University of Nigeria Research Publications

OFFOR, Eucharia .U.

Aut

hor

PG/MBA/95/18657

Title

The Role of the Multi-Nationals in the Socio Economic

Development of Nigeria: A critical Evaluation of the Oil Industries

Facu

lty

Business Administration

Dep

artm

ent

Management

Dat

e June, 1997

Sign

atur

e

- SCHOOL OF FCST GRADUATE STUDIES . WIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, ENllGU CAMPUS

HASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIaJ (mu) THESIS PROPOSAL

ON

THE RaLE OF THE WULTI-MAT1ClffAI.S I N THE SOCIO/ECONORIC DEVELOPMENT OF' NIGERIA

. (A (XITICAL EVALUATION OF .-THE OIL INDUSTRIES).

OFFCR, EUCHARU! [ I " ? , a Postgraduate student h t h e --.- -

Department of Management and with the Rego Noo ~~h~~/95/18657, - - -.-

has satisfactorily completed the requirements for course snd

research work for the Degree of Master of Business Abinistra-

tion (HBA) in PIANAGEMENT;

The work earbodied in this thesis is original and has not .' . - -.--been submitted in part or full for any other Diploma or Degree

... . of- thi,s--Universi ty or any other Universi tyo

DEDICATION

... . . - Thia pr0Jee.t i s dedicated to my belwed husband

Chief (Arc,) Co)"le@. Offm whose lave end care i s more

- . than I could expl.ain, . .

To my children - Chinsdu Offar, Cnyeka Offar, .-- . .. Obinna Offor, Arinze Offor end my lovely daughter - " . . .. .

' % .

. . . '-Amirechukwu Offor far their understanding throughout the

,-. And finally, t o my HeRvenly father and qother'- . * _ -

Mary the Blessed Virgin.

P R E F A C E

This work on ~ ~ H u l t i n a t i o m l Corporation and the probl-&- - -

of socio-econmic dmelapment of Nigeria! A c r i t i c a l evalua- . .. , ' a .. . I . . . . . I . . . . .. .

t ion of the o i l industry 1s divided into f ive chapters. Chapter

one is the introductory chapter. Here attempts were made a t ..-...

looking into a br ie f his tory of o i l explorations and m u l t i n a t i m l

o i l companies ac t iv i t ies , and t h i s resulted into the formulation .

of four hypothesis aimed a t solving the envisaged problems tha t

prorhpted t h i s research, -- _--. -. Chapter two is on l i t e ra tu re review, Here, meterials -

relat ing t d the subject of research vere reviewed and found

invaluablee . a . Ctmpter three is on research aaethodology. Here, methodd

- adopted a t erriving a t a logical conclusion i n t h i s researah 4

were described

square (x2) i n

- - . of par t iculer importance was the.. r d o p t k of chi-

tes t ing the hypothesiso

chapter four is on data presentation and analysis. . . , - . . L_ , _

Here, the feedback from the questicinnaire'weke analyged an8 p?e- '

iented and x2 adopted i n tes t ing by hypothesise

Finally is chapter f ive which is. on summary and cmclusion,

Here, the m k was suannariged end corplusfon drawn fr& the , r e su l t -. .

got from the hypothesis tes ted and.recmendat ion made on future

ABSTRACT. ,. . .

.After about three decades of of 1 exploration in Nigeria, -- Tt;"Eas been unagreeably acknowledged that of 1 constitutes about . .

.three quarters of: the nation's foreign exchange earner.

In spite of this fact, the nation and in particular, the

,. . d l producing communities still remain under-developed; couplqcl . .

- with health hzerds bedevilling the oil producing communities .-. , .. resulting from the activitits of the nultintaticmal oil cahop'nies.

. . . .- It ie against this backdrop that this research project tends

to studjr and bring into focus the contr fbut i ons of these mult f - iiational oil companies not only on ,social but, alga .economid:,,dt&i-

loprent of their host communities and the nation in genera10

Hence, the title ~Mul,tinational Corporations end the Problem of . .

Socio-Economic Development of Nigeria: A critical evaluation of . . -- . . . . - -- -

, 'the oil industry", - .

Data for this work were got fron literature review, personal

observation aid mostly fr& intervikw quest i onne ires distribut'ecf " '

to appendix 'At multinational oil producing communities end indfvi-

2 - critical analysis of date using the x (Chi-square) disbribution

.. . resulted-into somet definite conclusim.

TADLE OF CONTENTS - - . . . Pat or .. cF.

Title Page: 0 0 . .O i Certification: o m * 0.0 i i

I Dedicat,icn: 0 0 0 0 0 1 " ' ' ' iii'

Acknowledgment : . .OO i v P r e f ~ c e : 000 0 . v Abstract t 0.0 ... .. . . .__ vi ... Table of Contentst O.O vi{ 2-vf ii List of Tables, . . o o ix '

CHA PER ONE : INTROD1 TCTICN. ..a . . . . . - . . . . . . . -- . ._ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. , . .

1.1: Statement oi , I li llem, 0.. 5

... 1.2: abjective of the Study. . . 6 --

1.3: Significance of the Study, ,,. 1 : Hypothesis Foqnulatfon, O.O , . . . . . o . . . .

1.: Scope and Limitations of the Studyo 9

LITERATURE REVID.

. . . . - - 2'; I-: ' D e f iiii t i on of Concept, b o o 12

2,,2: The Conservative view-point, . 16

. . . . . * . 2.3: The 1,iberal View-Pointo .. 1.9 :

. . . - 2 o,!j : @her Argument 3, 000 22 . . . -

* 205: Current Thoughtso, .em \ . . 30 . . -, . .

2.6: Merlts and Dmerits of Nultf-Natfonal , Corporationso 0.. 32

.... NOTES AND REFEREITCES. . . . . h?.::: 13

CIIA ~ r m TIRF : RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLWTY. h6

3.12 Sources of Data, O.b k 6 , , . ,

3Y101: Primary Source,.:. 0.0 47 3.1r3t Secondary Sources. ..., ........... ,.... , . . . .-A ,

, - 47'.' . . . . . . .

3 02 r Samp1.e~ Used, . O D . . -. 48 . . . .

3.3: Method of Investigationo 49 . , . . , ., . . . - ..

3 : sth ha do lo^^ Approach to ~ont~ln~enc~' ~$12 ' 49

1 Data Presentation, 000

4.2 :' Data Analysis. 000 . .' .. - _.-. __ _ .. _ , 4,3: : Te3l;iny of Hypothesiso

, 0 0 0

4.,!~;.. - ~ ) f SCUJ,S~MIS and Findings0 -a o. . . . . .

. . ..., . 503: Suggestions for Further Studieso

SoJ41 Conclusion. OD.

NmL! 0 . O O . 0 0 0

. "

REFERENCES 0 o 0 0 o

CHAFTER ONE

- ., .. Nig3ria is a leading o i l producing country in Afric 'a-. ,

being only second t o Libya. She renks eight in ' the worlao . . . . * . .

Since Niger i s t s f i r s t export of crude o i l i n 1959,. the country

h s beeri deriving "over ninety percent of her foreign txchmge.-. . . . A _ - 1. ..

earnings through the export of crude o i l n o

Nigeria has becme heavily dependent on her o i l revenue

t o the neglect of her agrictAlturra1 sector which previ'ousiy was '

. - the main ..stay of her economyo Before Mgerf a was declared. a - - - . . . . . . .

. . ma Jor o i l producer i n 1973, principal agricultural products '

' ' " "

such as cocoa, . , p l m produce . . . and grounds , . flourished . . through, . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . .

regional specialisation of production. Export of these . , . -

products contribukedto e . . . larger percentage . . . . of the.cotmtryts .... . . . .... .. ..--. .. ..- . - . . - - .-

foreign exchnge (ioe. about 70 percent). Apart from these . . . . . ( I -

- . ' export crops, cultivation of cassava, rice, berms etc. were

h p v i l y emphasised a l l . w e r the country. . h u e s t i c production . '

of these crops v i r tua l ly ssbisfied dmest ic consumption.

The advent of o i l brought about the relegation of expart-

crops and dmes t i c agricultural products whose narkets e s p e c i ~ l l y . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - , ' -

the export crops were not; or; stable and lucrative r s that of

petroleum. ' . . . -- -.-

-.--. ---. I-. L a

. i

It got to a stage especially in the middle 70s to the qerly -

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

pressures in the econcmy where local production could not con-

. . . . . tend with the growing ,.food shortagebe . . . - - . . . . .

Multinational corporations exercised near exclusive . . . . . .

jwlsdf stian~~oveii.' the oi 1. fields a d literally r-d- the - .- . -. -

length end breadth of the cmntry unchecked in its ~earch

a far oil.

! Themitically, by an Act of 1959, prof its der'iviil 'frm

oil were to be shared on a fifty-fifty principle between the ',

.--- - - - government and the oil companies. This was achieved"by'fix-

ing a tax of fifty percent and by permitting the multinetional . . . . . . . . . . . . companies to set off ayaiii::l; that tax certain payments made to

the Federal Governments In other forns such as custms and . - - - -

stamp dutieso The oil companies thrived under this colonial .

carry-over law until 1967.. In 1967, the 1959 Act was amended . .

to favour the gwermsnt after Nigeria's consultation with

. other maJor oil producers on pricing policy and other intr'icete .. -.-.. -..-. - .

methods of the oil businesso

Until quite recently, Nigeria's oil was extracted and mar- . . -- ...

keted by the multinational corporations dnvolved in the oil .

industry. Before 1567, royalties from oil were assessed from - . . , . . , , . .

the value of crude oil at the place of extrsction, This value

was corppi.led fram proceeds realisedat the port of . export,. . , ' . . .

-.-- . afteI.' deducting the costs of extraction, transport and storage.

... . - 411--these-- costs were determined by the. multinational oil corn-

pnies, who, of 'course, Juggle figures to their own interest

.7 . and benefits, The equipnent used fos extrection were owned by:, . .

- them. Prices of these equipolents and the working pcriocls were .-- .. I .

inflsted to raise the cost of extract ion, Transportation-cosC . . .

'. ' ' '%ere distorted with deviation of up to fifty percent sbavs

actual costs. The multinationals ownership of storage Caclli-

Cies gave the companies the opportunities to inflate stmag?, ; - ' '

cogts to their advantage*

These inflated productfon costs meant indirect profit . . . . . . . I

for these oil companies and loss of revenue to the Nigerian - . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . - -- -

"government as the realised proceeds at the port of export on . . , - . . . . .

which the assessment of royalty was based, distributed in the

. ?- I.,;,

. . . * - . . a7. ? _ . .

