CHAPTER ONE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Small Scale Enterprise in Perspective There is no universally accepted definition of Small-Scale Enterprises (SSEs). Thus, SSEs tend to differ in definition among individuals in various countries at different levels of economic development or even regional differences in industrial development within the same country. In spite of the above difficulty, basically SSEs have mainly been defined based on the level of turnover, investment capital and the size of employees. According to Central Bank of Nigeria (1979), small-scale enterprises are establishments whose annual turnover does not exceed N500,000 in the same year, the Federal Ministry of Industries in Nigeria defined SSEs as enterprises having investment capital (investment in land, building, machinery and equipment and working capital) of up to N60,000 and employing no more than 50 persons. This definition thus looks at SSEs on the basis of both investment capital and number of employees. The Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industries (1982) also categorised 1
71
Embed
Effect of Cooperative Societies on Performances of Micro Enterprises
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Small Scale Enterprise in Perspective
There is no universally accepted definition of Small-Scale Enterprises
(SSEs). Thus, SSEs tend to differ in definition among individuals in various
countries at different levels of economic development or even regional
differences in industrial development within the same country. In spite of the
above difficulty, basically SSEs have mainly been defined based on the level
of turnover, investment capital and the size of employees. According to
Central Bank of Nigeria (1979), small-scale enterprises are establishments
whose annual turnover does not exceed N500,000 in the same year, the
Federal Ministry of Industries in Nigeria defined SSEs as enterprises having
investment capital (investment in land, building, machinery and equipment
and working capital) of up to N60,000 and employing no more than 50
persons. This definition thus looks at SSEs on the basis of both investment
capital and number of employees. The Nigerian Bank for Commerce and
Industries (1982) also categorised enterprises investing in not more than
N500,000 excluding the cost of land as small-scale enterprises.
However, Steel and Webster (1992) and Gauthier (1996) define small-scale
enterprises on the basis of the number of workers. Enterprises that employ
between 4 and 29 employees irrespective of their capital investment are
considered SSEs. In the mid-1960s, a new approach to small to medium-
scale enterprise (SME) development began to emerger due to a number of
1
factors. First, there was growing concern over low employment elasticity of
modern, large-scale production. It was claimed that even with more optimal
policies, this for of industrial organisation was unable to absorb a significant
proportion of the rapidly expanding labour force (Chenery et al., 1974; ILO,
1973). Second, there was widespread recognition that the benefits of
economic growth were not being fairly distributed, and that the use of large-
scale, capital-intensive techniques was pertly to blame (Chenery et al.,
19740. Third, empirical diagnosis showed that the causes of poverty were
not confined to unemployment, and that most of the poor were employed in
a large variety of small-scale, low-productivity activities. Thus, it was thought
that one way to alleviate poverty could be to increase the productivity of
those engaged in small-scale production (Aftab and Rahim, 1989). This
suggested a new role for small industries, or what has come to be labelled
“the urban informal sector”. Small, labour-intensive industries were seen not
only to increase employment, but also to increase the living standards of the
poor. They were also thought to be capable of providing a new dynamic of
economic growth. The new objective was not just to stop the retreat, but to
promote the small-scale sector (Schmitz, 1982, Aftab and Rahim, 1989).
In fact, the importance of Small Scale Enterprises in economic development
cannot be over-emphasized. According to Aryeetey (2004), small scale
enterprises have a lot of contributions to make to the economy of Nigeria,
therefore their establishment and operation should be promoted. One way
by which this can be done is by conducting empirical research geared
2
towards SSEs’ development. According to Daniels and Ngwira (1993), Small-
scale enterprises in Nigeria can bring about the following:
Provide managerial and technical training for the majority of unskilled
and semi-skilled workers engaged in SSEs
Promote effective domestic resources utilization
Reduction of rural-urban migration
Production of intermediate goods for use in large enterprises
According to Kayanula and Quartey (2000), SSEs also provide employment
opportunites for a large number of the population. Besides they can for the
foundation for the development of indigenous industries in Nigeria (Obasan,
2001). The dynamic role of small-scale enterprises in developing countries as
engines through which the growth objectives of such countries can be
achieved has long been recognized (Kayanula and Quartey, 2000). This is
because, during the early stages of economic development, SSEs helped to
create employment and wealth, particularly in low income countries
(Obasan, 2001).
