Quality of Public Governance and Revenue Generation in Nigeria

Quality of Public Governance and Revenue Generation in Nigeria

Nura Ibrahim

Bursary Department, Umaru Musa Yar’adua University, Katsina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1105018

08 February 2024; Revised: 02 March 2024; Accepted: 30 April 2024; Published: 01 June 2024

ABSTRACT

The study examined the qualities of public governance on revenue generation in Nigeria. The study used worldwide governance indicators (WGI) as independent variables and government revenue as a percentage of GDP as dependent variables. Time series data from World Bank database and International Monetary Fund (IMF) for Public governance and revenue generation respectively for 25 years were collected and analysed. The findings revealed that control of corruption, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and accountability and transparency has statistical impact on government revenue as a percentage of GDP; while political stability also has no statistical impact on government revenue as a percentage of GDP in Nigeria. The study recommends that the Nigerian anti-corruption agencies like Economic and Financial Crime commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) saddle with the responsibilities of prosecuting corrupt officials in the court of law need to improve on their activities. Policy makers must regularly review the laws, rules, regulations, and policies of the country to ensure justice and peace for citizens and to protect property rights in order for rule of law and government effectiveness to achieve a more significant impact on revenue generation.

Keywords: public governance qualities, control of corruption, government effectiveness, political stability, regulatory quality.

INTRODUCTION

The continuous needs for highest level of transparency and accountability and the collective agreement to tackle corruption and other economic destruction in the world has made it mandatory for individual countries to device an appropriate mode of achieving public governance. Over the past years, several governments have embarked on many fiscal reforms in order to develop new and better ways of providing quality, adequate and less expensive goods and services that satisfy diverse citizens’ values and preferences (Jarbandhan & Gwiza, 2022). In stressing the importance of governance, Alqooti, (2020) affirmed that the demand for regulatory compliance, corporate sustainability and improvement in corporate performance, reassessment of the role of government in their societies and the rising demand for accountability, transparency and integrity brought about the need for good public governance. Kulshreshtha (2008) defined the public governance as “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development. Massey and Johnston-Miller (2016) defined public governance as a group of united public actors that are taking charge in designing, executing and imposing a particular regulatory policy, with a capacity to supervise and coordinate numerous government entities. Therefore, Public governance is defined as the combination of process and structures implemented by the government to ensure that the set goals and objectives are met, and the standard of living of the people are improved.

The qualities of public governance are measured using six (6) major Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), which are data gathered from a number of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and private sector firms; they are accountability and transparency, the rule of law, control of corruption government effectiveness; political stability and Regulatory quality (Kaufman et al., 2010).

Government revenue is money received by a government from all source including taxes and non-tax sources to enable it undertake public expenditure. Revenue generation is a major source of income to every nation; it has been found to be nose diving from time to time due to the weakness in the control framework that exists in the public sector. Oladimeji and Monisola (2013) assert that the revenue generation as laid down by the Federal Government of Nigeria is income generated through tax and non-tax revenue. Tax is a necessary ingredient for civilization; it refers to compulsory contribution of money or occasionally of goods and services from private individuals, institutions or groups to the government (Dutta, 2006).

Tax is classified into direct tax which is levied directly on the income and property of individuals and companies such as personal income tax (PIT), company income tax (CIT) and petroleum profit tax (PPT), etc.; and indirect tax is imposed upon persons or groups whom they are not intended to bear the burden or incidence but will shift them to other people. They are normally imposed on commodities or services and hence their incidence does not fall directly on the final payers such as import duties, excise duties, export duties, value added tax (VAT), etc. However, Non-tax revenue are income earned from sources other than taxes by the government such as interest and repayment, mining fees, rents, royalties and NNPC Earnings licenses, fees, earnings from sales and rent of government property, etc.

The nexus between qualities of public governance and revenue generation is that the governance is an institution of public organizations aimed at providing public and other goods demanded by the country’s citizens in an effective, transparent, impartial, and accountable manner, subject to resource constraints and the relevance of government revenue in pursuing its responsibilities and the need for revenue generation policies that will improve government revenue collection in Nigeria with the ultimate purpose of achieving economic progress.

Several studies have identified a number of problems hindering revenue collection, including the view that taxes do not result in the provision of services. Authors like (Johnson & Omodero, 2021; Akintoye et al., 2019; Arif & Rawat, 2018; Epaphra & Massawe, 2017; Bird et al, 2014; Saibu & Olasunbo, 2013) revealed in their studies various variables of public governance quality as major determinants of revenue effort in various developing countries. However, Authors like (Terefe & Teera, 2018; Urhoghide & Asemota, 2013) confirmed per capita GDP, foreign aid, trade openness and other factors to be major determinants of revenue generation across various African countries. However, scanty literature has been reviewed on the impact of public governance quality (using all the governance quality indicators) on revenue generation in Nigeria. This study aims to fill this research gap by assessing the impact of public governance on the revenue generation in Nigeria.

