Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% !&nline# 'ol.() No.

17) 2 1*

www.iiste.org

Impact of Government Interventions on Small Scale Entreprises in Mubi North Local Government Area, Adamawa State, Nigeria
+li,u +l-a.i Jibrilla Department of economics) +damawa State /niversit,) 0ubi) Nigeria. Email1 ali,umai-a2gmail.com Abstract 3-is stud, e4amined t-e impact of government interventions on Small Scale enterprise in 0ubi Nort- local government +rea. 3-e stud, -as become imperative because of an increasing inabilit, of Small Scale enterprises to live up to e4pected target as t-e engine for economic growt- and development) despite government encouragement in t-is direction. 3-is stud, focused its empirical verification on t-ree 5e, areas w-ic- are ver, fundamental to t-e stud,) vi61 perception of SSEs operators about government interventions t-e relevance of t-ese interventions to t-em) and t-e accessibilit, of t-ese interventions. Data were collected t-roug- interviews and 7uestionnaire. "ercentage and 8-i - s7uare tec-ni7ues were used to describe and anal,sed t-e results obtained from t-e field. 9owever) t-e available data indicates t-at government intervention sc-emes:programmes aimed at elevating t-e SSEs to t-e e4pected targets in t-e area) lac5s t-e awareness of t-e SSEs operators. +gain) t-e available data s-ows t-at accessibilit, to t-e intervention b, SSEs operators is not eas,. +s a result SSEs operators do not feel t-e relevance of t-ese interventions. ;inall,) based on t-e findings of t-e stud, t-e following recommendations are made1 government s-ould embar5 on t-e sensiti6ation:awareness creation and also reduce t-e conditions to be met before accessing t-e interventions. 1 ! IN"#$%&'"I$N /ntil t-e earl, 1<= s) man, economists regarded t-e continuous e4istence of small-scale industries in less developed countries as .ustified b, inade7uac, of capital and administrative capabilit,. It was often argued t-at wit- economic growt-) t-e small) traditional t,pe of enterprise would) in one sector after anot-er) be succeeded b, modern forms of large-scale production. In order to ensure an orderl, switc-) small scale enterprises were appreciated to deserve getting support) but mainl, in areas w-ere modern tec-ni7ues could not be applied straig-tawa, !E5pen,ong and N,ong) 1<<2#. +ccording to &ugui,a ! 2 (#) since independence) promoting small and medium scale enterprises as t-e foundation of economic progress -as been recogni6ed in Nigeria b, ever, regime !S0E) 2 (#. 3-is is because of its perceived relevance in ensuring sustained increase in per-capita income and output) as well as) emplo,ment generation and promotion of effective utili6ation of available resource !s#. Small Scale Enterprises !SSEs# -ave attracted considerable attention of bot- public and private sectors in more t-an two decades ago c-iefl, in most of t-e less developed nations. In a considerable number of suc- countries) government ma5es provisions for policies t-at are deemed promoting in t-eir development plans) policies and programmes for t-e promotion of small scale enterprises because of t-eir perceived benefit to economic development. ;or instance) t-ese perceived ideal benefits include1 emplo,ment generation especiall, for people in rural areas) transformation of traditional to modern tec-nolog,) stimulation of indigenous entrepreneurs-ip) reversal of urban-rural migration) greater utili6ation of raw materials) promotion of local tec-nolog,) mobili6ation of local savings) lin5age balance b, spreading investment more evenl,) abilit, to operate profitabl, in ver, narrow mar5ets wit- low purc-asing power) among ot-ers. 3-e e4tent of resources allocated to eacsector varies considerabl, from countr, to 8ountr,. "reviousl,) incentives were provided to favour large-scale enterprises) small scale enterprises were usuall, relegated to t-e bac5ground !;0S3) 1<<2#. Driven b, t-ese) several financial institutions in c-arge of microcredit and polic, instruments suc- as Nigeria +gricultural 8o-operative and >ural Development ?an5 !N+8>D?#) Nigerian ?an5 for 8ommerce and Industr, !N?8I#) National Economic >econstruction ;und !NE>;/ND#) ?an5 of Industr, !?I# among ot-ers were establis-ed to facilitate growt- of small scale enterprises. +nd of recent Small and 0edium Enterprises E7uit, Investment Sc-eme !S0EEIS#) Small and 0edium Enterprises Development +genc, !S0ED+# and ot-er polic, oriented institutions li5e Entrepreneurs-ip Development "olic, !ED"# run b, t-e National Directorate of Emplo,ment !NDE#) Industrial Development 8entres !ID8# among ot-ers were introduced to offer tec-nical and financial assistance to small scale enterprises. In spite of t-ese interventions underta5en b, successive governments to improve t-e performance of SSEs) .udging b, S0E performance) not muc- progress seems to -ave been ac-ieved) 3-is stud, e4amines surve, data in order to evaluate t-e relevance of government interventions on S0Es@ t-eir effectiveness and t-e sensiti6ation of t-e SSEs operators on t-eir e4istence and importance and to determine w-, t-ese interventions ma, not -ave ac-ieved t-eir goals in relation to t-e growt- performance of SSE in Nigeria.

