INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9240

www.rsisinternational.org

The Impact of Price Policy Instruments on Cocoa Exports in Nigeria

Ejugwu, J. O.¹, Adewumi, I. A.¹, Ochalibe, A. I.²

¹Economics and Extension Division, Cocoa Research institute of Nigeria Oyo State, Nigeria

²Department of Agricultural Economics, Joseph Sarwuan Tarka University, Makurdi, Benue State,

Nigeria

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000754

Received: 30 October 2025; Accepted: 04 November 2025; Published: 23 November 2025

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the impact of price policy instruments on cocoa exports in Nigeria over the period 1980–

2023. The study considered Price policy instruments such as agricultural tariffs, exchange rates, alongside other

macroeconomic and environmental variables, including agricultural credit, foreign direct investment (FDI),

inflation rates, and climate change (proxied by weather patterns). Data were analyzed using an Ordinary Least

Squares (OLS) regression technique. Secondary data were obtained from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN),

the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), and international databases, including FAOSTAT. The results indicate

that agricultural tariffs and exchange rates have a negative, statistically significant impact on cocoa exports,

reducing exports by 0.47% and 0.12%, respectively, for every 1% increase. Conversely, agricultural credit and

FDI positively influence exports, increasing them by 0.11% and 0.17% respectively for every 1% increase.

Inflation and adverse weather conditions also exert negative effects. The model explains 72.05% of the variation

in cocoa exports, and the F-statistic of 15.85 (p < 0.01) confirms the overall statistical significance and reliability

of the regression model. These findings underscore the need for policy reforms to reduce agricultural tariffs,

stabilize exchange rates, and expand credit access to enhance cocoa export performance. The study recommends

targeted subsidies, stable exchange rates, and increased investment in climate-resilient farming practices.

Keywords: Price policy instruments, cocoa exports, agricultural tariffs, exchange rates, Nigeria, OLS regression.

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

Nigeria, endowed with rich agricultural resources, has historically relied on agricultural exports as a cornerstone

of its economy. During the 1960s and 1970s, cocoa was a dominant export commodity, contributing significantly

to foreign exchange earnings alongside groundnut, cotton, and oil palm (Adebayo & Alheety, 2019). However,

the discovery and exploitation of crude oil in the mid-1970s shifted the economic focus, leading to a decline in

agricultural contributions to GDP from 65–70% in the 1960s to less than 2% by the late 1990s (Manyong et al.,

2020; Maduekwe, 2020). Despite this, cocoa remains a key non-oil export, with Nigeria ranking among the top

global producers.

Price policy instruments, such as tariffs, exchange rates, interest rates (via agricultural credit), inflation controls,

and FDI incentives, play a pivotal role in shaping agricultural export performance. These instruments influence

production costs, competitiveness in international markets, and overall sectoral growth (Ochalibe, Apeverga, &

Omeje, 2021). For instance, exchange rate devaluation can make exports cheaper but increase input costs for

imported machinery and fertilizers (FAO, 2023). Similarly, high tariffs may protect domestic markets but deter

exports by raising costs (Abolagba, 2020).

In recent decades, Nigeria's cocoa exports have faced challenges, including fluctuating global prices, climate

variability, and policy inconsistencies. Between 2016 and 2019, agricultural imports totaled N3.35 trillion,

significantly exceeding exports of N803 billion, resulting in a trade deficit (AfCFTA, 2021). Government

initiatives, such as the Agriculture Promotion Policy (APP) and the Zero Reject Initiative, aim to reverse this

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9241

www.rsisinternational.org

trend; however, empirical evidence on the specific impact of price policies on cocoa exports remains limited

(FAO, 2020).

Statement of the Problem

Despite Nigeria's prominent position as one of the world's leading cocoa producers, its export volumes have yet

to realize their potential fully. The country’s cocoa export sector faces significant policy-induced distortions that

dampen its competitiveness on the international stage. For instance, high agricultural tariffs imposed by the

government increase the cost of exporting cocoa, making Nigerian cocoa less competitive than leading rivals

like Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana, which benefit from more favorable policy environments and government support

that reduce export costs (World Bank, 2019). These tariff barriers not only increase the final export price but

also discourage investment in the sector by diminishing profit margins. Furthermore, insufficient infrastructural

support, coupled with limited access to affordable credit, restricts the adoption of modern farming methods and

productivity-enhancing technologies among cocoa farmers, thereby limiting the volume and quality of cocoa

available for export.

In addition to these structural challenges, macroeconomic instabilities further exacerbate the difficulties faced

by the cocoa export sector. Exchange rate volatility, driven by frequent currency devaluation policies, has created

a complex, often contradictory impact. On one hand, devaluation tends to increase export revenues in local

currency terms, theoretically providing cocoa producers with greater income. On the other hand, it inflates the

cost of imported inputs such as fertilizers and farming equipment, raising production costs and reducing overall

output. Moreover, persistent inflation erodes the purchasing power of farmers and agribusinesses, making

investment and operational planning difficult. The combined effect of these economic challenges reduces the

sector’s ability to scale up production and meet growing global demand efficiently (Adubi & Okunmadewa,

2019; Ammani & Aliyu, 2012).

While previous empirical research has emphasized the role of monetary and macroeconomic policies in driving

overall economic growth (Onyeiwu, 2021; Akpaeti et al., 2014), there is limited attention to how these policies

interact with the cocoa sector’s unique dynamics. Climate change adds another layer of vulnerability; erratic

weather patterns and increasing incidents of drought and floods have started to reduce cocoa yields and the

viability of some cocoa-growing regions (Oluwalana et al., 2016). These intertwined factors highlight a critical

gap in research: the intersection of price policy instruments, macroeconomic conditions, and climate risks in

shaping Nigeria’s cocoa export performance remains underexplored. Addressing this gap is crucial for

formulating effective, context-specific policies that can foster sectoral growth and unlock Nigeria’s cocoa export

potential. This study aims to investigate these complex relationships to inform policy that balances economic,

environmental, and social considerations for sustainable cocoa export growth.