. . I,

proportion to the deductions madn, This method invariably

caused production profits to accrue unchallenged to the multi-

national oil companies because of their' monopoly over th8 . -

production and.distribution factors of-the Nigerian oil fndtutryr-

. . . . - . . . . . . .

Before 1965, Nigeria was overwhelmingly dependent on .

. . . . , , . , . --- . ,. . ,. , ,

imported7 ktroi whereas she exported c d s oi 1. The western

nations added value to the crude oil through the metropolitan . . . . . . . . -. - . . ., -

-.. .. ..- . . . - . - . . . . . . , . . ,

arm of their multinational 'oil corporations and re-exported

the value added pra8ucts"at exorbitant priceso ' ' . r .

started at Alssa Aleme near Port-Narcourt to meet the domestfa

need. The project war a joint venture between SheeldP thbb- - - -

was to hold fifty percent share, the Federal Government twenty . . . . .

. . < ' . . . . . ... . . . I . . . . . percent, while the t h c ~ i ' : t regional governments ench held

ten percent, When it went into production in 1965, it was . - - -,

producing only petrol, diesel oil end kerosine, Because it . . -

was not constructed for the production cf lubricantls, aviation . .

fuel, bitumen and other by-products of crude oil like liquified

naturol gas, these products were imported and they c c m ~ d

. . . substantial f oraign a - 1 . ' we revenue; vhi lc the gas '&as. - - - .,

flared off, This situation has continued uptil today suf- ........

f i c e it to say therefore that this short sightedness has . . .-

characterised the entire history of the development; of tile oil

industry sector in Nigeria,,

.-"lbrrfore, inspite of Nigeria's abundant resources, . . . . -.-. --.-.. - . . .

her contact with western civilization under British colonia- . - ... -.. - , . lism, foreign ' ia ids ' and investments,-and international trade,

the country remains underdeveloped and the majority of the

.. ' 'cftizenry in abject poverty and multinntionals in ocean of ..

- affluence, . . ., ..

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

This research work intends to find out the extent the , - .

z. . - multinational oil companies have bken able to cak; out their

socio-economic responsibilities in development of Nigeri,an

communiti ts, Also, it is of interest. to access the. level of

conmiitment . . . . of . . multinational oil coapanies in Nigeria in assist- . - . . . . . . .. -. . -

fng government in providing various infrastructurel amenities . . - . , .

to communities with respect to huge profit enjoyed by such , . . . . .

'3 . , . . . . . -- . . . . . . coxupanits,

heref fort, this work will be sble to answer these pertinent -.--. --.-.. -..,

questi~ns'as regards the aspfration of the people on which ...

--their.-wealth and. activities depend on,

1.2; WJECTIVE OF THE STUDY: - . .

a *. .

This study is aimed at analysing' the socio-economic -

- impacts'of a11 and the multinational corporations in the devr- . . . *

lopment efforts in Nigeria., The focus will be on-haw much and . . . . - . . . .

in what way the multinntional oil corporations and their invest-

ments have helped Nigeria to advance and achieve socio-econmic . . * -. . z.

growth as foreign investments and the 'actkviifes of multina'ti o m 1

corporations are generally said to do. Attempts will bd made to

examine what obstacles, ff.any, have caused their faihre to

realise--goals. A critical- anausis will .be given to the- in\pkt2- . . . . . .

. . . . of oil upon both private growth and the prospects of sacio-

economic , . advnncement of the nation. This study will stimulate . , . . ' 9 , , . . . . . . - - . . . . . . .

hopefully, the awareness on the vital role the oil companies

have in the transformation of the .oil producing cornmunit ies in --- . - - - -, . .- -

particular and tho notion at large by being more socio-econo- - . . . . . . a . . .

.- . mically responsiblee

All in all, this dissertation is expected to critically "

assess the impacts of &ltinationnl oil cownni& to thi'pro-

blems of socfw-economic developent in Nigeria in general end I . . . . .

the oil producing communities in particular.

l o 3 t SIGNIFICANCE a' THE STUDY!

The immediate usefu1,ness and impm tance of this study._ is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

not far-fetched. Suf i icd r5 to say 'that since this study tends

to explore the extent of socio-economic imrol.vement of

national oil companies in the development of Nigeria, both the,,,-

government and the multinationals will find this study useful .

in planning and development. Through the findings of this

study, the multinntiom8~ will be exposed to the extant their * * .

-- - - . - . . involvement in tho socio-economic d&elopnent of Nigerin .and -

-. . thk &peck-iitioni of the people.

Again, it is equally hoped that the findings and recm-

. . . 'mendations of this study will be of immense benefit not onlyL

- to th e..g overnment, but also to other social rescnrchors and - , .

stuients for future research undertakings. . . .

. . . . .- . .

This study att.ampts to demonstrate that Xigerie hns

not been &riving maximum socio-economic expectations of her

c,it~sns~frcxn the multinationel cor,porations operating in her ., . . .

-.-. - oi-l-lndustky and thst in some respects the industry has contri- , .

-butcd.-to--the. soeio-economic problem of the country due to the

transfer of surpluses to the metropole, Therefore in order to

. parry out the statistical t e s t , the following hypothesis were: . .

( i Multinntion~l oil companies in Nigeria areUnot - - ' . . . . ..- . . . . socially responsible t,o their host communities

' and thereby the nation at large, , - .

" ( i i ) Multinational oil companies . . in Nigeria . .,. d o nah . J-- - .

contribute to emnomic developmnt of the nation.,

(iii) Multin~t-ional oil companies arc! only interested . ,

in ,maximizing their gains at the expense of the- .

. . . . - . ....

(Iv) Mu1 t ina t ional corporat.i ons transfer of surpluser;

underdevelopmen of Nigeria,

., I , - 1.5: %"OPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY: - .. .

This study covers the s-ocio-economic resporisibilitfcs

ns well as the obligations of multinational corporations

operating in the area of the people of Nigeria socially and * - , . . , L. : _ . +

economics lly, This study, however, exarni nes the efforts of

these multinationnl corporatio~3 collectively and not indivi-

dually in the transformation of Nigeria socio-econmically. . - -

rienck, t.he ,srdgption of this topic, Multinational corporations..-- - . . - . . . .

and the problem of socio-economic development in Nigeria.- A

critical evaluntion of oil industry, . . .. . , ', . , . , . . . - - . . - .

T h e acquisition of data for this hind of study requires

set4es' . -d- ooiittidis 'with va+ious or&nf sat ions and-agehci es ~f ": -. -

government, the host communities and the multinational oil -

- . . companies which by no means was not easy due essentially to '

limitations posed by limited logistiics. The data Tor' thi's

study were derived both from primary and secondary..sources.' .--- - - - .

The primary data was extracted from questionnaires which 'were

supplemented with secondary dttta from textbooks, Journals, ... . .. . . . ~ . . . . , . . - . . . .

seminars and workshop p w i i <at i ons, 'newspapers and magazines*

.--- - -- -

Some of these were in-house journals of the multinational

other available sources for the purpose of enriching this . . - - ..-

dissertation, but fof the limita'tions posed by certain con- . . .-

sttaints such as time, distance and finance.

Moreover, the restricted amount of log is t ics and

administ,r~tiva support mvailable for th is research cannot. - .. --- ----. -

be considered as anything e l se but another limitation. . .

N O T E S . . . . ---I-

1. Jerry hnkwo; nPromotfng Good Community ~~erakor . . Relations in Wigaria Petroleum Industry".- .. . . . . . . . . l

A Mfier pl... .: ' ' #.I-1 at the mk/cje0~ Community Forum Organised by Gulf Oil Comjsny (Nig.) Ltdw at the Petroleum

10 As~o~u, PwCet (Ibadan:

. .' .. -

. . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES .

Nigeria and the Oil Question: Niger ia ~ o m ~ c T e t y ) p79.

. . . ...

-.-- 2,. - . Nwabuokei, P.O.; Fundementals of Stati ski cs, (~nugu: Chika Printing Coy. . ~ t n .

. ~ ~ & i 6 j= .... 3 w. " rry; InPromoting Good ~bmmunl ty Opera tor

'

Relatiom in Nigerian Petroleum Industryfn, A paper presented at NNPC/(~OCOT~ Community Forum Organised by Gulf Oil Coo (~ig.) Ltdw . -. - 0 . Se~te 6.7, 19890 . .

- b e Odp, Ozpngwu Maurice3 Guide of Pro~osal Writin . ., in Social and Behnvioural bciences, Enugu!. - , . SNAPP%ess ~ t d . W

5. Sammer, R d Scunmer, B.B.; A Practical Guide to

. . ,,-.

CHAPTER TWO ' , , . L-. . -.

LITERATURE REVIEW

For the purpose of academic scholarship, an indepth

literature review was carried out as regards this study. . . . .

2,22 DEFINITION OF CONCEPT t - - Qufh a ncinlxr of efforts have"bc?en made at providing ' ' - --..- -

a definition for the term. Corporate socio-economic obliga- ,...

timr that - is "ail&braciny, This of'course, htis rhainkd-.. -. .. . -. -

- . elusive. Hence, the adoption of t,he method which sought,.to

provide a definition by offering explanations and examples

that cover its ma ,)or aspects, However, some of the di?flrif - .

1 ti ons f nclude - Prof. Kenneth Andrews (~namkm, 1977) whlch .. ..

.--- - -. . deffncs social responsibility ass

.

The intelligent -?I , . ' jectfve c0nvBrn~"for ., . . - .. -,

the welfare of the sc - i sty, which indfviduals and corporate behaviour from ultimately destructive activities, no matter .how . . . - - - .- immediately profitable and which leads in the direction of positive contribdtfon ,

to human betterment,

As elaborate as thfs definition seems, yet mother from 9 r-

Ckereke i1985, 110) describes socio-economic responsibility :., --..-- - . - ,

of any organization to its host coxmn~&~fties 8s:

The organization's considerations of and response to the issues beyond the n3Prow technical and legal requirements . of the business, It is also the organiza- tion's obligation to evaluate in its decision-making process the effects of 1b; decisYon3 on thc~txternal."social ' - " systems in a manner which will achieve social benefits along with expccted economic gains,

! It is germane to say'that this definitions Is clear-

enough and incorporates the essential features of. soclal

responsibility and marries it to economic obligatioh, ' .-'-- - - '

This gives the feelinq of moral obligation to share with . .. . . . . ... . . - . _ _

the society its proble~ I.:, Moreover, the definition

embodies also a corporate recognition of programmes .. - - -..

directed towards the socio-economic upiiftment of the . . . . -

society, Furthermore, the United States Business 3

. .

