Trend analysis of the Nigerian budgetary allocation to the education sector from 2009 â 2018 with reference to UNESCOâS 26% Benchmark

Philosophy

The importance of education in boosting the manpower of an economy cannot be overemphasized. This critical sector has been bastardized, relegated and put in a dust bin position through paltry figures usually allocated to it by the Federal Government of Nigeria. This paper presents a holistic trend of budgetary activities in Nigeria with a particular focus on the allocation to the Education sector using times series approach from 2009-2018. Two research questions were answered using secondary data gathered from the Central Bank of Nigeria's Statistical Bulletin, 2018. Collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while the results of the analysis showed that, the total allocation to the education sector from 2009 â 2018 is N4,038,115,000,000. The results further revealed a difference of N 10,311,805,000,000 between UNESCO benchmark of 26% and the actual allocation to the education sector for the same time period. It was concluded that the total allocation made to the education sector within the time period of 2009-2018 is generally low, and below the UNESCO benchmark. Based on the findings, it was recommended amongst others that the Federal Government of Nigeria should adequately fund the educational sector by allocating at least 26% of her budget to the education sector as prescribed by UNESCO.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 1 Trend Analysis of the Nigerian Budgetary Allocation to the Education Sector from 2009 – 2018 with Reference to UNESCO'S 26% Benchmark Odigwe, Francisca N, Ph.D. & Owan, Valentine Joseph Department of Educational Administration and Planning University of Calabar, Calabar Abstract The importance of education in boosting the manpower of an economy cannot be overemphasized. This critical sector has been bastardized, relegated and put in a dust bin position through paltry figures usually allocated to it by the Federal Government of Nigeria. This paper presents a holistic trend of budgetary activities in Nigeria with a particular focus on the allocation to the Education sector using times series approach from 2009-2018. Two research questions were answered using secondary data gathered from the Central Bank of Nigeria's Statistical Bulletin, 2018. Collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while the results of the analysis showed that, the total allocation to the education sector from 2009 – 2018 is N4,038,115,000,000. The results further revealed a difference of N 10,311,805,000,000 between UNESCO benchmark of 26% and the actual allocation to the education sector for the same time period. It was concluded that the total allocation made to the education sector within the time period of 2009-2018 is generally low, and below the UNESCO benchmark. Based on the findings, it was recommended amongst others that the Federal Government of Nigeria should adequately fund the educational sector by allocating at least 26% of her budget to the education sector as prescribed by UNESCO. Keywords: Trend analysis, Nigerian budget, UNESCO, Benchmark, Education sector, Allocation to education Introduction Investment in education is as important as the plan for nation-building. It has the capacity to boost the human capital assets of individuals and fosters economic advancement for increased welfare and livelihood. Using computing terms, the importance of education in the economy can be likened to a computer motherboard, which houses all other components within the system unit, as well as peripheral devices used in controlling the entire computer system. In the same manner, education is the hub which connects all other sectors, serves as the processing or coordinating unit of the economy, a veritable tool for expanding man's knowledge, and a means for enhancing rapid economic productivity. Education also contributes immensely to technological development both in terms of the acquisition, adaptation, capital widening and deepening (Omotor, 2017). An educated man is more efficient with a high degree of productive capacity and INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 2 minimal waste. The significance of education can also be perceived in the sociopolitical stability of a nation. The attendant effect of this is overall economic growth and development (Omotor, 2017). It follows from these assertions that there is a clear difference between an educated man and another who is not educated in terms of socioeconomic, political, religious, and technological contributions to national development. According to Offem, Aniah, Agunwa, and Owan (2017), the quality of human resource available in any nation is dependent on their skills, creative abilities, training, and education. If the human resource of a country is well skilled and trained then the output would also be of high quality. On the other hand, a shortage of skilled labor hampers the growth of an economy, whereas the surplus of labor is of lesser significance to economic growth. Human resources of a country should be adequate in number with required skills and abilities so that economic growth can be achieved. The educated population is a major determinant of economic growth (Offem et al., 2017). This shows that human skills cannot be developed without education (whether formal or informal). The quality of education offered in Nigeria today is not without myriad of problems. It is very disheartening to say that, education in Nigeria is at the taproot level vis-à-vis developed economies of the world who are operating at leaves and branches level. One major issue bedeviling the effective implementation of educational policies and consequently, national development in Nigeria is inadequate funding. While it is commonplace to see good educational policies being formulated in Nigeria, it is also uncommon to see that such policies are not adequately followed at the implementation stages. Therefore, such good policies collapse due to inadequate budgetary figures allocated to this crucial sector. The issue of poor financing of education remains unchanged even in recent times and justifies one of the reasons why the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) specified that, for educational systems of developing nations to witness stability, at least 26 percent of such nations' budget must be channeled to the education sector (Ekaette, Owan, & Agbo, 2019:56). On the contrary, the allocation usually made in Nigeria to this pivotal sector is not mouth-watering and can hardly convince anyone that such a country of Nigeria's repute will forego a benchmark forecasted by a world-known organization. Oweh (2013) affirms that education sector in Nigeria still faces the problem of inadequate funding with regard to the benchmark advocated by UNESCO that all member countries ought to channel at least 26% of their annual budget to education alone. Ifionu and Nteegah (2013) assert that the budget is a key government tool for the implementation of social, political and economic policies and priorities. Despite its importance, the budgeting process in Nigeria has been characterized by