Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

ABSTRACT

The study examines the impact of interest rate on manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria,
1981-2019. The objectives of the study are to examine the impact of interest rate on
manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria and to investigate the existence of a long run
relationship between interest rate and manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria. Secondary
data was used for the study covering a period of 38 years. The data is sourced from World
Development Indicators. The data were analyzed using Auto Regressive Distributed Lag method
(ARDL). It was found that lending interest rate has a negative significant impact on
manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria; consumer price index has a negative insignificant
impact on manufacturing sector performance. Also, there exist a long run relationship between
interest rate and manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria. Therefore the study recommends
that there should be an effective economic policy in place to ensure that inflation rate is kept at
minimum level. Also, government should begin to embark on interest rate reforms which can
reduce the wide interest rate spread between lending and deposit rate in Nigeria.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Interest rate is a major economic indicator used to boost investment as it has been known to be

higher in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean countries than in the Organisation of

European Countries Development (Chirwa et al, 2004). Thus, most advanced and developing

economies have over the years taken steps to liberalize their interest rates as part of the reform of

the entire financial institution. Mishkin (1995) alleged that interest rate is a key tool of monetary

policy. In October 2001, the European Central Bank stated that it had not changed interest rates

because it considered current rates “consistent with the maintenance of price stability over the

medium term”. The behavior of interest rates, to a large extent, determines the investment

activities and hence economic growth of a country. Investment depends upon the rate of interest

which is involved in getting funds from the market, while economic growth to a large extent

depends on the level of investment (Obute, et al 2012). According to Jhingan (2003), if interest

rate is high, investment is at low level and when interest rate falls, investment will rise. There is

therefore a need to promote an interest rate regime that will ensure “inexpensive” spending for

investment and consequently enhancing economic growth at low financial cost.

Investment in manufacturing sub-sector depends upon the rate of interest involved in getting

fund from the financial institutions. Interest rates play an important role in our economic lives as

it is the cost of borrowing for those who need resources and reward for lending to those with

savings. Lower interest rates tend to induce the growth of credit, which can make it easier for

manufacturers to get financing and for individuals to find and keep jobs. Yet, as important as

interest rates are, a major concern of the monetary authority is their tendency to exhibit erratic

behavior (that is to fluctuate too often).


The high interest rate in Nigeria might be owing to high inflation that remained at double digits

and other macroeconomic factors like the instability in the Nigeria currency, even the increased

sub-national government spending and government high expenditure. For instance, interest rate

is too high and when you compare the lending rates with rates of fixed deposits, you find that the

disparity is just too much. When you want to borrow from banks, they give you as much as 24%.

But when you place funds with them, the highest you can get is about 7.5%. As such, no country

flourishes with high level of lending interest rates because it discourages investments.

It is against this background that it becomes imperative to examine the impact of interest rate on

manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria and also investigate if there is a long run

relationship between interest rate and manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria. The rest of

the paper is concerned with the literature review, methodology, empirical findings, conclusion

and recommendations.

2.0 Literature review

2.1 Interest Rate Policy in Nigeria

Nigeria has been known to operate two-interest rate regime starting from 1960s to mid-1980s

with the administration of low interest rates which was intended to encourage investment.

However, the advent of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in the third quarter of 1986

ushered in an era when fixed and low interest rates were gradually replaced by a dynamic interest

rate regime, where rates were more influenced by market forces. Hence, the pursuit of the two

interest rate regime in Nigeria provided a case study of the Keynesian interest-rates-investment

relationship. The gradual deregulation of the Nigerian economy between 1986 and 1992 affected

these key economic variables: interest rate and investment. In the Nigerian context, interest rates

were extensively regulated prior to the adoption of SAP in 1986. But the economic rationale
behind this control of interest rates administered by CBN and other elements of financial markets

has been motivated by a variety of factors including the desire to influence the flow of credit to

preferred sectors of the economy especially manufacturing and agriculture, to obtain socially

optimum resource allocation and the concern that market determined interest rate could result in

serious imperfection in the market.