Ethics Advisory Councll has made allusion in its

article of association to the socio-economic responsibi-. -.-- --- - ,

, litias if busincns to its operating'$nviropnent when ,.

. . . . . . . . . . . Every business mi:.: r ;'i-ise has . . responsibilities to the society of which it is a pert, The prim@ legal and social obligniion o.f the managers of a business is to operate it for a long-term profit of its owners. Current social responsibilities pertain to a compariyls treatment of i'ts past, present and prespectivs employees to.its various relationships with

. . . . . ,.cu.stcnners, suppliers, governmentis, -.--." ..... - , communities and the public at large.

Thesa responsibilities may often be or appear to be in conflict; and at' times'

-.. .- ..a manngment recognition of its-broad responsibilities may affect the amount of nn enterprise's immediate profits and the means of attaining them,

- But this definition appears to raise some conceptual -. . . . ., .. . ,

difficulties in that there appear the tendency to &e

. . . - . ethics and morals as if they were the same in meaning, .. ,

suffice it to say that morals refer generally to accepted , - .

" c1.1stoms of conduct and right living in the s,ociety uhere '1 - -

as ethics as a term is used in the narrow sense of high

standards of professional conduct, Secondly, there is an . i

absence of recognised sources of ethnical standards, since - -- . ..--- . -.

in pluralistic societies no one can look to educatioml

institutions, manufacturing firms and even government, a s the

', . , , . . - - centres of ethical teachingo . . .

Finally Hodget (1980:~.h) succintly observed that:

The moral obligatlon.businesn has to assume concern for the wslfart of the saciety. in which it operates. - . .

- .

The key words in this definition %oral obligationtt

. . . . . merely' 'emphas'ize moral' stiasion and' without the compell-.

ing force of government legislationsa

As noted earlier, the difficulty in arriving nt a , . . 2 .

universally accepted definition of the concept "socio-

economic responstbility". Let to definitions whXch s m m . . . . . . I

to be offering explanations as to what characterise tho . .

concept. All in all, it is pertinent to note that socio- .-- - -

economic davelopment points outright, charity which'may not

the charitable firm and therefore cannot be sustained object- . - - ---

ively on the basis of ordinary private cost-benefit annlysis. . . .-

In general, the argument on the role of multinational . . . .

corporations on the socio-econkic dovelobent of a given

society fall into two diverse groups, - . .- . .

There is the conserv~tists viewpoint based on the classical . # . . -

capitalist theory and supported by'l&vitt and Friedman. - .-. ..

* They are of the view that corporations ought not to'. . .,.+, . .

assume socio-economic responsibilities that have no direct. . .

bearing on their profitability position since the aim of any , - .

'business is profit maximization. Another view point, tNe ", .- -

f*liberalst* argued that business should not only embark on

sacio-economic development of the areas of their operation, . i

but mist also he committed to it extensively even at the- -. . . . . . . . . .A- . . . - ....... -- -

Expense of profit maximizationso Still, in-between these . . . . - . . . . . . . . .

views art other views that argue for and against socio- ', . . . . . . - -

economic responsibilities. . . .

? .3 : TFE CONSF,S\lfiT.IVE VIEY POINT : . . , . . . . . . - . .... . . . . . ..... .. ... ..-- - - - . . .

Far back into history, classical thinkers viewed - . . , a

business and commerce as merely the pursuit of self interest.

. t They regarded the objective of establishing a firm . . . . . . as solely

profit maximization and the yardstick for measuring success

A'maJor proponent of this view, an American economist namely 5

-. . ...... this" vi t w ;hen he SR id : . . . . . . . . . -

., - - . .

In a free enterprise, private system, a corporate executive is an employee of- .the owners of. the .business, Ile had .

direct responsibility to hfs employers, That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with thdr dcsircs, which.. genem 1 l;y wi 11. .be tc, make . trs much . money RS possible while cnnforrning to the ... - basic rules of the society in so f o r as his actions in accord with

. . . .his socio-economic responsibility, reduce returns to stockholders he is

. I spending the customera money,, In so fnr as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.. .". , . ,

., ..

This view seem5 Lo express the interest of stockholders . . . . .

' - I ' . . . . . . . . I - I . . . . . .

as being upperrno~f i , , ~.lfncis of .operators of business.

Therefore, for a corporate executive, any obligation to . . - - -. -

another group a p r t from the sh~reholders tantammvlts to . ...-

moving ou t of the market into politicso It argued further . . . . . . . . . . .

that business lihe labm- , consummers and governmmt. has its

.appr.cpriate function which is profit making and that . . ina. free.. . . . --. -..- .. -. .

society, 'each group within the society should simply work ... a t . -

--- performing-. its- cnm particulzr function well,

. . . , . . . - .. .

Some people express fea ic ' I lt, c a l l s f o r increased pa r t i c i -

pation in socio-economic development on the p n r t of business , --..

organisntion w i l l lend t o increase goverrwxmt, cont,rol. Further- . -

more, they argue t h a t i f business should expand its functions - . . . . , . .

of p r o f i t making t ha t i t w i l l be exercising prerogatives exclu-

s i v e .t,a government and tlierefore put i t s e l f under perpetual ..,

-.-. ..--. - . goverrmcnt control . Further argument k . sec increased corporate _ -. . responi lb ' l l l ty as capable of putt ing too much power i n the hands

of corporate of f i c i s l s . They argue . t ha t i n a democratic socl e t y ,

.. - the corporate executives nei ther have . the exper t ise nor the . r i -sht

- t o implment , thei r own views of p tb l i c good, In perfect a,gree- 6 - .

mcnt,*wit.h t,he above, Theodore Lt:vitl; (1?58:ppo .-, .

argued t h a t :

he function of business is t o produce sus t s incd high-level prof its, The essence of f ree ent,erprise:: is t o go a f t e r p r o f i t i n any way consis tent with i ts own survival a s an economic system. Welfare and s o c i ~ t y a re not corporations business, Its business is

. .. - money (and) not. sweet music. I n a

. . f r e e en te rpr i se system welfare is supposed t o be automatic, and >!here i t is not I t becomes government jbb. Government, job is not business and buslncss .job is not government,, and unless these functions a r e reso lu te ly scprqtA i n a l l respects they ere eventaually combined i n every respect ,

- . I n t h e end t h e d a n g v is net that. goverruncnt, --- - - .

w i l l rtul bus iness ors that. bus iness w i l l run government,, but, r a t h e r t h a t t h e two of them w i l l coa lesce , nc ..- saw, i n t o a s i n g l e power,. , - . . . . unopposed anti UI , le , The func t ions of t.he f o u r main group:; 111 our economy - govern- ment., business , 3 abour, agr icul txwe must, hc kept, separst,e and s ~ p n r a b l e . As soon a s t h y -. .. bccomc, a m a l ~ a m a t t d and ind i s t ingu i shab le , {;hey l ikewise become monstrous and r e s t x i c t . i v e o -

. . . - . . FJot,withst?ncling t h e s t i c k ' poztmre of t.he c o n ~ c r v a t ~ i v e ,

they s t , i l l a g r r e t,n t h e obligat , ion Lo conform t o s o c i e t a l . . . . . . - . .,

norms o r et ,hical ct~stoms. There is a l s o an agreement t h a t -.-- -... - . -. . . .

' t h e long term p n r w i t of scl , f in teres t . i n i t s k l f ensure : a . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .

degree of snc i31 and cconomIc responsibi f i t i e s and provide

a suf f i c icn t , in-bui 1 t check on company hchavi our. For

. , e+:mple, strbstandard rnt u r e of a product could lead t o l o s s .

, 2.1: TIE LIEERAL VIEW POINT: -- Ttprc is a f u r t h e r agrecmant from t h o ~ who belong t o

t h i s school of thought t h n t bus incss should s t r i v e f o r socio- , - . . . . L- . - I I d

economic dtvalopment of t h e i r h o s t nat ions . That is t o say

t h a t t h e over r id ing objactAve of hus incss should be n e c e s s a r i l y

be mnxiniznt,ion of profi t , , .

This means t-hqt: p r o f i t maximimt ion should br: de-emphasized i n

w i t h a bat;ter tomorrow, provision of sstisfact,ory . employment, . - condition, commensurate pay package, e tc . L i t t l e wondcr t ha t

7 Prof, Ckcfie Uzoaga (1976: p.17) . opines tha t : . .. . .

' 1

Thc n a d s of society, if unatt,encicd . ., . t u r n i n t o soc i a l disease. And no ,--- - -. .

inr;titut,ion whether business or univcrsi t y or government agency is likcly t.n thr.ilvr In deceased society, . . . .. . Busines5 c ~ a c /-an no lond?r.' ignore v i t h i rn l , '~ , !.he suf frr inys of human socioty wii,h t,hc slogan thnt t,bc b u s i n t w of busincqs i s - - -. p r o f i t and nothing else;

This school of thought. i ndicete the cont.raclua1 bas i s . .

on whi.ch busin~ss r e s t s . The operation of buslness

e spec i s l l y a corporntion is not a matter of right.. .. .. r

-.-. ----.The indivfdurzl e n t m i n t o a contract with the soclety,

t h e s o c i e t y i n , t.urtl places c e r h i n s ~ c i ~ c o n o m i c oblige- ___. _ _ . . . -

t ion6 on t h e business so a s t o allow the business t o operate, .

Thnt is t o say tha t t h e corporat,ion is crea ted by soc ie ty f o r . . -.

. . . . . 8 spec i f i c purposes a s Daht (1975: p.18) observes that :

- ~ - 6 d a ~ ft' i s absord t o regard tzhe

* corporat i on simp3.y- a s an ent.erpt'ise

..- estatr1ishc:d fo r the so le purpose . . . . of allowing p r o f i t making, we t h e c i t i z e n s give them spec ia l r igh ts , po~sers and pr iv i leges , protxct ion and benef i t s on the understanding t h a t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s w i l l f u l f i l purposes. . + C ~ r p o r a t ~ i o n s e x i s t only a s they cont,inue t o benef i t us. Evcry

' corporatinn should be thought of a s a s o c i a l e n t e r p r i ~ e idiose exis tence and decis ions can he j u s t i f i e d only

. . - i n s o f a r a s they serve public or .... ... . s o c i ~ l . (and economic) purposes. . . . . . . . . . - -- . . . . . .

This invariably point. a t +,he cont.rdct.ua3. nnture of . -

r e l a t i pnshlp h~t ,uccn business and s?ci ety. Aclvarrcing . - - . . . . .

fu r the r why business should accept socio-economic 9

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , i n t he society, R o b f i e (?378:p, 11.17) ..... . . . . --. -. . ... .. .. . . . . ., . -.. , . . . . . . . . . .

ir; of t he opinion thn t i t should be based on two premises. - , . .