policymakers rather than a participatory approach to goal design and priority setting (Amakom & Obi, 2007). A critical look into 1999, 2000 and 2010 budgetary provisions for education in Nigerian showed that 16.77%, 4.08%, and 10.24% went to the sector respectively while in 2011 and 2013, it got 10.24% and 8 percent respectively, a far cry from the year 1999 and 2010 appropriation (Daily Independence as cited in ((Onuma, 2016). Relying on the benchmark advocated by UNESCO, it is implicit that the Nigerian education sector INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 3 still faces the problem of inadequate funding. No public policy or programme will reach a successful end without a supporting means. The bastardization of education in Nigeria can also be held accountable for poor economic growth and development-related issues. A look at the Human Development Index released by UNESCO in 2018 (Table 1) shows a clear evidence that Nigeria is sitting in 24th position out of 54 African countries, and 157 in the world in terms of educational development, and lagging behind several West African countries like Ghana, Cameroon, Kenya. Nigeria is also characterized by low human development when countries like Seychelles, Mauritius, Algeria, Tunisia, Botswana, Libya, and Gabon are cruising at the top with high human development figures. Table 1: List of African Countries by Human Development Index Africa Rank Global Rank Country HDI value Change in HDI value 2016–2017 High human development 1 62 Seychelles 0.797 Increase 0.004 2 65 Mauritius 0.79 Increase 0.002 3 85 Algeria 0.754 Increase 0.002 4 95 Tunisia 0.735 Increase 0.003 5 101 Botswana 0.717 Increase 0.005 6 108 Libya 0.706 Increase 0.013 7 110 Gabon 0.702 Increase 0.004 Medium human development 8 113 South Africa 0.699 Increase0.003 9 115 Egypt 0.696 Increase 0.002 10 123 Morocco 0.667 Increase 0.005 11 125 Cape Verde 0.654 Increase 0.002 12 129 Namibia 0.647 Increase 0.002 13 137 Republic of the Congo 0.606 Decrease of 0.006 14 140 Ghana 0.592 Increase 0.004 15 141 Equatorial Guinea 0.591 Decrease of 0.001 16 142 Kenya 0.59 Increase 0.005 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 4 One of the core reasons why Nigeria is lagging behind amidst her Africa's contemporaries is due to poor financing and insufficient funding of education. Thus, it is common to see in Nigeria that many schools lack buildings, facilities, shortage of human resources to drive planned policies, poor supervision, monitoring, amongst others. All these issues are tied to finance in one way or the other. Classrooms are highly unequipped in many Nigerian schools, especially public schools. It is also common to see children learn under tree shades as classrooms, and under other poor learning environments. Below are images of poorly financed schools in South-East Nigeria. 17 143 São Tomé and Príncipe 0.589 Increase 0.005 18 144 Eswatini (Swaziland) 0.588 Increase 0.002 18 144 Zambia 0.588 Increase 0.002 20 147 Angola 0.581 Increase 0.004 21 151 Cameroon 0.556 Increase 0.003 Low human development 22 154 Tanzania 0.538 Increase 0.005 23 156 Zimbabwe 0.535 Increase 0.003 24 157 Nigeria 0.532 Increase 0.002 25 158 Rwanda 0.524 Increase 0.004 26 159 Lesotho 0.52 Increase 0.004 26 159 Mauritania 0.52 Increase 0.004 28 161 Madagascar 0.519 Increase 0.002 Source: Human Development Report (2018) – Human Development Indices and Indicators INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 5 Source: Ebonyi State Ministry of Education, (2018). In a study, Nwadiani (2012) identified underfunding, shortage of all other resources except learners; and politicking and lack of political will as antecedent elements to the rots in education in Nigeria. According to Onuma (2016), schools at all levels lacked basic infrastructure and qualified teachers, suffer inadequate allocation, inadequate funding, features abandoned capital projects, such as library and laboratories. The attendant and composite effects are poor quality teaching and poor performance of students at the internal and external examinations in West African Certificate Examination (WACE). These most times lead to the closure of schools and strike actions (Omotor, 2017). Onuma (2016) presented the trend of Nigeria's allocation to Education from 1988 to 2007 as presented in Table 2. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 6 Table 2: Federal Government Financial Allocation to Education, 1988-2007. (20 years) S/N Year Total budget Allocation Education % Alloc. 1 1988 24, 365, 232, 328 584, 130, 070 2.40* 2 1989 30, 107, 057, 130 1,067 179, 030 3.55* 3 1990 39, 763, 988, 960 1,126, 664, 140 2.83* 4 1991 38, 665, 978, 779 419, 906, 180 1.09* 5 1992 52, 036, 021, 610 2,008, 340, 430 3.86* 6 1993 114, 600, 529, 300 6,436, 080 750 5.62* 7 1994 110, 500 000, 000 7,878, 084, 920 7.13* 8 1995 155, 500 000, 000 12,728, 676, 390 8.19* 9 1996 188, 221, 068, 083 12,135, 951, 790 6.45* 10 1997 4004, 000 000, 000 16,440, 162, 819 4.97* 11 1998 260, 000 000, 000 26,721, 320, 906 10.28* 12 1999 419, 500 000, 000 27, 712 000, 000 6.61* 13 2000 677, 511, 714, 733 56, 668, 169, 766 8.36* 14 2001 894, 214, 805, 186 62, 567, 055, 443 7.00* 15 2002 1,064, 801, 253, 520 73, 435, 499, 300 6.90* 16 2003 765, 100 000 000 13, 900, 000, 000 1.82* 17 2004 1,849, 400, 000, 000 93, 770, 000, 000 5.07* 18 2005 1,846, 000 000, 000 92, 000, 000, 000 4.98* 19 2006 1,900, 000, 000, 000 92, 000, 000, 000 4.84* 20 2007 2,300, 000 000 000 186, 000, 000, 000 8.09* % Average 5.457 Source: Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin and information [2013] available on www.nigeria.gov.ng as cited in (Onuma, 2016). The budgetary figures as presented in Table 2 indicate that the education sector had received paltry sums from the national budget between 1988-2007. The highest percentage allocated during this period was 10.28% which was allocated in 1998. The INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 7 lowest allocation made to the education sector between 1998-2007 was 1.09% in 1991. All these figures including the highest allocation made, are well below the 26% advocated by UNESCO. This shows that education has not been adequately funded in Nigeria during this time period. Onuma (2016) reveals from his study that, Federal Government allocation fluctuated in the percentage of the total budget to education from 2.40 percent in 1988 to 8.09 percent in 2007. This shows an indication of underfunding of education in Nigeria. The purpose of this paper therefore is to explore further and present the trends of the allocation made to the education sector by the Nigerian Government from 2009– 2018. This is necessary in order to expound further, the hidden issues in the funding of Education in Nigeria, and extend more on the work of Onuma (2016). The study also used a unique approach in analyzing pictorially/graphically the allocations apportioned to the education sector from 2009 to 2018. The study showed the trends and other salient analyses that are groundbreaking in revealing the poor state of educational funding in the country using a trending approach. UNESCO 26% benchmark is the reference point of this trend study. Thus, this study provides current