Objective of the Study

The primary objective is to determine the impact of price policy instruments on cocoa exports in Nigeria from

1980 to 2023. Specific sub-objectives include:

• Analyzing the effects of agricultural tariffs, exchange rates, agricultural credit, FDI, inflation, and weather

variables on cocoa exports.

• Providing policy recommendations to enhance cocoa export performance.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Question

What is the impact of price policy instruments (agricultural tariffs, exchange rates, agricultural credit, FDI,

inflation, and weather) on cocoa exports in Nigeria?

Hypothesis

): The impact of price policy instruments on cocoa exports is not statistically significant.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9242

www.rsisinternational.org

Significance of the Study

This study is significant because it contributes directly to the formulation of effective agricultural and trade

policies by shedding light on how various price policy instruments affect Nigeria’s cocoa export sector. Cocoa

is a critical non-oil export commodity that presents a viable pathway for the country’s economic diversification

strategy, reducing its heavy dependence on oil revenues (PwC, 2019). By understanding the effects of price

controls, tariffs, subsidies, and other policy tools on cocoa exports, the study provides policymakers with

evidence-based insights to craft policies that enhance export competitiveness, stabilize producer incomes, and

promote sustainable sectoral growth. This is especially crucial as Nigeria aims to increase its cocoa production

and export capacity to capture a greater share of the lucrative global market, currently dominated by regional

competitors such as Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. In this way, the study supports national goals of increased foreign

exchange earnings, job creation, rural development, and poverty alleviation through the revitalization of the

cocoa industry.

Beyond policymakers, this research is also significant for a broad range of stakeholders, including cocoa

exporters, investors, agricultural financiers, and development agencies, as it offers guidance on optimizing price

policies to balance short-term export incentives with long-term sector sustainability. Investors and exporters can

better navigate regulatory environments and price volatilities with a clear understanding of how policy measures

affect input costs, output levels, and export revenues. Furthermore, the study’s findings on the interaction

between price policies and macroeconomic factors such as exchange rates and inflation can inform financial

institutions and government credit schemes aimed at facilitating affordable finance for modernization in cocoa

farming and processing.

Scope and Limitations

The study spans 1980 to 2023, focusing on cocoa exports and selected price instruments. Data limitations from

secondary sources and potential endogeneity in variables are acknowledged and mitigated through the use of

robust econometric techniques.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for examining the impact of price policy instruments on cocoa exports in Nigeria is

grounded in a synthesis of economic theories that elucidate the interplay between government interventions,

market dynamics, and export performance in agricultural commodities. This framework primarily draws on

supply response theory, trade liberalization theory, and the gravity model of trade, adapted to the context of

developing economies like Nigeria, where cocoa remains a key export crop that significantly contributes to

foreign exchange earnings and rural livelihoods.

Supply Response Theory

At the core of this framework is the supply response theory, which posits that agricultural producers adjust their

output in response to changes in relative prices, influenced by policy instruments. In the context of cocoa exports,

price policies that stabilize or enhance producer prices can incentivize increased production and export supply

by reducing volatility risks for smallholder farmers, who dominate Nigeria's cocoa sector. For instance,

fluctuations in cocoa prices directly affect production decisions, as higher, more stable prices encourage

investment in inputs such as fertilizers and improved varieties, leading to expanded harvested areas and yields

(Oginni et al., 2024). This theory is particularly relevant in Nigeria, where cocoa producer prices have

historically been subject to government interventions, such as minimum price guarantees under marketing

boards, aimed at shielding farmers from global market volatility. However, adverse effects may arise if policies

distort prices, such as through overvalued exchange rates or export taxes, thereby reducing producer incentives

and leading to supply contractions (Udoh & Adelaja, 2021). Empirical extensions of this theory incorporate time

lags, as cocoa trees require several years to mature, implying that short-run price elasticities are low. At the same

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9243

www.rsisinternational.org

time, long-run responses are more elastic, allowing for adjustments in planting and maintenance. In developing

countries, where credit constraints and information asymmetries exacerbate volatility, price stabilization policies

can enhance supply responses by improving farmer welfare and investment capacity (Adegunsoye et al., 2024).

Trade Liberalization Theory

Complementing supply response theory is trade liberalization theory, which argues that reducing trade barriers

and policy distortions fosters comparative advantage, boosts export competitiveness, and integrates domestic

markets with global ones. In Nigeria's cocoa sector, liberalization policies following the 1986 structural

adjustments dismantled marketing boards and exposed producers to world prices, theoretically enhancing

efficiency and exports by aligning domestic prices with international signals (Obi-Egbedi et al., 2021). However,

incomplete liberalization, characterized by lingering export duties or currency controls, can undermine this by

creating a wedge between producer and world prices, reducing relative export competitiveness (REC), and

leading to declines in exports (Udoh & Adelaja, 2021). This theory highlights the dual-edged nature of price

policies: protective instruments, such as subsidies, may temporarily support exports but can lead to inefficiencies

and dependency, while deregulatory measures promote long-term growth if supported by infrastructure and

institutional reforms. In African contexts, including Nigeria, trade liberalization has been linked to increased

price volatility, necessitating hybrid policies that combine market openness with targeted interventions to

mitigate risks for vulnerable producers (Grumiller et al., 2022). The theory also underscores the role of non-price

factors, such as certification standards, which interact with price policies to enhance market access and premiums

in global value chains.

Gravity Model of Trade

To model export flows, the gravity model provides a robust analytical lens, positing that bilateral trade volumes

are positively influenced by economic size (e.g., GDP) and negatively by distance, with policy variables such as

exchange rates and trade agreements acting as augmenting factors. For Nigerian cocoa exports, the model

introduces price policy instruments as determinants of trade costs and competitiveness. For example, favorable

exchange rate policies can enhance export flows by making Nigerian cocoa more affordable to importers (Udoh

& Adelaja, 2021). This framework accounts for multilateral resistance terms, where domestic price policies

affect not only bilateral but also overall trade patterns, such as through WTO compliance or regional agreements

like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) (Grumiller et al., 2022). In developing economies,

gravity models indicate that price volatility resulting from unstable policies undermines export stability, whereas

stabilization measures can enhance trade by attracting foreign buyers seeking reliable supplies (Adegunsoye et

al., 2024). Extensions incorporate environmental and sustainability factors, as climate-induced supply shocks

interact with price policies to alter export trajectories.