121

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% !&nline# 'ol.() No.17) 2 1*

www.iiste.org

3-e ob.ectives of t-is paper are to ascertain t-e perception of small scale enterprises operators about government interventions and itAs relevant to t-e growt- of small scale enterprises in t-e stud, area@ to ascertain t-e general constraints faced b, small scale enterprises operators and to point out strategies t-at s-ould be adopted in order to overcome t-ese constraints. ;ollowing t-is introduction t-e remaining part of t-e paper is structured as follows) section two presents t-e literature review) section t-ree discusses t-e met-odolog,) section four presentsA results of t-e data anal,sis and section five comprised summar, conclusion and some polic, recommendations. ( ! #E)IE* $+ #ELA"E% LI"E#A"&#E AN% EM,I#I'AL E)I%EN'E /niversall,) t-ere is no generall, accepted definition of a small scale business because t-e classification of businesses into large-scale or small-scale is a sub.ective term and -as 7ualitative .udgment. In countries suc- as t-e /S+) ?ritain) and 8anada) small-scale business is defined in terms of annual income and emplo,ment level b, t-e businesses. 3-is definition also varies wit- w-at is obtainable in ?ritain !E5pen,ong and N,ong) 1<<2#. In Japan) small-scale industr, is defined according to t-e t,pe of industr,) start-up capital and number of business emplo,ees. +ccordingl,) small and medium-scale enterprises are defined as1 t-ose in manufacturing wit- at least 1 million ,en paid-up capital and at least * emplo,ees) t-ose in w-olesale trade wit- at least * million ,en paid-up capital and 1 emplo,ees) and t-ose in t-e retail and service trades wit- at least 1 million ,en paid-up capital and at least % emplo,ees !E5pen,ong and N,ong) 1<<2#. In Nigeria) t-e 8entral ?an5 of Nigeria !8?N#) for t-e purpose of credit guideline to financial institutions classifies as small scale enterprises t-ose enterprises wit- an annual turnover between t-e range of N1 ) . to N1% ) . @ wit- less t-an % emplo,ees@ wit- asset base !e4cluding real estate# of not less t-an 1 million !8?N) 1<$<#. 3-is almost coincide wit- t-e report of t-e ;ederal Bovernment Small Scale ?usiness Development "rogramme !S?D"# sees a small scale enterprise as an, manufacturing) process or service firm wit- investment a capital not e4ceeding N1% ) . in mac-iner, and e7uipment and emplo,ing not more t-an % wor5ers !&suala) 2 (#. >ecogni6ing t-e beneficial effect of SSEs) emerging economies across t-e world ) put in policies t-at are made to favor small scale enterprises as springboard for sustainable economic development !&sadebe) 2 7#. Driven b, t-is) government in Nigeria put in man, policies w-ic- favoured among ot-ers t-e establis-ment of a Small Industries Development "rogramme) in 1<71) to provide tec-nical and financial support for S0Es. 3-is led to t-e setting up of t-e Small Industries 8redit 8ommittee !SI88# to manage t-e Small lndustries 8redit ;und !SI8;# t-roug-out t-e nation. 