International Bulletin of Business Administration ISSN: 1451-243X Issue 11 (2011) EuroJournals, Inc. 2011 http://www.eurojournals.

com

Current Philosophy of Government Business in Nigeria

DAKARE, Olamitunji Department Of Business Administration, University of Lagos E-mail: tunji772000@yahoo.com Tel: 234-08023-600-188 SULAIMON, A. A. Department of Business Administration, University of Ado-Ekiti Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria E-mail: abualameen@yahoo.com Tel: +234-816-131-2021 KUYE, O. L. Department Of Business Administration, University of Lagos Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria E-mail: labikuye@yahoo.com Tel: +234-803-321-3491 IWUJI, I. I. Department Of Business Administration, University of Lagos Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria E-mail: iwujiifeanyi@yahoo.com Tel: +234-805-119-7460 Abstract This article critically and constructively reviews the current philosophy of the government business in Nigeria. The paper however, traced the antecedent of the Nigerian Public Enterprises from the state-led development to a more commercial or business-like approach. In spite of these developments that are accounted for in this paper, the performance of the Nigerian Public Enterprises have been and continued to be criticized for her lack of productivity, efficiency, and transparency. This article by way of concluding discussion suggests for the sustainability of the reform in the Nigerian Public Enterprises.

Keywords: Public enterprises, Nigeria, Business, Government

1. Introduction
It is undoubted that for the survival, continuity and existence of individual members in any society is solely determined by the significant role played by the state to promote the well-being of her citizens. Going about this, the state had been involved in many businesses in such a way to improve the economic in certain periods of time, followed by the doctrine of Laissez-faire. According to Basu (2005) the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries in the West and the Colonial rule in a number of Asian and African countries led to massive societal unbalances in the world. Concentration 66

of economic power and intense poverty among the vast millions of people compelled the state to step in a big way in the first half of the 20th century. The Nigerian state, however, is not left out in the intensification of the role of state over the socio -economic processes. The Bureau of Public enterprises in Nigeria holds that the reasons for government to have established the Government business (which is termed Public Enterprises in the context of this paper) were due to shortage of local capital for expansion and technological improvements; control of commanding heights by government to prevent a few elite enriching themselves at the expense of majority of Nigerian; correction of market failure resulting from public monopoly and misallocation of public resources; facilitating regional development through location of public enterprises and their branches; job creation, and provision of social services. In spite of the fact that the Nigerian Public Enterprises were created mainly for the purpose of expediting and facilitating economic development, the Nigerian Public Enterprises have been and continued to be criticized for her lack of productivity, efficiency, and transparency. This ill-nature of the Nigerian Public Enterprises is well captured by the Nigerian Bureau of Public Enterprises: There is virtually no public enterprise in Nigeria today that functions well. While they were created to alleviate the short-time of the private sector and spearhead the development of Nigeria, many of them have stifled entrepreneurial development and fostered economic stagnation. NITEL, NEPA, and the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) are the best examples of these. Public enterprises have served as platforms for patronage and the promotion of political objectives, consequently suffer from operational interference by civil servants and political appointees. The above statement, to a critical ear, depicts that there is the need for reinventing the Nigeria Public Enterprises which demands for reforms from myriad sources. The purpose of this paper, however, is centred on the current shift of the Nigerian Government business or Public Enterprises to a more commercial, business-like approach and the incorporation of regulatory innovations such as incentive regulation. The paper is subdivided into four sections. Section one we provide the conceptual issues. In section two we examine the theoretical framework as related to this present paper. In section three we provide the current state of Nigerian Public Enterprises and in section four is by way of concluding discussion.

2. Conceptual Issues
There are exists considerable confusion in giving a unified meaning to the term Public Sector as it means different things to different people in different countries. Basu (2005) considers it in its widest interpretation that Public Sector encompasses all activities of Government. He further argued that, there is also the need to have explicit distinction between Public Sector which is a very compendious term and Public Enterprises which is otherwise called Government Controlled Enterprises or State owned Enterprises would be instructive. While still appears to be no universally agreed definition among scholars regarding the conceptual meaning of public enterprises (Adeyemo & Salami, 2008).Obadan & Ayodele (1998) defined public enterprises as organization whose primary functions is the production and sales of goods and/or services and in which government or other government controlled agencies have no ownership stake that is sufficient to ensure their control over the enterprises regardless of how actively that control is exercised. In another dimension, World Bank (1995) defined public enterprises as government owned or controlled commercial entitles that generate all or most of their revenues from the sale of goods and services. Ifechukwu (2009) once argued without given a precise definition of public enterprises but he rather gave the reasons for disagreement on a precise definition of a public enterprise. These reasons are due to the diversity in the legal structures; organizational patterns; and external forms of public 67