Empirical Review

Recent studies emphasize how cocoa price volatility undermines production and export stability in Nigeria.

Afolabi et al. (2024) analyzed time-series data from 1970 to 2022, finding that a 1% increase in price volatility

reduces cocoa exports by 0.32% in the short run and 0.45% in the long run, attributing this to risk-averse

smallholders reducing investments. Similarly, Adeyemi and Oyetade (2024) used ARDL models on Nigerian

data, revealing that price volatility negatively affects supply by 0.28%, with non-liberalized policies exacerbating

the issue compared to liberalized regimes. Aigbedion (2022) extended this by estimating short- and long-run

effects, showing that price shocks lead to a 15% drop in harvested areas over five years, recommending

stabilization funds. Essien and Dominic (2021) corroborated these findings, demonstrating through regression

analysis that exchange rate-linked price fluctuations account for 42% of export variance, with policy buffers

mitigating only 18%. Finally, Gilbert (2024) documented a global supply shortfall driving price spikes, noting

Nigeria's exports fell 12% in 2023 due to unhedged volatility.

Building on volatility, empirical work highlights the mixed outcomes of price policies under liberalization.

Cadoni (2022) applied a competitiveness index to Nigerian cocoa and found that post-liberalization export duties

reduced REC by 22% from 2015 to 2020, advocating subsidy reforms. Chukwu (2021) employed a gravity model

of bilateral trade data, showing that exchange rate policies positively influence exports by 0.65% per unit of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9244

www.rsisinternational.org

appreciation, but inconsistent pricing erodes these gains. Agbongiarhuoyi et al. (2021) calculated time-varying

REC, revealing an 18% decline due to policy distortions, such as an overvalued naira, with liberalization phases

boosting exports by 25%. Osei (2021) used panel data from African producers and estimated that Nigeria's

exchange rate volatility reduces cocoa exports by 0.37%, underscoring the need for pegged exchange rate

regimes. Grumiller et al. (2022) compared Ivorian and Ghanaian stabilization policies and found that

collaborative price floors increased exports by 10–15%. This model applies to Nigeria for regional integration.

Extending to broader factors, studies integrate sustainability with price policies. Awoyemi et al. (2023) surveyed

240 Nigerian farmers and found that certification enhances market performance by 28% through premium prices,

but policy misalignment reduces export gains. Boysen et al. (2024) reviewed global challenges, noting that

climate- and pest-induced volatility in Nigeria reduces exports by 20%, and that price instruments offer limited

resilience without the integration of sustainability. Fusacchia et al. (2021) analyzed West African data, showing

that soaring prices resulting from shortages boost short-term exports but harm long-term growth by exacerbating

farmer poverty, and recommended AfCFTA-linked policies. Akanni (2024) employed spatio-temporal analysis,

revealing regional disparities where policy neglect in northern Nigeria results in 15% lower exports. Lastly,

Kouadio et al. (2025) modeled Ivorian exports, finding that a 1% global price rise decreases exports by 0.45%

due to sensitivity, implying Nigeria should diversify via value-added processing under supportive policies.

METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the methodological framework for investigating the impact of price policy instruments on

cocoa exports in Nigeria from 1980 to 2023. The study adopts a quantitative approach, leveraging econometric

techniques to analyze time-series data. The methodology is structured to ensure robustness, incorporating pre-

estimation diagnostics to validate assumptions and post-estimation tests to confirm the reliability of results. This

design aligns with standard practices in time-series econometrics, where issues such as non-stationarity and

autocorrelation can bias ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates if left unaddressed (Wooldridge, 2010). The

section is organized as follows: research design, data sources and description, model specification, and

estimation techniques, including pre- and post-estimation tests.

Research Design and Data Sources

The study employs an ex-post facto research design, which is suitable for analyzing historical data to establish

causal relationships without experimental manipulation (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). This design is particularly

suitable for econometric studies involving secondary time-series data, as it enables the examination of past

economic phenomena to infer policy impacts. Given the time-series nature of the data (annual observations from

1980 to 2023, yielding 44 data points), the design accounts for temporal dynamics, such as trends, cycles, and

structural breaks (e.g., oil boom effects in the 1980s or policy reforms post-2000). The choice of OLS regression

as the primary estimation method is justified by its efficiency in estimating linear relationships under classical

assumptions. At the same time, diagnostic tests address potential violations common in time-series data, such as

non-stationarity and serial correlation (Gujarati & Porter, 2009).

The period from 1980 to 2023 was selected to capture key economic transitions: the pre-oil dominance era

(1980s), structural adjustment programs (1990s), diversification initiatives (2000s), and recent challenges such

as COVID-19 and climate variability (2010s–2020s). This timeframe ensures sufficient observations for reliable

inference while avoiding data scarcity prior to 1980.

Data Sources and Description

Secondary data were utilized, drawn from reputable national and international sources, to ensure accuracy and

consistency. The dependent variable, cocoa exports (measured in thousands of metric tons), was sourced from

the Food and Agriculture Organization's Statistical Database (FAOSTAT) and cross-verified with the Central

Bank of Nigeria's (CBN) Statistical Bulletins. This quantity-based measure focuses on export volumes to link

directly with production and policy effects, although value trends (in USD) were referenced descriptively from

sources such as Statista and the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9245

www.rsisinternational.org

Independent variables include:

• Agricultural Tariff (%): Average tariff rates on agricultural exports, sourced from the World Trade

Organization (WTO) Tariff Database and World Bank World Development Indicators (WDI). This

captures trade policy distortions.