3-e sc-eme) w-ic- operated as a matc-ing grant between t-e federal and state governments was designed to ma5e credit available in liberal terms to S0Es and was managed b, t-e statesC ministries of Industr,) 3rade and 8o-operatives t-roug- t-e loan management committees !D08s#!8?N) 2 *#. 3-e Nigeria ?an5 for 8ommerce and Industr, !N?8I# on its part was set up in 1<7* to provide among ot-er financial services to t-e indigenous business communit,) particularl, S0Es 3-e N?8l operated as a -ead financial bod, for t-e S0Es and also administers t-eir Doan Sc-eme. 3-e N?8I -owever suffered from operational problems) terminating in a state of insolvenc, from 1<$<. It is now part of t-e newl, establis-ed ?an5 of Industr, !8?N) 2 *#. 9owever) t-e establis-ment of t-e >ural ?an5ing Sc-eme !>?S# in 1<77 seems to mar5 new era in t-e -istor, of S0Es in Nigeria. 3-e Sc-eme was fundamentall, designed to confront t-e problems of inade7uac, of credit to t-e agricultural sector and underdevelopment of t-e rural based small-scale enterprises. ;or ob.ective impact t-e sc-eme mandated establis-ment of commercial ban5s branc-es in t-e rural areas in Nigeria. +nd b, 1<$<) t-ere were about 7%= new rural ban5 branc-es across t-e countr, wit- total deposits in all t-e rural branc-es amounting to about N%.7 billion !t-at is) about N7.% million per branc-# !8?N) 2 *#. In addition) t-e introduction of Structural +d.ustment "rogramme !S+"# in 1<$= was part of Bovernment effort) to come up wit- policies t-at would en-ance industriali6ation in t-e countr,) w-ic- lead to even opening up of doors for foreign investors to in.ect fund to S0Es and ot-er investment opportunities in t-e countr, !;0S3) 1<<2#. 3-is effort also saw t-e formal commissioning of t-e "eoples ?an5 of Nigeria !"?N in &ctober 1<$< wit- t-e ob.ective of meeting t-e credit needs of t-e S0Es. +nd b, 1<<*) in t-e attempt to attain a target of 17 branc-es) t-e activities of t-e ban5 w-ic- administered groups loans to beneficiaries -ad e4tended to all t-e states in t-e countr, !8?N) 2 *#. 9owever) t-e resulting devaluation of naira associated wit- t-e implementation of S+") force man, small and medium scale enterprises fall s-ort of finance. 3-is in turn) -ad force t-e federal government set up t-e National Economic >econstruction ;und !NE>;/ND#) in Januar,) 1<< ) aimed at providing relativel, long term loans to small and medium scale enterprises operators t-at would span for five to ten ,ears at low interest rates) so as to smoot- t-eir development process. 9owever) t-e credit e4tension activities of NE>;/ND was not free from setbac5 emanated from devaluation of t-e national currenc, t-at inevitable affects loan servicing b, t-e beneficiaries. 3-is force merger of NE>;/ND merged wit- some ot-er ;inancial institutions meant for S0Es

