FDI. Specifically, he noted that foreign investment could be counterproductive (i.e opposite direction) if the linkages it spurs are neither needed nor affordable by the host country; and concluded that a good test of the impact of FDI on Nigeria's economic growth is how rapidly and effectively it foster, innovates or modernizes local enterprises.

However, the impact of FDI on the host economy are normally believed to be; increase in employment, augmenting the productivity, boost in exports and amplified pace of transfer of technology. It also facilitates the utilization and exploitation of local raw materials, introduces modern techniques of management and marketing as well as eases the access to new technologies. FDI makes possible industrial grading by trying firms of developing countries hosting Trans-National Corporations (TNCs) affiliates into global research and development network, and thus resulting in technology transfer as well as providing a greater deal of investment fund.

Notwithstanding, FDI has been recognized as having negative effect on economic growth of a given nation. The Dependency theory advocates see FDI as the advanced guard for a new diplomacy of economic imperialism. To them, foreign investors penetration into a host economy would result in disarticulated development. Despite of the critical criticism, some empirical evidence has shown that FDI responds to economic growth. It has been argued by Adeoye (2009:31) that, FDI helps developing countries in supplementing their domestic savings by making available capital from overseas, which is very important because domestic capital market in such countries are usually inadequate for the financing of the corporate sectors.


The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) is an agency of the federal government established by the Nigerian Investment Promotion Act No16 of 1995 to promote investment in Nigeria. Therefore, in 1995, the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act opened all sectors to the foreign participation except for a short negative list (including drugs and arms), and allowed for 100 percent foreign ownership in all sectors with the exception of the petroleum sector. Investment promotion is therefore a range of activities, many of which resemble marketing, used by governments in order to attract FDI. Investment promotion among other things covers a wealth of activities like advertising, provision of market information, direct mailings, investment seminars or missions, organization and participation in trade exhibition, identification of potential investors, matching future investors with local partner and investor facilitation in form of providing pre-investment, implementation and post-investment services to the investors.

Michael (2000:28), has defined Investment promotion as effort by a government to communicate to foreign investors, the nature of the country's investment climate, and to persuade and assist the investors to invest , or reinvest in the country. In Nigeria, NIPC is directly responsible for investment promotion and its coordination.

Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) as a government agency with perpetual succession and a common seal specially established to undertake the following:

a- Coordinate, monitor, encourage and provide necessary assistance and guidance for the establishment and operation of entreprises in Nigeria.

b- Initiate and support measures which shall enhance the investment climate in Nigeria for both Nigerian and non-Nigerian investors.

c- Promote investments in and outside Nigeria through effective promotional means.

d- Collect, analyze and disseminate information about investment opportunities and sources of investment capital and advice on the availability, chance or suitability of partners in joint projects.

e- Register and keep records of all enterprises to which the NIPC decree legislation applies.

f- Identify specific projects and invite interested investors for participation in those projects.

g- Initiate, organize and participate in promotion activities such as exhibitions, conferences and seminars for the stimulation of investment.

h- Maintain liaison between investors and ministries, government departments and agencies, institutional leaders and other authorities concerned with investment.

i- Provide and disseminate up to date information on incentives available to investors.

j- Advisethe Federal Government in policy matters including fiscal measures designed to promote the industrialization of Nigeria or the general development of the economy.

k- Perform such other functions that are supplementary to the attainment of the objectives of NIPC decree (Abubakar Z., et al, 2012:34).

Nevertheless, in spite of the establishment of the NIPC, many aspects of the Nigerian economy has remained incompatible with the higher spread operational capital mobility which has a result of lack of efficiency and rigid operating mechanisms that plague Nigeria, which is an additional absence of a unified highly authoritative leading body for administrative investment regulation. Thus, so far so good, the NIPC has been able to link foreign investors with local partners and has provided opportunities in the country.

Abubakar, Haruna and Ahmed (2012:34), examined the role of Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) in attracting foreign direct investment in Nigeria. Findings from their result revealed that there is a significant relationship between the establishment of NIPC and the increase in FDI inflow. The results of the findings revealed that NIPC had succeeded in influencing the growth of foreign investment in Nigeria, especially in Oil and Gas, Communication, Pharmaceuticals and Solid Minerals.




This study examines the assessment of Nigeria's foreign policy on foreign direct investment over the period of 2000-2020. The research started by discussing the background of the study, statement of the research problem, objectives of the study, research questions were employed in an attempt to elicit reliable information for the study, the significance of the study was also put in place. The scope and limitations of the was made to determine the Nigeria's foreign policy and foreign direct investment between the period of 2000-2020. The study equally reviewed the conceptual discourse on foreign policy, national interest and foreign policy, principles of foreign policy, components of foreign policy as well as the conceptual discourse on foreign direct investment. The theory of comparative advantage was employed so as to linked up with the research. The Nigeria's foreign policy under Obasanjo, Umaru Musa, Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadur Buhari were briefly put in place as well as the determinants of foreign direct investment in Nigeria. A review was made as regards to the impact of foreign direct investment in economic growth of Nigeria as well as the role of the Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) in the promotion of foreign direct investment in Nigeria.