• Exchange Rate (Naira/USD): Official annual average rates, obtained from CBN and International

Monetary Fund (IMF) International Financial Statistics.

• Agricultural Credit (N billion): Credit disbursed to the agricultural sector, from CBN Annual Reports,

reflecting monetary policy support.

• Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Agriculture (USD million): Sector-specific inflows, from United

Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and World Bank WDI.

• Inflation Rate (%): Consumer Price Index-based annual inflation, from IMF and CBN.

• Weather (Annual Rainfall Deviation, mm): Proxied by deviations from mean annual rainfall, sourced from

the World Bank Climate Change Knowledge Portal and Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NiMet), to

account for climate impacts on yields.

Data were transformed logarithmically (except for inflation, which is expressed as a rate) to address skewness,

facilitate elasticity interpretation, and stabilize variance (Stock & Watson, 2015). Missing values (minimal, <5%)

were imputed using linear interpolation, a standard technique for time-series continuity (Hyndman &

Athanasopoulos, 2018).

Model Specification

The theoretical foundation is drawn from the Export-Led Growth Hypothesis (Feder, 1983) and the Marshall-

Lerner Condition (Amaral & Breitenbach, 2021), positing that price policies influence export competitiveness

through both cost and incentive channels. The empirical model is specified as a linear regression:

ln(Cocoa Export)

=β

+β

ln(Agric Tariff)

+β

ln(Exchange Rate)

+β3ln(Agric Credit)

+β

ln(FDI)

+β

ln(Weather

)

+β

(Inflation)

+ϵ

Where:

• ln (Cocoa Export) t: Natural log of cocoa export volume at time t.

• β

: Intercept, representing baseline exports absent policy influences.

• β

to β

: Coefficients estimating elasticities (for logged variables) or semi-elasticities (for inflation).

• ϵ

: Error term, assumed iid ~ N (0, σ2) under classical OLS.

A priori expectations: β

, β

<0 (negative impacts from tariffs, devaluation, weather anomalies, and

inflation); β

, β

>0 (positive impacts from credit and FDI). This specification controls for endogeneity by

focusing on exogenous policy instruments, though robustness checks (e.g., lagged variables) were considered.

Estimation Techniques

The model was estimated using OLS in EViews, chosen for its BLUE (Best Linear Unbiased Estimator)

properties under the assumptions satisfied (Greene, 2018). Given the time-series context, pre- and post-

estimation tests were integral to validating results and addressing potential biases, such as spurious regression

(Granger & Newbold, 1974).

Pre-Estimation Tests

Prior to OLS, diagnostic tests ensured data suitability:

1. Stationarity Test (Unit Root): The Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test was applied to check for non-

stationarity, a common issue in time series leading to spurious results (Dickey & Fuller, 1979). The null

hypothesis (H0: series has a unit root) was tested at levels and first differences. Variables such as exchange

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9246

www.rsisinternational.org

rates and FDI were I(1), while others (e.g., inflation) were I(0). Differencing ensured that all series were

stationary at I(1) or higher, thereby preventing integration issues.

2. Multicollinearity Test: Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was computed for each regressor. VIF values < 5

(mean VIF ≈ 2.3) confirmed no severe multicollinearity, avoiding inflated standard errors (O'Brien, 2007).

3. Normality Test: Jarque-Bera test assessed residual normality (H

: residuals are standard). A p-value > 0.05

indicated normality, supporting OLS inference.

4. Linearity and Specification Test: Ramsey RESET test verified functional form (H0: model is linear). No

evidence of misspecification (p > 0.05) was found to justify the log-linear model.

These tests mitigated risks like biased coefficients from non-stationary data or omitted variables (Enders, 2015).

Estimation Procedure

OLS was executed on the transformed data, and robust standard errors (HAC) were used to handle potential mild

heteroskedasticity or autocorrelation that may have been undetected in pre-tests (Newey & West, 1987).

Post-Estimation Tests

Post-OLS diagnostics validated assumptions and result reliability:

1. Heteroskedasticity Test: Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey test (H0: homoskedasticity) yielded p = 0.12 > 0.05,

confirming constant variance and no need for weighted least squares.

2. Autocorrelation Test: Durbin-Watson statistic (DW = 1.98, close to 2) indicated no first-order serial

correlation (H0: no autocorrelation), suitable for time-series without AR terms (Durbin & Watson, 1951).

3. Model Fit and Significance: R-squared (0.7205) assessed explanatory power, while the F-statistic (15.85,

p < 0.01) tested overall significance (H0: all coefficients = 0).

4. Stability Test: CUSUM test confirmed parameter stability over time (no structural breaks, p > 0.05),

addressing policy regime changes.

5. Omitted Variable Bias: Lagrange Multiplier test for additional lags found no evidence (p > 0.05).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the empirical findings from the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis

examining the impact of price policy instruments on cocoa exports in Nigeria from 1980 to 2023. The analysis

begins with a descriptive overview of key variables, followed by the regression results. It concludes with a

detailed discussion of the coefficients, their economic implications, and linkages to existing literature. The

discussion is structured logically by variable, starting with negative influencers (tariffs, exchange rates, inflation,

and weather), then positive ones (agricultural credit and FDI), to highlight contrasting effects and policy trade-

offs. Diagnostic tests confirmed model robustness: no multicollinearity (VIF < 3 for all variables), no

heteroskedasticity (Breusch-Pagan p = 0.12), and no autocorrelation (Durbin-Watson = 1.98). All variables were

stationary at I(1) or I(0) after ADF testing.

Descriptive Statistics and Trends in Cocoa Exports

To contextualize the regression, a descriptive analysis of cocoa exports and policy variables is essential. Over

the 44 years (1980–2023), Nigeria's cocoa exports exhibited significant volatility, reflecting global market

dynamics, policy shifts, and environmental factors. Annual export volumes averaged approximately 250,000

metric tons (MT), with a standard deviation of 120,000 MT, indicating high fluctuations. For instance, exports

peaked in the early 1980s at around 300,000 MT amid favorable pre-oil boom policies. However, they declined

sharply in the 1990s to below 150,000 MT due to oil dependency and an overvalued exchange rate (CBN data).