The f i rs t , , he c a l l s the pr inc ip le of contxibution wtiich

skates t h a t when one contxibutes t o a soc i a l harm, he has I .- .- . .

a p r ~ p o r t ~ i o n a l r e spons ib i l i t y t o contribute t o i ts a l loca t ion .

The second.reason i s predicated on the notion of parer t.hat ... . . .--.- - .

those cons t i tuents of soc i e ty which have t h e most in . the my

of r e swrceg should f . f - , : . r . - ihute t he most . reg,ol.virzg social. . . . . . I.lls.

Since husiness i s e i t h e r 1 , 1 3 1 : most, powerful. force or second

only t o governn~ent, i t s suporfaor resources therefore impose ...--..-

spec ia l obl igat ions upon it. , . , -

. . . . . . . . . . From the arguments put foruard by scholars on . . .

development and modernization, one may he forced to

.- . .. presume t h a t both can be thought of i n forms of soc ie ty . =. . - % L

a s a whnlc of polit,icnl aspccts of the socict,y. Ilowevcr,

eccmomic and soc i a l considerat ions cannot be divested

from ccmr;idernt i on of devef.opment. or mtdernizat;f on. Thih . - . . . . . . . . . . . .

is because .considcrnt,ion would include- progressive enlarge- . -. - . . . . m m t . of a nnt,f mr; gross nnd nvt nat:onz? product of gmds .

nnd services , increased per capi ta volume, het,ter standard . , . . . . . of l iv ing and a yeneraf s t ab l e social growth. IIence, a l l "

the proposals and plans f o r post-var Nigerlant s devef opmcnt - - . , . . - , --- . - - - .....

a r e based on ce r t a in assumptions about petroleum o i l . The

- government expcxts a revenue of scvsrel hundreds .of 'mil lions,

. . . The bourgeoisu assure Nigerians of a rosy economic future,

1 ,. .- . . while t h e ordinary person percr ive o i l a s the h x i s of

opt-imism about, t he new future, ... . . .--. - - . .

The widespread awareness of our wealth in o i l is-

combined with i g n o r a ~ c e ahout, the operat icns of t he petroleum . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . _ .

industry and I t s inter i l , rml. cont;ext,

. . . . . . . . . . .

The . . Federal Government . . . made an implicit admission of its ', . , . - - . . - . ignorance when in tho second National Development Plan, it is

9 stated according to YusuJ Rala Usman (1979: p.21) that: -. " . . , " , . -

The activities of the oil prospecting companies. . , . are hmrever so shrouded in secrecy that discussf ans of this important sector have always been in terms of .

generalities, The industry is entirely private exempting partial government interest in the refining. branch, A n y meaningful pol icy regarding the petroleum industry has therefore not been possible beyond broad guidelineso . . . . . . ..--. --

Than the arguments are whether the multinational oil . . .

, . . . . . . - . . . companies have 'helpc.. : - in view. of this' dilk'a of the government and her citizens on the activities

. . - - -. . of these companies and the pro$xcts of socio-economic

, . . -

develovent by the multin~tionals of the host cmtxy, 10 . . , ,

Nigeria, On this, ~anter- rick (1978: p. 23') observed that,!

,.,.At-the same time, the cmpany emphasizes . . . -.-... "... ..-. that its operations are conducted to

contribute as far as possible to.the US. ... balance of payments, pointing out t h a t

. ...- - ..-irt-every. yeor r;iil~c the war, the flow of new investments abroad has been more than off-set by the inflow of incomes from earlier investment.

, . , ,

I t seems i n c o n ~ r o v f b l e t h s t t,he rake of stipp1.y of cruds o i l was stl1)ject t o some s o r t .of control-led planning. Each . .

' V . . . . . . int.ernationa1 company was able t o adjus t i t 3 output, of crude t o its planned sales of crude and products wi th hi jh defree of effect iveness . . . . . . . .--.. -- - ...

I n other words, o i l compwies kept Nigerian crude o i l . . .

' I . . . . . . . - . . . . a s a reserve. 'This . hns d e f i n i t e l y s'iowc?d d&n

our economic development. This i s typica3. of a l l . - - -..

in te rna t iona l monopolies, ~ c h a t , a l revealed thq t s ince . . .-

Shell has had twenty years i n which t o pick thc? area . . .

where t o d r i l l for o i l and has chosen the best; s i t e s

(opt,Ima.l concession s i t e s ) i t has got, monopoly control - . . . . . . . ,.

now ant1 ,tn the future over our o i l industry. Schatzl - - . -. . . . - . 12 . .

(1960: p. 24) asserted thnt;! . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .

Its monopolistic pos i t ion in t he p i s t with respect t o l icencc s e l s c t l o n

- . . a f fo rd Shelt-DP both now and i n t h e fu tu re a posi t ion of domin~nce i n the deve lopcn t of t h e rnincral o i l industry

- i-n Nigeria, . . . . . , *

From 1.958 t o 1965 Shell-'JP was the only company p rduc ing . .". .

oi 1. Tllc Port-!farcourt ref incry was so l e ly contxol led hy"thmo

I n t h e s e se7 vcn years when i t was t,hc s o l e producer, !>his

c!omp:~ny underpaid Niger ia f o r her o i l . S u f f i c e it t o say- ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- - tlm'lt, Nigcria espcci3J.ly the 011 produciag a r e a s remained 13

largely underde-vclopcd. As Ehue i lutchful (19115: p. 1-15)

has it:,

Tl~c c r i l weal th which .fuueJ.l.etl d r w e l o p e n t i n . . . . Ni.gc?ria -has had l i t t l e t ransrdfmnt ion e f f e c t - " ' '- '" ' . . . . . . . -.-. .- ...

on t h e Rivers peasants and h i s r igorous environ- ment,. There is an almost t o t s 1 abscncc of sch.oo.l.s,, good dr inking water, e lec t r i c i t ,y , medj cn 1 mre and road3 fn many of t h o peasant comtlni tizrr. Trans- portstinnnndcormunf.s;lk.ionsarenmnjorprol~len -

i n t.he r i v c r i n e areas. They .suffer. sncj 93 mr.1 . . . . em3.ngi c33. t l ist .urtwvx inct!lrliny z x p l o ~ i ~ t ~ f r tm seismf c: si~rvcyr:, p o l l u t ? on rrom pi p c l l n c l ea l~s , t)l.m outs , : i r i l f . lng f l u i d s , and afflucn1.r; a s well a:: l j n d a?. ienst,i on and widesprmd disi-upkf on of ,.-- - -. . . . . . . .. t h e na t u r a 1. t e r r a i n from c o n s t r u c t i o n of indus t ry (1.2 "ofl.) i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and i n s t a l l a t i o n s .

Thc petrochemical asp:.. 3 ' ' t h e oil.' intlust,ry XIS considwed

hqs ccmc nut, of scaw of t h e d r i l l in!] site.: had simply hscn -

brlrnt o f f , f l o r o d In t h e l a n g t m p of the o i l companizs; o r i n

p f v n f , c f f o r t of t,he MI! j~r ian tiovernrnwl: t.o dcvclop t h i s . . . .

-- -"-aspccl; of t h e o i l i n d u s t r y is being unnccesr;ariJ.y delayed by . .

the, ,act . iong of these mu1tAnntionals wtlo nrc unwill ing t o .....

inveyt i n t,his area of tho industry.

- ... . ' . ) , .

- , ,

neforc 1965, t l ~ c grit is11 Gas- Council w m t q r l t o buy up most .. . . .-,, .. .

of it, i t would hnve caused about, 30 percent t o to tnl D-it,.fsh "

gar; mnsumpticm. I n 1905, +.he Drit,ish dlscovcred g a s deposi ts . . , - .

, C. > _ in t h e i r min country irnmediat.ely dropped and our massive dcpc-

sits of high q w l i t y gar; have been burnt, off ever si ncs.0 The l!l

,., is. t h a t 3 i a usurped, d i s J ~ m t m i ecmnmy, . . --. - .. . but1 l; t,o s w v e foreign c a p i t h l i s t s and b u i l t t o serve foreign c a p i t a l i s t s and b u i l t so well thq t nnythiny t h a t they cnnnot uac is w:,st.cd, brird-, even i f i t Is bnd in t h ~ countdry and cnn be u5ed. IE i s t h c most s e n s n t i o h l demonstration . - . of PJigerials pos i t ion a s a neo-colony of western capitalism, even more sensa t icna l than the royal t i e s swindle of 1958-1-965.

. . -. -. . . . . . .. . ., ., . . .,. ..

,--. .. - .. - . - . - ,. . -, -

If t h i s is the r e a l i t y , then something must be wrong some- - , ,

where. To counter the pressure of the western powers and

I the3.r m u l t i n ~ t i o n a l corporations, espec ia l ly or the..seuen .

sis t ,ers - Exxon, Royal Bitch Shell, She l l !3P, Gulf, I'lobil,

-7exaco :anct '~%andnrd oil. of Cal iforniq - tAe o i l producing - -. .

countr ies , (Organisstion of Petroleum Exporting Countries

(OPEC) were a t t h e : *- of Iran; Iraq, fiuwai t,' Snudi 'Arabia'

mtl Venezuela compelled t o comc toge+,hcr i n lo60 t o f33ht the . -- -.-

syztans of posted pr ices or revenues paid t o t h e host government,~ . . , . -

which t h e multinn t i onals devised t o maintain orderly, non-cno- . . .

p e t i t i v e prices among th&rlselvcs.

. . . The valuc of raw materials is in t h e progress . of wc ie ty ; pcrpet,ualI.y inc reas ing w i t h respect t o m~nuf :~c tu red goods or t o express the same

. I t h i n g i n a. di f fwent , form, t h q vz~tue of mnr~u- . . . . fwl;ure(l goocl.; I s pcrpetual1.y d i m i n i s h i n g wikh'. r ccpcc t t o rsw prot-lrrce.