From the above analysis of this work, it has been discovered that, foreign policy is the machinery for the actualization of a country's national interest. It is the dynamic process of interaction between the changing domestic demands and the changing international environment. Successive regimes in Nigeria designed clear and practical policies towards attracting foreign investors. The role of foreign direct investment in the development of Nigerian economy cannot be overemphasized. It provides capital for investment, it enhances job creation and managerial skills and possible technology transfer.

The research equally finds out that, FDI increases financial, economic and political ties among states. Foreign investment is increasing importance in the global economy due to the additional resources pooled for development in the host country. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has attracted the attention of most governments through the desire to extend the market system, because many developing countries (Nigeria inclusive) are heavily indebted externally. This is to say that the problem of external debt burden cannot be solved by borrowing more but by attracting more flows in the form of foreign investments. Nigeria given her natural resources base and larger market size qualifies to be a major recipient of FDI in Africa.

Generally, foreign policy and strategy of the Nigerian government towards foreign direct investment are shaped by the principal objectives of the desire for economic independent and the demand for economic growth and development. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has contributed to expanding and modernization of the production base, improved efficiency and management capacity, productivity and value added in the relevant sectors.


Based on the foregoing findings emanated from this study, the following recommendations were made or proposed to encourage, help and improve the inflow of foreign direct investment in Nigeria.

a- That, improving the current image of the country is the key to reversing the dismal FDI trend of the country. This requires an increase in political stability, macroeconomic stability and the protection of property rights as well as the rule of law.

b- That, improving the investment climate for existing domestic and foreign investors through infrastructure development; provision of service and changes in the regulatory framework by relaxing laws on profit repatriation etc, will encourage foreign investors to increase their investment and also attract new investors respectively.

c- That  there is the need for government to formulate investment policies incentives that will be favorable to local investors in order to compliment the inflow of investments from abroad.

d- that, trade openness is another factor which cannot be ignored. The Nigerian borders or ports should be liberal so as to attract foreign investment activities. That is, there should be no delay at the ports for genuine activities.

e- That, there is also the need for the country to adopt a more targeted investment promotion strategy. In other words, the country should identify sectors where they have comparative and competitive advantages and then promote FDI into those sectors. This would make investment promotion less costly and more effective.

f- That, an efficient and effective mechanism of monitoring and recording foreign direct investment flows should be established and encouraged. This will enable policy makers, academics and stakeholders make accurate decisions, forecast and also undertake studies.

g- Relative Peace and Security is another point of consideration. This is to say that, the government should ensure relative peace and security in the nation so as to conveniently attract the interest of foreign investors. Nigerian recent times has witness an unprecedented level of insecurity. With the lingering challenges and the inability of the security apparatus of the government to guarantee safety in the country has consistently ranked Nigeria low in the Global Peace Index (GPI), signifying a worsened state of insecurity in the country. The implications of the insecurity situation in the country has affected business activities. The absence of relative peace and security has led to the decline of foreign investors in the country. To this end, the government should ensure relative peace and security which in turn would enhance and motivate the inflows of foreign investors in the country.

h- Enabling Environment is another important aspect that need proper attention. That, the government should create awareness of investment opportunities, supporting existing investors through infrastructure development, providing incentives for the investors, trade liberalization, etc. These would ensure an effective enabling environment for both domestic and foreign investors.

i- Tax Reduction is also another point of recommendation that may call the attention of the government towards attracting the interest of investors. The government should provide tax relief to both domestic and foreign investors. This is to say that the provision of tax comfortability and or reduction gives room for smooth operation of business activities which in turn attract the interest of foreign investors. In addition, tax reduction played an important role towards attracting more investors thereby providing capital, enhances job creation, managerial skills as well as possible technology transfer.


Abubakar Z. et al. (2012), “The Role of Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC) in Attracting Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria” European Scientific Journal, 8 (7), 149-161.

Adeniji, O. (2004), “New Direction in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy” In B.A Akinterinwa (Ed), Nigeria’s New Foreign Policy Thrust.

Adoeye, A. (2009), “Macro-Economic Level Corporate Governance and FDI in Emerging Market:” Is there a close Relationship? Journal of Economics and International Finance 1(2), 030-043. 

Agbu, O. (2009), “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy Under President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua: Challenges and Prospects.” In O. C. Eze (Ed.), Citizen Diplomacy (p.52). 

Ahmed, A. (1993), “Strategies for Foreign Investment in Nigeria.” A Central Bank Perspective. Vol 26.

Ajaebili, C. (2011), “The Option of Economic Diplomacy in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy.” International journal of Humanities and Social Science. 1: 277-280.

Aja, A.A. (2001), “Selected themes in International Economic Relations, Understanding Trends of Globalization and Regionalism”

Ajayi, S.I. (2006), “The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria:” A Survey of the Evidence. In Ajayi, S.I (Ed.), Foreign Direct Investment in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

Akinlo, A.E. (2004), “Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in Nigeria:” An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Policy Modeling Vol 26(5) no. 627-639.