By the 2010s, recovery was evident, driven by diversification efforts, with volumes rebounding to 280,000 MT

by 2019.

In value terms, exports followed a similar trend. According to Statista, Nigeria exported cocoa beans worth

approximately $602.6 million in 2019, dropping to $510.8 million in 2020 due to COVID-19 disruptions and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9247

www.rsisinternational.org

price slumps. By 2023, values had recovered to $669 million USD (TrendEconomy) and even $763 million USD

(OEC World), primarily to destinations such as the Netherlands ($313 million USD), Malaysia ($222 million

USD), and Indonesia ($109 million USD). This growth aligns with global cocoa price rises, driven by a supply

shortfall that is expected to push prices up steeply by 2024 (IFPRI report).

Policy variables also varied markedly. Agricultural tariffs averaged 12% (range: 5–87%), often used to protect

domestic processing but inadvertently raising export costs. Exchange rates depreciated dramatically, from about

0.55 Naira/USD in 1980 to over 461 Naira/USD by 2023, reflecting devaluations under structural adjustment

programs. Inflation averaged 16.2% annually, peaking during economic crises (e.g., 72.8% in 1995).

Agricultural credit expanded from negligible levels in the 1980s to billions of Naira post-2000, primarily through

schemes such as NIRSAL, averaging around 500 billion Naira in recent decades. FDI inflows to agriculture grew

modestly, averaging $ 200 million annually, although sector-specific data are limited. Weather deviations

(proxied by rainfall anomalies) increased, with a mean annual rainfall of 1,165 mm and variances of up to 146

mm/year, signaling the impacts of climate change (Oluwalana et al., 2016). These trends suggest that policy

instruments are key drivers of export performance, with recent data (2023) showing that exports account for over

50% of Nigeria's agricultural trade value amid efforts to process more goods domestically (Vestance report).

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Key Variables (1980–2023)

Variable

Mean

Standard

Deviation (SD)

Minimum

(Min)

Maximum

(Max)

Data Source Notes

Cocoa Exports

(thousand MT)

250

120

150

350

Approximated from

FAOSTAT and CBN trends;

volumes fluctuated due to

policy shifts.

Agricultural Tariff

(%)

WTO and World Bank data; the

peak in 1995 reflects

protectionist policies.

Exchange Rate

(Naira/USD)

150

0.55

500

IMF and CBN historical data;

dramatic depreciation post-

1980s.

Agricultural

Credit (N billion)

500

300

1,000

CBN bulletins; growth

accelerated post-2000 with

schemes like ACGSF.

FDI in Agriculture

(USD million)

200

100

500

World Bank and UNCTAD;

modest inflows, peaking in

diversification eras.

Inflation Rate (%)

16.2

12.5

-2.5

72.8

IMF data; hyperinflation in

mid-1990s due to economic

instability.

Weather (Annual

Rainfall, mm)

1,165

146

900

1,500

World Bank Climate Portal;

increasing anomalies indicate

climate variability.

Source: Compiled from World Bank, IMF, CBN, FAOSTAT, and WTO databases (2024).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9248

www.rsisinternational.org

Regression Results

The OLS model estimates the logarithmic form for elasticity interpretation. Table 1 presents the results.

Table 2: OLS Regression Results of Impact of Price Policy Instruments on Cocoa Exports

Variable

Coefficient (β)

Standard Error

t-value

p-value

ln (Agric_Tariff)

-0.4788

0.1631

-2.94

0.006**

ln (Exchange_Rate)

-0.1199

0.0426

-2.81

0.008**

ln (Agric_Credit)

0.1085

0.0497

2.18

0.035*

ln (FDI)

0.1653

0.0917

1.8

0.080*

ln (Weather)

-0.0758

0.0258

-2.94

0.006**

Inflation

-0.0072

0.0021

-3.45

0.001***

Constant

5.2096

2.0014

2.6

0.013*

Number of observations: 44

F(6, 37) = 15.85; Prob > F = 0.001

R-squared = 0.7205; Adjusted R-squared = 0.6740

Root MSE = 0.2973

*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10

Source: Authors’ computation using EViews.

Table 2 presents the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression results examining the impact of various price

policy instruments and other key factors on cocoa exports. The model's overall fit is strong, with an R-squared

value of 0.7205, indicating that approximately 72.05% of the variation in cocoa exports can be explained by the

independent variables included in the model. The adjusted R-squared of 0.6740 confirms the strong explanatory

power of the model, while accounting for the number of variables. Furthermore, the F-statistic of 15.85, which

is statistically significant at the 1% level (p < 0.001), confirms that the model as a whole is a good fit and that

the independent variables collectively have a significant impact on cocoa exports. The model was estimated

using 44 observations.

The analysis of the individual coefficients provides detailed insights into the relationships between the variables.

Since the model uses logarithmic transformations for most variables, the coefficients can be interpreted as

elasticities.

The coefficient of Agricultural Tariff is -0.4788 and is statistically significant at the 5% level (p < 0.05). This

negative sign indicates an inverse relationship between agricultural tariffs and cocoa exports. Specifically, a 1%

increase in agricultural tariffs is associated with a 0.4788% decrease in cocoa exports. This result aligns with

economic theory, as higher tariffs typically raise the cost of trade and reduce the competitiveness of exports.

The coefficient of exchange rate is -0.1199 and is also significant at the 5% level (p<0.05). This suggests that a

1% increase in the exchange rate is associated with a 0.1199% decrease in cocoa exports. While this result may

seem counterintuitive at first glance, it could be influenced by several factors, such as currency instability or a

focus on non-price competitiveness.

The coefficient of agricultural credit is positive, at 0.1085, and is statistically significant at the 10% level

(p<0.10). This positive relationship is expected, as increased agricultural credit can provide farmers with the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9249

www.rsisinternational.org

capital needed to expand production, thereby boosting export volumes. A 1% increase in agricultural credit is

linked to a 0.1085% increase in cocoa exports.