:~huntlance of p r imwy products, The o p w a t i o n s of OPEC reatif ly . - - -..

come to mind i n t.he f2ce of t h e i r face-off ~ i i i t . ?~ t.he in t ,crnnt ional , . . -

- -. _.- I?' i S not, t h e product ion pcr sc which (1et.crrninc.s t.lvir pricc:;

i n t h ~ ! V Y C : ~ ~ 1 . d f r w compctl tive merkc>t,, hu t the poli t i r.ql

p m e r 7.rhi ~ 1 1 t,hc w p p ? f ers can yf el d within tA1c in?,nrnnl:I on31 17

O i 1 p r i c e s had f o r t.wcnf,y-f our yenrs rema invd - we3 1 belmt t,he 1 ~ v e L - t h a t could h a w been. f e t c b n f

i f t h e fo rces of supply and domnnd h ~ r l bcen allowed in t . e r rac t f r e e l y . They d i d rick r i s e bet,wwn 19117- - 13119 and morPovor, OPEC i t , s ~ J f 1.vs crwt,cd i n 3360 i n o r r l ~ ~ r t o prc.t~rnk f ~ ~ r t , h r r p r i r e rc4r~r.t.i nnq a f trr two d r a s t i c c u t s I n t h e 1750:;. Irr t,hc t wnt .y fcur

I yenr p-rf od, howevvr, the p r i c e of indust,ri a l , . g n ~ d ~ . and food s t u f f s incr~asm-1 5y 3CT\ pr-rrc.rlt,.

It is i~nncien+,iffr : In c?>nracF,er' ... , - - ... 'T!w assumpt-Icnr; r.xpf.anntlons and prellict,ions ... arc! o f ten fundnnicnt.~l1y . . - at, vnr iatv:c 1.rit.h d.,sr?rvetl phcnnmcn~, The prngm~!,fr preocci.~pnt ion? a r e ,wi th

,. . . corpora te e f f i c i e n d y and t h e s t , 2 t l s t , i t a l re igular i ty 0.: c e r t x in s ~ c i ? l phenommq, 'I'tlese a rc &me f o r s o c i a l enginecrjng i n

. . .. _. t h e va in a t tcmpt t o contro! t h e s u b j e c t j v e u x i l i t y t h r c o r y n f vsluc , rnargf nnlism and

-. - , . -. . - . -. . , ge11ers.l eqttnlibrium were inver ted t o . . mynt i f y and expla In away o,xpl.oitAt ion, .

... . . - . .uncqual.ityy c r i s e s , unequgl exchmkge and p thcr c a p i t a l i s t i s i r r a t i o n a l i t , i ~ s , '!'tiis brqnd of vulgar economy p r o p ~ n t e r , c a p i t f a l i s k ~ l . u c ? c , and p ro- lmpkr ia l i s t pel l c i o ? l i k e aggressive individtlal ism,

. , . , ., sub j e c t l v c s e l f i n t e r e s t , pri.v:at.c owwrshi I), t h e primacy of money and t h e p r o f i t motive,

- . .~ i )cn door p o l i c y on f o r e i g n capit ,al f r e e . .. t r n d e u n ? v u n c q u ~ l exchange, rt?l.iance on - , . f o r e i , j l ~ ? i d , c t c o Its r e l a t i o n s h i p of

. . . -. . dependence, sub-ortlinntion and eupl.oi t a t,i on between t,hc i n d u s t r i a l i s e d c a p i t a l i s t cnunt,ries . ..

,and the t h i r d world; a t t m p t s t o jo in c a p i t a , l i s t d c v ~ l o p n e n ~ models and i n s t i t u t i o n s on t h e under-developed c o u n t , r i ~ s ; and propagate

. . , .. . , ,-. .. ..

-. . . .. , . , , - . . . . . , , .. ,

T h i ? idea of a h l a n c e bct.wc,en pro i ' f t . n l ) i l i t y arxl socio-

c c r ~ o q i c : cb j c c t i v e s is being incr&ingJy adoptcclly con+

. . panics i n t h e linit.ed Kingdom. For .inntarwe, i t is incor-

CIb;l-Geigy bcl ieves that; business . . . L-. ir, not. s i r p l y anti end i n it .relf 2nd , ,,

ttmt ft must. se rve people 2nd societyo It's econmtIc: success is h ~ w ? v c r , a p r ~ , - r c q u i s i tr: t o t.11~ ::chievclmcnt of i t s a . Ciha4cigy f u r t h e r bn1.ieves t h a t in i t s a c t i v i t i e s , it. should tnttc. duc: . ,

.. . . cpnsideration:: of and harmonize a s f z r . - a,$, f t . jtldyes t,n 1 7 ~ . p o y ihlc. Th(? . . .

intmcsts of t h e general prb3 ic: and thc envlronmcnt, customers, employees, an4 . - sharohoJ ders .

on soc i o-cconomi c respnnsihi 3 it ,y swims tip not on1.y ttkis ... .. . . . . - . , . . . . . idea of hnlanc: i n 9 int,erc:st,s but, 2 l . h i l l ~ ~ t ~ ~ ' n f , c s the

attitude of many comlvnics t o prof'it, anr1 t,he view of soc~ic-

An .c..;scnt i a l pre - requ i s i t e t,o the fiilf i lrnent , , - . .. . . of Roard p o l i c i e s which a r e aimed at, bt ' ingirg , . . balance t o t,hc separat ;~ int.orcqt of i t . s shnrc;-- hol.ders, employms ( i ~ c l u d i r y pcnsion-rs) ,

. . . . . . , ...-. st.!ppl iers ,-.. cus trxners, l oca l and. nat. i onal , . . . . . . . . . . . c&un'ities - is f o r 'tt;e group t o krnde prof i t ah ly , and use i t ,s r e s n w c e s e f f c c t i-JCI y a c t i o n (wor1.d can make is t.0 f > l 1 t.c ml rc a . . . . F r ~ f i t ) . Cn!y a profit.ablr5 company c?rl s a t i s f a c t o r i 3 y d i scharge it.s ~ b l i g a t ~ i o n s t o

I a l l , of it.!? ~ ) I : ~ r c h ? l . d c r ~ . The group w i l l not, . . . . . . t ake a narrow view of its r e s p o k s i h i 1 i t . i ~ ~ but, r a the r bu i ld ing upon its long t r a d i t i o n s w i l l a n t i c i p a t e whcre possible .and be . .

. -. . responsive t o the movement. of rcpresentaLive .---. - - - . pu??Xic opinion a c r c s s the spc.ct,rum of int,ctcst.n -' '

and issues.

M!:R ITS : - -. -

nu3t.in:1t.ion:31 corporat;ion ~ : I S hrnuyht r?nt.3l,le cont.rihut,ions

t,o t.he devcl.opmcnt of F l i ~ c r i 2 econcmy. Among +,bc b e n e f i t s

. . ( a ) 1ndust.ri.nl imt . ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(b') 1nvcst.mcnt f f n a ~ c e .

(c) Papid d w e l o p e n t of the place. - . . . .

(d) Crca t, 1 ~n of cmp3 qmc?nt, f nr' t:.l\;: 110s t.' count,r ips. "

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . ,

( e ) ' T r a i n thcse nat ,Icnalr: i~ slci l?r:~3 Iabotrr.

I Jr:~r-c.o*:e: i 1 1 i ~ ? r : y n - !wr qrt1>1+ 3

. a .

( y ) I n c r z a v and irnlsrovcmr~ni, c;€ f hc r,t,nrldwcl of

i n . those area::, It wns i n t , hcc~ are27 t h t t l ~ z r e f i r s t

- , , . . . - . . S < . m c ~ t a f . u r ~ l . fac:t.or's accmmtcxlrnostly f o r t . 1 1 ~ citing of. - -.

.- . .

rapid d w e l o p e n t . and cont,rihute i n nn small measure t o . , . .

t,lw devclopmont. of' t.hirtl world c n u n t r i e s . Petm I3lm.r says . . , . . *._ ; _

t,ha t "the mu1 t,i na t i ona l c o r p o r ~ t i ons h:~vo' conkr ibut,cd i n ..

no small way to t h e idea of technology trrnsfcr i n the 7 5

. - . . (a ) Empl.oyment, f n r t h e nf i t ionals and h=ls helpcd . .

t o solve unemplopw~t . prcb3.m t o n re3soi~tb3.e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- _ . ., .. .. . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

dcyrec,

(c) 'Tlicy, ha re t r a i n 4 s(?nlc: o f t h e indigenes t.c! . I . . . . . .

acquire: techncl.ogical. s k i l . 3 ,

( 6 ) Acquis i t ion of stril'led labours, - .. .-- - - - .

t l w i r c n n t r i h u t , i n n s can be seen e a s i l y i n a r e a n such a s : , . . . . . . . . .

( c ) 1)rmec.t i r. an.1. I n t . e r m t . i o n 4 t,r:ltlc. . . .

I . .

c a p i t a l fnvcctrncnt. 113s 11c.c.n est imaf ecl t o be g r e r t , e r than public -. -.. - inve?t.menf; th~rinc-1 t,hc first, Mat 1 nnal D&el opnent PI a n peri.od

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1962-3.968,

The ~ c t . u a 1 i nver;f,nwnt. was about, ,fl,680 m i 1 I ion a s agajnst

. . . . . . t he . planned pub1.i~ investnrent of ly1,530 mill ion. In the

- scconc1 Na .-. ti ona I. Dmc l opmont PI an 1970-.?)I, t,he p3 anned not, ,

- . . p t ~ b l i ? i.nvcrstmcnt proyranlme w s Jlf1.,300 million. Only i n .

est,irnat,P.h t o be greater thnn the private and t h i s &as the ....

C. .. _ r h l t of increzsed govermentr revenue frcm. petrol.'e~im (01 1 )'I.

Frm the above, onc can see tha t with the advent of

o i l in6ustry in Nigeria a s a' r e su l t of the ac t . iv i t i es ' c i f ' 7. . .- . - ...... . . . . . .

Shel l PetroI.eum, the: revenue- accruing t;a, the government, . , . , . . - - . . . . .

skyrocketxxl and thereby brought about increased pttblic . ' -

expenditure. Theref ore,, it, could rigtlt,ly be sa id t ha t the . - - - . . .

multinat,ional corporations helped i n no small measurc in

providing finance.. f or devel.opmenf;. .The importance -ox. t h e i r . . . . . . . . . - ... --. . . . . . .. ...........

domination in investments i n Nigeria cannot, be over-emphasized. , . -

This can a l s o br i l l u s t r a t e d by quoting Arthur N~~nhvro" i n his

, a r t i c l e wr i t t en in 1.980, hc says f tO \ l t it c m he s a i d t h s t .up to

1974 when the indigenisation Decree took e f f e c t fore ign privat,e . . investment i n Nigeria as nornally estimnt,etl cotl~t;.it.trt:ed not.-..~?ss. .

. . - The network ot' roads, f lyo~rcts and ~dra inxjc system

. . . . in Lagos metxopolis a r e the har~dworlc of Julius Ber~jer. .

Likewise, nost, of the express roads linking dif.ferent toxm:;

. .,

;)F 'fh'is '-great, country Nigeria were cons t,ruct,crd by these .

