Transcampus.com

advert
Home Instructors Journals ContactUs
Home

 

Instructors

 

Journals

 

Contact Us

 

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT VOLUME 6 NO 2, DECEMBER, 2008

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION AND HUMAN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA

M.D. Imobighe
Department of Economics, Delta State University, Abraka

 

Abstract
This research shows an econometric analysis of a conventional model to show the conduct of environmental pollution on human capital development. In this research, four explanatory variables were used namely; expenditure on education, health, agriculture, natural resources, and expenditure on environmental pollution. A dependent variable per capital income was also used. The ordinary least square was preferred over other contending econometric techniques such as the Unit Roots test and cointegration because it is the best linear unbiased estimator. The result of the study, shows that only environmental pollution have a significant impact on per capita income. Based on these findings, environmental problems have continued to pose a serious problem to human capita development and economic activities in Nigeria. Arising from this, government should provide better education, sustainable environmental and economic development. Secondly, there is the need for government to accept the challenges to accelerate development in an environmental friendly manner through increased expenditure and natural resources to affected areas of pollution.

Keywords:  Pollution, Poverty, Human Degradation and Development.

 


Introduction

In Nigeria, over the past years, there has been a reawakening of interest in the environment , with the slogan “Environmental sanitation”. Despite efforts made by  governments in controlling pollution and environmental hazards, the major towns and cities in Nigeria are among the dirtiest in the world.

This trend has informed the revamping of the monthly environmental sanitation by nearly all the states of the federation. The focus of this study is basically to appraise empirically the impact of environmental pollution on human capital development in Nigeria.

Recent studies have shown that for a number of pollutants, there appear to be an empirical relationship between income per capita and environmental quality. According to World Bank (1992) “as income per head increases, environmental quality deteriorates up to a point beyond which environmental quality improves”.
The relationship was in fact depicted as a bell shape.  In the early stages of economic development, increases in pollution are regarded as an acceptable side-effect of economic growth. However, when a country has attained a sufficiently high standard of living, human capital development increases. This makes them to be conscious about their environmental protection and the well being of the poor as well as human capital development. The national account ignores the role of nature in the production process and treats environmental services as free goods lying outside the purview of economics (Egbon and Movaridi, 1996).
The objectives of this study are :

i           To appraise empirically the impact of environmental pollution on human capital development in Nigeria.
ii.         To examine empirically the effect of these various pollutions on human capital development and economic growth in Nigeria.
iii.        To determine strategy for an effective environmental policy and pollution control in Nigeria.
           
In spite of the economic progress of Nigeria as measured by the amount of foreign and domestic investment, increase in the Gross National Product (GNP) or increase in per capita income over time, the well being of the average Nigerian in terms of the provision of basic amenities, or as a wholesome and hygienic physical environment has been accorded low priority (Agbola, 1985).

Most urban communities in Nigeria have been described as fetish, filthy and highly susceptible to epidemics as a result of environmental neglect, lack of adherence to basic hygiene codes, poor enforcement of the few existing hygiene codes by law and inadequate sanitation systems. (Okedeji and Aboyade, (1969) Onibokun and Onokerhoraye, (1975).

Methodology
This study will adopt an econometric approach. The first step is to specify the model in its mathematical form where the dependent and explanatory variable would be determined. This is followed by the appropriate or a priori expectations about the sign and magnitude (size) of the estimate of parameters of the function. It is necessary to obtain estimates of parameters of the
model using appropriate econometric technique.

The estimation is followed by the evaluation of estimates. Then there is the test for the

 

statistical significance and feasibility of the parameters.
Model Specification
The model specified is presented as follows
PCGDP            =          F (GEXPDH), GEXPDE, GEANR, GEEPOL)
PCGDP            =          Per capital income (a proxy for human development)
GEXPOH         =          Government expenditure on health
             
GEXPOE         =          Government expenditure on education

GEANR           =          Government expenditure on agriculture and natural

resources

GEEPOL          =          Government Expenditure on protection and environmental

pollution.
            This model in linear form is presented as follows:
PCGDP = B0 + B1 GEXPDH +B2 GEXPDE + B3 GEANR  + B4 GEEPOL  + Ut.

Where;
B0        =          Constant term
B1–B4 =            Various slope coefficient
Ut        =          Stochastic disturbance term
A priori sign: B1 > 02 B2 > 0, B3 > , and B4 > 0.
It is pertinent to state that from the variables above which are per capita income and government expenditure on health, education, agriculture and natural resources, and environmental pollution, the dependent variable (per capital income GDP) will be measured at current factor cost while the other independent variables (health, education, agriculture and pollution) will be measured using annual output from 1980-2005.

