Capital Market Performance as a Panacea for Economic Growth in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper examined capital market performance as a panacea for economic growth in Nigeria from 1986-2016. A number of related literatures have shown that the Nigerian capital market variables studied has satisfactory market performance and has contributed to economic growth. Yet some researchers observed that the capital market has not significantly mobilized and effectively channeled substantial capital to the real sector of the economy. What could have been the reason for the divergences? The study was anchored on the demand following hypothesis. Secondary data were sourced from Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin and Nigeria Stock Exchange fact-book of various editions. The paper adopted the ex-post facto research design while ordinary least square regression techniques was used to process the data gathered using E-views 9.0 software. The null hypotheses (Ho) were tested at 5% level of significance. The findings of the paper revealed that there is negative and insignificant relationship between capital market and the variables studied. The paper conclude that liquidity of the capital market is pivotal for economic growth in Nigeria while the study recommended that all tiers of government should be encouraged to fund their realistic long term developmental program through the Nigeria capital market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".