This paper is structured as follows: Section two reviews the literature and theoretical framework. Section three outlined the methodology. Section four examined the econometric analysis and results, and Section five provides conclusions and recommendations.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Public governance has become a mighty symbol of hope for attainment of set objectives of a nation. Nigeria, despite all economic and social policies that have been implemented by different administrations, is being faced with many phenomenon ranging from the challenges of corruption or mismanagement of public revenue, insecurity, abuse of law, public service failure, abject poverty, acute unemployment, inequality and weakness of institutions, to the greatest failures of government in applying the accountability standard make the focus of attention in the areas of public governance crucial; some scholars affirm that good public management characterized by the three “Es” (economy, efficiency and effectiveness) holds the key (Ugoani, 2020).

The qualities of public governance are measured using worldwide governance indicators (WGI), These indicators contribute to the growing empirical research on governance which has provided activists and reformers worldwide with advocacy tools for policy reform and monitoring. Kaufmann et al., (2010) highlighted six (6) indicators. According to Al-Naser and Hamdan, (2021), transparency ensures that information is available to measure the performance of government misuse of power which helps to ensure accountability and that if there is no proper accountability and transparency it will lead to social instability and create poor environment for economic growth. The rule of law: The rule of law is considered the key element enhancing a nation’s economic development. Good public governance ensures that laws are put in place and are made available and open to the citizens in order to ensure that clarity of the laws reaches everyone, this is to say, there should be no secret laws. As a result, this helps to improve nation’s revenue generation and economic growth (Hamdan et al., 2019). When the rule of law is implemented and treated equally, and no room is given for individual position and status in society, this ensures stability in the nation.

Control of corruption: Corruption has been considered one of the main leading constraints for the economic development of many nations. Good public governance will implement effective measures to control corruption and raise the nation’s economic growth. Kaufmann et al. (2010) Indicated that corruption reduces investment and hinders economic development. Studies by Zhuo et al. (2020) indicate that control of corruption has positive and significant effect on economic growth in developed countries. Regulatory quality: The country’s economic development through good governance is contributed by the improvement of a quality regulatory system which creates an efficient and effective incentive for both the public and private sectors. The average citizen benefits from good regulatory policies that aid in reducing corruption, as this opens paths for more entrepreneurship and increases the quality of public services (Al-Naser & Hamdan, 2021). Nevertheless, the increase in revenue generation and expansion of most international businesses in most countries results from good regulatory systems. Government effectiveness: Public governance will increase a nation’s economic development if the government can control its resources effectively, as this will ensure there is no waste of materials, while mismanagement of government revenue by individuals will decrease economic development. When there is good governance it will leads to effective and efficient growth of a nation (Al-Naser, & Hamdan, 2021). Moreover, Islam and McGillivray, (2020) found that better administrative governance may reduce inequality and enhance development. Political stability: Political stability is a political system that survives through crises without internal warfare. Several types of political systems have done so, including autocratic monarchies, militarist regimes, and other authoritarian and totalitarian systems. The key to the political stability is the country’s ability to control social development, to manage and prevent change, and to bring under governmental direction all the forces that may result in innovations that are threatening to the system.

Review of Empirical Study

Several studies were conducted in the area of public governance as well as revenue generation respectively; prominent among them are:

Asue, Ijirshar and Ikyaator (2022) studied the relationship between good governance and the shadow economy in Nigeria from 1996 to 2020. Using autoregressive distributed lag modeling approach, the study found that only the regulatory quality index was consistent in taming the size of the shadow economy in Nigeria in both situations. Other indicators, such as the control of corruption, government effectiveness index, political stability index, and perception of the rule of law, had a short-run desirable impact on the shadow economy. Al-Naser and Hamdan (2021) studied how public governance affects economic growth in the Gulf Cooperation Council. The study tests the effects of independent variables of public governance which are the worldwide governance indicators on the dependent variables of economic growth which are the Gross Domestic Product. The finding shows that the control of corruption and the rule of law have a positive, statistically insignificant impact on economic growth; while government effectiveness and regulatory quality have positive and statistically significant impact on economic growth. Johnson & Omodero, (2021) study the influence of political (political stability), institutional (corruption) and bad governance on the mobilization of tax revenue in Nigeria. The study employed a time series data set from 2000 to 2020. After subjecting the data to the unit root test, the study further employs Ordinary Least Square (OLS). The findings revealed that corruption and political instability have a positive and significant impact on Nigeria’s tax revenue mobilization. Bad governance, on the other hand, has a positive and insignificant influence on Nigeria’s tax revenue mobilization.