enterprises. However this paper defines public enterprises much as Ezeani (2006) does: public enterprises are legally constituted bodies operating services of an economic and social character or both on behalf of the government. Basic to the adoption of this definition is the concept of an expected economic or social return on investment.

3. Theoretical Framework
3.1. Privatization Empirical evidence has shown that privatization has now become a socio-economic tool for expediting and facilitating economic growth and development worldwide. Arising from this axiom, Becker (2007) posits that global need for maintenance and investment will be impossible to meet without private capital and the know-how of private providers. In other words, the private sectors of any economy cannot be disengaged in the participation of carrying out certain strategic activities that will not only improve the well-being of the state as a whole but rather ensure the competitiveness of such economy. Rondinelli (2005) however, argued that once the governance body and senior management have been strengthened, governments may have to deregulate relevant sectors of the economy to allow for greater market competition in providing what had previously been considered purely Public goods. Deregulation according Rondinelli is to allow market competition which is often followed by Corporatization, that is, legally making public enterprises independent corporate entities and requiring them to cover their costs and to generate revenue under hard budget constraints. To further the understanding of Privatization, Ogunlalu (1999) in Asaolu and Oladele (2006) conceives Privatization as the transfer of shares ownership or sale of shares owned by government in public enterprises to the private funds. Privatization of shares makes the enterprises to become public companies and this facilities easy transferability of shares (Asaolu and Oladele, 2006). In the same vein, Schuttenbelt and Lorentzen (1994) see privatization as when major assets or services are sold off by government. Asaolu and Oladele (2006) however, consider privatization as a means to overcome constraints facing the public sector. In the wider spectrum, Privatization according to Ogunlalu (1999) in Asaolu and Oladele (2006) takes two forms which are; (i) full Privatization that is divestment by the government of all its ordinary shareholding in an enterprise and (ii) Partial privatization that is, divestment by the government of part of its ordinary shareholding in an enterprise. These myriad of definitions mean that privatization can be a way for government to be more efficient in providing essential goods and services that create value added to her citizens through the proficiency of private know-how and private funds. While this allows government do what they know how to do bestproviding an effective judicial system; providing law and order; and national security; promoting public health; supporting primary and secondary education; building rural roads and keeping the streets repaired. (Asaolu and Oladele, 2006). There is a variety and combination of forces that have driven the increased privatization during the past decades. Joseph and Ayenew (2008) give the two main forces of such. These are; (i) the fiscal problems that have forced governments to divert and (ii) the fact that the development of vigorous private entrepreneurship sector has been shown to be a key element of successful/sustainable development policy. However, governments of both developed and developing nations have four general objectives when engaging in privatization programme. (Joseph and Ayenew, 2008). These objectives of privatization are; to achieve higher efficiency in allocation and production; to strengthen the role of the private sector in the economy; to improve the public sectors financial health; and (iv) to free resources for allocation in other important areas of government activity. (This is usually related to social policy). To ensure transparency and fair play in the privatization process of the state, Joseph and Ayenew (2008) consider the following methods as the best practices that will ensure the realization of 68