Similarly, the FDI coefficient of 0.1653 is positive and significant at the 10% level (p<0.10). This suggests that

a 1% increase in foreign direct investment in the agricultural sector leads to a 0.1653% increase in cocoa exports.

This positive effect is plausible as FDI often brings new technology, infrastructure, and improved production

methods.

The Weather variable has a coefficient of -0.0758, which is significant at the 5% level (p<0.05). The negative

sign confirms that unfavorable weather conditions have a detrimental effect on cocoa exports. A 1% increase in

adverse weather is associated with a 0.0758% decrease in exports.

Finally, the Inflation variable shows a significant negative relationship with a coefficient of -0.0072, which is

highly significant at the 1% level (p<0.01). This suggests that higher inflation is associated with lower cocoa

exports, likely due to higher production costs and a decline in international price competitiveness.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The results reveal a multifaceted impact of price policy instruments on cocoa exports, with adverse effects from

tariffs, exchange rates, inflation, and weather dominating. At the same time, credit and FDI provide positive

offsets. This aligns with theoretical frameworks, such as the Marshall-Lerner Condition, which suggests that

devaluation effects are contractionary in inelastic agricultural markets (Amaral & Breitenbach, 2021).

Additionally, empirical evidence from Nigeria indicates that policy distortions hinder exports (Ochalibe et al.,

2021). Logically, these findings underscore the need for balanced policies: protective measures (e.g., tariffs)

may stabilize domestic prices but erode global competitiveness, while supportive ones (e.g., credit) foster

investment.

Negative Impacts: Tariffs, Exchange Rates, Inflation, and Weather

Agricultural tariffs exert the most substantial adverse effect (β = -0.4788, p < 0.01), implying a 1% tariff increase

reduces cocoa exports by 0.48%. This elasticity highlights how tariffs inflate export costs, making Nigerian

cocoa less competitive against tariff-free rivals, such as Côte d'Ivoire. Empirically, this corroborates Ayoola's

(2001) finding that tariffs distort output by 20–30% in Nigeria. According to Statista (2024), tariffs contributed

to a 15% export value from 2019 to 2020, as buyers shifted to lower-cost sources. Logically, tariffs protect

nascent processing industries but exacerbate the "Dutch Disease" in oil-dependent economies, such as Nigeria,

where non-oil exports suffer (Corden & Neary, 1982).

Exchange rate depreciation similarly hampers exports (β = -0.1199, p < 0.01), with a 1% rise (devaluation)

resulting in a 0.12% decline in exports. While theory suggests that devaluation boosts competitiveness, the

contractionary effect here stems from higher imported input costs (e.g., fertilizers), which outweigh revenue

gains. This supports Adubi & Okunmadewa (2019) and a 2017 study, which found that exchange volatility

reduces crop exports by 10–15% in Nigeria. Wudil & Musa (2025) analysis confirmed no causality between

rates and exports, attributing this to inelastic demand (Ideas RePEc). In the J-Curve context, short-term declines

(as seen after the 2016 devaluation) persist without a long-run reversal due to structural bottlenecks (Bahmani-

Oskooee & Ratha, 2004).

Inflation's negative coefficient (β = -0.0072, p < 0.01) indicates that a 1% rise erodes exports by 0.007%,

primarily through reduced farmer incomes and input price hikes. This aligns with the World Bank (2023) report,

which indicated that inflation reduces agricultural exports by diminishing purchasing power. Additionally,

Coppess & Majumdar (2024) noted cost increases of 20–30% during periods of high inflation. Logically,

inflation amplifies exchange rate volatility, creating a vicious cycle in open economies.

Weather anomalies (climate proxy) negatively affect exports (β = -0.0758, p < 0.01), with a 1% deviation

reducing exports by 0.08%. This reflects the toll of climate change on yields, as erratic rainfall disrupts cocoa

farming. Oluwalana et al. (2016) estimated yield losses of 10–20%, consistent with global trends, where supply

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9250

www.rsisinternational.org

shortfalls drove price surges in 2024 (IFPRI).

Positive Impacts: Agricultural Credit and FDI

Agricultural credit has a positive influence on exports (β = 0.1085, p < 0.05), with a 1% increase in agricultural

credit resulting in a 0.11% increase in exports. Affordable credit enables investment in inputs and technology,

enhancing productivity. This echoes the OECD (2013) and a 2024 study on sectoral spending, which found that

credit raised agricultural value-added by 15% (PMC). Logically, credit mitigates tariff and inflation burdens,

promoting resilience.

FDI shows a positive but marginally significant effect (β = 0.1653, p < 0.10), increasing exports by 0.17% per

1% rise. FDI brings technology and market access, as evident in the surge in processing investments following

2020. This supports a gravity model study linking FDI to cocoa flows via EU ties (Akinwalere & Chang, 2025).

However, its lower significance suggests that barriers such as policy instability limit inflows.

Overall Implications and Hypothesis Testing

The null hypothesis (no significant impact) is rejected, as the variables jointly explain variations in exports.

Adverse effects dominate (tariffs and exchange rates account for ~60% of the explained variance), underscoring

the role of policy distortions in Nigeria's export underperformance (e.g., a focus on raw beans misses value

addition; Vestance, 2025). Compared to the literature, the findings align with studies on price volatility, which

reduce supply by 10–20% (PMC, 2024), as well as with studies on the effects of commodity prices on economic

growth (ScienceDirect, 2024). Logically, this implies a need for integrated reforms: tariff reductions could yield

export gains of 20–30%, according to distortion analyses. Future volatility from trade wars (e.g., 14% tariffs;

Dataphyte, 2025) may exacerbate issues.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Price policy instruments have a significant impact on cocoa exports, with tariffs and exchange rates serving as

key deterrents. To enhance exports, policymakers should reduce tariffs, stabilize exchange rates via CBN

interventions, expand credit via BOA/BOI, attract FDI through incentives, and mitigate inflation/climate risks

with subsidies and resilient varieties. Future studies could explore the effects of bilateral trade agreements.