In the quest to absorb the early 1980s financial repression, the Nigeria government took steps to

liberalize interest rates in the entire financial institution which began with the deregulation of

interest rates which will enhance the provision of sufficient funds for investors in manufacturing

subsectors as considered to be prime agents in improving the economy. Similarly, in 1994, in a

policy reversal, some measure of regulations into the interest rates management was introduced

owing to the fact that SAP era was responsible for investment contraction. It was claimed that

there were “wide variations and unnecessarily high rates” under the complete deregulation of

interest rates. Immediately, deposit rates were once again set at 12% to15% per annum while a

ceiling of 21% per annum was fixed for lending rate.

It may be a fact to state that since the 1986 deregulation of interest rate up to this present time,

there may not have been any meaningful impact on the sector. Even the scarcely available bank

loan to the private sector may not have been channeled to the manufacturing sector due to lack of

administrative competence, importation of inferior goods, multiple taxes and levies, dumping

and smuggling. Rather, investors prefer to invest in quick and high yielding importation

activities, stock market, that will earn enough profit to offset the high interest charges of the

banks. Due to the ongoing process of economic reforms along with the liberalization measures,

Nigerian economy has been facing challenges in terms of both external shocks and internal

issues. Also, in the face of these reforms, manufacturing sector is still in a state of dismay with
growth rate of 10% in 2004 and 9.12% in 2005 respectively compare to 18.3% in 2004 and

18.5% in 2005. In South Africa capacity utilization is at 84% and 78% in 2008 and 2009

respectively, while that of Nigeria still continue to hovered around 53.9% and 47% for the same

period (CBN, 2010). The deregulation exercises has been met with mixed feelings in Nigeria,

while some believe it would enhance economic performance in Nigeria, others have contrary

opinion (Obute et al, 2012).

Abiodun (1988) as cited in Adofu et al (2010) on the other hand holds that deregulation of

interest rate is like a double-edged sword, which will either stimulate or mar the economy. He

asserted that the deregulation of interest rate will lead to an increase interest rate, which will

increase savings. However, he opined that high cost of borrowing might bring about cost-push

inflation, as borrowers of funds will pass the high cost of borrowing to the customers by pushing

up prices.

2.1.1 Manufacturing Sector performance in Nigeria

Nigerian Industries are highly concentrated in light consumer goods; there is hardly any

production of capital and intermediate goods. Another feature of the manufacturing sector is its

over-dependence on imports for the supply of raw materials and spare parts. There is no single

industrial product in which the country is entirely self-sufficient with its import bill dominated

by the cost of raw materials and spare parts for industries. Many factories as a result of this

reduced their scale of operations completely and even some had to close down completely with

increase in our unemployment rates which hovered between 2.8 and 3.5 percent between 1996

and 1998. From 1999 till date the unemployment rate has not gone below 11.0 percent, achieving

its highest peak in 2011 with percentage of 23.9. (Obadan 1997, CBN, 2011).
So many literatures revealed the insignificant nature of the Nigerian manufacturing industries in

terms of its contribution to economic development. Akinlo (1996) also confirmed this by

stressing that the industrial sector of the Nigerian economy was relatively insignificant even

starting from independence in terms of its contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP)

which ranges from 4.8% in 1960 to 8.3% in 1980 and decline to 8.2% in 1990 and 6.88% in

1995, 6.2 % in 1998 respectively (CBN, 2003). Olukoshi (1991) pointed out that the pre-owned

post-colonial production policy occasioned distortions in the sector, which was as a result of

neglecting research and an excessive reliance on foreign input. The manufacturing subsector is

still characterized by distortions despite the adjustment programmes.

According to the 2010 Annual report of the Manufacturing Association of Nigeria (MAN)

presented during the 39th Annual General Meeting of the Association, the Nigerian

manufacturing sector only contributed 4.1 percent to the 2010 GDP, compared to 4.21 in 2009.

The decline also manifested in the capacity utilization of industries in the country. According to

the report, average manufacturing capacity utilization dropped from 47 percent in 2009 to 45

percent in 2010. Production output declined from N183.8 billion in the first half of 2009 to

N165.7 billion in the same period of 2010. Investment profile in the first half of 2010 had a sharp

decline from N1 trillion in the first half of 2009 to N360 billion in the corresponding period of

2010. Employment figures in the first half of 2010 dropped from 998,086 in January-June 2009

to 996,395 in the corresponding period of 2010. Business unplanned inventory increased from

N5.15 billion in the first half of 2009 to N11.4 billion in the same period of 2010.
2.2 Keynesian Investment Theory

The linkage between interest rate and manufacturing sector in this study can be traced to the

Keynesian investment theory (1936). The Keynesian theory postulates that low interest rate as a

component of cost administered is detrimental to increase savings and hence investment demand.