Ikenga and Chima, (2021) examined fundamentals of good governance as a panacea for development performance in Nigeria. This study data was collected from secondary sources. The technique of content analysis was applied to analyze the data collected which helped the researcher make interpretations coherently. The study revealed among other things that governance issues are the bane of development performance in Nigeria. Alqooti (2020) investigated the impact of public governance on the implementation of National Audit Office’s recommendations in Kingdom of Bahrain. It measures the impact of public governance on reducing the total violation of government entities. The study finds that there is significant impact of stewardship and rule of law principle on reducing the total violations. Adegbami and Adepoju (2017) examined good governance in Nigeria as a catalyst to national peace, stability and development. Using secondary data, the study revealed that, unethical practices, arbitrary rule and corruption which pervade public offices are products of bad governance. The study further revealed that, bad governance in Nigeria has brought about unemployment, poverty, crimes, internal violence, insurgents activities, loss of lives and properties, and underdevelopment of the country.

Adefolake and Omodero (2022) assessed the effects of tax revenue on the economic growth of Nigeria utilizing time series data spanning from year 2000 till 2021. The study’s specific goal is to evaluate the influence of hydrocarbon tax, corporation income tax and value added tax on Nigeria’s economic growth. The findings reveal that PPT and VAT have positive and significant effects on GDP. It also reveals that CIT has a negative and significant effect on GDP. Omodero, Ekwe and Ihendinihu (2018) investigated the impact of internally generated revenue (IGR) on economic development of Nigeria This study made use of ex-post facto research design to specifically examine the impact of total IGR (TIGR), Federal Government Independent Revenue (FGIR), States IGR (SIGR) and Local IGR (LIGR) on the Real Gross Domestic Product (RGDP i.e. proxy for economic development) of the country. The findings of the study revealed that TIGR, SIGR and LIGR have robust and significant positive impact on RGDP, while FGIR also indicated positive and significant influence on RGDP. There was an existence of high correlation between the dependent and independent variables. The study concluded that the positive impact of IGR is not out of place but the physical evidence is apparently lacking and therefore government policies that could eradicate sharp practices in the government system are required. Peter and Ferdinand (2016) ascertain the web of relationship that exists between Nigeria’s revenue profile and development mesh. It goes further to investigate whether aggregate revenue proxies by various revenue sources such as total federally collected revenue, oil revenue, non-oil revenue, federation account and federal government retained revenue have any significant impact on the overall performance of the Nigerian economy. The Johansen Co-integration test confirmed that a long run dynamic equilibrium relationship exists between economic development and various revenue sources and the Granger Causality result shows that the various revenue sources granger caused economic development in Nigeria.

Adejoh and Sule (2013) analyze the extent by which revenue generation had affected the development of the selected local Governments in Kogi State. The researcher used both primary and secondary methods of data collection to generate the needed data. The findings revealed that there is a significant relationship between revenue generated and developmental effort of government, poor development of the areas, lack of basic social amenities to the rural people and lack of revenue to maintain the existing infrastructures. Obiechina (2010) conduct an analysis of revenue generation as a tool for socio-economic and infrastructural development in Nigeria. The study found that government revenue has grown remarkably over the years, while the expenditure had equally grown, at times above the revenue, resulting in deficit financing. The increasing growth of government revenue is expected to impact positively on the level of infrastructural development in the country.

Theoretical Review

The study adopts the political economy theory which suggests that governments raise revenues and use the collected resources to finance public expenditure through the provision of public goods and services as well as targeted development projects (Mwakalobo, 2015). Policy decisions are made by the government, which decides on how best to allocate the collected limited resources into alternative competing sectors. In developing countries, governments play a key role in the provision of public goods and services, therefore, choices have to be made how to allocate the limited revenue generated for economic development (Battaglini & Coate, 2008).The second theory adopted in this study is stewardship theory (Davis et al., 1997). The theory posits a lateral relationship between two actors (government and citizens) collaborating to achieve a common good by a specific task or service. This theory expects that a mutuality of interest will lead the people and government to create trust and align public and private value (Perlman, et al, 2020), This theory assumes collective behavior of both government and the contracted contractor.