122

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% !&nline# 'ol.() No.17) 2 1*

www.iiste.org

development to form t-e ?an5 of Industr, in 2 1 3-e establis-ment of National Directorate of Emplo,ment !NDE# in 1<$= to generate self-emplo,ment in +griculture) Eout- Emplo,ment and 'ocational s5ills Development) and small scale business among ot-ers was anot-er commitment b, t-e national government to en-ance t-e e4ploitation of small scale enterprises to t-eir full potential !;BN) 2 *#. 8ovet) !1<$ #) observed t-at several small scale enterprises operators are -ig-l, proficient in t-eir tec-nical field but are less well e4perienced in managerial competence. 3-is ma, be part of t-e reasons for t-e longevit, in t-eir bac5wardness. It -as -owever been observe t-at insufficient capital is still t-e bottle nec5 face b, t-e small scale operators in Nigeria !&gec-u5wu) 2 11#. &t-ers) argued t-at S0Es failure in t-e countr, is partl, caused b, inabilit, of t-e S0Es operators to lending rules !S0ED+) 2 (# and deliberate divert of loans to ostentatious spending and refusal to pa, bac5 t-e capital and interest w-en time is due because of t-e financial indiscipline !&gu.iuba !2 (@ &sadebe) 2 7# as well as inconsistenc, of government policies directed to en-ancing business environment in t-e countr, !N.o5u) 2 2#. It -as also been argued an inaccessible collateral re7uirement b, S0Es operators was also responsible for t-eir ill performances !Isern) et al, 2009#. In order to obstruct furt-er setbac5 on t-e development of S0Es in Nigeria) t-e Small and 0edium Enterprises Development +genc, !S0ED+# was establis-ed b, t-e S0ED+N act of 2 * to promote t-e development of 0icro) Small and 0edium Enterprises !0S0E# sector of t-e econom,. +n important ob.ective of S0ED+N is to establis- a structured and efficient 0S0E sector t-at will en-ance sustainable economic development of t-e countr, t-roug- stimulating) monitoring and coordinating t-e development 0S0E !S0ED+) 2 %#. ( 1 "-E$#E"I'AL +#AME*$#. 3-is stud, recogni6ed t-at one ma.or feature of investment in developing countries of sub-Sa-aran +frica !SS+# is t-e -ig- import content of capital goods. 3-is buttresses t-e contention in t-e two gap model !8-ener, and ?runo) 1<=2 and ?ac-a) 1<$2#) t-at t-e lac5 of foreign e4c-ange ma, constitute a ma.or constraint to sustain -ig- rates of investment and growt- in developing economies. 3-erefore in countries li5e Nigeria w-ere botprivate and public sectors are -ig-l, complementar,) t-e lac5 of government in economic activities will alwa,s constitute an impediment to growt-. In ot-er word) government intervention is a crucial determinant factor in t-e growt- of Small Scale enterprises in Nigeria. 3-is is a serious issue w-en viewed from t-e perspective of t-is stud,. 3-erefore) t-e Fe,nesian t-eor, is considered to be more appropriate in t-is stud,. 3-is t-eor, offers useful insig-t to t-e understanding of t-e effect of government interventions on small scale enterprises. 3-e ma.or advantage of t-is t-eor, is its abilit, to provide t-e important of government involvement in economic activities. 3-e Fe,nesian economics argues t-at private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and t-erefore advocates active polic, responses b, t-e public sector. Fe,nesian economics advocates a mi4ed econom,) predominantl, private sector) but wit- a large role of government and public sector. / ! MA"E#IAL AN% ME"-$%S 3-e paper is designed to determine t-e impact of government interventions on SSES in 0ubi nort- local government area of +damawa State. Due to t-e above assertion) t-is stud, ma5es use primar, sources of data collection) w-ic- was collected b, t-e use of 7uestionnaire:interview and observation. 3-e population of t-e stud, include all officiall, recogni6ed small scale enterprises w-ic- are located in 0ubi nort- local government t-at are categori6ed as @one-man business@ partners-ip and famil, business. ;rom t-is a sample si6e is drawn. 3-roug-out t-e stud,) 11% business operations were selected in some related t,pes of enterprises. 3-e sample si6e lies wit-in w-at can effectivel, be manage given t-e time and resources available. 3-e distribution cover t-e following categories of enterprises1 barbing profession) carpentering) welding) 3ailoring) 8omputer services and s-oe s-ining. Simple random sampling was used during t-e data collection t-at cut across t-e areas w-ere SSEs are predominantl, located in t-e local government area. 3wo instruments of data collection were used1 t-e 7uestionnaire and interviews. 9owever) w-ile t-e 7uestionnaire was t-e ma.or instrument) t-e interview complemented it. 3-e interview was used to e4tract information from t-e small scale enterprises operators w-o are responsible for t-e running of t-e da, to da, administration of t-e enterprises in t-e stud, area in order to -ave relevant on t-e impact of government interventions on t-e growt- of small scale enterprises in t-e area. Data collected from t-e issuance of 7uestionnaire and interviews were presented !in figure using percentages# and anal,sed using 8-i- S7uare anal,sis.