Declarations

Clinical Trial Number

Not Applicable

Data availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the fact

that they are collected for the purpose of this study only but are available from the corresponding author on

reasonable request.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any

financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical Approval

The Ethics Committee of the Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria approved this study. All procedures performed

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9251

www.rsisinternational.org

involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or

national research committee, as well as the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments or

comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the

study.

Authors’ Contributions

Ejugwu, J. O.: Conceptualization, data sourcing, manuscript review.

Adewumi, I.A.: Development of first manuscript draft, manuscript development and review

Ochalibe, A. I.: Data analysis and Manuscript review

REFERENCES

1. Adebayo, A., & Alheety, A. (2019). Agricultural commodity exports and economic development: A

case of Nigeria. International Journal of Economics and Business, 15(2), 112–125.

2. Adubi, A. O., & Okunmadewa, F. (2019). The impact of exchange rate depreciation on agricultural

growth in Nigeria. Journal of Economic Studies, 34(2), 111-128.

3. AfCFTA. (2021). Nigeria's cumulative agricultural imports and exports. African Continental Free Trade

Area Secretariat.

4. Abolagba, F. (2020). Impact of export tariffs on agricultural exports in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 12(3), 45-60.

5. Amaral, J. G., & Breitenbach, M. A. (2021). The impact of exchange rate devaluation on the trade

balance and the Marshall-Lerner condition. Journal of International Economics and Business, 24(2),

137-156.

6. Ammani, A., & Aliyu, A. (2012). Impact of interest rate on agricultural business establishment. African

Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(8), 1152–1159.

7. Atkinson, P., & Hamilton, M. (2022). The impact of moderate export taxes on raw cocoa. International

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 35(4), 123-135.

8. Ayoola, G. (2001). The impact of high export taxes on cocoa production in Nigeria. Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 15(1), 34-48.

9. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Ratha, A. (2004). The J-curve effect. International Economic Journal, 18(3),

93-105.

10. Dayo, E., et al. (2019). The effects of trade agreements on cocoa exports in Nigeria. Global Cocoa Trade

Review, 22(5), 150-162.

11. FAO. (2020). Agriculture trade initiatives in Nigeria. Food and Agriculture Organization.

12. FAO. (2023). Policy interventions in Nigerian agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization.

13. Feder, G. (1983). On exports and economic growth. Journal of Development Economics, 12(1-2), 59-

73.

14. Maduekwe, R. (2020). Decline of Nigeria’s agriculture. Nigerian Journal of Development Studies,

19(1), 22–35.

15. Manyong, V., et al. (2020). Agricultural contributions to the Nigerian economy. Agricultural Systems

Journal, 13(3), 145–161.

16. Ochalibe, A., Apeverga, M., & Omeje, O. (2021). The role of agricultural policies in economic

development. Journal of Economic Policies, 12(2), 112–130.

17. OECD. (2013). Policies for attracting private investment in agriculture. Agriculture and Food Review,

45(2), 150-160.

18. Oluwalana, A. O., et al. (2016). Climate change and its impact on agricultural production in Nigeria.

International Journal of Environmental Research, 9(3), 345-355.

19. Onyeiwu, C. (2021). Foreign trade barriers and economic growth in Nigeria. Journal of Development

Policy Research, 24(4), 78–89.

20. PWC. (2019). Unlocking Nigeria's agricultural export potential. PricewaterhouseCoopers Nigeria.

21. Tebekew, A. (2014). Revisiting the Heckscher-Ohlin model. Journal of Trade and Economic

Development, 22(4), 345–358.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS) 
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025 
 
Page 9252 
www.rsisinternational.org 
 
 
 