Presentation and Analysis of Data


Table 1. Macroeconomic Indicators


Dependent Variable
Explanatory Variables

YEAR

PCGDP

GEXPDH

GEXPDE

GEANR

GEEPOL

1980

49632.3

147.2

952.6

435.6

1383.9

1981

50456.6

128.4

440.9

775.1

249.6

1982

51570.3

130.2

488.4

1035.1

462.0

1983

56709.8

136

346.6

1184.2

39.9

1984

63006.2

190.2

861.2

252.5

416.0

1985

71368.1

56.2

180.7

985.4

392.4

1986

72128.2

81.2

442

892.5

266.4

1987

106883.2

69.5

139.1

365.1

506.4

1988

142678.3

183.2

281.8

595.7

703

1989

222457.6

126

221.9

981.5

422.9

1990

257873.0

257

331.7

1758.5

247.6

1991

320247.7

137.6

289.1

551.2

62.3

1992

544330.7

188

384.1

763.0

125.0

1993

691600

352.9

1563

1820

442.8

1994

911070

961

2405.7

2800.1

14.5

1995

1960690

1725.5

3307.4

4691.7

0

1996

2740460

1669.5

3215.8

3892.8

492.1

1997

2835000

2623.8

3808

6247.46247.4

330.6

1998

2765670

7123.8

1279.5

8876.6

4081.2

1999

3225990

7386.8

8516.6

6912.6

1284.4

2000

4842186

6669.2

23342.6

5761.7

6843.4

Source (1) CBN, Statistical Bulletin Vol. 12, Dec. 2001.
(2) Federal Ministry of Finance and Economic Development


Table 1 shows trend analysis of per capita income and government expenditure on health education, agriculture and natural resources and environmental pollution between (1980-2000).
Trend analysis of per capita income shows a marginal/continuous increase during the period under consideration (1980-2000).

The trend on per capita income experienced a steep increase from N72,128.2 in 1986 to N106,883.2 during the Structural Adjustment era. Then, the trend on per capita income maintained consistent increase  till the end of the study period .


Table 2 Regression Results - Dependent Variable GDPPC (OLS) Regression Estimation


Regression

Coefficient

Stand Error

T-Ratio

Constant

12746.02

49036.947

2.600

GEXPDH

21.781

41.680

.523

GEXPDE

11.367

9.431

1.205

GEXPDANR

1.180

31.077

.38

GEXPDEPOL

-10.940

31.499

-.337

 

R2                    =          .205
SER                 =          0.05
F-statistics        =          2.291
DW-Statistics =            1.540
Analysis of Regression Result
Model I
PCGDP = F (GEXPDH, GEXPDE, GEXPANR, GEEPOL)
PCDP   = B0 +B1 GEXPDH, + B2 GEXPDE + B3 GEXPANR + B4 GEEPOL +Ut
Coefficient = 127476.02 + 21.781H  + 11.367E  +  1.180ANR – 10.940POL
Stand Errors  = (49036.947)  (41.680)  (9.431)  (31.077)  (32.499)
t   =  Value = (2.600)  (0.523) (1.205)  (0.038) (-0.337)
            Using the ordinary least square, PCGDP was regressed on four explanatory variables; GEXPDH, GEXPDE, GEXPDANR and GEEPOL.


Three of the explanatory variable (GEXPDH, GEXPDE, and GEXPDANR) show positive relationship in explaining per capita income (GDP). The other explanatory variable, which is government expenditure on environment pollutions show a negative relationship with
per capita income (GDP).

Accordingly, an increase in government expenditure on health (GEXPDH) by N1 million, will lead to an increase of per capita income (GDP) by N21.781m. Also a N1m increase in government expenditure on education, will lead to an increase in per capita income (GDP) by N11.367m. while a N1m increase in government expenditure on agriculture and natural resources will lead to an increase in per capita income (GDP by N1.180m.

Finally, it is obvious that if government expenditure on environmental pollution increases by N1m, it will lead to a decrease of per capita income by N10.940m.