objectives of the state and each has its own merits and demerits depending on various situational factors. These include; (i) Mass privatization through vouchers this a mechanism that has been used extensively in transition economics like Russia, Poland, Czech and Slovak republics etc (Lieberman, et al 1995); (ii) Direct sale to strategic investors -a strategic investor is one who has the expertise and resources to guarantee the successful performance of the firm in a competitive environment. (iii) Public offering of shares in the market; (iv) Mixed sales which is a combination of direct sale and public offering; and (v) Concessions. Critics, however, argue even in the face of the expected benefits of privatization such as improved efficiency and financial performance of the state, it has a negative effect on the distribution of wealth, income, and benefits power. As this will hurts the poor and the helpless workers and benefit the already rich, powerful and privileged (Joseph and Ayenew, 2008). The conclusion then is that irrespective of the criticisms and flaws that have been levied against the practice of privatization by the state, it still remains one of the strategic tools that have expedited many countries to reform their state-owned enterprises to achieve administrative and economic objectives. Empirical evidence depicts since 1980s when the concept became popularized into the governance processes of most states owned- enterprises, it has yielded a more remarkable financial returns as well as social benefits (Okigbo, 1998). The countries recorded for this unquestionable success include; Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, France, Canada, Japan, the United State, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Netherlands, and Portugal. The developing countries are not also excluded. They include; South Africa, Vietnam, Malawi, Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sagagi, 2007). 3.2. Public- Private Partnerships Public-Private Partnerships is another economic driving tool that is also presumed to be full of potential that will not only improve the administrative processes of the state-owned enterprises but PPPs is also a catalyst that will enhance the governments of states to deliver the maximum standard of services and products required by her citizens. The possibility of this is that the private sector is involved, bringing their skills and core competencies, funds and other resources and best practices to assist government in delivering high standard of services, products and other public goods. Technically and conceptually, public-private partnerships have been defined as collaborations with corporations, small businesses, non-government organizations and civil society organizations to provide socially-beneficial goods and services (Rondinelli, 2005). PPPs also refer to the supply by the private sector of works, goods or services as defined by the public authority. Roth (1987) however, argues that some countries see PPPs as intermediate phase in privatising State-owned enterprises or an alternative to privatization. To reinforce these meanings attached to the concept PPPs Sagagi (2007) concludes that PPPs introduces private sector efficiencies into public service by means of medium or long term contractual agreements. The public enterprises and the private sector through the scheme of PPPs provide the services and infrastructure through a variety of mechanisms. These varieties of mechanisms are highlighted by Sagagi (2007) as; Service contract private sector provides services but with active public involvement in operations and maintenance. Management contract to manage services on behalf of the government Public lease contract lease of public assets over a long time period. Concessions on the use of public assets but with clear government regulations. 69

Built operate transfer (BOT) to built joint assets that would otherwise be a heavy burden on either sides. In a critical eye, however, if PPPs are not well designed and supervised, their service can become more expensive than those provided by the government. Poorly designed and inadequately analyzed projects have failed in both rich and poor countries (Rondinelli, 2005). This therefore, calls for the partners involved in this process to ensure transparency, adequate Supervision, incentive regulation so as not to undermine the pivotal objectives of the scheme. However, since 1990, when the concept began to gain more popularity as policy tools to transform the role of the national and local government in public service delivery, infrastructure development, poverty alleviation, capital market development and governance, almost every country has embarked on the adoption of PPPs as an economic development and modernization strategy. (Public Enterprises: Unresolved challenges and New Opportunities.

4. The Current State of Nigerian Public Enterprises

The nub of this paper is to critically and constructively view the current philosophy of government business in Nigeria. This is so since a shift is noted from its antecedent and it is the utmost desire of this writer-up to identify and critique how these shifts have affected the Nigerian Public enterprises and its socio- economic development in the face of other economies. The antecedent of the Nigerian public enterprises in 1960s and 1970s depict that the state owned enterprises were focus on state-led development. The rationale behind this was that the private sectors were yet to be fully matured. However, until 1980s, the major executor of the Nigerian Economy was the government, the poor performance of these public enterprises in Nigeria, for instance between 1960 and 1965 the Nigerian Railway Corporation alone had 13 enquires into its activities and in 1965 it had a deficit of N7 million and the World bank described it finances as disastrous Rweyemanu and Hyden (1975) as cited in (Adeyemo and Salami, 2008). Another bottleneck driving this era was the depression experienced by the international oil market in the early 1980s due to collapse of the crude petroleum that eventually exposed the structural deficiency of the Nigerian economy. All these enormous challenges and failure led to the need of searching for antidote that will help to improve the structural defects of the economy. The structural Adjustment Programme however was considered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) a better option for the Nigerian economy at this point. The major reason for this option as considered by the fund was that the Nigerian economy is solely dominated by the government owned enterprises with little or no participation of the private sectors such as the industrial and commercial sectors. Charper (2003) once asserts that the most effective way to improve economic performance in poor countries is through a focused industrialization. However, the structural Adjustment programme (SAP) that was eventually adopted by Nigerian Economy in 1986 as a reform policy in reforming the public enterprises which took the form of commercialization and privatization of these enterprises with the aims of achieving cost efficiency and competitiveness of the economy. For the actualization of the restructuring of these government ownedenterprises, the IMF (1985), the World Bank (1963) and SAP (1986) proposed that there should be exclusion of subsidies to these enterprises and designing policies towards commercializing/privatizing them. These proposed aims eventually started to see the light of the day in 1988 with the introduction of the technical committee on Privatization and Commercialization (TCPC), (now Bureau for Public enterprises (BPE) as contained in Decree No. 25 of 1988. To come up with the desired results from this privatization exercise, the privatization and commercialization act of 1999 classified the forms of privatization as; Full privatization means divestment by the Federal Government of its ordinary shareholding in the designated enterprise. 70