METHODOLOGY

The study adopted quantitative research method via longitudinal research design covering a period of twenty-five (25) years from 1997 – 2021. The time series data were collected from the World Bank database and International Monetary Fund (IMF) for Public governance and revenue generation respectively.

Variables and their Measurement

The independent variables used in the study are the WGIs issued by the World Bank’s long-standing research program and used as public governance measures. Six WGIs have been used intensively in this study; they are Control of corruption (COC), Government effectiveness Index (GEI); Political stability index (PSI), Regulatory quality Index (RGI), Rule of law (ROL) and Accountability and transparency (AAT), (Al-Naser & Hamdan, 2021; Asue al.,2022). The Dependent variable is government revenue as a percentage of gross domestic products (GDP)obtained from IMF as Revenue generation measures.

Model Specification

In order to find the relationship among the variables, this study specified functional model as:

GRI =ƒ (COC, GEI, PSI, RQI, ROL, AAT)

However, the econometric model of the equation is given as:

GRI_t = β₀ +β₁COC_t-1 + β₂GEI_t-1 + β₃PSI_t-1 + β₄RQI_t-1 + β₅AAT_t-1 + β₆ROL_t-1 + µ_t

Where:

GRI = Government revenue as a percentage of gross domestic products (GDP)

COC = Control of Corruption,

GEI = Government Effectiveness Index,

PSI = Political Stability Index,

RQI= Regulatory Quality Index,

ROL = Rule of law

AAT= Accountability and transparency

Β0 – β4 = Coefficients of the explanatory variables

µ = Error term or White noise.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1: Summary Statistics

Variable	Observation	Mean	Std. Dev.	Minimum	Maximum	Std. Error of Mean	Variance
GRI	150	14.3361	6.60824	5.12	28.81	0.3015	43.669
COC	150	20.8162	5.10483	6.35	31.07	0.23291	26.059
GEI	150	25.0016	4.18769	17.31	33.82	0.19106	17.537
PSI	150	14.0067	11.4126	4.27	43.62	0.52069	130.247
RQI	150	30.0854	4.28737	16.92	37.44	0.19561	18.382
ROL	150	22.5597	4.77533	11.44	30.77	0.21787	22.804
AAT	150	33.5597	5.87169	20.93	45.77	0.26789	34.477

Source: Author’s computations using SPSS 20.00

Table 1 shows the result of the descriptive nature of the raw dataset. The dependent variable i.e. government revenue shows an average of 14.33; the standard deviation is 6.61; the minimum value is 5.12 while the maximum value is 28.81. The government revenue recorded a very low level of deviation and mean value during the period of the estimation. However, COC has a mean value of 20.81; the standard deviation of 5.10; the minimum value of 6.35 and the maximum value of 31.07. The results further indicate a mean value of 25.00; the standard deviation of 4.18; the minimum and maximum value of 17.31 and 33.82 respectively for GEI. The mean value for PSI is 14.0; standard deviation is 11.41; the minimum and maximum values are 4.27 and 43.62 respectively. RQI recorded a mean value of 30.08; standard deviation of 4.28; the minimum value of 16.92 and the maximum value of 37.44. ROL indicted a mean value of 22.55; standard deviation of 4.7; the minimum and maximum values are 11.44 and 30.77 respectively. Finally, AAT recorded an average of 33.55; standard deviation of 5.87; minimum value of 20.93 and maximum value of 45.77.

Correlation Result

Table 2:       Correlation Matrix
	COC	GEI	PSI	RQI	ROL	AAT	GRI
COC	1.000
GEI	-0.103*	1.000
	(0.024)
PSI	0.402**	0.253**	1.000
	(0.000)	(0.000)
RQI	0.419**	-0.165**	0.222**	1.000
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
ROL	0.427**	-0.355**	0.045	0.081	1.000
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.327)	(0.077)
AAT	-0.439**	-0.091*	-0.308**	-0.334**	0.338**	1.000
	(0.000)	0.045	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
GRI	-0.170**	0.778**	0.186**	-0.188**	-0.523**	-0.052	1.000
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.256)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

From Table 2, the correlation coefficient between government revenue and control of corruption, regulator quality, rule of law and accountability and transparency is -0.170; -0.188; -0.523 and    -0.052 respectively. This implies negative correlation between these variables. While the correlation coefficient between government revenue and government effectiveness and political stability are 0.778 and 0.186 respectively.