data, builds on previous studies, closes the gaps that were not covered in past studies, as well as building a framework for future studies. The study is quite different from all other existing based on its unique approach that is simple and clear in explaining the observed phenomena. Statement of the Problem The role of education in elevating any nation's rapid growth and development cannot be overstated. It is the nexus that strengthens all other sectors of an economy. Those in health, politics, economic, and even agricultural sectors rely on education for the acquisition of skills and for coping with societal dynamics. Just like all other policies, educational policies require adequate financing to stir up all other activities revolving around it. Unfortunately, the educational sector in Nigeria has faced several bottlenecks, one of which, is the poor financing of the sector. The political dominance, especially from the executive arm of government, has not been providing adequate funds to stir up educational activities in the country. Every year, annual budgetary estimates are released, with little of such proportions allocated to the education sector which ought to have been given more priority. UNESCO specified that developing nations should allocate at least 26 percent of their estimated budget to the education sector. Available evidence suggests that, while focused nations (including some in West Africa) are meeting or surpassing the benchmark set by UNESCO, Nigeria is far away from reaching this feat. Hence, the human development index of the country is very low. The data released by HDI as presented in Table 1 indicated that the HDI of Nigeria only increased by 0.2% from 2016 to 2017. Thus, it is unsurprising to see the so-called small countries like Kenya, Ghana, Cameroon, and even Equatorial Guinea, overtake Nigeria in terms of educational standing. These days many Nigerians now run to such small countries for education, and those with academic degrees from such countries are respected so much in Nigeria. The same politicians who refuse to fund the education sector now send their children/wards to foreign countries for education, due to the poor state of education in Nigeria. If every INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 8 country had underfunded education sector like Nigeria, where would our politicians have taken their children to? Will there have been rapid technological advancement as we see today? What is the hope of the common man who cannot afford three-square meals, let alone send his child to abroad for education? Based on these prevailing circumstances bordering around a sector as critical as education, one may be tempted to say that, Nigeria is far from reaching the sustainable development goals she currently yearns for. This study, therefore, was undertaken to uncover the budgetary figures allocated to education from 2009 to 2018 as a means of proving even to a blind man that, there is problem of underfunding of the education sector even up till 2018. Research Questions 1. How much fund has been allocated to the education sector from 2009 – 2018? 2. What is the difference between UNESCO's 26% benchmark funding and what were actually allocated to the education sector from 2009 – 2018? Methodology The study adopted a longitudinal survey research design with a specific focus on the trend research design. A longitudinal design was considered appropriate for this study since data across different time period were collected and were compared. Trend approach was used specifically as a type of longitudinal design, to show the existing activities (trends) and to ease man's understanding of the phenomena under focus. Data for this study were mainly gathered from secondary sources such as the Central Bank of Nigeria, and UNESCO. The collected data were analyzed by the researchers in line with the direction and purpose of this study. Descriptive statistical tools such as tables, percentages, and graphs were used to analyze data and for answering the research questions. Results Research Question 1: How much has been allocated to the education sector from 2009 – 2018? This research question was answered using the budgetary data presented in Table 3. Table 3: Nigeria's budget and allocation to the education sector from 2009 to 2018 Year Budget Education allocation Allocation to education as % of total budget (N) (N) 2009 3,049,000,000,000 221,019,000,000 7.249 2010 5,160,000,000,000 249,009,000,000 4.826 2011 4,972,000,000,000 306,003,000,000 6.155 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 9 2012 4,877,000,000,000 400,015,000,000 8.202 2013 4,987,000,000,000 426,053,000,000 8.543 2014 4,962,000,000,000 493,000,000,000 9.936 2015 5,068,000,000,000 392,002,000,000 7.735 2016 6,061,000,000,000 396,006,000,000 6.534 2017 7,444,000,000,000 550,000,000,000 7.389 2018 8,612,000,000,000 605,008,000,000 7.025 Total 55,192,000,000,000 4,038,115,000,000 Mean 5,519,200,000,000 403,811,500,000 7% Source of Data: Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin (2018); Authors' computation The data presented in Table 3 indicated that the total allocation to education between 2009 – 2018 is N4,038,115,000,000 (Four trillion, thirty-eight billion, one hundred and fifteen million naira). This figure implies that on the average, only N403,811,500,000 (Four hundred and three billion, eight hundred and eleven million, five hundred thousand naira) was allocated to education between 2009 – 2018 annually. Meanwhile, the total budget estimated by the Federal Government during this period stood at N55,192,000,000,000 (Fifty-five trillion, one hundred and ninety-two billion naira) with an average annual budget of N5,519,200,000,000 (Five trillion, five hundred and nineteen billion, two hundred million naira). The results also indicate that, from 2009 to 2018, the Federal Government of Nigeria has been allocating only 7% of the nation's budget each year (average) to education. This is far below 26 percent prescribed by UNESCO. In specific terms, the results showed that 7.2% of Nigeria's budget was allocated in 2009, 4.8% in 2010, and 6.2% in 2011. The figures further showed that an allocation of 8.2%, 8.5% and 9.9% was made in 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively. Also, 7.7%, 6.5%, 7.4% and 7% were allocated to education in the year 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 respectively. Thus, a cursory look at the trend shows that budgetary allocation to education by the Federal Government of Nigeria is below the 26% benchmark prescribed by UNESCO for developing nations. In understanding the growth pattern as well as growth rate, the trend graph below was used as shown in Figure one. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 10 Figure 1: Trend graph showing Nigeria's budget allocation to the education sector as a percent of the total budget from 2009 – 2018. Source: Authors' computation From Figure 1, it can be seen that from 2009 to 2010, there was a decline of 2.4% growth in the allocation to education. In 2011, there was a 1.3% increase in the allocation to education from the previous year. The increase maintained stable growth and continuity in 2012, 2013, and 2014, with growth rate increasing by 2%, 0.3%, and 1.4% respectively; this was followed by a drop in 2015 and 2016, with growth rate dropping by 2.2% and 1.2% respectively. There was a rise in the allocation to education in 2017 with a growth rate of 0.86%. However, the allocation again dropped in 2018 by 0.36%. The trend shows clearly that the allocation to education by the Federal Government of Nigeria has been highly unstable and dwindling. Onuma (2016) revealed from his study that, Federal Government allocation fluctuated in the percentage of the total budget to education from 2.40 percent in 1988 to 8.09 percent in 2007. Thus, the fluctuations in the budgetary allocation have been systemic and have existed even before the time period studied (2009 – 2018). In this study, a little stability was only witnessed from 2012 to 2014. It was also shown that the highest allocation to education was recorded in 2009 where approximately 10 percent (9.9% in real terms) was allocated to education within the time period. This is followed by 2013 (8.5%), 2012 (8.2%), 2015 (7.7%), 2017 (7.3%), 2009(7.2%), 2018 (7%), 2016 (6.5%), 2011 (6.2%), and 2010 (4.8%), in that order. All these figures were all relatively below 26 percent benchmark advocated by UNESCO. 7.248901279 4.825755814 6.154525342 8.202070945 8.543272509 9.935509875 7.734846093 6.533674311 7.388500806 7.025174176 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Allocation to educ. As per cent of budget INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 11 Research Question 2: What is the difference between UNESCO's 26% benchmark funding and what were actually allocated to the education sector from 2009 – 2018? The research question was answered using the data presented in Table 4. Table 4: Federal Government allocations computed based on UNESCO specification and actual allocations to the education sector from 2009 – 2018. Year Alloc. based on UNESCO Education A – E (Difference) 26% (A) allocation (E) 2009 792,740,000,000 221,019,000,000 571,721,000,000 2010 1,341,600,000,000 249,009,000,000 1,092,591,000,000 2011 1,292,720,000,000 306,003,000,000 986,717,000,000 2012 1,268,020,000,000 400,015,000,000 868,005,000,000 2013 1,296,620,000,000 426,053,000,000 870,567,000,000 2014 1,290,120,000,000 493,000,000,000 797,120,000,000 2015 1,317,680,000,000 392,002,000,000 925,678,000,000 2016 1,575,860,000,000 396,006,000,000 1,179,854,000,000 2017 1,935,440,000,000 550,000,000,000 1,385,440,000,000 2018 2,239,120,000,000 605,008,000,000 1,634,112,000,000 Total 14,349,920,000,000 4,038,115,000,000 10,311,805,000,000 Average 1,434,992,000,000 403,811,500,000 1,031,180,500,000 Source: Authors' computation In answering research question two, 26% of each year's budget was computed based on UNESCO's benchmark to show the allocation that would have been accorded to the education sector had UNESCO prescription been followed. The results as presented in Table 4 indicated that, the total amount that will have been allocated to the education in Nigeria if UNESCO benchmark was followed is N 14,349,920,000,000 (Fourteen trillion, three hundred and forty-nine billion, nine hundred and twenty million naira); as opposed to the N 4,038,115,000,000 (Four trillion, thirty-eight billion, one hundred and fifteen million naira) that was eventually allocated. A cursory look at the figures also shows a clear difference of N10,311,805,000,000 (ten trillion, three hundred and eleven billion, eight hundred and five million naira) between UNESCO's specification and what was allocated to education from 2009-2018. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 12 On the average, a total of N1,434,992,000,000 (One trillion, four hundred and thirty-four billion, nine hundred and ninety-two million naira) would have been allocated to the education sector each year, if UNESCO's benchmark had been followed. This figure is different from the average annual allocation of N403,811,500,000 (Four hundred and three billion, eight hundred and eleven million, five hundred thousand naira) that was actually allocated to the education within the same time period. Thus, within the time period, there is also an annual average difference of 1,031,180,500,000 (One trillion, thirty-one billion, one hundred and eighty million, five hundred thousand naira) between UNESCO annual average and the actual average computed from the budget data from 2009 to 2018. This difference is shown pictorially using the trend graph in Fig 2. Figure 2: Trend graph showing the difference between UNESCO 26% benchmark that would have been allocated and what was actually allocated to the education sector from 2009 – 2018 (Source: Authors' computation) Conclusion This study concluded that the total allocation made to the education sector from 2009 – 2018 is generally low, and below the UNESCO's benchmark. The education sector is not given a serious priority in the country. The average allocation during this time period was 7%, which is 19% less than the recommendation made by UNESCO. It follows that approximately 27 percent of UNESCO's benchmark is what the education sector is getting every year as allocation, between 2009 and 2018 with 73 percent kept away for other purposes. Such low figures could be held accountable for the slow and 0 500,000,000,000 1,000,000,000,000 1,500,000,000,000 2,000,000,000,000 2,500,000,000,000 3,000,000,000,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Education allocation Allocation based on unesco 26% benchmark INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 13 unstable growth in Nigerian schools. Schools in the entire nation, and indeed across all levels, have been managing this paltry sum for sustainability of schools. There is a wide gap between the specification made by UNESCO and what the Nigerian Government has been allocating to education. The fluctuations in the allocation to education has contributed to the backwardness currently being faced by our educational system specifically, and slow economic growth of the country generally. Recommendations The following recommendations were made based on the findings of this study: 1. The Federal Government of Nigeria should adequately fund the educational sector by allocating at least 26% of her budget to the education sector as prescribed by UNESCO. This will give room for effective payment of teachers' salaries, elimination of strike actions, provision of school plants and facilities, the overall running of the entire educational system, and rapid economic growth in terms of human development index as the quality of education improves. 2. There should be stability, consistency, and continuity in the allocation of budgetary figures to the education sector; the zig-zag trend in the allocation to the education sector should be abolished. This will help in eliminating the problem of instability and poor sustainability of policies in the school system. 3. Funds allocated to the educational sector should be used purposefully and judiciously in pursuing educational policies and programmes in the country. Issues of diversification and misappropriation of funds should be strictly abolished by public educational office holders. This can be achieved through honesty, discipline, integrity, and patriotism. 4. There should be adequate supervision and placement of qualified and experienced individuals with credible integrity to oversee the formulation and implementation of educational policies in Nigeria. References Amakom U. & Obi A. W. (2007). Nigeria's education sector allocation and expenditure (19952005): Implication for poverty and gender. Journal of Economic Studies, 6 (1), 32-43. Ekaette, S. O., Owan, V. J., & Agbo, D. I. (2019). External debts and the financing of education in Nigeria from 1988 – 2018: Implication for effective educational management. Journal of Educational Realities (JERA), 9(1), 55–68. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335703366_External_Debts_and_the _Financing_of_Education_in_Nigeria_from_1988__2018_Implication_for_Effective_Educational_Management