-.-. ..... -.

In telecommunication .ITT has provided a good network ,

of conirnunication. Difrerent part oT the count,cy 2nd l inked :, - 1 . . .

snrl even beyrmcl. There i s an u f f ic iznt . %eleplionc syr;Lm, - ... ,

telex, tel.eprint,er etc. Underground ca1)L.z~ have becn Ia i f l

trees 6nd othw forces ,

(accordi ix~ t o Fhc K1.M pamphlet) bra..: the pcrmanerlt, teclinizal

par Lners that mol~3.ded t . 1 ~ Nigeri~n A i vmy3. They have 'con- .

. . . .. .-.. . - ...... . - - . . . . . . . . . tri'nutod ime.nsc?ly t o the? full take oI f of thc indigcmnur;.

. . . . . .

a trlinc, . . . . . . .

i n developing collnt,ri es is technicnl. Itno7,~-how or t,echnolo:-gy.

Technology embrwes product ion procenz, a p p l i c a t i m of nc?v or . #

. . . ,, .-.. imprc;.vecl. processes or m a t e r i a l s awl ncw appl!ca f; ion of . o?~d .

. . prgcesnzs o r materials. The m17l t,inat,!ma'l c o r p o r u t i m t h a t

. . . . . . The disadvanLages r>F mul-kina t i o n a l corpora t ions

f ie lds of l~umnn endca~rmw .and a s such t h e cy,~c?:;kion of!:crl .,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as!.rcd is ho~s (:nn these ;.: +.;ic grants be c o n t r o l l e d so

....... t h a t khr! econrxii.cs of t t ~ e sorlr..je countries can effectively

. . mi l i t , a ry ipx r rmwt , . Thoixj5, t,hz in,dl$mi s a t i n n Ijr:rrn(?,

-. . ._ .... . _ .. . . .I . -

, ' ~ n , !r?clmql. -gnvcmr?::nt n i 3 ~ 3 nt, l r ~ t c i n y c i+xi i ~ p ~ x i f i r i l . - .

. ..

hair-dressing, r n ! x i l trade and r i c c vil.l.inrj; i f m n1ic-n . . . , . . . . . . I S . . . . . . _

cwwl 3 : ~ h n ~ + . w : ? r i r: r e . ~ u i t e d Fn S C I ~ rr t , r~r . l : ; f r~- t.1.t~

parbncrs t o Lhe Ni. lpr inn oa-mcrs of .the business nrld t h e i r

3'. T h w k o n i o Dos Sant,os i n h i s a r t i c l e writken i n , . . <

.. . .. .... L970. he.. says : ftDat,a shows t h a t t h z nmr3unt of capi txl. . -

. - . hecomes' neccssnry i n two forms. TG c o w r t.he existing rlrzficit

t,hr?ir mock class i c ~ l l y c ~ p i t . 2 1 ist industrial develop..le?b i f

HtitchfuL; Pol i t i ca l ---. Econuy --.+ of Nit eria -A sd, . ... by Cletlde Longman N geria Ltd., 1?G), PO 1150

. I Yusuf Hala Usman, Op. c i t . p. 27. ~. .. .

tSo Lobert Torrens; Essqy on the Product.ion of Weslt,h, . (~oncfon, 1922), p.lr. . ' . ..

- -. 16s -,Alfred Marshal; Money, Credit and Commerce. (London, 19231, P o 53.

17. Uana Ba'eed A 1 Otaibe; OPEC and the Petroleum Indusw (New York: John ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , - ~ ~ ~

18. Bade Dnimociel An Int,roduct,fan to Martfst Political I . . ,. Economy (1,ondon: Zeb nooks Ltdo, 190) , pp. 2-!I. . '

- 19. ?lam Bateed A 1 Ot.aiba; Op. cit,. po l . *

2 . Herman and Humble; Social Responsibility and British .. . . ..... . Cmpani e.9 (~russels Management Cenntre Etlrom

193 J) Pacs i on. . ..

21. D6E. m o c k ; Social Respcmsihility i n Practice, fn Cost and Management (Canada, 1973) p.6. , >.-. , . .

.I

22@ Nelrose-!Jaadman and Kvermhl; l*Towards Social Raspmsibi l f ty : Cmpany Codes of Ethni ss

2, Al-C)taiba, M. .Saeed~ OPEC and Petroleum ,mu- -r9T.-- Irxiustrx . ...- N e u York r Jdm ~Ey."aiid3ons.

. . - h Briclr Pantcr (ed.); Soldier and 01 1. London

- . . Frank Cass, 1978,

Policy by Rol~ert 173vi1 e t a1 1975.

11. Xkpeze Nnnemeke; Busincss ~ o c i a l - Responsi b i l i ty , Its Canceptunl and Practical Difficulties,

.- ' '12* Levi tt Thsoclore; n'fhc Dangers- of. Social Responsibi l i tj" -.

in Ethical Theory of Business. Prent,fce-!la11 Inc. . . . - - - ~ a b ~ a ' ~ ~ " j ~ F s ' e ~ 9 7 9.

- .

3 Marsh1 Alfred; Mone Credit and Commerce London, 1 9 2 3 i L . . . ,,*.,-a,-,. L'

16, Srhutzi, I..!3. Pet,t*olemn in Nigeria, Ih(tm: Oxford University Press. 1969,,

I?. IJzongn, W09. ; "Soci o -Econ~ ic Respons fbi l i t.y of . - - .. Mu1tinat;ionnl Corporatiomw. Ru~incss

__m-.----

Quarterly Vol. 14, No. 1. -

-.-3-r- - 200 Woadman, Meirosc S Kverndal ; Y " t ~ a r d s Socf a1

Responsib i lit,y: Company Codes of Ethics and Practiceft, Management, Stirve Re ort , No. 23, Brit id, 1ns-7 H a n i $ k $ ~ l h ,

As would be expected i n modern in ternat ional - . . . . . .

- . pplif i c a l and complex business environment chatacterised , .

by diplomacy, c w e r t Intell.igence operaii ons,' pol.it,icsl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

esionage; nation s t a t e s a* being more careful in giving

out information on economy. Multinntional ~ n r p o r a ~ f a n s . , . . . .

are no l e s s careful i n giving out informatfon on t h e i r

- operations s ihce they are now more than ever before ymin$' . " .

. . - . under severe a t t acks and c r i t i c i s m from research author's

both in, the inciustrialised and most espec i s l ly tho, l e s s

developed countries. These developments i n in ternat ional , . , , A:. , - . . .

, , I

poliOics have created problems i n the carrying out of t h i s '

work.

-. . . . .... .. .Hcn.rever, much have been done i n sourcing in:formatian- . . . . - . . . . . . . .

. . . . . here anti thsrefore e f f ec t i ve carryitla out, of this research, - . . . . . .

3.1 : S O F C E 5 OF DAT.4 __ : . . . . . . - . . . . . . .

The data used i n carrying out t h i s study were col lected

from both primary. and secondary smr.ces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 8 . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,lO t : FRI MARY SOURCES. -- .,-I.,.-- . - . -.

These include data obtained frm the strr.1stured . . .-

qttcstionnaires which were dist,rihut:ocl t o tht? ~-cspondmt~s .

A n o t h ~ r i s the r e l i m ~ o on personnt nbservatlon of soc30-

econ'hi c- devclnpwnt, of this cntrnt.fy vf s-a-vis t h e contxi- - .. . -. . . - . butions of mul t inat ional corporat ions operaking in t h e .. . -.

... . . ~ . . . . - . . . . , . . , . . ,

o i l sector. I n addit ion, casual o ra l - in te rv iews were

'held with some workers i n these mul'tinat ionnl oil . campnies . # ' arid other concerned N1get.i ans t o supplement and cross-check.. '.

- t,hc f indlngs. frm the st.ructured questionnn ires and t h e .. . - ,

researcher ' s personal observation. . . , . - .

3.10 2 : ' SECONDARY SOURCES. ---W -1--..*...--.- I---.

The secondary sources of d a t s explored include A -

review of some related l i t e r a t u r e i n neuspnpcrs, m a r p ~ i n c ~ ,

journels, seminar

, .... l i b r a r i e s . These .. . .

chapter tuo.

papers and haoles ava i l ab le i n t.he d i f f e r e n t . , . .

were reviewed and proper3.y addressed i n . - , ..

A- . - . .

. . . . . Both s t t a t i f ied and tandm sampling techniques were

. .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

adopted 4 n the s e l e c t i o n of - the resporrdents for t h i s work. - , - - - - - . . . . . .

i lsrious multinat i o m l o i l compmies 'form t h e s t r a t a while '

some worlfers i n the mult,inational c?rporationr; a s we1 1 23 - . .

other inhabi tants of t h e mult inat ional o i l c m n m i e s , host

cm.rlunities as _well. ars some other Nigerians were chwen. . . . . . . . . . . . . -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

randomly. . . . . .

A t,ot,al ssmp1.a popu,lat ion P C Luo htindrsd and t.uent,y- . . . . . . I

one (221) respr.mllen+,s were chosen tisin~g the above mentioned

sampling techniques. The struc ttlred quest! m n a $re4 were ... -

d i s t r i b u t e d among t h e respondents and l a t e r co l l ec ted fw

Also camts.1 ora l interviews were held with some . - -.

workers s e l e c t 4 randomly t o a s c w t a j n the f infii mgs nbt,nJ nwi -

f r o m the questionnaires,,

3.3 : METHOD OF INVLS'TIGATION : -.a .-a- .-

. The questiant~aires received back from the respondents , . - . .

were properly arranged and quiclcen annlysis, Out of t w g

hundred and twenty-one (231.) qu!~stiom~irc?s distributed, four . . . .

-. , (4) of them represent,ing ahbut L,Q$ vcre no t r c t u r n d . TIN . . . . . . I . . . . . . . -

. .xxst )rev2 caPc?fttll.y scrut iq'~crd and five ( 5 ) of thcm rcpre- - . . - - - -

scnt ing about 2,_7*4 were discarded bdcausc tatley were impropcrl y

f i l l e d , ..Thereforv, fnr.the plrposss of an;lIyri?., t%ro - - .

tical comment.^ were thcn used t o finalize the findjngs from - . the quc?st.ionnaires,

The contingency table Is designed t o enable the -.. . . . .- -. . . 2'- cnl.culat;ion .of the st,atdist;ical I;e.st. to he used which :s x -

Where ol P observccl responses

ei .= expected responses.