1.2 Cooperative as a panacea to Small Scale Development
According to Weihe (2004), cooperatives are special purpose organizations
that have unique attributes compared to other forms of enterprise. They are
independent, member-owned and democratically governed businesses, created
with equity financed by members who invest in order to benefit through their
patronage. Cooperatives are built on a “collective identity and shared destiny.”
This characteristic is the underlying factor in the rise of cooperative networks in
3
the face of national and/or regional conflict and hostile, monopolistic alien
enterprises and or middlemen/usurers.
Epetimehin (2006) described cooperative as a business owned and
controlled by the people who use its service. They finance and operate the
business or service for their mutual benefit. Roy (1964) saw cooperatives as
voluntary organisation established for the pursuance of economic, social and
political interest of members.
The International Labour organisation (ILO) on its studies and report series,
No. 57 of 1960 on cooperative management and administration viewed
cooperatives as an association of person usually of limited means, who have
voluntarily joined together to achieve a common economic end through the
formation of a democratically controlled business organisation, making
equitable contribution to the enterprise and accepting a fair share of the risk
and benefits of the undertaking. Onuoha (1986) averred that cooperatives
are business of patrons whose motive is to obtain the goods and services
they require at cost through their joint undertakings.
The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) which is the world apex
body of cooperative movements at its centennial congress and General
Assembly in Manchester, 1995, gave the whole picture of a cooperative
organisation as a voluntary association of free and independent persons for
the betterment of their economic conditions.
In the word of Akinwumi (2006), cooperative method provides the best
alternative than all these economic grouping and schemes, suggesting that
4
they needed to formalize in line with cooperative principles so that ling after
project interventions they can remain sustained. Invariably, cooperative
society remains the better alternative to economic reconstruction of the
government. Most of the Non-Cooperative Group (NCGs) often die in the
midway without fulfilling the economic objectives for their establishment.
By uniting small producers, cooperatives are unsurpassed in their capacity to achieve
economies of scale from the farm to market: economies in effective planning, scheduling,
transportation, storage and improved quality. Cooperatives offer immediate benefits even at modest
levels of organization through bringing coherence out of largely chaotic, disorganized individual
producers (Weihe, 2004).
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
In Nigeria, finance has been recognized as an essential tool for promoting Small and Micro
Enterprises (SMEs). In a study conducted in 1976 by CBN, shortage of primary production credit
was identified as one of the major causes for declining production (Olaitan, 2006). Credit has
also been discovered to be a major constraint on the intensification of both large and small scale
businesses (Von-Priskieke, 1986). Several other studies also revealed that lack or insufficient
credit is the bane of production in Nigeria (Adebayo, and Adeola, 2008; Olaitan , 2006; Amao ,
2006; Adegeye and Ditto,1985; ).
To address the finance constraints facing business development in Nigeria, lots of programmes
were put in place by governments to solve the credit problems and alleviate poverty among the
populace.
Olaleye and Adekola (2006) observed that Federal Governments in Nigeria have
established about seventeen poverty alleviation programmes including Structural Adjustment
Programmes (SAP), Literacy Education Programmes, Urban Mass Transit Programme, Low
5
Cost Housing Scheme, Rural Banking, People’s Bank, National Directorate of Employment
(NDE), Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DEFRI), Family Economic
Cooperators No formal education 2 3.6Primary education 9 16.3Secondary education 17 30.9OND/NCE 13 23.6HND 9 16.3BSC 4 7.2PG 1 1.8Subgroup total 55(42.3%)* 100.0*Grand total 130
Source: Field Survey, 2011
* % of the grand total
As shown in Table 4.4, cooperators and non cooperator cut cross various educational
status of the respondents. The study revealed that 2.7%, 21.3%, 29.3%, 25.3%, 16.0% and 5.3%
of the sampled non-cooperators had no formal education, had primary education, secondary
education, OND/NCE, HND and BSC respectively. This implies that substantial percentage of
the sampled non-cooperator (29.3%) and cooperators (30.9%) possessed secondary education.
4.1.5 Religion of Respondents
The religion distribution of the respondents is presented in Table 4 5.