Table 3: Model Summary

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	0.843a	0.711	0.707	3.57563

1. a. Predictors: (Constant), Accountability and Transparency, Government Effectiveness, Political Stability, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, Control of Corruption

The table 3 above shows the adequacy of the model. The value of coefficient of determination (R²) is 0.711. This implies that the variation in dependent variable is explained by the independent variables of the study up to 71%. The remaining 29% is explained by other variables not captured in the model.

Regression Result

The table 4 present the regression result obtained from the analysis.

Table 4: Regression Result

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
	B	Std. Error	Beta
(Constant)	-8.812	2.5		-3.524	0.000464
COC	0.277	0.052	0.214	5.333	0.000213
GEI	0.997	0.045	0.632	22.185	0.000124
PSI	0.031	0.017	0.054	1.853	0.0650
RQI	-0.095	0.044	-0.062	-2.177	0.0300
ROL	-0.656	0.053	-0.474	-12.46	0.000125
AAT	0.288	0.041	0.256	6.968	0.000213
Dependent Variable: Government Revenue as Percentage of GDP

Discussion of Findings

The result in Table 4 indicates that control of corruption has statistical impact on government revenue as a percentage of GDP with 0.000213 < 0.05; this outcome means that good governance is inevitable for an increase in revenue generation Arif & Rawat, (2018); A possible reason for this phenomenon is that better governance increases the trust of people on the government and good governance leads to efficient revenue administration that consequently increases the revenues generation. The concluded result is consistent with Al-Naser & Hamdan, (2021); Obamuyi & Olayiwola, (2019); Arif & Rawat, (2018); Alade, (2015), A study by Zhuo et al, (2020) shows that control of corruption has positive and significant effect on economic growth in developed countries which indicate that increase in control of corruption implies increase in the countries’ economy and measures for fighting against corruption leads to good governance and better economic development.

Government effectiveness has statistical impact on government revenue as a percentage of GDP with 0.000124 < 0.05. This could be due to the governments’ effort in establishing an economic vision and is working towards achieving that vision by incorporating public institutions; and each single public institution has established their own strategy and objectives in order to achieve that economic vision. This is in tandem with Asue et al. (2022); Al-Naser & Hamdan (2021) and Okon & Okon (2020). Therefore, the effectiveness of Nigerian government in provision of basic public goods and development of strong economic and political institutions will improve if government takes necessary steps towards implementing some effective economic policies that will increases their financial resources through revenue. Political stability also has no statistical impact on government revenue as a percentage of GDP with 0.065 > 0.05 at 5% level of significance. This indicates that political atmosphere whether relatively stable or otherwise and free from military intervention or politically motivated violence does not have any effect; This finding is consistent with the findings Ahmed & Pulok (2013) who found a negative relationship between political stability and economic growth while contradicting the findings of Nomor & Iorember (2017) who found a positive relationship between political stability and economic growth in Nigeria.

Regulatory quality has statistical significance on government revenue as a percentage of GDP with 0.030 < 0.05. This result is probably due to the continuous efforts by the governments to develop and implement policies, rules and procedures to improve revenue generation which will in turn achieved economic growth and development. This is in line with Al-Naser & Hamdan (2021), Mongale & Masipa (2019) and Afolabi, (2019).The statistical results demonstrate a positive relationship between the rule of law and government revenue as a percentage of GDP with 0.000125<0.05 this could be due to the rules of society, implementation of public institutions regulations. However, the impact of rule of law on revenue generation depends on the economic condition of countries’ income inequality. Therefore, countries which have high per capita incomes are more likely to increase their revenue. This is in tandem with Al-Naser & Hamdan (2021) but contradict the work of Günel & Didinmez (2022) which found negative effect on revenue. The establishment an effective, humane, and efficient justice system will positively influences on sustainable economic and social development of the country. In contrast, another study conducted by Zuhair & Khan (2014) found a negative relationship between rule of law and economic growth in Pakistan.

Accountability and transparency has statistical significance on government revenue as a percentage of GDP with 0.000213 < 0.05, this means government is accountable for its activities and the practice of accountability and transparency is effective in Nigeria. Transparency could be accomplished when decisions made and their enforcement is achieved in a manner that is in conformity with the rules and regulations. This finding is consistent with Torgler & Schneider (2009) that voice and transparency have a positive effect on tax revenue performance and contradict Chukwunwike et al. (2021) which show no significant predictive relationship between government accountability and revenue and Salman, et all, (2022) indicated that voice and accountability do not contribute to tax revenue performance in West African nations which shows that governments’ obligation to interfere with the freedom of the press and association does not affect tax performance.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study examined the qualities of public governance on revenue generation in Nigeria. Time series data collected from the World Bank database and International Monetary Fund (IMF) for Public governance and revenue generation respectively for 25 years were analyzed. The study concludes that control of corruption, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and accountability and transparency has statistical impact on government revenue as a percentage of GDP; while political stability also has no statistical impact on government revenue as a percentage of GDP in Nigeria.