1, Nmbuokei , POCO; F~tm?~nc .n ta l s of Sta t ,€s t i cs Enugu: Ctuka Printing Copy, Wd. 1986,

2, Silcrthone Coll in e t a l ; The Whet) h?xn and How of -.---r-u-

Sta t i s t i c s , champa i ~ n o ' T b - 3 E i Fes m33;3 coy. 19Co0

CWPTER FOUR - - "m. -.- ,--

DA'J'A ITESEWTA'TION AND ANALYSIS _L C......... _).L__...S . *__..I -

presentml in the hypot.hcs 1: Tormalat~d i n chapter one.

......

It i s g m a n c t o rcrcal.1 t h a t of thc! tot,ftl of two . . . . .

hundred and twerrt,y-cnc (221) quo.st,ionna i r e s cii str ihtlt,ed

that, four (11) represent.ing 1 ,&$ werr, not rot.urnc8,

Fcreovcr five (5 ) rc.present,ir,g 7.37 of t,t~ose quwt ionnairc .~ . 7

-- retmnecl were di~cardsct for the simple r~asorl that fat,

. . , the purpose.. of. an21 ysi s, two hundred and txel.ve (73 7)

qr.te~t.icmnnires representing 9 5 . s of the cytest,ionnni.rcrt

distrfhuted uere mnde use of, . . . - , . . .

- Fwthermore, i n order t o e l . i c i t adequate i,nformt.Jon ' " . . .

for a detailed annl ysi5, the rescnrcher preparcd and .

- . . . . One set. %as ahinist ,c .red to the rncmtxrs of multina1;ionnl

- . , .

o i l companies host commtini t: i e s an4 cther Nj y x i ~ n s . "I'hc .-.

quest.innnaires is mnrked a s "Appendix A" and a tot.;l3. of

one hundred and thirty two (132) representing h 2 e 3 of . . , 1

the questionnaires used for t h i s analysis deldng to this

category, The other set, marked "Appendix. Btl was admini-

s tered on the s t a f f of multinational oil cmpar~ios and. ' ........ ... . . .... . -

for the-purpose of this analysis ~ight ;y . (80) of the . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .

q u c ~ t f clnn:lir cs rcpr~scnt . inq 37.7% o f the qucs t.ionna ires -

werc. used. . , . . . - . . , .

A stmary of responses to the questionnnirer:

administered wil l . be p r e s e n t ~ d here, First, i s the

cpest,ionnnires arlmirlistctd on the members of mu1 ti- . . . . . .

na t i on01 o i l companies hose cmmunig i:.ies and other

Are you a res fden t of nat,ive of thi? place? If res iden t gpYeslt, other- 'iif se Watt,

.., . . .

Have you eves experienced any damayehazard due t o o i l s p i l l a g e ?

. , . . . Are you adequabe1.y cmpensa t,ed f o r these dsmageshazards?

From the above t a b l e , there seems a c3,ear fndicat.inn t h a t - , ,

the act.1 v i t i es of mul.t,inationa o i l ccrmpanics cause sme ' I .. .. . .

kind of damages or the other in areas whero such ~ c t i v i t . i o s

a r e ca r r i ed out. Morevoves, qut.te a good numI)er of tliose . . . . . . . . - - - - - . .

on which t he quest,ionnaires were adminfat.erw1 on, t h a t is

have experienced one form 01 damage or the ot.hr!r rcsttl t i n g

f r n act.ivitier; of o i l companies were of the v i m t,hat. corn- - - -.-

pensation fo r t h e ~ ~ dmages were non-~xist,enc:e and i f they . -

come, weTe gross ly fnndequate, . .

If y m arc: a r~sident. , hmr 3 ong hsvc: you 1 ived h c r ~ ? I ,. .- . .

( a ) elo ow 3 y s m ~ , . .

(b) Betoween' 11 and :

--.- TCYTAI. :

. . . .

One can u n d ~ r s t a k from the above table th9t

majority of the residenks have only resided in thc - . ._ -..-. - cmuni t i e s for IPSS thnn 3 years an11 therefore may

... . -.

.... nct. fr! s , m q , c 3 s ~ s be ahle t o appreciat,e or ot.herbrise

the impacts of the act iv i t . i e s of m i i l t , f n ~ t . l m s J o i l

compani es in the communities were t.hc?y ruside. However, . a . . . . -.

onc cannot he lp but appreciate whatever cont.sibut,ions - ... ., .,

on thc assessment of the ac t iv i t i e s of multinntionnJ. ni 1.- . .

- companies made by thaw! who have ijved for tr~rw~td cf

11 years 2nd which rcprrsent,~ h?,e6% of this category o f

.In effect,, thercfare, t h e assessment on the cont.ribut,inm A

of mult.inat.ir.na1 of1 c m p n i o s nn the swio-cconmnic ?eve-

I.opment of their host. cmmtmities and Nigeria in genera?. . ,

made by those who have lived for 4 years upwards cmrld hc . . . . . . . . . . .

'TABLE 111 . . --

Which of these fac i l i t i ec ; indicat,ed belcw arc focmrt In

your c m u n i t i es? .. - . -. . . . ., -- .. . . . . . . .

1ndust.ries oC any kind,

Pr imary/secondary/tert iary

!n.;titut,i~ns,

E l ~ c t r i c i t y ,

l~osp i ta l /~I! :pn: ,

Post Offfcco

Good drinking wat,cr,

A 1 1 of t,he shnveo

There is an indicat,ion frm the sbove table t.hnt Icss ' . ,. - - tkar r 4% of 133 peopie have industxier: of wtlat,cvcr kind in

t.c the exf stence of onc eclucat,ional 1n.r.titut.ion or a n o t h r . ,

i n their cmmntmities. Those t h a t admitted the existence ,. - # . . . . . .

i n t h e i r c m t m i t ies of electricity; water frcm h11,7m;

-.were of tohe view t h s t a1 1 the amenit . i~s nnfi facilitf ?s

indicahed above exist, in t h e i r c c m u n i t i e s .

(b) St,d.c G ~ c r r u n e n t ~ ~ , .

(c ) Local Government,

(e) Other oryanizatjons. .-.-.

. . A perusal of t,hc above tah1.e ind.icates that. the , , - ,

bulk of the f a c i l i t i e s enumerat.ecl i n table 11.1 were provided . . . , ., . . - . ..

by the s t a t e government and federal. government; in the' pr'd-

porti on o f 48.48$ and 36.36% r e ~ p e c t ~ i v e l y . Mutt innti m n l oil -- - - - . . , . - 4

corporations and i n general mu1 tinat.3 onal corpora t. ions account,

for only 7,58$ of these f a c i . l i t j e s with varicws ' local .. .

' I ments and other organizat.ions ( u n s ~ e c i f f ed ) tra f l ing hehind

.. . . .

with b ,5!% and 3.03% respectively.

tab le V

What f s ycnlr at.t.i t,irde towards the mul,tinat i o m l . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . - . . .

companies for ti i t : rquate compnsa t,f ons?

(a) Passives kys- (b) Resentment, towards arly new

I ' " .'Conpanye 10 -.- . -" . . -.. .

(c) Peaceful Protest, 311

A glance a t the above tab le indicate that 3h0t5% of 82

-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . people who said t h t compehsa tions of ' clamages resal t,i'n{, f r(m '

. - .. a c t i v i t ' i e s .of mu.ttinatimal o i l compgn'ie3 do not do anyth.ing

t o redress t h f s s i t u ~ t ; i a n whi.lc! 12.3'3 show one form 6f' te3ent.-

ment of. the other tmwrds other nplw comjanies. Then 11h03[1;3'0 . - - - . sa id that pacefu3. prot.est,s are their answer to such burning

i s w e s .and still 7.33% resor ts t o .v!olc,nt protests i n .such -

si tua3iona and s trongly believed that thn t 1s t h e only . . . .

panacea for such misdemeanour,

In your o m assessment, w l m t i s thcl level of cont.tibu+.iom of these multinal;iom1 o i l conpanins in tile socio-esonmic 'd&velolmmt. of your community and Nigeria a s a whole? ._ -. .

Fr'om the table 9.955 of t h e respontlcnts agreed t h a t . . 1 .

the efforts being made by the mtilt,inntimal o i l companies *

in the socio-economic dmel.openf; of Nigeria a s very adeqtiat.e,

l%rthcrmore, 307% of the responrlcnt,s collahorsteti t h s above . ,. ..., .. .. . . ..

asserti.on by saying that; efforts of rnultina t,i onal o i l conj.nnCds .. .. . . . . . . .- . . .

are just adequate. .. ,

Conversely, 7 hoop! ri!j pmcent;sge o f the respondent.$, . - . . that i s blo67% were of the view t h a t the efJ'or.t.s of mtr1t.i-

Nigeria i s inadequate, and a furthm 27,27$ dexr ibed . . thcir . .

efforts a s grossly insdecyia t,e. Fur+.hermore, a stunning

cmpsnIes i n t h ~ socio-scononic development, of JYi:lerl a, h t -- -. .

is presented below.

. . . Tahls VII .- . .

Please Indi cat.c the nsnc of the cmpmy i n ~.rhf.ch

( f ) Texaco Ovcrsess

A run-through of above table i z~ i l ica t ,~r ; t h a t of t h r *

lefghty (80 ) reqmxlen%n frovl t,hc s t a f f of nuItimKinrinl

pi 1. ccmTr~ni~o , t.hnt 8 or 10% nre working with Cl~evron; 11 or

and 6 or 7.5% w i t h Gv.rl f. , S t i l l . , a further 12 or 15% uorl! with , . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . _ . .

Texaco Overseas; 9 or .L..,.;, ,': w i t h Texaco Nigeria; 7 or 8,75%

Table V I L Z -..-A*--.-

... , . . . - . .. -. What is your position i n t h e compmy?

- .. .--- -- - firm v?ri~nrz nu7 t , i n n t i n m I oil c o n p n i ~ s 2% in4icated on

For hmd long have yo:r uorkwl i n t:,his compnny?

From t ; t ~ a1w.m t,ahle, 116 out, of 80 s t a f f tnterviewml

!Tm? fir i z y ~ r p!"ce nC rn!;?r-ience frrrm ymr work plnce?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . 1' .I. -I-*- .I- - I..--- - --. I;- I-̂ I I ,..-I--

( a ) , , Less thnn 1 hm, . . .

(h) Detwwn .I. - 3km. 2 5 33 2.5'

Ahav~..3!un,~ . .I=! 1 5 . . . . . -.-. . ~ - ~ ~ - . . - . - L . - - - - - - - - . . - . . , I ..*C----"- - - -.-,. TOTAL : - - .- - 100

*.-- -

more t h n 3 km frtrn ~rt .? f - - , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

( 3 ) no ycwi tee ] the i m p c t nf ' rlist,nnce from your place of work on your rat ,e o f p u n c t u a l i t y ?