Table 4.5: Religion Distribution of Respondents
Cooperative Membership Religion Frequency Percent
Non-Cooperators Christianity 40 53.3
Islam 33 44.0
Traditional 2 2.7
Subgroup Total 75 (57.7%)* 100.0
Cooperators Christianity 27 49.1
Islam 28 50.9
Traditional 0 0.0
28
Subgroup total 55(42.3%)* 100.0*
Grand total 130
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Looking at the distribution in Table 4.5, it can be seen that the two dominant religions
(Christianity & Islam) are fairly represented in the study. This implies that the results
obtained/obtainable from this study is likely to be less religious bias. Besides, the highest
percentage of the non-cooperators (53.3%) were Christians while the highest percentage of the
cooperators (50.9%) were Muslims. This could mean that religion has a role to play in being a
member of cooperative societies.
4.1.6 Household Size Distribution of Respondents
The total household size of the respondents comprises of their wives or husbands, children and
their dependants. This is in agreement with the view of Akerele (2003), who stated that a
household consists of a category of people who fed from the same pot. In African setting
children and women constitute large proportion of a household size. In addition, the household
size has been a major determinant of involvement in entrepreneurship in the area of loan credit
procurement and repayment, involvement in cooperatives and utilization of cooperative and
microfinance facilities as supported by the findings of Oladeebo (2005) Ojo (2008) Mafimisebi
(2008).
Table 4.6: Household Size Distribution of Respondents
Cooperative Membership Household size Frequency Percent
Non-Cooperators 1-5 58 77.3
6-10 16 21.3
Above 10 1 1.4
Subgroup Total 75 (57.7%)* 100.0
Cooperators 1-5 41 74.5
6-10 13 23.7
29
Above 10 1 1.8
Subgroup total 55(42.3%)* 100.0*
Grand total 130
Source: Field Survey, 2011
As shown in Table 4.6, majority of the non-cooperators (77.3%) and cooperators (74.5%) had
household size of between 1-5 persons. This implication of this is that the respondents had fairly
moderate household sizes. By carefully observing the Table 4.6, one can conclude that
respondents with either household sizes of between 1-5 or 6-10 persons are fairly represented in
either of the two groups (cooperators & non-cooperators).
4.1.7 Primary Occupation Distribution of Respondents
The primary occupation of the respondents could influence the need for credit and the propensity
to participate in cooperative society.
The distribution of the respondents by their primary occupation is presented in Table 4.7.
Table4.7: Primary Occupation Distribution of RespondentsCooperative Membership Primary occupation Frequency Percent
Non-Cooperators Farming 5 6.7
Trading 20 26.7
Artisan 26 34.7
Civil service 17 22.7
Others 7 9.2
Subgroup Total 75 (57.7%)* 100.0
Cooperators Farming 2 3.6
Trading 15 27.3
Artisan 18 32.7
Civil service 18 32.7
Others 2 3.7
Subgroup total 55(42.3%)* 100.0*
30
Grand total 130
Source: Field Survey, 2011
Looking at the distribution in Table 4.7, one could see that both non-cooperators and cooperators
were involved in various activities as their main occupation. Different occupations seemed to be
fairly represented in either of the groups (cooperators and non-cooperators). This implies that
type of occupation may not be a significant factor influencing decision to join cooperative
society.
4.2 LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE
4.2.1 Types of Cooperative of the respondents
The figure below revealed the frequency distribution of respondents according to the types of
cooperative societies that they belonged to.
Figure 1: Types of Respondents’ Cooperative Societies
31
Source: Field survey, 2011.
Figure 1 revealed that majority (57.7%) of the respondents were non-cooperators. Besides,
32.3%, 5.8% and 4.2% of the respondents belonged to Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society
(CTCS), Cooperative Multipurpose Society (CMS) and Housing Cooperative respectively. This
implies that majority of the cooperators belonged to Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society
(CTCS) apparently to have access to loan for their various businesses.
4.2.2 Average Annual Savings and Shares Contributed by cooperative members
The level of participation in cooperative may not be adequately captured by membership of
cooperative societies, but also by the magnitude of their contributions in the societies. Hence, the
need to analyze the magnitude of their savings and shares in the societies.
Figure 2: Average Members’ savings and Shares in Cooperatives
32
79850
32500
98800
47800
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
YEAR 2009 YEAR 2010
SAVINGS SHARES
Source: Field Survey, 2011
As shown in Figure 2, irrespective of the year under comparison, the average savings of
cooperative members exceeded their shares. This may not be unconnected to the fact that
investment in cooperative shares is usual once which limits its growth while savings is
continuous. Besides, nominal growth in savings and shares of cooperative is noticeable in year
2010. While the average shares and savings of cooperators in 2009 were N79, 850 and N32,500
respectively, that of years 2010 were N98,800 and N47,800 for saving and shares respectively.