Keynesian theory emphasize that the rate of interest is a purely monetary phenomenon as distinct

from the real theory of the classics. Keynes theory places emphasis on the relevance of interest

rates in investment decisions. Changes in interest rates should have an effect on the level of

planned investment undertaken by private sector businesses in the economy. A fall in interest

rates should decrease the cost of investment relative to the potential yield and as result planned

capital investment projects on the margin may become worthwhile.

2.3 Empirical Literature

Nwokoro (2017) carried out a study on the relationship between interest rates, foreign exchange

and manufacturing sector output in Nigeria. He employed the ordinary least square (OLS),

stationary, cointegration, together with error correction model. The results showed a negative but

significant relationship between interest rate, foreign exchange and manufacturing output in

Nigeria.

Onakoya, Ogundajo and Johnson (2017) investigated monetary policy and the sustainability of

the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. The findings established a positive relationship between

monetary policy and manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria.

Ebere and lorember (2016) examined the effect of commercial bank credit on the manufacturing

sector output in Nigeria from 1980 to 2015 using Cochrane-orcutt method. The study revealed

that inflation rate and interest rate have negative effect on manufacturing sector output while
ways and advance and broad money supply have positive effect on manufacturing sector

performance in Nigeria.

Erinma (2016) examined the impact of rising interest rate on the performance of the Nigeria

manufacturing sector. Annual time services data used for the study span thirty five (35) years

covering 1981 to 2015. The models were analyzed using the ordinary least square techniques.

Findings from the study shows rising interest rate in Nigeria has a negative effect on the

contribution of the manufacturing sector to GDP as well as on the average capacity utilization of

the Nigeria manufacturing sector. Given the findings, the study recommends that aside from

trying to manage interest rate for enhanced economic growth, the Nigeria government should

strive to provide infrastructural facilities particularly power and transportation to reduce high

cost of production.

Loto (2012) further analyzed the position of the Manufacturing sector in the Nigerian economy

both descriptively and empirically before the global meltdown and during the period of the

global meltdown. The significance of the study is that the manufacturing sector of the Nigerian

economy will be able to know its competitive strengths and weaknesses during and after the

global meltdown, and if possible take advantage of it. Descriptively, the two years before the

meltdown and two years into the meltdown were analyzed in quarterly time series (i.e. 2005Q1 –

2006Q4 and 2007Q1 to 2008Q4) and also empirically Pooled data for the two periods were also

used in order to have reasonable observations (16). Descriptively, the performance of the

Nigerian manufacturing sector was analyzed using the indices of performance such as (index of

manufacturing production, manufacturing export, import, capacity utilization and share in total

GDP). It was discovered that before the meltdown, all indicators of performance used shows a

downward trend. The period during the meltdown shows some little insignificant improvement
in some of the performance indicators such as manufacturing GDP, capacity utilization. The

results of the empirical analysis from the pooled data from 2005Q1 to 2008Q4 do not really give

a better result as compared to the descriptive analysis. Variables such as capacity utilization

(CU), Inflation rate (INF), Lending rate (LR) both show a positive but insignificant shock on the

manufacturing performance. Only direct foreign investment was significant but negative in its

impact on the manufacturing sectors performance. The outcome of the results shows that the

global meltdown has insignificant effect on the manufacturing sector of the Nigerian economy.

3.0 Methodology

This study employed the Auto Regressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) method to examine the

impact of interest rate on manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria. This study used annual

time series data sourced from World Development Indicators (2019) covering a period of 1981 to

2019.

3.1 Model specification

The model that will be used for the purpose of this study is drawn from the work of Okwori et al

(2014) with little modification to the dependent variable, which assessed the effect of interest

rate on manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria, 1986 to 2012 using capacity utilization as

the dependent variable, while lending interest rate, consumer price index amongst others were

used as independent variables in the work.

M%GDP(t) = b0 + b1LINT(t) + b2CPI(t) + Ut………..