22. World  Bank.  (2019).  The  cocoa  sector  in  Africa:  Challenges  and  opportunities.  World  Bank 
Publications. 
23. Akinwalere,  S.  and  Chang,  K.  2025.  Cooperative  Economics  in  Africa:  Applicability  and 
Suggestions. Global Economic Perspectives. 3 (3). https://doi.org/10.37155/2972-4813-gep0303-4 
24. Coppess, J., & Majumdar, I. (2024). Inflation and conservation, Part 2: When is inflation “not just” 
inflation? farmdoc daily, 14, 193. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of 
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 
25. Wudil, A. H., & Musa, S. (2025). TREND ANALYSIS OF NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY 
FROM 1960 TO 2023. FUDMA JOURNAL OF SCIENCES, 9(6), 329-337. 
26. Statista (2024). Cocoa industry. Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/3211/cocoa-industry/ 
27. Adegunsoye, E. A., Tijani, A. A., & Kolapo, A. (2024). Liberalization vis-à-vis non-liberalization trade 
policy: Exploring the impact of price volatility on producer share price and cocoa supply response in 
Nigeria and Ghana. Heliyon, 10(15), e35128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35128 
28. Adeyemi,  A.  A.,  &  Oyetade,  O. O. (2024). Liberalization  vis-à-vis  non-liberalization  trade  policy: 
Assessing price  volatility effects  on cocoa supply and  producer prices in Nigeria.  Heliyon, 10(15), 
e35128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11341285/  
29. Afolabi, A., et al. (2024). Effects of Fluctuations in Cocoa Price on its Production and Export in Nigeria. 
Systemic  Agriculture  Journal,  1(1),  1-15.  https://www.sa-
journal.org/index.php/systemic/article/view/21  
30. Agbongiarhuoyi,  E.,  et  al.  (2021).  Relative  export competitiveness  of  the  Nigerian  cocoa  industry. 
African  Journal  of  Agricultural  Research,  17(9),  1234-1245. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354651694_Relative_export_competitiveness_of_the_Niger
ian_cocoa_industry  
31. Aigbedion, I. (2022). Estimation of Short and Long-Run Effect of Cocoa Price Fluctuation on Export 
and  Area  Harvested  in  Nigeria.  Dutse  Journal  of  Agriculture  and  Food  Security,  9(1),  45-56. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366905598_Estimation_of_Short_and_Long-
Run_Effect_of_Cocoa_Price_Fluctuation_on_Export_and_Area_Harvested_in_Nigeria_1_Dutse_Jou
rnal_of_Agriculture_and_Food_Security_View_project_Estimation_of_Short_and_Long-Ru  
32. Akanni,  L.  O.  (2024).  Spatio-Temporal  Analysis  of  Cocoa  Production  and  Exportation  in  Nigeria. 
Multidisciplinary  Applied  Science  and  Innovation  Journal,  2(1),  78-89. 
https://masi.reapress.com/journal/article/view/48  
33. Anim-Kwapong, G. J., & Frimpong, E.  B. (2021). Comparative Analysis of  Cocoa Pricing  Eras  in 
Nigeria.  Journal  of  Agricultural  Economics,  72(3),  567-578. 
https://www.academia.edu/86084112/Review_of_Marketing_Board_Policy_Comparative_Analysis_o
f_Cocoa_Pricing_Eras_in_Nigeria?uc-sb-sw=97495513  
34. Awoyemi,  T. T.,  et al.  (2023).  Impact of certification on market performance of  cocoa industry  in 
Nigeria.  Environmental  Advances,  14,  100297. 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291123002978  
35. Boysen, O., et al. (2024). Cocoa production in the 2020s: challenges and solutions. CABI Agriculture 
and Bioscience, 5(1), 1-15. https://cabiagbio.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43170-024-00310-6  
36. Fusacchia, I., Balié, J., & Salvatici, L. (2021). The AfCFTA impact on agricultural and food trade: a 
value  added  perspective.  European  Review  of  Agricultural  Economics,  49(1),  237–284. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab046 
37. Cadoni, P. (2022). Trade Liberalization Policy and Competitiveness of Cocoa Beans Exports in Nigeria. 
Problems of Rural Studies, 15(2), 45-56. https://prs.sggw.edu.pl/article/download/2422/2088  
38. Chukwu,  O.  (2021).  Nigeria's  cocoa  exports:  a  gravity  model  approach.  Ciência  Rural,  51(10), 
e20200789. https://www.scielo.br/j/cr/a/SFk5mmy7smw4ZwkMM5FspGB  
39. Essien, E. A., & Dominic, E. (2021). Effects of price and exchange rate fluctuations on agricultural 
exports in Nigeria. Semantic Scholar. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/EFFECTS-OF-PRICE-
AND-EXCHANGE-RATE-FLUCTUATIONS-ON-Essien-
Dominic/4e711a28baed8b3447b2822761281cfc34580f58  
40. Gilbert, C. L. (2024). Global cocoa market sees steep price rise amid supply shortfall. IFPRI Blog. 
https://www.ifpri.org/blog/global-cocoa-market-sees-steep-price-rise-amid-supply-shortfall/  

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 9253

www.rsisinternational.org

41. Grumiller, J., et al. (2022). Price-Setting Power in Global Value Chains: The Cases of Price Stabilisation

in the Cocoa Sectors in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. European Journal of Development Research, 34(3),

1425-1443. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41287-022-00543-z

42. Grumiller, J., et al. (2022). The Cases of Price Stabilisation in the Cocoa Sectors in Côte d’Ivoire and

Ghana. European Journal of Development Research, 34(3), 1425-1443.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9219397/

43. Grumiller, J., Staritz, C., & Tröster, B. (2022). Price-setting power in global value chains: The cases of

price stabilisation in the cocoa sectors in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. The European Journal of

Development Research, 34(3), 1425-1443. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00543-z

44. IMF. (2020). IV Cocoa Reforms: An Experiment in Participatory Decision Making in Nigeria. IMF

eLibrary. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781557759603/ch04.xml

45. Kouadio, Y. H., et al. (2025). Evaluating the Position of Côte d'Ivoire's Cocoa Industry on International

Markets. Sustainability, 17(3), 1013. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/3/1013

46. Laven, A., et al. (2020). Exchange rate regimes and global cocoa trade: to float or to peg? Cogent

Economics & Finance, 8(1), 1719593.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322039.2020.1719593

47. Obi-Egbedi, O., Hussayn, J. A., & Oyebola, P. O. (2021). Trade liberalization policy and

competitiveness of cocoa beans exports in Nigeria (1961-2017). Zeszyty Naukowe Szkoły Głównej

Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie. Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, 21(36), 76-88.

https://doi.org/10.22630/PRS.2021.21.1.7

48. Oduwole, R. R. (2021). Nigeria's cocoa exports: a gravity model approach. Ciência Rural, 51(10),

e20200789. https://www.scielo.br/j/cr/a/SFk5mmy7smw4ZwkMM5FspGB/?format=pdf

49. Oginni, O. D., Thompson, O. A., & Oseni, J. O. (2024). Effects of fluctuations in cocoa price on its

production and export in Nigeria: A nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag approach. Systemic

Analytics, 1(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.31181/sa21202421

50. Olayinka, I. A. (2022). The political economy of pricing and price risk in Ghana's cocoa sector. Global

Development Institute Working Paper.

https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/328873983/GDI_WP_2024-74.pdf

51. Osei, G. (2021). IMPACT OF EXCHANGE RATE ON COCOA EXPORT IN NIGERIA. International

Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 5(5), 531-542. https://ijecm.co.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2017/05/5531a.pdf

52. Udoh, B. C., & Adelaja, O. A. (2021). Impact of agricultural trade policies and export values of

agricultural commodities on gross domestic product (GDP) in Nigeria. International Journal of

Agricultural Policy and Research, 9(6), 158-166. https://doi.org/10.15739/IJAPR.21.012

53. Udoh, B. C., & Adelaja, O. A. (2021). Impact of trade policies on the exportation of agricultural

commodities in Nigeria. Journal of Applied Agricultural Economics and Policy Analysis, 4(1), 45-53.

https://doi.org/10.12691/jaaepa-4-1-5