Human Development Report (2018). Human Development Indices and Indicators (PDF). HDRO (Human Development Report Office) United Nations Development Programme (pp. 22–25). Retrieved 14 September 2018. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL BENCHMARK (IJEB), Benchmark Journals eISSN: 2489-0170 pISSN:2489-4162 University of Uyo Vol. 14(1) 2019 Page 14 Ifionu, E. P., & Nteegah, A. (2013). Investment in education and economic growth in Nigeria: 1981-2012. West African Journal of Industrial and Academic Research, 9(1), 155–172. Nwadiani, M. (2012). Managing education for national transformation. A keynote address paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of Nigerian Association for Educational Administration and Planning (NAEAP) Benue state. -13th October 2012. Offem, O. O., Aniah, S. A., Agunwa, J. N., & Owan, V. J. (2017). Managing education for sustainable national income and economic growth rate in Nigeria. International Journal of Continuing Education and Development Studies (IJCEDS), 4(1), 145–156. Omotor, D. G. (2017). An analysis of federal government expenditure in the education sector of Nigeria: implications for national development. Journal of Social Sciences, 9(2), 105–110. Onuma, N. (2016). Financial allocation to secondary education in Nigeria: Implication for students' performance. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 6(3), 42–47. Oweh, I. (2013). A case for better educational funding in Nigeria. Daily Independent, January, 28. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 1968). Financing of education in Nigeria. Belgium: Ceuterick, Louain.


Husserlâs Logical Investigations

Philosophy

The magisterial analyses of logic and meaning advanced in Husserl's Logical Investigations of 1900/01 have for a number of reasons been neglected by analytical philosophers in subsequent decades. This state of affairs has to do, in part, with the history of the editions and translations of Husserl's writings. Findlay's readable but imperfect translation appeared seventy years after the work itself was first published, and the editors and translators and expositors of Husserl's works have reflected the prevailing philosophical atmosphere on the Continent by concentration their energies on Husserl's later writings. Now, however, over eighty years after the appearance of Husserl's one true masterpiece, a critical edition of the work is at last available in completed form. We here analyze the structure and content of this new edition, published as part of the Husserliana series by the Husserl Archive in Louvain.

/ '/ HUSSERL'S LOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS* I History has not been very kind to Husserl's Logical Investigations. Matters might have been different if Bertrand Russell had actually read, and 1understood, the copy he had with him in prison in Brixton during the first World War, but by and large the work has had practically no effect on exact philosophy in general or on analytic philosophy in particular. Husserl himself is largely to blame for this state of affairs, since shortly after completing the work he sailed off into somewhat muddier, metaphysical waters. His later writings tend to be unclear and to suffer from an excess of grandiose terminology, so that it is only sporadically that they continue or deepen the magisterial analyses and arguments of the Investigations of 1900/01. This state of affairs is reflected in the history of the editions and translations of the book. Findlay's readable but imperfect translation in itself a considerable achievement appeared seventy years after the work was first published, and the editors of Husserl's works in Louvain have reflected the prevailing philosophical atmosphere on the Continent in that, at least until recently, they have concentrated their energies on bringing out editions of Husserl's later writings. Now, however, some twenty volumes of collected works later, and over eighty years after the appearance of Husserl's one true masterpiece, a critical edition of the work is at last available in completed form. ~ Ursula Panzer's edition of volume II of the work, which comes nine years after Elmar Holenstein's edition of the Prolegomena to Pure Logic, the overture with which the six Logical Investigations proper begin, contains the texts of both the first.(A) edition of 1900fl901 and of the second (B) edition of 1913/1921.. The two volumes of the Panzer edition contain also the annotations and supplements interleaved between the pages of Husserl's own copy of the Investigations, and in her introduction the editor usefully summarises the changes Husserl made in this additional material and also the differences between the first and second editions of the Investigations themselves. *Review of: Edmund Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen, II. Band, I. und 2. Tei! (Husserliana XIX/I, XIX/2), ed. Ursula Panzer, The Hague/Boston/Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984, LXVIII +XVIII+ 958 pp. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 27 (1986), 199–207 200 What results is not, it must be admitted, easy to use for the reader interested in Husserl's first and in some ways more pregnant rendering of his ideas on logic. For the main text of the addition is that of B, a somewhat peculiar choice, given the easy accessibility of perfectly acceptable editions of B, and given also the intrinsic preferability of a comparative edition in which the second thoughts of the author are conspicuous as such, as contrasted with the rather topsy-turvy construction that is offered to us here. But this is mere carping. More important is the possibility that the editor may have tampered with Husserl's plastic and complicated style in the -interests of uniformity. Husserl employs the device of capitalising the indefinite article in order to emphasise that he is talking about a single, complex entity. Thus on p. 326 (line 15) he refers to certain possibilities of combination of meanings which yield 'nur einen Bedeutungshaufen statt Einer Bedeutung' ('only a heap of meanings, never One Meaning'). The editor has seen fit to convert 'Einer Bedeutung' into 'einer Bedeutung' ('only a heap of meanings, never a meaning'), which makes mincemeat of Husserl's point. II Husserl's own changes to the first edition evident also in the annotations