In view of the above, the following recommendations were deemed necessary.

There is need for a good legal framework and sound anti-corruption policies free from bias in Nigeria. The anti-corruption agencies like Economic and Financial Crime commission (EFCC) and Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) saddle with the responsibilities of prosecuting corrupt officials in the court of law need to improve on their activities. Policy makers must regularly review the laws, rules, regulations, and policies of the country to ensure justice and peace for citizens and to protect property rights in order for rule of law and government effectiveness to achieve a more significant impact on revenue generation. The Nigerian government should increase its citizens’ awareness about public governance and its importance to the economic growth. Finally, Government should emphasize on its legitimacy and institutional efficiency so that people will establish a confident that the state would use revenues judiciously.

REFERENCE

1. Adefolake, A. O. & Omodero, C. O. (2022). Tax Revenue and Economic Growth in Nigeria, Cogent Business & Management, 9(1) https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2115282
2. Adegbami, A. & Adepoju, B. M. (2017). Good Governance in Nigeria: A Catalyst to National Peace, Stability and Development An International Multi-disciplinary Journal, afrrevjo.net. Indexed African Journals Online: www.ajol.info ISSN 1994-9057 (Online): http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v11i4.12
3. Adejoh, E. & Sule J. G. (2013). Revenue Generation: It’s Impact on Government Developmental Effort (A Study of Selected Local Council in Kogi East Senatorial District) Global Journal of Management and Business Research Administration and Management 13(4)
4. Afolabi, J. O. (2019). The Impact of Governance on Economic Development in West Africa: A system GMM dynamic panel approach. Acta Universitatis Danubius. O Economica, 15(3), 217-231
5. Ahmed, M. U. & Pulok, M. H. (2013). The Role of Political Stability on Economic Performance: The Case of Bangladesh. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development. 34(3), 61-100
6. Akintoye, I. R., Adegbie, F. F. & Awotomilusi, N. S. (2019). Influence of voice and accountability on tax revenue in Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 3(4), 81-89.
7. Alade, O. R. (2015). Revenue Generation as a Major Source f Income for the State Government: An Empirical Analysis Of Two Parastatals International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management United Kingdom 3(6), http://ijecm.co.uk/ ISSN 2348 0386
8. Al-Naser, M.& Hamdan, A. (2021). The impact of public governance on the economic growth: Evidence from gulf cooperation council countries. Economics and Sociology, 14(2), 85-110.doi:10.14254/2071-789X.2021/14-2/5
9. Alqooti, A. A. (2020). Public Governance in the Public Sector: Literature review The International Journal of Business Ethics and Governance (IJBEG), Vol.3, No. 3, 2020
10. Arif, I. & Rawat, A. S. (2018). Corruption, Governance & Tax Revenue: Evidence from EAGLE Countries, Journal of Transnational Management, 23(2), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15475778.2018.1469912
11. Asue, E. A., Ijirshar, V. U. & Ikyaator, J. V. (2022). Assessment of Good Governance Indicators on The Pervasiveness of Shadow Economy: Empirical insights from Nigeria. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law https://doi.org/10.47743/jopafl-2022-26-02
12. Battaglini, M. & Coate, S. (2008). A Dynamic Theory of Public Spending, Taxation, and
    36. American Economic Review, 98 (1): 201-36. DOI: 10.1257/aer.98.1.201
13. Bird, R. M., Martinez-Vazquez, J. & Torgler, B. (2014). Societal institutions and tax effortin developing countries.Annals of Economics and Finance, 15(1), 185-230.
14. Chukwunwike, O. D., Ofoegbu, G. N., Amara, F. & Okafor, R. G.  (2021). Government Accountability and Tax Revenue:  Evidence from Nigeria. African Journal of Business and Economic Research (AJBER) 16(4),159- 179 (Online) ISSN 1750-4562
15. Davis, J., Schoorman, F.& Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management.Academy of Management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47. doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9707180258
16. Dutta, S. (2006). Introductory Economics (Micro and Macro). New Age International Limited Publishers 4835/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110002 newagepublishers.com
17. Epaphra, M. & Massawe, J. (2017). Corruption, governance and tax revenues in Africa. Business and Economic Horizons, 13(4), 439-467.
18. Günel, T & Didinmez, I. (2022). Relationship between rule of law and tax Revenues: dynamic panel data analysis Public Sector Economics 46 (3) 403-418 (2022) JEL: K10, H2, O1
19. Hamdan, A. M., Khamis, R., Al Hawaj, A. A. & Barone, E. (2019). The mediation role of public governance in the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth”, International Journal of Managerial Finance, 16(3), 316-333.https://doi.org/10.3326/pse.46.3.4
20. Ikenga, F. A. & Chima, O. (2021). Fundamentals of Good Governance: The Panacea for Development Performance in Nigeria. Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law https://doi.org/10.47743/jopafl-2021-22-02