Partial Privatization means divestment by the Federal Government of part of its ordinary shareholding in the designated enterprise. Full commercialization means that enterprises so designated will be expected to operate profitably or a commercial basis and be able to raise funds from the capital market without government guarantee. Such enterprises are expected to use private sector procedures in the running of their businesses. Partial commercialization means that such enterprise so designated will be expected to generate enough revenue to cover their operating expenditures. The government may consider giving them capital grants to finance their capital projects. However, the rationale behind the adaptation of the privatization and commercialization programme by the Nigerian state are articulated in the guidelines of the privatization and commercialization in Nigeria. They include: i. To restructure and rationalize that public sector in order to lessen the dominance of productive investments in the sector; ii. To re-orientate the enterprises for privatization and commercialization towards a horizon of performance improvement, viability and overall efficiency; iii. To raise funds for financing socio-economic developments in such areas as health, education and infrastructure; iv. To ensure positive returns on public sector investments in commercialized enterprises, through more efficient management; v. To check the present absolute dependence on the Treasury for funding by otherwise commercially oriented parastatals and so, encourage their approach to the Nigerian capital market to meet their funding requirements; vi. To initiate the process of gradual cession to the private sector of such public enterprises which are better operated by the private sector; vii. To create more jobs, acquire new knowledge and technology and expose the country to international competition. In ensuring that the privatization and commercialization programme as embraced in the Nigerian context, achieve and contribute to the overall attainment of the total macroeconomic goals, the policy makers also sort out the implementation arrangements. The implementation arrangements are having: Technical/ Financial Advisers world class advisers comprising investment banks, lawyers and other consulting firms that will be engaged to undertake strategic review, restructuring and sale preparation in respect of affected enterprises, based on an approved terms of reference. Committees and sub-committees- the council on privatization (NCP) in accordance with the provisions of the public enterprises (privatization and commercialization) Act of 1999 that will from time to time appoint committees and sub-committees comprising knowledgeable individuals to tackle some of the preparatory works necessary at enterprise level in order to ensure a speedy and smooth privatization/commercialization exercise. Floatation Advisers public offer of shares through the stock exchange will be the dominant method of privatization to be used in the sale of the 20% equity reserved for Nigerian investors under the programme. In order to handle the floatation of the shares of affected enterprises on the stock exchange, the National council on privatization (NPC) will be in charge in appointing professional advisers, in accordance with powers conferred on it to do so by section 13(c) of the Public Enterprises (privatization and commercialization) Act of 1999. The most important professional advisers in each case are: i. The issuing House ii. The solicitor to the issue 71