The nominal growth in members’ savings and shares may result to increased loan availability for
members.
4.2.2 Enterprise Size of the Respondents
In classifying the enterprise size of the respondents, the employees’ size approach was adopted.
This is in line with the view of Lawal (1993) that sales turnover, capital employed, profit,
number of employees, scope of operation are some of the indices used to measure organization
33
size. In addition, using size of employees to define and classify enterprises has been a common
practice in literature (Adams and Hall, 1993; Freel, 1999; Rothwell and Zegveld, 1982).
Following the definition of Nigeria National Council of Industries (NNCI) a small scale
enterprise is an enterprise with a labour size of 11 – 100 workers (Udechukwu, 2003).
Figure 3: Enterprise Employees' Size
Source: Field Survey, 2011
4.3.0 WAYS BY WHICH COOPERATIVE CONTRIBUTES TO SSE DEVELOPMENT
Table 4.8 presents the responses of sampled cooperative-based SSEs on cooperative
contributions to the development of their enterprises.
Table 4.8: Contributions of cooperative to SSEContribution of cooperative to SSEs Frequency Percent Rank
34
Loan 53 31.9 1st
Cooperative education 24 14.4 4th
Avenue for savings 34 20.5 2nd
Access to production inputs 25 15.0 3rd
Acquisition of assets 20 12.1 5th
Supports during special occasions 10 6.1 6th
Total 166* 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2011
* Multiple responses
As shown in Table 4.8, the most important way by which cooperative impact SSE in the study
area is through loan advancement with 31.9% of the total responses. Aside loan advancement to
members, next in the list of ways by which cooperatives impact SSEs is by providing avenue for
savings to members with 20.5% of the total responses. The third most important way by which
cooperatives impact SSEs is in the area of asset acquisition. The respondents in question claimed
that if not for cooperative, they wouldn’t have being able to acquire certain assets. The fourth
and fifth most important ways by which cooperatives impact SSEs in the study area were
through cooperative education and supports during special occasions respectively. While 14.4%
of the total responses supports cooperative education as a way by which cooperatives impact
their SSEs, only 6.1% of the total responses was in favour of supports during special occasions.
4.4.0 Comparison of Enterprise Performance
4.4.1 Budgetary Analysis of the Sampled Enterprises
Category Variables All enterprises
Non-cooperators TVC 28,500,250
35
TFC 5,025,340
TC 33,525,590
TR 35,023,450
GM 6,523,200
NI 1,497,860
PI 0.04
RRI (%) 4.46
Cooperators TVC 36,065,440
TFC 8,025,118
TC 44,090,558
TR 52,012,500
GM 15,947,060
NI 7,921,942
PI 0.15
RRI (%) 17.96
Source: Field Survey, 2011
TVC = Total Variable Cost. TFC = Total Fixed Cost. TC = Total Cost. TR = Total Revenue. GM = Gross Margin NI = Net Income, PI = Profitability Index, RRI = Rate of Return on Investment
The budgetary analysis table below shows the performance of the enterprises in question
in the year 2010. From the table, the enterprises formed by non - cooperators had a total variable
cost of N28,500,250, total fixed cost was N5,025,340, total cost was N33,525,590 and the total
revenue was N35,023,450 while the gross margin and net income were N6,523,200 and
N1,497,860 respectively. For the cooperators, the total variable cost, total fixed cost and total
cost were N36,065,440, N8,025,118 and N44,090,558 respectively. The total revenue for the
enterprise operated by cooperators was N52,012,500 while the gross margin and net income
were N15,947,060 and N7,921,942 respectively. From the analysis, the result shows that the
36
enterprises formed by cooperators earned more net income than the enterprises formed by non –
cooperators. However, this is not an indication of higher profitability or performance. To
measure the profitability and perhaps performance of the enterprises, their Profitability Index
(PI) and Rate of Return on Investment (RRI) were estimated. As shown in Table 4.8, the PI and
RRI of the non-cooperative based enterprises were 0.04 and 4.46% respectively while that of
cooperative based enterprises were 0.15 and 17.96% respectively. The superiority in
performance (measured by profitability and rate of return on investment) of the cooperative-
based enterprises might not be unconnected to access to affordable loan (which usually
characterized cooperative societies) and cooperative education which could have helped them in
their businesses.