21. Islam, M. R., & McGillivray, M. (2020). Wealth inequality, governance and economic growth.Economic Modelling, 88(1), 1-13.
22. Jarbandhan, D. B. & Gwiza, A. (2022). Implications of New Public Governance on Public Expenditure Management: A Theoretical Exposition, Loyola Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. XXXVI, No.I,
23. Johnson, P. N. & Omodero, C. O. (2021). Governance quality and tax revenue mobilization in Nigeria Journal of Legal Studies Volume 28 Issue 42/2021 ISSN 2457-9017; Online ISSN 2392-7054. Web: publicatii.uvvg.ro/index.php/jls Pages 1 – 41
24. Kaufmann, D.; Kraay, A. & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: A Summary of Methodology, Data and Analytical Issues”. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.
25. Kulshreshtha, P. (2008). Public sector governance reform: The World Bank’s framework. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5), 556-567.
26. Massey, A. & Johnston-Miller, K. (2016). Governance: public governance to social innovation?’ Policy and Politics Vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 663-675. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557314X14042230109592
27. Mongale, I. P. & Masipa, T. S. (2019). Human capital development, regulatory quality and economic growth Nexus: Ardl approach. Affrika, 9(1), 271-291.
28. Mwakalobo B. S. A. (2015). Revenue Generation Capacity in Developing Countries: Implications for Physical and Human Capital Development in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. African Journal of Economic Review, Volume III, Issue I, https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajer/article/download/117609/107183
29. Nomor, D. T. & Iorember, P. T. (2017). Political Stability and Economic Growth in Nigeria. IOSRJournal of Economics and Finance, 8(2), 45-53
30. Obamuyi, M. T. & Olayiwola, S. O. (2019). Corruption and economic growth in India and Nigeria Journal of economics & management. – Katowice, ISSN 1732-1948, ZDB-ID 2175776-8. – Vol. 35.2019, 1, p. 80-105 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2500-0229
31. Obiechina, M. E. (2010). Analysis of Revenue Generation as a tool for socio-economic and infrastructural development in Nigeria. CBN Bullion, 34(4), 41-54.
32. Okon, E. B. & Okon, N. S. (2020). Sources of State Revenue and State Effectiveness: The Nigerian Experience International Journal of Financial Research Vol. 12, No. 1;https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v12n1p111
33. Oladimeji, A. D. & Monisola, A. E. (2013). Strategic control and revenue generation: a Critical success factor in local government using the balanced scorecard. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Nigerian Chapter) Vol. 1, No. 10, 2013
34. Omodero, C. O., Ekwe, M. C. & Ihendinihu, J. U. (2018). The Impact of Internally Generated Revenue on Economic Development in Nigeria, Accounting and Finance Research Vol. 7, No. 2; http://afr.sciedupress.com
35. Perlman, B. J.; Reddick, C. G. & Zheng, Y. (2020). Agency vs. Stewardship Theory in Local Government Contracted Mobile Apps: Analysis of Survey Data on User Satisfaction in China International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 4(2) DOI: 10.4018/IJPADA.20201001.oa2
36. Peter, A. O. & Ferdinand, I. O. (2016). Nigeria’s Revenue Profile and Development Mesh Research Journal of Finance and Accountingiiste.org ISSN 2222-1697 (Paper) ISSN 222-2847 (Online) Vol.7, No.19, 2016
37. Saibu, M. & Olasunbo S. (2013). Macroeconomic determinants of tax revenue in Nigeria (1970-2011).World applied sciences
38. Salman, R.T., Sanni, P., Olaniyi, T.A. & Yahaya, K.A. (2022). Governance transparency of tax revenue performance in West Africa. Business Ethics and Leadership, 6(1), 14-24. http://doi.org/10.21272/bel.6(1).14-24.2022.
39. Terefe, K. D. & Teera, J. (2018). Determinants of tax revenue in East African countries: An application of multivariate panel data cointegration analysis. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 10(11), 134-155.
40. Torgler, B. & Schneider, F. (2009). The impact of tax morale and institutional quality on the shadow economy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(2), 228-245.
41. Ugoani, J. K. N. (2020). Government in Nigeria Can Achieve Good Governance Through Good Management. Business, Management and Economics Research, 6(9) 115-126 ISSN (e): 2412-1770, DOI: https://doi.org/10.32861/bmer.69.115.126
42. Urhoghide, R. O. & Asemota, G. O. (2013). Determinants of Tax Revenue Effort: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria. Leadership & Organizational Management Journal, 2013(2)
43. Zhuo, Z., Musaad O. A. S., Muhammad, B. & Khan, S. (2020). “Underlying the Relationship Between Governance and Economic Growth in Developed Countries,” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer; Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(3), pages 1314-1330, September.
44. Zuhair, S. S. & Khan, M. A. (2014). Good Governance: Pakistan’s Economic Growth and Worldwide Governance Indicators: Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 8(1), 258- 271