Is your cmnpmy econmicn t 1 y responsl ve t.0 t hc yearnln!~?

t,hs pc:nplr*? --.----------

t A l e a l s o indicat ,es t h a t 33 o u t of 80 r e ~ p o n d ~ n t , $ f s l t thnt,

-'

' ' - 'Lhinli n f ' any o t h v t.hing b u t soc i a l l y respnn.;ihl.e. A vbrv . . .. .

important f m t u r o of t.hT.: t a b l e is 3 .;hnrp dIchot,nrny hot,wc;sn .

In krh:it, a r m s a r e the compnni.c:s r;.clcial:y rcsy.,on!jihle?,, - . , ., . . ., - 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(n) Provision of.good drinking w t z r I

(h) Du.tl.d!n:j of rm:!r, 2nd bridges.

- - --. - arca of provision of gontl drinking water:, 7 or n057q ' ! in

. schmLs; 3 or 3,,754 i n amrd of scholarship d l i l e . those that'.'

-

. . .

.... ~- ----- ---- -. -.--

(?) i s - ~ ~ v i s i o n o f farm inpi+-.+. , .. . .

(F:) Const.ruct,icn of m:irkr?t,s, .... . .,

( c ) Qttf l.dir?lj ni irxiustricrs, ......- .... . -

1 C!

. (1. Corrstrwct,icn of good access roacls, G> - . . . . - - , .-- - 1 ,m, - .. .. ...

TOT'RL : --__I----.-. ----

cconmic bencf its of thc perrpls whi 1.e for IF35 and 1906, i t

at t . ractet l t,hs a f f irmat-ion of 5 and 11 r ~ s p o n r l c n f . ~ respr'c'f :lei yo - . . -. . - . . - ,

Wnt per&~nt,;lge of t . 1 ~ mtnpar,I~s p r o f i t a f t m e t.m for t,he pnst t h r c o years havo hem trsed for the aoci?l devel.apn~nt, of the nat. inn,

- 0 .

mtllt1nat.f cnnl 011 cornpanic!: uses p3rt nf t t e i r prof lF.5 f o r . .

.... ~dciri'l"dkvelolmclr\t: of Nigeria, 1.5 vnt..o!l f'w. bet.v:yn O,<. rrp:I, *. .. . . . . - . . .- . - . . . . ~ . . . - ICY 3 4 +.hp 7rncq.m'-. epcnt, fct- so?! 31. 6 r v ~ l q-qr:nt; i n J.?9il ~ , , l ~ f f ~ ,

. . . . .

8 fox. het,kreer! 31 wcl 3m, 6 for bct.wem 31 n g d 3fl srld J I vr-:re

FinaX!y, f o r 3996, i t is 1.h f o r 0.5 and ICY$, 1.0 .for: 11 ,?nd 2H; ..

5 f ~ r 2 and 3C$ and 11 for. 31 and IICG,

'C~ble XIX -

Looking a t t h e abmw t ~ h l c , @n& will 5638 thqt. e f the . . , A _ . .. ..

31.2' re3ynndent,s, a t,ot.al o f 13 affirmed that ~.het2wsen 1 and ,.

of the p r e f i t are rqmtr fa ted ahroad for 1 9 9 / ~ , 1995

and 1996, And fozq t h e same p r i o d , 30 n g r e ~ d t h a t 11. tp

-. . .-.. are-'repatriated abroad while 115 attc?st,ed 21 and -3%- , - . . . .- . -. .

of the p r o f i t a s being r ~ p a t r i a t e c ! t o mult,inat,ionals

p a r e ~ t c o u n t ~ i e s . Moreover, for the same pcriod, 54 . , , . , . . . ,

opined t h a t between 31 and hC% of the profit. made is . .

repatriated abroado ., --. .. - - . .. . - . . . . . . . . .,

. . . . .. .. - .

4 - ,

Table XX . - , . ... -- ... Why 1s i t that, multination~l oil cmpan3es seem Lo he

only interested in maximizing their gains at t,he expanse of the- nation?

r .... -...---- L ,I_--e.,--._ .--- I High cost of provfding. 1 n.fr :~- st,ruct,vral f~c2lttfe$, . . . , - , . . . .

(h) La% of. st,;rtut,orjr reQuLat,i~ns - - ,

on n I 1 companies 1331 Nigerian y ovetnmn t .

i

(d) Improper co-3rd i na t i on,

1 TOTAL:

Fuy$hr?r\nore, ? I l were for- irnjropcr co-or;lin:rt,!.nn rdhflc ?1 .--.- -. .

-. - -..- . .. formul-atd in chapter onc.

cf' +.he ' n n t i on.

I l l tjh r:od o f provillirq infrar;t,t-nct,tlr?l l'7f:tl 1t.i r-n,

i,=t(!17 nf -t.?t::t ~7 v r.cc;\i! ?I!. ~ . c , w

r x i (11 1 .cc.rtlpnr\lc-.: I!!' T\ii::ori?n g - v c r v r n t

I,:lcl! of p ~ l l , ? i c # ' $

Irnpr-opcr cn-crdi r!nl.i.cn,

( c ) Pcrccf\:ml act, o f ~nl>o+,nyr? t,o-cr?mPanier: f-rcil if,icf: 6 h0st.c:. . .J.Y,- - -- ,. - ...--,.. ,--- ". - ro! f i r , :

. . . . Year -. -*.----,-- ...... ".,---"-

I? ?. -.. - . .-- - -. .

2 0 . ...... w--,--.- ..... -.- ... ,

<. ...... .... .

--- Cells . . . . - 'e 3.1.

e 13 *

=l4 ,, . .

"2 1

e22

") '- 3

"3.4

e31

'e32 - ' ' . . . .

e33

"31

- .

LOW i r+-""" ISerV9

Responses (0) - .

Degree of freedom 5 ( R - 3 ) C-1) . . . . . . . . ,

9 From statistical table X" 0.05, 6 = 12.5??

........ !yypat;hc?r; 1s ) wli: zh I ; ~ D : T ? ~ 5h;)t t .h? mt11 t i mt i on?? CO~[W- ' )~ ; .~ 093 " . . . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . .

. .- - bransf zr of sufyl.uszs f.0 t h c mc!tt~!so!.o cnntrbstlted t,o :,':I(. . - . ,

It i s germane to c n n d l f t d ~ t h i s work with a t r i e r

-mr iorts r e ~ c a r c l l s r r ; and srkhnrs on thc s ~ i n-ecnnnmii.

-. , ,.., . _ .. 1 . .I ... . . . . . . . . . . . t l~ is played an. important, role in the formulntion of four,

. . . . . ' hypothesis prcrsent,eti f o r research. An2 therefore in fur.Lher.- . -

a w e v i t h the o b j ~ c t j w of ?roving or othetwisc: thzse hyyo- , . . . , , . , . , . - - - . .

3

kilesis, this resenrchzr employeti tho. c ! l i squsre (x'-) dist,'ri-

bi.!tIon y i v c ~ t h e fnrmula: (2 - E . . . . . . . . ... .-.

.. - - . , .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... -..

..a . . . . . . . - . . . E .''expected responses '

. . . . . . . . The !E1 is calculat,ed hy rml t ip ly in i j the rov (F?) t o t a l

vrith the amlysis o? responw.; frorrl respondents t o the t ~ r o - . . , hundred 31x1 twelve questf onnnires t h a t were made wc? i n t h i s

. . . . . s02 : RF,COTWN,!JATI<YJ : , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-..x -- Taking 1nt.o account L i l i : znormaus wea l th which is

derived from t,hc o i l industxy a l v l a190 the ronnayeri?? and ' - - - .

technologir :~l know-hmr possessed by the o i l companies, one

nc7+,ihn, s k i a l l y ?r\d e c r n m 1 c ~ I 1 y FIT only s spit , fn t h e - - --. - .

. -. owan. Rased on thcse inadeqtiac:ies on' t.hc p a r t of these '-. . . . . . . . . . - - . - . . . . . . . .

emymiet;, t h ~ Tollowi ng recommmda t i on..: a r c herehy put

. .. 117t. ton.

(a) k l cw 3, Y C ~ V - ,r/; ( I > ) T ? ~ ~ , ~ ! ; b ~ t l dT (c ) Above 9 years 7 - 7 , - -

( 3 ) I :~(luqtt ic:: o r nnjr 1 : i r d (I?) Primnry /7= ( c ) : ; c p n a r y r"7; (d) Ter+i:3ry r 7 (F ) ~ 1 C c t , r i c f t ~ ' ~ / , ( T ) l l ~ s ; i t r l / l l ~

- -- 1 r ~ - t . i t -~ t t , l o m -

DCnY7: V /7 P o 4 Off i cc m; (11) (irmrl d r i k i n q ~ Y I G /7 -

5. I f yotw arrswcr is Yes, wFlo provltlctl for t h t m ?

(b) State Government, f -7 -

(a ) l.ifr -.- , (h) b?nt.ar -/; ( c ) ~ u i ? d j . n i ~ - ' -

70 Jf my, are you atleqwstely comp~nsntml fnr t,hrse cl~rnngm?

( c ) Mot compenwt,cd - . . 0, Ihve yo91 evcr honc!fittcd frnm tile cmpany s t a f y

facilitim I ikc: schools, hocl ) i t sIs , water supply?

10. I f c , d, or c l , slmvc, what: steps or siiqqer;t,ion.: vould

. , (d) 5'; &dabn.\re /7 --

ITc l t r f ?,r t :; jro!.lr x'cr; i.rir:n(:c froti1 yrnlr ' n f f l ! : c? '

. . . . (2.) l,csl: t h n ! Itm 7 ; (b) 1 - 3 lm /T ..--- -- -

, .. , . . , ~ , . . - . . . . L)q you f u ? ? t11. 'f, of t.11!3 r l i ?f;nl~:rr! on y!):lr r:St,c o f p1tnctt.ra1.i ty? 'Ye:: - ;-; No - 1-7-

( - I ) ;;r*t-y ~ctqqtmbc 7-7 (c ) I /-7 I ) n r l r y ~ i ~ b * - /F - ((1) ylp~j-~-v ; : : f . ~ n t - r , --

, l?;lzIvon.!, 17,r.{.,tlur (ctl); , J ? r - j . i ' ? ~ ~ n t , ~ ~ j y ~ ! , ! m p1111 - -.-,- ,- - --.-F---. -- Uis1nLe;jsbt - - -- - . ion. . . - ~ , o n c h : (P fad ~ l n ~ v c r s IT:^ 157-:1::c,

, .