12*

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% 2$%% !&nline# 'ol.() No.17) 2 1*

www.iiste.org

0 ! %A"A ,#ESEN"A"I$N I$N AN% ANAL1SIS 3-is section contains t-e anal,sis of t-e data resulting from t-e fieldwor5 of t-e stud,. 3-e data was derived from bot- t-e 7uestionnaire and interviews. &ut of one -undred and fifteen !11%# 7uestionnaires distributed) one -undred and nd five were returned after all possible efforts b, t-e researc-er. 3-is is because some of t-e respondents claimed t-e, -ave eit-er no time or -ave loss t-e instrument. 3-e 7uestionnaire return rate is <1.*G. 3en 7uestionnaire representing $.7G were not returned. +s a result) t-e anal,sis is based on t-e one -undred and five !1 %#-completed %# completed 7uestionnaires and t-e findings from t-e interviews. 3-ese) I believe are ade7uate for t-e statistical manipulation involved in t-e stud,. 0 12 .nowledge of respondents ts on government Interventions, its relevance and accessibilit3 In order to ascertain t-e perception of respondents on government interventions on SSEs) participants were as5ed to indicate t-eir awareness on t-e position of government intervention) t-e t-e degree of its relevance and accessibilit, in t-e area. 3-eir responses in t-is regard are s-own in t-e figure 1. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
82 63 36 58 32 15 6 13 10

Positive response #egative response $n%ifferent ccessi!ilit" of the interventions !" SSEs operators

Perception of government Relevance of the interventions on SSEs government interventions to SSEs operators

;igure 11 percentage of small scale operators on t-eir perception) relevance and accessibilit, of government interventions on SSEs !2 11# ;igure 1 s-ows t-e responses of SSEs operators of t-eir perception on government interventions on t-e SSEs. 3-e figure s-ows t-at = G of t-e respondents are not aware of t-e e4istence of government interventions) w-icis a serious setbac5 in assessing sing t-e sc-eme. Hit- t-e above figure) it s-ows t-at t-e number of respondents t-at are unaware is far above t-ose t-at are aware. Hit- regard to t-e degree of relevance t-e interventions to SSEs operators) w-en as5ed I-ow relevant are t-ese interventions ntions on ,our businessJK +s indicated in figure 1) *1G of t-e respondents indicated t-at t-e, are relevant. Breater number of t-e respondents) representing %%.2G opined t-at t-e interventions are irrelevant w-ile 1(.*G were indifferent. 3-is s-ows t-at t-e t-e government interventions to SSEs -ave not been felt. 3-is mig-t be as a result of t-e fact t-at ma.orit, of t-e SSEs operators are not aware of t-e e4istence of government intervention. +gain) t-is can also be attributed to poor perception of t-e sc-eme b, SSES operators. 3-is finding is in agreement wit- t-e findings from t-e interview wit- t-e SSES operators. 3-is is so because) 7 G of t-ose interviewed are of t-e opinion t-at t-e interventions are of no relevance to t-em) simpl, because of t-e fact t-at t-a t-e, -ave not benefited from it. +s an effort to determine t-e -ow accessible t-e interventions are) figure 1) reports responses of SSEs operators) revealing t-at t-e -ig-est number) w-ic- constitutes 7$.1G of t-e respondents indicated difficult, if possible in accessing t-e interventions. 9owever) insignificant number of t-e respondents) representing12.(G regarded t-e interventions as inaccessible) w-ile <.%G were indifferent. 3-is findings s-ow t-at operators -ave no eas, access to t-e interventions. 0 (2 'onstraints Encountered b3 SSEs $perators 3-e stud, furt-er tried to determine t-e reasons for t-e inaccessibilit, of t-ese interventions b, SSEs operators because a good number of respondents as s-own in figure 1 opined t-at t-e interventions intervent are not accessible. +s a result) t-e stud, tried to find out w-, t-e interventions are inaccessibleK +nd ma.orit, of t-e SSEs operators considered in t-e stud, attributed failure of t-e interventions to -eav, collateral attac-ed to t-e available loans@ @ insufficient access and lac5 of awareness about t-e interventions. 3-is suggests t-at c-ief reason for t-e interventionAs failure is t-e -eav, collateral t-at is attac-ed to t-e available loan opportunities for t-ose t-at are aware of t-e interventions.