iii. The reporting accountant iv. The stockbroker to the issue v. Asset valuers These professional advisers are responsible for gathering, analyzing and reporting on the operations of the affected enterprise, in such a way as to enlighten the prospective investor on the activities of the enterprise to be privatized and whose shares are being sold. While it is also interesting to say on this working paper that the exercise of privatization in Nigeria started with commercialization of some enterprises such as the Nigeria Railway Corporation (NRC), National Electrical Power Authority (NEPA), Nigeria Telecommunication Limited (NITEL) and the postal services. (Adeyemo and Salami, 2008) This exercise in return will position these enterprises to swim or float based on its business sense and commercial orientation. Conversely, this whole process will assist the government to shift the large or some of the accrued responsibilities to these private veterans who are expected to operate profitably without governments grants, but they can be helped when they are embarking on viable capital projects. With this process, the government will be focused, effective and efficient in carrying out the expected social statutory. The Nigerian state also in the quest to overcome the inefficiencies and deficiencies of the state owned enterprises as identified in earlier pages of this paper also adopted the Public-private partnerships (PPPs) policy instrument, which in addition with other instruments was expected to contribute to the overall marginal attainment of the total macroeconomic goals. According to Adirieje (2008) the objective of typical public private partnerships is the mission to contribute to the economic integration of a country or region, accelerate its economic growth and sustainable development, engender and sustain private sector participation (PSP) in traditionally public sector projects, and expand local access to international markets, thereby ensuring the countrys deeper integration into the global economy. Nigerian economy however, has gotten involved into the public-private partnerships programme through these identified legal frameworks. Infrastructure concession Regulatory commission Act 2005 Public procurement Act 2007 Public enterprises (privatization and commercialization) Act 1999 Utilities charges commission Act 1992 Land vesting Title Act National inland waterways authority Act Highways Act 1971 The Lagos State Roads, Bridges and Highway infrastructure Law 2005. Federal Road Maintenance Agency Act. The whole submissions above, therefore, deduce that Nigerian state is not left out in the reformation exercise that have been crafted out for any economy that wish to improve its public enterprises through the privatization/commercialization, public-private partnerships and other socioeconomic contributing instruments. But the argument now lies that irrespective of the gain expected from such policy instruments that include improved efficiency and financial performance, the negative effect still seems to be the outcome of the Nigerian economy, simply because of the bottlenecks faced in the implementation process of these policy instruments. Rondinelli (2005) argues that a host of factors can make these policy instruments to be futile. For instance, poorly designed and supervised of these programmes due to inept management has distorted the essence of most of these socio-economic contributing instrument. Lack of a single framework of action that ensures the basis for co-ordinating the work of all partners (i.e. the public sector and the private sector) is another impediment that has suffered the implementation of the privatization/ commercialization and public private partnerships in Nigeria. Poor funding of the exercise is another militating factor that has also hurt the plans of these programmes. The high level of corruption among the political leaders, managers of the enterprises and the people themselves has also made the situation worst. 72

In conclusion, the synopsis of the current philosophy of government business in Nigeria is depicted in the diagram below:
Figure 1: The Model of Current Philosophy of Government Business in Nigeria

Privatization/ Commercialization

Public-Private Partnership

State-led development
Source: (The Authors, 2011)

While the broken lines simply perceived that there may be the need for these state-owned enterprises in Nigeria to be total managed and controlled by the state due to the recent global economic meltdown. The Nigerian case may be said to be so, since the advocates and proponents of capitalism such as United states of America and other developed economies which Nigeria has always set to follow even at this melt down, have no better options than for the their governments to now take it upon themselves to be the major actors that could rescue the crash of these highly commercialised enterprises in the on-going recession that has bewitched the global economy.

5. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

In the content of this paper it can be deduced that a number of pertinent arguments relating to the issues of how the Government in Nigeria posed to improve and reform her Public Enterprises were discussed extensively. There is no doubt that the Nigerian Governments knowledge has further been broadened by the privatisation, public-private partnerships and other policy instruments phenomenon which can help to strengthen and reform its Public Enterprises activities. However, in spite of the Nigerian government disposition in reforming the Nigeria Public Enterprises, this paper recommends and also suggests that: (i) If these policy instruments undertaken by the Nigerian government to reform the Nigerian public enterprises in such a way to reduce the fiscal deficits of the government over the years, generating funds needed for investment in key sectors, improving efficiency and encouraging the growth of private sector, the government then, being the lead force, must be transparent, well informed and committed in actualizing the framework of these exercises and programmes. (ii) In achieving sustainable policy instrument (i.e. privatization or PPPs) that will ensure result oriented and value creation which will in turn affect the state as a whole positively, there will be the need to establish a single framework of action for clear understanding of purpose, direction and priorities of the policy process. Such arrangement for instance, will enhance the coming together of several stakeholders that include the federal, state, local, private sectors, transnational agencies, civil groups as well other important community development association that will work together to ensure sustainable development and poverty reduction within the three levels of government operations in Nigeria. 73

(iii)

(iv)