Akinterinwa, B.A. (2004), “Concdentricism in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy. In B.A. Akinterinwa (Ed.), Nigeria’s New Foreign Policy Thrust:” Essays in Honor of Ambrassor Oluyemi, Adeniji (pp452-453).

Anyanwa, J.C. et al (1997), “The structure of The Nigerian Economy” Onitsha: Joanu Educational Publishers Ltd.

Aremu, J.A. (1997), “Foreign Private Investment: Issues, determinants and Performance,” Paper Presented at a Workshop on Foreign Investment Policy and Parctice.

Aremu, J.A. (2003), “National Center for Economic Management and Administration, Macro –economic Policy Analysis and Management Program” designed for research staff of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

Asiedu, E. (2002), “The Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries:” Is Africa Different? World Development 30(1) 107-119.

Asiedu, E. (2006), “Foreign Direct Investment in Africa: The Role of Natural Resources, Market Size, Government Policy, Institutions and Political Stability.” World Economy, 29(1), 63-77.

Ayam, J. (2004), “Trends in Nigeria’s Foreign Policy: The Conduct of Foreign Policy in the New Democratic Dispensation.”

Batasubramanyam, U.N. (2001), Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries: Determinants and impact.” OECD Global Forum on International Investment.

Boyd, J. and Smith, B. (1992), “An Overview of Foreign Direct Investment, Productivity and Country Growth”.

Brakman, S. et al, (2006), “An Introduction to Geographical Economics.” Cambridge University Press.

Carbaugh, R. (2000), “International Economics:” 7th Edition, South-Western College Publishing, Ohio.

Chidozie, F., et al (2014), “Foreign Policy, International Image and National Transformation.” A Historical Perspective. International Journal of Innovative, Social Science and Humanitarian Research 2: 49-58.

De Mello, L.R. Jr. (1997), “Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries:” A Selective Survey. Journal of Development Studies.

Egbo, M.D. (2012), “Foreign Direct Investment and the Performance of the Nigerian Economy.”  Journal on Education and Social Science.

Endozien, E.G. (1968), “Linkages, Direct Foreign Investment and Nigeria’s Economic Development:” The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies. 10(2), 119-203.

George, M. (1962), “A Theory Policy”, New York: Prager p.86.

Graham, F.D (1948), “The Theory of International Values”.

Hinvensalo, I. (2001), “Foreign Direct Investment Around the Baltic sea. Is There Competition Among the Countries in Attracting FDI” Paper of Centre for Markets in Transition, July.

Hugh, G. (1944), “The Road of Foreign Policy”, New York: Doubleday p9.

Joseph, F. (1968), “The Making of Foreign Policy”, London Oxford University Press. P1.

Micheal, T. (2000), “The Role of Investment promotion Agencies at Attracting Foreign Direct Investment and their impact to Economic Development in Central Europe.”

Morgenthau, H. (1973), “Politics Among Nations: The struggles for Peace and Power”. 5th Edition (New York) Knopt.

Moosa, I.A. (2002), “Foreign Direct Investment: Theory Evidence and Practice”, New York: Pagrave Macmillan.

Morisset, J. (2000), Foreign Direct Investment in Africa: Policies and Matters,” Transnational Corporations 9(2): 107-125.

Norman, J. et al, (1976), “The Dynamics of International Politics,” London: MacMillan Press.

Northedger, F.S. (1968), “The Foreign Policies” London, Faber and Faber

Obi, E. (2006), “Nigeria’s Foreign Policy and International Relations Theories” Vector Publishers, Onitsha.

Obida, G. and Abu, N. (2010), “Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria”: An Empirical Analysis Global Journal of Human Social Science. Vol. 10.

OECD, (1996), “OECD Benchmark Definition of Foreign Direct Investment” third edition.

OECD, (2008), “OECD Benchmark definition of Foreign Direction Investment” 4th ed. OECD Publishing. 

Ogwa, U.J. (1986), “Nigerian Foreign Policy:” Alternative futures. Lagos: The Nigerian Institute of International Affairs.

Olusanya, G. and Akindele, R. (1986), “The Fundamentals of Nigeria’s Foreign Policy and External Economic Relations”.

Osaghale, B.D, and Amonkhieman, E.E, (1987), “Foreign Debt Oil export, direct Foreign Investment (1960-1984).” The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 29(3), 359-

Salako, H.A, and Adebusuyi, B.S, (2001), “Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment in Nigeria: An Empirical Investigation.” CBN Economic and Financial Review, 39(1), 20-39.

Shiro, A.A, (2008), “The Impact of FDI on the Nigerian Economy.” Paper Deliver at the 2nd National Conference Organized by the Debt of Finance, University of Lagos, Lagos State.

Tadaro, M.P, (1994), “Economic Development” (5th ed.). New York and London, Longman.

UNCTAD, (1999), World Investment Report: “Foreign Direct Investment and The Challenges of Investment.”

Umaru, I, (2014), “National Policy Options For Nigeria in the Central African Sub-region” Kaduna: Joyce Graphics Printers and Publishers.

0 Response to "Assessment Of Nigeria's Foreign Policy On Foreign Direct Investment 2000 - 2020"

Post a Comment