12(

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% !&nline# 'ol.() No.17) 2 1*

www.iiste.org

Knowledge of the respondents about the constraints encountered

6& 87& 7& 7&

enco'ntere% not enco'ntere% $n%ifferent

;igure 11 percentage of small scale operators based on t-e constraints encountered during t-eir business operations !2 11# H-en as5ed) do ,ou encounter constraintsJK 0a.orit, of t-e respondent $7G said t-at t-e, encounter constraints) =G said t-e, do not encounter constraints) w-ile 7G were indifferent. 3-e stud, tried furt-er to determine t-ose constraints w-ic- SSEs operators encounter in t-eir operations. In addition) a considerable number of SSEs operators considered during t-e stud, indicated t-at apart from inaccessibilit, of government interventions) t-e, also encounter ot-er constraints suc- as inade7uate capital:finance) poor government policies) problem of bad road conditions and power interruption) as well as) disturbances from local aut-orities 3-is s-ows t-at financial capital is t-e ma.or problem encounter b, SSEs operators in t-e area. 0 / -1,$"-ESIS "ES"ING 3-e c-i-s7uare test is used to test t-e -,pot-esis. 3-e significance level c-osen for t-e test is %G ! . %# using t-e formula. H-ere1

2 =
L

! f o fe # fe

0easurement of discrepanc, e4isting between t-e observed and e4pected fre7uencies. &bserved fre7uencies E4pected fre7uencies

fo

fe

Summation

3-e decision rule is) w-ere t-e computed value of e4ceeds its critical !or figure# value) t-en t-e null -,pot-esis !9o# is re.ected and t-e alternative -,pot-esis !91# is accepted and w-en t-e computed value of is e7ual to or less t-an t-e critical !or figure# value) t-e null -,pot-esis is accepted. 3-is -,pot-esis -as been c-osen b, t-e researc-er for t-is stud,. 9o1 t-e difference between t-e respondents opinion does not implies t-at government interventions -ave no significant impact on SSES in t-e area. 911 t-e difference between t-e respondents opinion implies t-at government interventions -ave no significant impact on SSES in t-e area. 0 0 "est of -3pothesis Degree of freedom !D;# M !>-1#!8-1# !*-1#!*-1# M 2!2# M (

2
. % !critical

value# M <.(<

fe =

!Row#!column# Total

12%

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% !&nline# 'ol.() No.17) 2 1*

www.iiste.org

0 4 "he relation between respondents opinion on the impact of government interventions on SSEs in the stud3 area "able 12 $bserved fre5uenc3 6 o 7 of the respondents $pinion ,erception of government #elevance of the interventions government interventions "ositive *= *2 response Negative =* %$ response Indifferent = 1% 1 % 1 % "otal

Accessibilit3 of interventions 1* $2 1 1 %

the

"otal $1 2 * *1 *1%

"able (2 E8pected fre5uenc3 6 e 7 of the respondents opinion $pinion ,erception of government #elevance of the interventions government interventions ,es 27 27 No =7.7 =7.7 Indifferent 1 .* 1 .* 1 % 1 % "otal

Accessibilit3 of the interventions 27 =7.7 1 .* 1 %

"otal $1 2 * *1 *1%

"able /2 'omputed 'hi 9 S5uare

f
27 27 27 =7.7 =7.7 =7.7 1 .* 1 .* 1 .*
2

fo fe
< < < -(.7 -<.7 1(.* -(.* (.7 .*

! fo fe #2
$1 $1 $1 22. < <(. < 2 (.(< 1$.(< 22. < . <

! fo fe #2 fe
* * * .** 1.*< *. 2 1.$ 2.1( . < 17.=<

*= *2 1* =* %$ $2 = 1% 1 3otal
2

M 17.=< >eading from figure N2 figure at %G level of significance for D; M ( N2 . % !critical value# M <.(< !tabulated# 0 : %ecision rule +s could be observed) t-e computed value !17.=<# is greater t-an t-e critical or figure value of !<.(<#. Boing b, t-e decision rule) we accept t-e alternative -,pot-esis !91# w-ic- sa,s It-e difference between t-e respondents opinion implies t-at government interventions -ave no significant impact on SSES in t-e areaJ. It could be deduced from t-e above result t-at) t-ere is no evidence to s-ow t-at government interventions -ave significant impact on SSES in 0ubi nort- local government area. 4 12 S&MMA#1 $+ "-E +IN%INGS 3-e focal point of t-is stud, -as been to e4amine t-e impact of government interventions on small enterprises in 0ubi nort- local government. 3-e stud, also appraised t-e perception) accessibilit, and relevance of t-ese interventions b, SSEs operators. 3-e stud, ac-ieved its ob.ectives t-roug- responses from t-e respondents t-at 12=