Where,

M%GDP= Manufacturing, value added (% of GDP)

LINT= Lending interest rate


CPI= Consumer price index

Ut = Error term

3.2 Apriori Expectation

The signs in the parenthesis represent apriori expectations of each of the independent variables

used in this study: LINT (-), CPI (-).

3.3 Definition of Variables

● Manufacturing, value added (% of GDP): This can be defined as the total contribution

of the manufacturing sector to the economy expressed as a percentage of gross domestic

product. This variable is used to measure the performance of the manufacturing sector as

the dependent variable.

● Lending interest rate: It is defined as the proportion of an amount loaned which a lender

charges as interest to the borrower. Interest rate is very crucial to the performance of the

manufacturing sector because it can either encourage or discourage investment which is

needed for production.

● Consumer price index: It measures changes in the price level of a weighted average

market basket of consumer goods and services purchased by households.

4.0 Empirical Findings

This section presents the results, analyzes the findings and discusses the empirical findings of

this study.

4.1 UNIT ROOT TEST

To examine the time properties of the data, this is done in order to avoid spurious regression. The

orders of integration of the variables are examined using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF)
test statistics. The result presented in table 1 shows that all variables achieved stationarity at level

and first differencing at 5% critical value.

Table 1: Result of Unit Root Test Based On Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF)
Variable PP adjusted stat 5% critical value (**) Order of integration

M%GDP -8.318937 -2.943427 I(1)

LINT -6.898897 -2.943427 I(1)

CPI -3.940384 -2.948404 I(0)

Source: Authors’ computation using (E-Views 9)

The result of the unit root test for the Augmented Dickey Fuller test shows that all the variables

used for this study were stationary at level and first difference order of integration at 5% critical

value as shown in the table. This expression satisfies our choice of carrying out an Auto

Regressive Distributed Lag test (ARDL).

4.1.1 ARDL LONG RUN FORM FOR OBJECTIVE ONE

The ARDL long run coefficient is carried out to examine the impact of interest rate on

manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria.

Table 2:Long Run Coefficients

Coeffici
Variable ent Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.   

-
0.62585
LINT 0 0.157969 -3.961842 0.0004
-
0.43057 13.02708
CPI 6 6 -0.033052 0.9738
48.7324
C 05 5.583130 8.728510 0.0411
R2= 0.94, DW= 1.8, Prob (F-stat)= 0.000000

The result of the long run coefficient in table 2 shows a constant value of 48.73. This indicates a

positive and significant relationship between the constant and manufacturing sector performance

(M%GDP). The constant, reflects the value of the manufacturing sector performance (M%GDP)

when all explanatory variables are held constant. The coefficient of multiple determination R 2

shows that 94% of the changes in manufacturing sector performance is collectively explained by

the independent variables.

The regression result above shows that lending interest rate has a negative and significant impact

on manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria. This implies that a unit rise in lending interest

rate will lead to a decrease in manufacturing sector performance by 0.62%. This conforms to the

apriori expectation.

Also, consumer price index shows a negative insignificant impact on manufacturing sector

performance. This implies that a unit rise in consumer price index will lead to a fall in

manufacturing sector performance by 0.43%. This also conforms to the apriori expectation.

4.1.2 ARDL BOUNDS TEST FOR OBJECTIVE TWO

The ARDL bounds test is carried out to investigate the existence of a long run relationship

between interest rate and manufacturing sector performance in Nigeria.

ARDL Bounds Test


Date: 04/06/20 Time: 00:26
Sample: 1983 2019
Included observations: 37
Null Hypothesis: No long-run relationships exist

Test Statistic Value K


F-statistic  6.194992 2

Critical Value Bounds

Significance I0 Bound I1 Bound

10% 3.17 4.14


5% 3.79 4.85
2.5% 4.41 5.52
1% 5.15 6.36

Source: Author’s computation using E-views 9

The co-integration test was conducted to ascertain the long run relationship among the variables

after the data have been ascertained to be free from unit root. From the result, it can be seen that

the calculated F-statistic value of 6.19 exceeds the upper bound critical value of 3.79 and lower

bound critical value of 4.85 at the 5% level. This means the null hypothesis of no co-integration

among the variables is rejected at the 5% level, hence there exist cointegration (a long run

relationship) between the variables, and this shows that Interest rate and Manufacturing sector

performance (as well as other independent variables in the model) are bound by a long run

relationship. Thus the result is a sufficient condition for fitting the error correction mechanism

model. The presence of a long run relationship between interest rate and Manufacturing sector

performance implies that that the favorable deregulation of interest rate can serve as policy tool

to determine the viability of investment for increased production in the long run.