4.5.0 MOST IMPORTANT REASONS FOR JOINING COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
Cooperative Membership Reasons for joining cooperative Frequency Percent
Non-Cooperators Not a member 75 100.0
37
Subgroup Total 75 (57.7%)* 100.0
Cooperators To have access to credit 40 72.7
To socialize 2 3.6
For the cooperative education 10 18.2
Noticed cooperative effect on
friend’ enterprise
3 5.5
Subgroup total 55(42.3%)* 100.0*
Grand total 130
Table 4.9 presents the distribution of the respondent by the reasons for joining cooperative
societies
Table 4.9: Distribution of respondents by their most important reason for joining cooperative societies
Source: Field Survey, 2011
As shown in Table 4.9, the most important reason for belonging to cooperative societies by
members is to have access to credit. 72.7% of the respondents claimed that they joined
cooperative societies in order to have access to credit while 3.6%, 18.2% and 5.5% of the
respondents claimed that they joined cooperative societies mainly to socialize, for cooperative
education and as a result of cooperative effects they noticed in the friend’s business respectively.
It is worthy of note that substantial percentage (18.2%) of the respondents claimed that they
joined cooperatives mainly for cooperative education. This implies that aside to gain access to
credit, cooperative education is in the forefront of reasons for joining cooperative societies.
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
38
This study examined the effect of cooperatives on the growth of small scale enterprises in Yewa
North Local Government Area, Ogun State. A total of one hundred and thirth (130) respondents
were randomly selected for the study. All the respondents (130) were interviewed through
structured questionnaire.
The results obtained on the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents revealed
that majority SSEs were non-cooperators (57.7%), majority (85.3%) of the non-cooperators were
between 18-45 years age bracket. Likewise, majority of cooperators had their age within the
same age bracket (18-45 years). The implication of this is that any crusade to encourage
participation in cooperative societies as a self-help means should focus more on respondents
within 18-45 years age bracket as the success of such endeavour would most likely depend on
their conviction. It was also discovered that majority of the sampled non-cooperators (66.7%)
and cooperators (58.2%) were male. However, the womenfolk seemed closing the gap between
male and female in membership of cooperative societies with 41.8% as against 33.3% exhibited
in the non-cooperative group. This might not be unconnected to thrifting tendency of the
womenfolk. Another revelation of the study is that married respondents constituted the majority
of the non-cooperators (69.0%) and cooperators (69.0%) in the study area and that being single
reduces the propensity of being a cooperator. It was discovered that cooperators and non-
cooperators cut across various educational group. However, substantial percentage of the
sampled non-cooperator (29.3%) and cooperators (30.9%) possessed secondary education. The
study also revealed that the highest percentage of the non-cooperators (53.3%) were Christians
while the highest percentage of the cooperators (50.9%) were Muslims. This could mean that
religion has a role to play in being a member of cooperative societies. It was also discovered
from the study that majority of the non-cooperators (77.3%) and cooperators (74.5%) had
39
household size of between 1-5 persons and that respondents with either household sizes of
between 1-5 or 6-10 persons were fairly represented in either of the two groups (cooperators &
non-cooperators).
Analysis of the level of participation in cooperative societies revealed that 57.7% of the
respondents did not participate in cooperative while 32.3%, 5.8% and 4.2% of the respondents
participated in Thrift and Credit Cooperatives (CTCS), Multipurpose Cooperatives (CMS) and
Housing Cooperatives respectively. This implies that majority of the cooperators belonged to
Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society (CTCS) apparently to have access to loan for their various
businesses.
An investigation into ways by which cooperatives contributed to the growth of SSEs in
the study area revealed that the most important way by which cooperative impact SSE in the
study area is through loan advancement followed by providing avenue for savings to members.
Other ways by which cooperatives contributed include access to production inputs, cooperative
education, acquisition of assets and supports during special occasions in that order.
Comparison of the financial performance of cooperative and non-cooperative-based SSEs
was done through budgetary analysis. The results revealed that enterprises formed by
cooperators earned more net income than the enterprises formed by non – cooperators. However,
this was not an indication of higher profitability or performance. To measure the profitability and
perhaps performance of the enterprises, their Profitability Index (PI) and Rate of Return on
Investment (RRI) were estimated. The PI and RRI of the non-cooperative based enterprises were
0.04 and 4.46% respectively while that of cooperative based enterprises were 0.15 and 17.9%
respectively. The superiority in performance (measured by profitability and rate of return on
investment) of the cooperative-based enterprises might not be unconnected to access to
40
affordable loan (which usually characterized cooperative societies) and cooperative education
which could have helped them in their businesses.