! f fe # = o fe

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% !&nline# 'ol.() No.17) 2 1*

www.iiste.org

t-e perception is poor) accessibilit, is not eas, and t-e intervention -as less impact. 3-e result also s-ow t-at onl, ver, few SSEs operators access t-ese interventions) w-ile t-e ma.orit, do not -ave good perception and access to it. +s a result) it was suggested t-at combined efforts need to be made in order to create awareness on t-e e4istence of government interventions so t-at its purpose would be ac-ieved. 0oreover) it was also observed t-at SSEs operators encounter constraints t-at militate against t-eir growt-) w-ic- according to t-em include lac5 of finance:capital) bad:inaccessible roads and constant power failure. Solutions to t-ese effects were also suggested. 4 (2 '$N'L&SI$N AN% ,$LI'1 #E'$MMEN%A"I$NS +s pointed out above) t-e inference drawn from t-e stud, is t-at t-e ma.orit, of SSEs operators do not 5now t-at suc- interventions e4ist in t-e stud, area. It is strongl, suggested t-at in order to improve t-e effectiveness of government interventions) concerted efforts s-ould be made in t-e areas of sensiti6ation and awareness creation. ;urt-ermore) more assistance in t-e area of training s-ould be given to e4isting SSEs operators so as to en-ance t-eir effectiveness. +lso access to t-e e4isting interventions s-ould be improved and encouraged. 3-is can be done b, revisiting t-e conditions or criteria to be met before accessing t-e sc-eme. 3o ensure t-e impact of government interventions on SSEs in t-e stud, area) along side removal of -eav, collateral) creating awareness and ensuring e7ual opportunit, to all t-e SSEs operators as indicated b, t-e respondents) t-ere is also need for proper sensiti6ation of t-e sc-eme so as to accomplis- t-e purpose for setting it:t-em@ encouragement of t-e power 9oldings of Nigeria !"98N# and ot-er power distributors to considerabl, improve t-e provision of ade7uate and constant power suppl, w-ic- is vital for successful enterprising@ ta5ing ade7uate measures b, t-e government and ot-er relevant sta5e-olders to bring t-e roads to a level t-e, could be considered ade7uate for eas, transportation@ more efforts on t-e side of micro credit institutions) and ot-er relevant agencies and financial institutions to pa, t-e e4pected leading role in ma5ing provisions for capital bac5-up to SSEs operators@ finall,) t-ere is need for more assistance in term of finance) training) ) improved e7uipment and public utilities) and securit,) as well as) improved tec-nical support not onl, from government but) ot-er non-governmental organi6ations !NB&s#. Ac;nowledgment 3-e aut-or would li5e to t-an5 "rofessor Barba I. S-e5a) Dr. S-e-u 0o-ammad) 3i..ani and Dr. 0o-ammad Inuwa Dauda for t-eir -elpful comments and suggestions. #E+#EN'ES +nigwe N.&. !1<<2#. + Stud, on t-e effects of government financial policies on small Scale industries in Enugu local government. Unpublished B.Sc Project Presented to the epartment of !ana"ement Uni#ersit$ of %i"eria &nu"u 'ampus. ?ac-a) E. !1<$(# OBrowt- wit- Dimited Supplies of ;oreign E4c-ange1 + >eappraisal of t-e 3wo Bap 0odel(, The )orld Ban* 8?N) 1<$<1 8entral ?an5of Nigeria1 Statistical Report +ol 2.Dagos 8?N) 1<$<1 .Statistical ?ulletin@ +nnual >eport and Statement of +ccount !'arious Issues#. 'entral Ban* of %i"eria, ,a"os 8?N) 2 *1 8entral ?an5 of Nigeria >eport) &conomic and -inancial Re#enue +ol./ %o 2 8-ener,) 9. and ?runo !1<=2# ODevelopment +lternatives in an &pen Econom,1 3-e 8ase of IsraelJ) &conomic 0ournal) 72 Isern) J.) +gba5ob a) +.) ;laming ) 0.) 0antilla ) J.) 0antilla) B. and 3ara6i) 0. !2 <# +ccess to ;inance in Nigeria1 8B+" 0icrofinance) ?ranc-less ?an5ing) and S0E ;inance) 8onsultative Broup to +ssist t-e "oor. -ttp1::www.cgap.org 8overt !1<$ #. Small ;irms and t-eir 0anagement Education in need "olic, Issues in Small ?usiness >esearc-!ed#. Terr$ )ebb and 1llan 2ill, ,ondon3 Se4an 5ouse. Druc5er. ".!1<=$#. ;inding mone, for t-e ?usiness 0anagement in Development in 8ountries &na- Julies!ed#1 ,a"os !acmillan Press. E5pen,ong) D.? and N,ong) 0.&.!1<<2# Small and medium Scale enterprises in Nigeria13-eir c-aracteristics) problems and sourcesof finance. 6a*una Printers ,td, P.7. Bo4 89:08, %airobi, ;en$a. ;0S3 !1<<2<. + 9and ?oo5 on Industriali6ation in Nigeria. ;ederal 0inistr, of Science and 3ec-nolog,) Dagos1 Sahel Pub. Fe,nes) J.0.) !1<*=#) I3-e general 3-eor, of Emplo,ment) Interest >ate and 0one,J. !c!illan and 'ompan$ ,td., ,ondon. NESB) 2 11 9elping Small and 0edium Scale Enterprises out ;inancing. Nigeria Economic and Summit Broup. journal of &conomic =ndicator. #ol.> %o 8