4.1.3 Short Run (Error Correction) Test

Table 3:Cointegrating Form


Coeffici
Variable ent Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.   

-
0.17169
D(LINT) 9 0.082177 -2.089386 0.0450
0.12091
D(LINT(-1)) 7 0.077342 1.563414 0.1281
-
0.00224
D(CPI) 3 0.005903 -0.379985 0.7065
-
0.05644
CointEq(-1) 4 0.078586 -0.718246 0.0480

    Cointeq = M_GDP - (-0.6258*LINT -0.4305*CPI + 48.7324 )

Source: Author’s computation using E-views 9

The error correction term CointEq(-1) in the model has the expected sign (i.e negative) and

significant at 5% probability level. The existence of long-run equilibrium among the time series

in the interest rate and manufacturing sector performance equation is validated by this result. The

slope coefficient of the error correction term in absolute terms (0.06) represents the speed of

adjustment and is consistent with the hypothesis of convergence towards the long-run

equilibrium. The value indicates that about 6% of the short run disequilibrium and

inconsistencies are being corrected and adjusted into the long-run equilibrium path.

4.2 Discussion of Findings

From the ARDL result, the research shows that lending interest rate has a negative and

significant impact on manufacturing sector performance. This implies that the higher the interest

rate the lesser the investment because of the interest on lending which is been charged by

commercial banks. This will discourage investment and undermine greater and efficient
production possibility by private firms or private producers. However, it is important to note that

funds are borrowed to firms at outrageously high rates coupled with inflationary pressure and

manufacturing sector hardly benefit from this lending interest rate. This means that if lending

interest rate is reduced, productivity will increase, as many manufacturers will like to invest for

increased productivity. This result conforms to the finding of Erinma (2016).

Also, the value of consumers’ price index shows consumers’ price index has a negative impact

on manufacturing sector performance. This is also as a result of high lending interest rate. When

the lending interest rate gets high, the cost of capital for manufacturing firms will be high. In

order for the firms to be able to make up for the cost of capital, they will push up the prices of

goods produced, thereby leading to cost push inflation. Now, when the prices of goods get high,

demand reduces given the low income level of most people in the country. This may affect the

inflow of income to the manufacturing sector and invariably also affect its performance

negatively.

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The study shows that lending interest rate has a negative impact on manufacturing sector

performance due to high interest rate. Although there is a long run relationship between interest

rate and manufacturing sector performance but the performance of the manufacturing sector is

hampered due to inflationary pressure from high interest rate. The role of the government in

curbing inflationary pressure is important in increasing the manufacturing sector performance for

sustained growth and development in the economy to ensure sustained growth and improved

performance in this sector.

Therefore, it is recommended that the following should be put in place:

(1) There should be an effective economic policy in place to ensure that inflation rate is kept at
minimum level.

(2) Government should begin to embark on interest rate reforms which can reduce the wide

interest rate spread between lending and deposit rate in Nigeria.

REFERENCES

Adofu, M. A. and Audu, S. I. (2010). An Assessment of the Effects of Interest Rate Deregulation
in Enhancing Agricultural Productivity in Nigeria. Current Research Journal of Economic
Theory, 2(2): 82-36.

Akinlo, E.A (1996). “Improving the Performance of Nigerian Manufacturing Sub-Sector”,


Nigerian Journal of Economics and Social Sciences, Vol. 38, No.2, pp. 91-110.

CBN (2003) Statistical Bulletin, CBN publications, Lagos.

CBN (2010) Statistical Bulletin, CBN publications, Lagos.

CBN (2011) Monetary Policy Review. Lagos: CBN Press.


CBN (2011) Statistical Bulletin, CBN publications, Lagos.

Chirwa, E.W. and Mlachila, M. (2004). “Financial Reforms and Interest Rate Spreads in the
Commercial banking System in Malawi”, IMF Staff Paper 51 (1) 96-122.