Test for significance
The test was conducted at 95% level of significance
tobi  = 41.680
tcri  = 2.086
tobi > tcri]
41.680>2.086, thus shows that tobi is greater than tori, it shows that expenditure on health is statistically significant in explaining per capita income (GDP) while holding all other variables constant.
tobi = 9.431
tcri  = 2.086    
tobi > tcri]
31.077>2.086, it implies that since tob3 is greater than tcri, expenditure on agriculture and natural resources is statistically significant in explaining per capita income, holding other variables (GEXPDH, GEXPDE, GEEPOL) constant..
tobi = 32.499
tcri  = 2.086
tobi > tcri]

32.499>2.086, from this observation, tobi is greater than tcri, therefore, expenditure on environmental pollution is statistically significant in explaining per capita income (GDP) while holding all other variables (GEXPDH, GEXPDE, GEXPDANR) constant.

F – Statistics test
The f-statistics obtained (Fob) at 95% level of significance.
Fob = 2.291
Fcri  = 3.01
Fob < Fcri

2.291 < 3.01 since Fob < fcri, it shows that all the variables taken together (GEXPDH, GEXPDE, GEXPDANR and GEEPOL) are not statistically significant in explaining per capita income (GDP).

 

The DW  (d*)  =   1.540
d1 < d > du
0.79 < 1.540< 1.99, this implies that there is evidence of positive auto-correlation.

Conclusion
The environment is a universal phenomenon created by nature and governed by natural laws. The operation of nature is grossly inadequate to cater for the modern needs of man who of necessity developed a frontal attack against nature for his own preservation. The implements of production and their modes of operation inherently impair the natural equilibrium, leading to the environmental pollution, which the same man is set to regulate. The struggle is thus between man and nature.

Recommendation         
For an effective surveillance and monitoring of polluters, major industrial or agricultural establishment must perform an environmental impact assessment where information on the environment may be communicated to the public through both formal and non-formal channels.

There is the need for better education, as this
would enable the adoption of more sustainable
practices in agriculture, household
management, etc. The provision of increase
access to education has been found to
be the single most important policy for
reducing the pressure on environmental
pollution in most countries.
           
Increased education in Nigerian has helped to
reduced the pressure on population growth, which will in the long term will reduce man’s pressure on the environment.

For a sound and sustainable environmental policy as well as sustainable economic development to

take place, there is the need for a better information system, more effective institutions and improved local institutions, this will go a long way in reducing the impediments of environmental issues.
Some people are the beneficiaries as well as
victims of all development activities; the need
for a participatory process is essential.
Local participation has high economic and
environmental returns in implementing
programmes on waste disposal mechanism,
afforestation, flood control and sanitation.

Finally, there is the need for government to
accept the challenge to accelerate development
in an environmentally friendly manner through
increased expenditure on agriculture and
natural resources, which will go a long way to
improving man and his environment.

References
Ademoroti C.M.A. (1980) “Pollution
Assessment of Rivers in Ibadan City”Journal
of the Society of Health, 13 No. 1pp 1-12.

 

Akintola, F.O. (1978) “The Hydrological
Consequences of Urbanization: A Case Study
of Ibadan City” in Sada and Oguntoy (eds).
Urbanization Processes and Problems in
Nigeria, Ibadan, Ibadan University Press.

 

Ayinla P. (1995) “Protection of the
Environment from Industrial Pollution”. Daily
Times August 23.

Drakaris Smith D.W. (1973) “Urban Planning Problem in South East Africa” in G. Secklon

 

(ed) Urbanization: Twelve Paper Delivered at the Anazaas Congress University of Melbourne.

Egbon P.C. (1996); “Environmental Policy Analysis: the ease of Nigeria” in P.C. Egbon and B Morvaridi (eds), Environmental Policy Planning, Ibadan (NCEMA).

Engle P. and T.B. Abudullah 1992, Environment; Development and Poverty. The Courier 133(73(, May-June )

Green, R.H. (1991) “Structural Adjustment
and the national environment, strategies: what
interactions? IDS Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 4,
October.

Iwayemi A. (1992), “Economics and the
Challenge of Environmental Change in
Nigeria; A Paper in the Department of

Economics, University of Ibadan; March.

Morvaridi B. (1996), “Sustainable
Development: The Environment and
Development Debate” in P.E. Egbon and B.
Morvaridi (eds), Environmental Policy
Planning, Ibadan (NCEMA).

Reed, D. (ed) (1992), Structural Adjustment
and the Environment: Boulder: West View
Press, Co.

Umoh, J.O, (1997) “Environment
Development and Poverty in Nigeria”. The
Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social
Studies. Vol 39, No. 3 November.

Uniamikogbo, S.O. (1997), “The Environment
and Sustainable Development in Nigeria”
Mimeo.