Analysis of the most important reasons for joining cooperative societies showed that the
most important reason for belonging to cooperative societies by members is to have access to
credit. Other reasons claimed by the respondents for joining cooperative societies included; to
socialize, for cooperative education and as a result of cooperative effects they noticed in the
friend’s business. It is worthy of note that substantial percentage (18.2%) of the respondents
claimed that they joined cooperatives mainly for cooperative education. This implies that aside to
gain access to credit; cooperative education is in the forefront of reasons for joining cooperative
societies.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
This study examined the effect of cooperatives on the growth of small scale enterprises in Yewa
North Local Government Area, Ogun State. Based on the findings of the study, it is concluded
that:
Majority of the respondents were male, married, had household sizes of between 1-5
persons, appreciably literate, aged between 18-45 years and were non-cooperative
members.
Being single reduces the propensity of being a cooperator
Among the cooperators, Thrift and Credit Societies were the most patronized.
The most important way by which cooperative impact SSE in the study area is through
loan advancement to member SSEs
The financial performance of cooperative-based SSEs is superior to Non-cooperative
based SSEs
41
The most important reason for belonging to cooperative societies by members is to have
access to credit
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Arising from the conclusions of this study, it is recommended that:
SSEs in the study are should endeavour to join/form a cooperative societies as
cooperative membership by SSEs is found to contribute positively to SSEs financial
performance.
Married residents have higher propensity to join cooperative societies when compared to
their single counterparts. Therefore, any cooperative members’ enrolment crusade should
focused more on married residents as they are more likely to be pacified to join
cooperative than their single counterparts.
REFERENCES
Abereijo, I. O and Fayomi, A. O (2005): Innovative Approach to SME Financing in Nigeria: A
Review of Small And Medium Industries Equity Investment Scheme (SMIEIS)- PP, 219-
213, Journal of social science, 11(3): 219: 227 (2005).
42
Adegeye A.J. and Ditto, J.S. (1985): essentials of Agricultural Economics. Impact Publishers
Economics Nigeria Limited, Ibadan , pp 5.
Aftab, K. and E. Rahim (1989) “Barriers to the growth of informal sector firms: a case study”.
Journal of Development Studies, 25(4).
Akinwumi, J. (2006): Road Map to re-engineering Cooperatives in Nigeria; A paper presented at
the south west cooperative leaders conference, organized by cooperative federation of
Nigeria South west zone at Obisesan Hall, Ibadan, September, 2006.
Anyanwu, C. M (2001): Financing and promoting small scale industries; Concept issues and
prospect Bulletin Vol. 25.
Anyanwu, P.B. (1987): Studies on Homestead pond Programme in Lagos State. In NIOMR,
Annual Report, pp 19-20.
Aryeetey E. and C. Udry (1997): The Characteristics of Informal Financial market in Sub-Sahara
Africa. Journal of Africa economics Supplement Vol. 6 No 1
Aryeetey, E (1996): Rural Finance in Africa, Institution Development and Access for the Poor
“The World bank Annual Conference on Development economic p. 25-26 April, Washington
D. C.
Aryeetey, E., A. Baah-Nnakoh, T. Duggleby, H. Hettige and W. Steel, (1994). Supply and
Demand for Finance of Small Enterprises in Ghana. Discussion Paper No. 251.
Technical Department, African Region, Washington D.C. The World Bank.
Atieno, R (2001): Formal and informal institutions and Access to Credit by Small Scale
Enterprises in Kenya; An Empirical Assessment. AERC Research Paper III, Nairobi
Bircall, Johnston (2003): Rediscovering the Cooperative Advantages, poverty reductions through
self help cooperative Branch, International Labour Organisation, Geneva.
43
Central Bank of Nigeria (1979). Credit Guidelines to Financial Institutions. Lagos Central Bank
of Nigeria.
Chenery, H. (19740. Redistribution with Growth, Oxford University Press
Chukwuji, C.O., O.E. Inoni and O.D. Ogisi, (1999). A comparative Analysis of the Role of
formal and informal Finance in Commercial Livestock Production in Delta State. In
proceeding of the 4th Annual Conference of the Animal Science Association, Nigeria
held at IITA, Ibadan.
Coquery-Vidrovitch, C. (1997). African Women: A Modern History. Boulder, Westview Press.