Ebere, E. J. and Iorember, P. T. (2016). Commercial Bank Credit and Manufacturing Sector
Output in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 7(16), 189-196).

Erinwa, N. (2016). Impact of rising interest rate on the performance of the Nigeria
manufacturing sector. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(10), 1-10.

Jhingan, M.L. (2003). Macro-Economic Theory. Vrinda Publication (P) Ltd, Delhi.

Keynes (1936).”The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”. Cited in Jhingan
(2003) Macro Economic Theory. Vrinda Publications.

Loto, M. A. (2012). “Global Economic Downturn and the Manufacturing Sector Performance in
the Nigerian Economy” (A Quarterly Empirical Analysis) Journal of Emerging Trends in
Economics and Management Sciences (JETEMS) 3 (1): 38-45 © Scholarlink Research
Institute Journals, 2012 (ISSN: 2141-7024).

Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN) (2010). Annual Report Presented During 39th
Annual General Meeting. Available from: http://www.manufacturersnigeria.org.htm.

Mishkin, F. S. (1995). “International Experiences With Different Monetary Policy Regimes,”


Journal of Monetary Economics, 43, pp. 579-605.

Nwakoro, A. N. (2017). Foreign Exchange and Interests and Manufacturing Output in Nigeria.
International Journal of Business and Law Research 5(1) 30-38.
Obadan, M. I. (1997). “Analytical Framework for Poverty Reduction: Issues of Economic
Growth versus Other Strategies”. In Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria, Selected Papers for
the 1997 Annual Conference of Nigerian Economic Society.

Obute C., Adyorough A., and Itodo A.I (2012). An Assessment of the Impact of Interest Rates
Deregulation on Economic Growth in Nigeria (1964-2009). Journal of Business and
Organizational Development. Cenresin Publications, Volume 4.

Okwori, J., Ochinyabo, S., and Sule, A. (2014). The Effect of Interest Rate on Manufacturing
Sector Performance in Nigeria (1986-2012). The Benue Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 2,
No. 1. Pp.112-129.

Olukoshi, A. (1991). The Performance of Nigerian Industry Under the Structural Adjustment
Programme; a Critical Assessment; JAD Publishers Ltd. Lagos.
Onakoye, A. B., Ogundajo, G. O., and Johnson, B. S. (2017). Monetary Policy and the
Sustainability of the Manufacturing Sector in Nigeria. Review of innovation and
competitiveness 3(4), 73-87.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: DATA PRESENTATION

YEAR M%GDP LINT CPI

1981 20.26371 8.916667 0.493799

1982 20.33225 9.5375 0.53181

1983 21.09825 9.976667 0.655256

1984 17.73636 10.24167 0.772026

1985 21.0545 9.433333 0.829428


1986 21.01 9.959167 0.876848

1987 18.78351 13.96167 0.975847

1988 21.01964 16.61667 1.507793

1989 18.35403 20.44167 2.268726

1990 17.7826 25.3 2.435804

1991 19.49459 20.04167 2.752629

1992 17.65449 24.75833 3.979994

1993 18.37625 31.65 6.255168

1994 20.92708 20.48333 9.822597

1995 19.99372 20.23333 16.97694

1996 19.10108 19.83667 21.94579

1997 19.19853 17.795 23.81774

1998 17.45057 18.18417 26.19865

1999 16.25737 20.29 27.93258

2000 13.9334 21.27417 29.86923

2001 13.92536 23.43833 35.50664

2002 11.81181 24.77083 40.07868

2003 12.06061 20.71417 45.70243

2004 10.86157 19.18083 52.5569

2005 10.06108 17.94833 61.9454

2006 8.852873 16.89333 67.04941

2007 8.40138 16.93917 70.65815

2008 8.168913 15.13583 78.83894

2009 7.838412 18.99083 87.93512

2010 6.552817 17.585 100

2011 7.171084 16.02 110.84


2012 7.724547 16.79167 124.3822

2013 8.928929 16.7225 134.9246

2014 9.635812 16.54833 145.8029

2015 9.428437 16.84917 158.9389

2016 8.679698 16.86802 183.8531

2017 8.741993 17.55333 214.2321

2018 7.77963 16.9039 240.1429

2019 8.400441 17.10842 212.7427

Source: World Development Indicator (2019)

S-ar putea să vă placă și