and supplements fall into two main groups. First, there are the changes reflecting Husserl's conviction that he had discovered a new super-science of 'transcendental phenomenology' in which his earlier analyses would somehow have their place but in such a way that they would come to be seen in a 'new and radically different light'. Second, more interesting and more substantial changes, in which Husserl alters the details of his analyses, descriptions and arguments, or assays terminological improvements of various sorts. A characteristic change belonging to the first group is Husserl's occasional removal of the word 'appears' and its derivatives in favour of expressions such as 'is brought to self-givenness' and the like. The most striking and indeed most notorious such change concerns Husserl's notion of the 'ego'. In the first edition Husserl had set out an interesting and original no-ownership account of consciousness, one of the few such accounts that is not reduced to conceiving the experiences inhering in my body as a mere 'bundle'. For Husserl's Investigations provide the means which enable him to show how these experiences can hang together in an orderly way without any egological prop. In newly appended footnotes to §6 and §8 of the fifth Investigation, however, Husserl now tells us that he has in the meantime 'learned how to find' his pure ego but fortunately he tells us also that this discovery is irrelevant to the inquiries he is here carrying out. Another change, not of the same order of importance, though it seems to I' 201 have been of some significance to Husserl himself and has long fascinated hi.i various phenomenologist-commentators, concerns the status and proper designation of the inquiries in the philosophy of mind to be found already in the first edition. The Husserl of 1900, like Brentano, and like other Brentano students, was happy to produce detailed and painstaking accounts of the structure and nature of judgments, assumptions, emotions and the like. These accounts had in common the assumption that psychology rests on a kernel of necessary truths capable of being known a priori. Husserl's and Brentano's name for this kernel of necessity is 'descriptive psychology', and a great many changes to the first edition of the Investigations are concerned with the problems raised by this discipline. But they show us a Husserl worried not by the question how the assumption of such necessary truths should be defended, e.g. against. the criticisms of the empiricist; the Husserl of 1913 is worried rather by the task of distinguishing between a descriptive psychology that would concern itself with such necessary truths as they are instantiated in the psyche of an actually existing subject, and a new discipline of 'phenomenology' which would deal with the same necessary truths but this time in a 'pure and radical' fashion. Whereas Husserl had originally been happy to identify 'phenomenology' and 'descriptive psychology', he now takes great pains, in B and elsewhere, to stress that they are different. Among the changes belonging to the second interesting or substantive group are those to be found in Husserl's discussions of indexicality. Husserl had earlier regarded indexical or, as he says, 'occasional' uses of language as derivative or deviant phenomena and his account of meaning in the Logical Investigations was developed on this basis. In a hitherto unpublished manuscript, however, Husserl sketches the beginnings of a more adequate view. He argues that the meaningful indexical use of the first person singular pronoun differs from the meaningful use of a proper name, because: Who says: 'I' does not merely name himself, but he is conscious of this self-naming as such, and this consciousness belongs essentially to constituting the meaning of the word '!'. (p. 813, emphasis added). This idea can be generalised to apply to all occasional or indexical expressions. As Husserl points out, each indexical use of an expression such as 'that' or 'these' or 'here' must be bound up in a single whole with some act of perception on the part of the speaker. And he goes on to contrast such uses with the non-indexical use of a pronoun such as 'this' in anaphoric contexts. We also learn that, within a few years of completing the Investigations, Husserl had arrived at the conclusion that occasional or indexical uses of language are not the exception, but rather the rule: I I I I, 'I 11 :I \ I 202 'occasional moments lie in all assertions of the "concrete" sciences, first in all meanings referring to spatio-temporal objects but also in all meanings referring to empirical species' (p. XXXVII). The second Investigation, in which Husserl argues for universals his term is 'species' under which both individual things and also e.g. individual properties and relations fall, is revised only slightly, and indeed the theory of species and instance here developed which has its roots in the tradition of Aristotle and Porphyry is important also to his later development. . Husserl's third Investigation is his superb account of essentialism, existential dependence and the theory of parts and wholes, topics which more than any others structure what Husserl has to say in the other Investigations and so provide us with the key to reading the work as a whole. This investigation was fairly extensively revised for the second edition, but not all changes are of equal value. Thus Husserl inserted e.g. the words 'pure' and 'essential' wherever he got the chance (often significantly substituting them for the word 'Aristotelian', a change which parallels the move from 'descriptive psychology' to 'phenomenology'). Ursula Panzer suspects that these alterations were designed to emphasise what is indeed a very important point, the distinction between necessary co-conception the fact that it is impossible to think of a without thinking of b and necessary co-existence the fact that it is impossible for a to exist without b. Yet Husserl had seen as early as 1897 that the notions of dependence and independence, of parts and of moments, relate to all objects whatsoever and that these notions can be given a more than merely psychological interpretation. It therefore seems more likely that these verbal changes reflect rather Husserl's gradually encroaching concern with the task of settling the status of his theories, as contrasted with the more modest job of working out the descriptive details of these theories themselves, as they apply to the things, events and processes of the real, m~terial world. One felicitous verbal change to the third Investigation is Husserl's introduction of the term 'formal ontology' to cover all formal disciplines concerned with objects in the way that formal logic is concerned with meanings. Husserl's clarification of the distinction between formal logic and formal ontology and his still valuable account of the relations between both these disciplines and pure and applied mathematics are indeed among the most important and original contributions of the Investigations as a whole. It is interesting that the terminology of the remaining Investigations has also, at a number of crucial points, been brought into line in B with the official