127

Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development ISSN 2222-17 !"aper# ISSN 2222-2$%% !&nline# 'ol.() No.17) 2 1*

www.iiste.org

N.o5u !2 2<. Bovernment policies for small and medium Scale Enterprises. =n &gun.iuba) F !ed# 8redit +vailabilit, to Small Scale Enterprises in Nigeria Important of New 8apital ?ase for ?an5s-?ac5ground and Issues Retrie#ed from www.Business.com &digbo. ".8. !2 1#. O9uman >esources1 8-allenges off Small Scale Industries Development in NigeriaO. .0ournal of &conomic e#elopmen =ssues .+ol.? %o.? &gun.iuba.F.F !2 (#. 8redit +vailabilit, to Small Scale Enterprises in Nigeria1 Important of New 8apital ?ase for ?an5s-?ac5ground and Issues. Retrie#ed from www.Business.com &gec-u5wu) +.D. !2 11#. 3-e >ole of Small Scale Industr, in National Development in Nigeria. Uni#ersal 0ournal of !ana"ement and Social Sciences +ol. ?, %o.?3 2/@8? &sadede. N.& !2 7#. 3-e effect of government Interventions on Small Scale Enteprises /npublis-ed 0.Sc 3-esis "resented to t-e Department of Sociolog, and +nt-ropolog,. Uni#ersit$ of %i"eria %i"eria. &suala. !2 (#. "rinciple and "ractice of small ?usiness 0anagement in Nigeria. &nu"u. 'heston 1"enc$ ,td. S0ED+N !2 %# &pportunities in Small scale enterprises. Small and 0edium Enterprises Development +genc, of Nigeria. >etrieved from www.smedan.gov.n7 S0ED+N !2 (#.8lassifications of Enterprises. Small and 0edium Enterprise Development +genc, of Nigeria. -ttp1::www.smedan.gov.n7 3-e Horld ?an5 !1<$<# Horld Development >eport New Eor51 74ford Uni#ersit$ Press.

12$

This academic article was published by The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE). The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open Access Publishing service based in the U.S. and Europe. The aim of the institute is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing. More information about the publisher can be found in the IISTEs homepage: http://www.iiste.org CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS The IISTE is currently hosting more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals and collaborating with academic institutions around the world. Theres no deadline for submission. Prospective authors of IISTE journals can find the submission instruction on the following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ The IISTE editorial team promises to the review and publish all the qualified submissions in a fast manner. All the journals articles are available online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Printed version of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors. MORE RESOURCES Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/ Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/ IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial Library , NewJour, Google Scholar