It high time that the Nigerian society and her government begin to see herself as heterogeneous entity and not homogenous entity. That is, many of these imported policies and programmes crafted and designed towards achieving economic growth and development may not work or lead to failure in Nigeria as a result of the fact that Nigeria most often time does not analysis how best these policies and programmes will fit her own environmental context. However for the public enterprises reform in Nigeria to bring the dividends already being enjoyed by other countries that have applied and implemented these policy instruments based on the understanding of their own environmental context, then, it is imperative for government of Nigeria to do the same, if they must gain from the benefits embedded in these policy instruments. Finally, these ongoing reforms exercise in the Nigerian public sector particularly, the public enterprises, if well pursued by the government will not only result in improved efficiency and profitability but to large extent reduce the high level of corruption among the public leaders that make use of the sector to carry out all kinds of atrocities (such embezzlement of public funds, retaining political power and rigging of elections through this means and keeping outlandish and redundant civil servants that belong to their political camp).

References
[1] [2] [3] Adeyemo, D.O. and Salami, A. (2008) A review of Privatization and Public Enterprises Reform in Nigeria, Contemporary Management Research pp. 401-418, 4, No 4. Adirieje, U.A (2008) Public Private Partnership and Nigerias Development. Email:afrepton@yahoo.com Asaolu, T.O. and Oladele, P.O. (2006) Public Enterprises and Privatization Policy: The Nigerian Experience. Nigerian Economy: Essays on Economic Development, North Carolina, U.S.A: Lulu Press, Inc. pp. 293-394 Basu, Prahlad K. (2005) Reinventing Public Enterprises and Their Management as the Engine of Development and Growth. Public Enterprises: Unresolved Challenges and New Opportunities, 27-28 October 2005 (pp. 9-20). United Nation: Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Management. Becker, P (2007) Privatization Public Enterprises in the European Union The impact of European Integration on European Water Markets. Research Unit EU Integration, Berlin. Chaper, .C. (2003) Growth and Distribution Effects of Education Policy in the Endogenous Growth Model, London: Routledge. Ezeani, Emmanuel (2006) Fundamental of Public Administration. Enugu: Snapp Press Ltd. Federal Republic of Nigeria: Structural Adjustment Programme, July 1986 June 1988. Joseph, R.P and Ayenew, Z. (2008) Public Enterprises Restructuring and Privatisation: Issues and Bottlenecks in Implementation in Developing Countries. Paper submitted for the sixth International conference on the Ethiopian Economy, June 2008. Ifechukwu, J. A. (2009) Management of Public Enterprises (Lecture Note). Lieberman, Ira W. et al (1995) Mass Privatization in central and Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union: A comparative Analysis, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Obadan, M.I (2000) Privatization of Public Enterprises in Nigeria. Issues and Conditions for success in the Second Round. Ibadan: National Centre for Economic Management and Administration. Obadan, M. And Ayodele, S. (1998) Commercialisation and Privatisation Policy in Nigeria. Ibandan: National Centre for Economic Management and Administration. Okigbo, P (1998) A Laymans Guide to Privatization Daily Champion 4/5/1998, pp.24. 74

[4]

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

[10] [11] [12]

[13] [14]

[15]

[16]

[17] [18]

[19] [20] [21]

Rondinelli, Dennis .A. (2003) Partnering for Development: Government Private Sector Cooperation in Service Provision, in Rondinelli, .D.A. and Cheema G.S. (eds.) Reinventing Government for the 21st Century: State Capacity in a Globalizing society, Bloomfield CT: Kumarian Press. PP. 219-239. Rondinelli, Dennis .A. (2005) Can Public Enterprises Contribute to Development? A Critical Assessment and Alternative for Management Improvement. Public Enterprises: Unresolved Challenges and New Opportunities, 27-28 October 2005 (PP 21-43). United Nation: Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Management. Roth .G. (1987) The Private Provision of Public Services in Developing Countries, New York: Oxford University Press. Sagagi, Murtala, S. (2007) Public-Private Dialogue: Myth or Reality. A paper presented at the Joint Annual General Meeting of the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria held at Royal Tropicana hotel on December, 13th, 2007. Schuttenbelt, P. and Rentzen, J. (1994) Public/Private Partnerships in Municipal Infrastructure Service. The Urban Age 2, No. 4 pp.10 The Bureau of Public Enterprises from http://www.bpeng.org/ World Bank (2005) Bureaucrats in Business: The Economic and Politics of Government Ownership, New York: Oxford University Press.

75