theory of the third again calling attention to the importance of the topics of moment or 'abstract part' and of dependence to Husserl's larger project. Thus for example a term like 'act-character' in A, becomes 'act203 moment' in B. And the printer's (?) erroneous 'momentary intuition' [Momentananschauung] in A has been corrected to 'intuition of a moment' [Momentanschauung] in B (p. 265, 1.23), the printer's error then unfortunately being reintroduced by Findlay as an error of translation. Findlay has in fact obscured most of Husserl's terminological revisions here (and thereby also the central importance of Investigation III and indeed the internal structure of many of Husserl's more detailed arguments) by utilising a range of distinct equivalents for 'moment' ('feature', 'aspect', 'element', etc.) more or less at random. This state of affairs is made still worse in the Boyce-Gibson translation of Ideas I, where 'moment' in. the ontological sense ['das Moment', as in 'moment of inertia'] is confused with 'moment' in the temporal sense ['der Moment'] and translated as 'phase'. This error has given rise, in North America, to a whole industry of phenomenologistcommentaries on an entirely spurious Husserlian theory of 'the correlation of noetic-noematic phases'. The most important substantial change to the third Investigation is the addition of useful new material on the nature of analytic concepts (§12 of the second edition). This material however replaces an extended discussion *in A of the way in which the theory of existential dependence is to be applied to temporal succession and causality. This discussion is important because it throws light on a deep-rooted opposition between the theories of necessary dependence developed, respectively, by Husserl and by his teacher Brentano. Brentano's own theory, presented in lectures of 1887-91 now published as Deskriptive Psychologie, is in some respects no less powerful than that of Husserl. One crucial difference between the two, however, is that within the Brentanian framework one can accept necessary dependence relations only between simultaneous existents: the relation of necessary dependence can never relate entities existing at different points in time. This not only implies that Brentano's theory is inadequate to certain dimensions of temporal structure in the domain of conscious acts (e.g. relations involving memory or regret), but further, it prevents Brentano from providing, within his ontology, a place for the enduring material things of the spatio-temporal world. The title of III § 12 in A is indeed "Concretum and thing. Generalisation of the concepts of independence and dependence via extension to the domain of succession and causality". We shall quote from it at length, both because it will give the English reader a suggestion of Husserl's 'Aristotelian' concerns in A, and of the style of his treatment, and also because it is absent from the Findlay translation. Husserl points out first of all that the concept of a concrete or independent object, an object which can in principle exist in isolation from all other 204. . objects, does not coincide with the concept thing. For we find concreta in this sense also, e.g., in the realm of sensations. To the unity of the thing there belongs more than the individualised concretum; there belongs also (ideally speaking) a possible infinite manifold of temporally succeeding concreta of one and the same form, passing continuously into each other in the sense of the concepts of change and perseverance, this manifold being held together (either for itself or together with other associated manifolds of a similar constitution) through the unity of causality. This means that there obtains a lawfulness in relation to th'ese manifolds which makes the concreta co-existing at any given point in time unilaterally dependent on those concreta of an arbitrarily chosen earlier point in time which are assigned to it in the sense of change or perseverance. (p. 261) The unity of the thing therefore consists in the existence of a continuous series of temporally instantaneous concrete 'contents' or 'objects' Husserl uses these terms interchangeably tied together by a causal law. There follows a brief formalised treatment of the relation between successive 'values' of a thing at successive instants (a relation later called 'genidentity' by Kurt Lewin), which is followed in turn by an account of the trans-temporal dependence that is manifested in the material world: As a result of causality the concreta of a given instant are, whether of themselves or in consort with other co-existing concreta, dependent on those of an earlier instant and thus in a certain sense non-self-sufficient. It must however be noted, that the concept of dependence used by us so far was defined only as dependence in coexistence ... It is however easy to generalise the concepts of independent and dependent contents so that one would be able to distinguish between cases of co-existence and cases of succession. We need only so extend the concept of whole (and the concepts bound up analytically therewith), that one is allowed to speak not only of wholes (unities, connections) of co-existence but also of those of succession. Our concepts are then immediately applicable to things, whereby it is necessary only to observe the peculiar content which the talk of existence and co-existence take on when one talks of things. (p. 262) Where, therefore, the Brentanian theory of dependence relations can be applied exclusively as a means of elucidating synchronic structures, Husserl's theory can be applied also to diachronies of various sorts, and was indeed so applied by Jakobson in his influential writings on the implicational universals of language acquisition and aphasia. Two appendices (pp. 837-843 and 850-852) show Husserl grappling with problems in whole-part theory left open in the third Investigation: the nature of the relation between an instance of red on the one hand and its logical part colour on the other, and the distinction between this relation and the ordinary relation of inherence (e.g. of redness in a table); the notion of relative independence and the relation of this notion to various phenomenological examples; the relation between form and matter in a structured whole (whether this be a structured whole of acts or of meanings, or e.g. a thing and its properties): \ ~: \. f i. ~. 