Daniels, L. and A. Ngwira, (1993). Results of a nation-wide survey on micro, small and medium
enterprises in Malawi, Gemini Technical Report No 53 New York.
Druker, P. F. (1996): Measuring Business performances. The delusions of Profits.
Ejembi, S. A and Ogiji, P. (2007) : A Cooperative Analysis of running small or medium micro
enterprises in North Central Nigeria
Epetimehin, F.M. (2006): Understanding the Dynamics of Cooperatives, Tadon Publishers,
Ibadan.
Essien, E. A and Bello, Y. A (2007): Technical efficiency of small and medium scale industries
in Nigeria, Evidence from Nation wide survey paper, pp. 39.
Gauthier, B., (1996). Small-scale enterprise development during structural adjustment in
Cameroon Small Enterprise Development.
Global Witness (2006). Experiences and Lessons. Learned Monitoring the integrated Diamond
Management Programmed. Diamond Tracking System in Sierra Leone, May 2006 London.
Hossain, M (1988): Credit for the alleviation of rural poverty; The Grammen Bank in
Bangladish. IFPR Reasearch Report No. 65
44
Igben, M. S. (1984): The effectiveness and efficiency of agricultural multipurpose cooperative in
Nigeria .Paper presented at the conference on strategies for the Fifth National Development
Plan,1986-1990 at the conference centre, University of Ibadan, PP, 35-42.
Inang, E.E. and G.E. Ukpong, (1992). A Review of Small-scale Enterprises Credit Delivery
Strategies in Nigeria. CBN Economic and Financial Review.
International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) (2008). Statement on Cooperative identity,
http//www.ica.co-op/co-op/principle. Html.
International Cooperative Alliance Congress (ICA) (1995). Centennial Congress and General
Assembly, Manchester.
International Labour Office (1960). Cooperative management and administration , Geneva.
International Labour Organisation (1973) “Sharing in development: a programme of
employment, equity and growth in the Philippines” Geneva: ILO
International Labour Organisation (2000).
International labour Organization (ILO) (1966)
Kayanula, D. and P. Quartey (2000). The policy environment for promoting small and medium-
sized enterprises in Ghana and Malawi: University of Manchester; IDPM Working Paper.
Kimuyu, P(1999) rotating Saving and Credit Association in Rural East Africa. World
Development No. 27:1299-1308
Kimuyu, P. and J. Omiti, (2000). Institutional impediments to access to credit by Micro and
Small-Scale Enterprises in Kenya. IPAR Discussion Paper, No. 026/2000. Kenya; Institute
of Policy Analysis and Research.
Levy, B. (1993). Obstacles to developing indigenous small and medium enterprises: An
Empirical Assessment. The World Bank Economic Review.
45
Lippe, R.S., Mergenthaler, M. & Isvilanonda, S, (2010). Consumer willingness to pay for
pesticide safe produce: the case of cabbage and yellow mango in Thailand. Available at
Ministry of Finance (2003): Nigeria macro small and Medium Enterprise project, Abuja Nigeria.
Munckner, H.H (1976): Cooperative for the rich or poor.
Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industry (1982). Revolving Loan Scheme for Small-scale
Industries. Lagos, NBCI.
Ogisi, O. D, Oghotomo, O. R, Tarurhor, M.E and Inoni, O. E (2007). Cooperatives societies and
the development of small scale furniture and tailoring Enterprises. Evidence from Delta state,
Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of social sconces 4(1); 69-77, 2007.
Olaleye, Y. L and G. Adekola (2006): Impact of cooperative societies on poverty alleviation. A
study of three main cooperative societies in Ibadan, Nigeria. Education for today (6). PP,
109-120.
Onuoha, E. (1986): Principles of cooperative enterprise, Enugu Nigeria, Express publishing
company Ltd.
Robertson, E. (1998). Women Entrepreneurs? Trade and the Gender Division of Labour in
Nairobi, In African Entrepreneurship: Theory and Reality Spring, A and Mc Dade B(Eels).
Tallahasse University Press of Florida.
Roy, I. (1964). Cooperative Today and Tomorrow, Geneva.
SBA (2000): The bank holding company study office of advocacy of the U.S. SBA,
http//www.sba.gov/advo/stats/lendings
Spiegel, M.R. (1992). Theory and Problems of Statistics. 2nd Edition, New York; McGraw Hill
Book Company.
46
Spring, A. (2000). Women farmers and commercial ventures: increasing food security in