205 A whole is not the parts taken together [das Zusammen der Teile], nor is it the parts together with the form, but the parts all together in this form. (The form is a concept that unites the whole in question with a manifold of possible wholes). (p. 841; compare Tractatus 2.0124-2.0141) * Husserl c.onsiderably revised the fourth In".estigation, on The Distinction between Dependent and Independent Meanings and the Idea of Pure Grammar, the revised version being one and a half times the length of the original. Consider, for example, his treatment of the use of a proper name in § 3. Husserl here argues that the meaning-intention with which such a name is , normally used a certain mental event is simple. The meaning of the name is therefore also simple, is not e.g. the meaning of any cluster of definite descriptions. But each such simple meaning act is necessarily associated with a variety of presentations [Vorstellungen], a fabric of presuppositions, reflecting what it is that the user of the name knows about its bearer. Thus when we use a proper name, our consciousness of the object (our meaning-consciousness) is not such that it is given merely as an empty somewhat, 'but as somehow determinate and typically determinable whether as a physical thing, an animal, a human being etc. even if not meant in such capacities'. (p. 307) And then, the interest of Husserl's theory is that he can exploit his apparatus of species and dependence relations as a means of providing an account of the way in which the~e presentations hang together with the act of name-meaning in such a way as* to contribute to the intentional directedness of this act without being a part of the meaning of the name itself. Husserl also puts forward a treatment of modification, i.e. of that family of syntactic operations which is illustrated in transitions such as that from (e.g.) 'breathtaking performance' to 'cancelled performance' or from 'red elephant' to 'non-existent elephant', or in the transition from verb-phrase to nominalisation or from use to mention. Husserl's elaboration of this notion in B owes something. both to Marty and to Reinach (see also ch. 4 of Twardowski's On the Content and Object of Presentations). Its importance turns not least on the fact that philosophy itself, for example when it refers to existence, or to meaning, or to species, employs a systematically modified form of language, a form of language which will lead to misunderstandings for example to Platonism if one tries to interpret it in the light of the presumptions of our ordinary speech. The fifth Investigation, too, was considerably revised, though most of Husserl's changes are of a terminological nature and are designed to connect up with Husserl's views in Ideas I about transcendental phenomenology.* Hus~erl's extended 80 page argument in §§ 22-43 of this Investigation, dealmg with the correct way to understand the connection between propositional force and propositional content, must be one of the first examples in 206 modern philosophy of the sort of extended, careful argument that has become the norm or at least the ideal in analytic philosophy. The sixth Investigation was entirely re-written by Husserl and his rewritings are to appear, at some stage in the future, in a separate volume of Husserliana. Husserl did not himself bring these revisions to a publishable"form, and therefore allowed the 2nd edition of this Investigation to appear in 1921 in a version merely 'partially revised'. III In recent years, particularly as a result of work by F0llesdal, Mcintyre and Woodruff Smith, the so-called noema theory of meaning set out by Husserl in Ideas I has received a considerable amount of attention. The attractiveness of this later theory is due in part to the fact that Husserlian noemata resemble Fregean Sinne, and can indeed be seen as a generalisation of the latter. What is less often recorded is that Husserl had already, in the first edition of the present work, put forward another, quite different theory of meaning, resting on his twin theories of species and dependence. According to this earlier theory each mental event which is an act of language use, either for itself or taken together with other assoCiated acts upon which it is dependent, instantiates a species of a certain sort. It is then this very species which Husserl identifies as the meaning' of the linguistic expression in question. This ('Aristotelian') theory of meaning, which is of course in need of considerable refinement, has a number of immediate advantages. In the first place it yields a simple account of the nature of linguistic com~unication (mental acts of communicating subjects may instantiate identical meaningspecies). It yields also an elegant account of the relation between language and thought and of the relation between logical necessity and the contingent flux of mental events of judging andinferring. Moreover, this earlier theory appeals in its ontology only to the relatively familiar relations of instantiation (between instance and species) and intentionality (between act and object). On the Iater theory, in contrast, in which noemata function both as senses and as (mysterious counterparts of) reference, we have to accept in addition to instantiation and the intentionality of act and object also two further sui generis relations between the act and its noema and between the noema and its referent. Now it is a striking fact that, although the volumes under review contain a number of references to the second theory, and various terminological alterations designed to ease the transition to the latter, one finds no arguments for this second theory, just as no arguments are to be found in Husserl's later writings for his change of mind. It is still unfortunately the case that the first, second, fourth and fifth 207 Investigations are without any sort of detailed exegesis or commentary, in spite of the fact that the problems they deal with are one and all the subject of great contemporary interest. The first Investigation contains a number of distinctions that have sillce become standard within the philosophy of language, though Husserl draws these distinctions in ways that involve greater attention to cognitive detail than has been usual among analytic philosophers. The second Investigation argues that the notions of species and generality cannot be made sense of independently of an understanding of the notion of necessary or universal law. The fourth deals with the notion of syntactic completeness and incompleteness ('unsaturatedness') and presents a theory of syntactic and semantic dependence which influenced Lesniewski in his development of the first 'categorial grammar'. (Thus consider the relation between a name, a verb and the sentence they belong to. Husserl's account allows him to distinguish the relation of unilateral dependence of v~rb on name from the relation of bilateral necessary constituency between verb and sentence every sentence, necessarily contains a verb and every verb is necessarily a part of a sentence.) The fifth Investigation contains not only one of the most subtle accounts of indexicality in the literature of philosophy, but also detailed accounts of the distinction between propositional and non-propositional attitudes and of the connection between force and content (phrastics and neustics) for all mental acts and states. Panzer's edition will, it is hoped, prepare the way for a detailed commentary on the whole of the Investigations of the sort that already exists in plenty for Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Now that there is a revisal of interest in a number of quarters in just that combination of themes that the Investigations develop so masterfully cognitive and perceptual psychology, formal ontology and formal meaning-theory and the thorny problems posed by any attempt to give these a unified treatment such a detailed commentary would be more than welcome. Kevin MULLIGAN Barry SMITH Universite de Geneve University of Manchester