 

 APPENDIX A

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Sum	Mean		Std. Deviation	Variance
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Statistic
control_of_corruption	150	6.35	31.07	10000.10	20.8162	.23291	5.10483	26.059
governmen_effectiveness	150	17.31	33.82	12010.77	25.0016	.19106	4.18769	17.537
political_stability	150	4.27	43.62	6728.84	14.0067	.52069	11.41258	130.247
regulatory_quality	150	16.92	37.44	14453.03	30.0854	.19561	4.28737	18.382
rule_of_law	150	11.44	30.77	10837.68	22.5597	.21787	4.77533	22.804
accountability_and_transparency	150	20.93	45.77	16122.09	33.5597	.26789	5.87169	34.477
govt_rev_as_a_perce_of_GDP	150	5.12	28.81	6887.06	14.3361	.30150	6.60824	43.669
Valid N (listwise)	150

 

Variables Entered/Removeda
del	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	accountability_and_transparency, governmen_effectiveness, political_stability, regulatory_quality, rule_of_law, control_of_corruptionb	.	Enter
a. Dependent Variable: govt_rev_as_a_perce_of_GDP
b. All requested variables entered.

 

Correlations
		control_of_corruption	governmen_effectiveness	political_stability	regulatory_quality	rule_of_law	accountability_and_transparency	govt_rev_as_a_perce_of_GDP
control_of_corruption	Pearson Correlation	1	-.103*	.402**	.419**	.427**	-.439**	-.170**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.024	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000
	N	150	150	150	150	150	150	150
governmen_effectiveness	Pearson Correlation	-.103*	1	.253**	-.165**	-.355**	-.091*	.778**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.024		.000	.000	.000	.045	.000
	N	150	150	150	150	150	150	150
political_stability	Pearson Correlation	.402**	.253**	1	.222**	.045	-.308**	.186**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000		.000	.327	.000	.000
	N	150	150	150	150	150	150	150
regulatory_quality	Pearson Correlation	.419**	-.165**	.222**	1	.081	-.334**	-.188**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000	.000		.077	.000	.000
	N	150	150	150	150	150	150	150
rule_of_law	Pearson Correlation	.427**	-.355**	.045	.081	1	.338**	-.523**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000	.327	.077		.000	.000
	N	150	150	150	150	150	150	150
accountability_and_transparency	Pearson Correlation	-.439**	-.091*	-.308**	-.334**	.338**	1	-.052
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.045	.000	.000	.000		.256
	N	150	150	150	150	150	150	150
govt_rev_as_a_perce_of_GDP	Pearson Correlation	-.170**	.778**	.186**	-.188**	-.523**	-.052	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000	.000	.000	.000	.256
	N	150	150	150	150	150	150	150
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

 

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.843a	.711	.707	3.57563
a. Predictors: (Constant), accountability_and_transparency, governmen_effectiveness, political_stability, regulatory_quality, rule_of_law, control_of_corruption

 

ANOVAa
Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	14882.349	6	2480.391	194.006	.000423b
	Residual	6052.478	473	12.785
	Total	20934.827	479
a. Dependent Variable: govt_rev_as_a_perce_of_GDP
b. Predictors: (Constant), accountability_and_transparency, governmen_effectiveness, political_stability, regulatory_quality, rule_of_law, control_of_corruption

 

Coefficientsa
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	-8.812	2.500		-3.524	.000464
	control_of_corruption	.277	.052	.214	5.333	.000213
	governmen_effectiveness	.997	.045	.632	22.185	.000124
	political_stability	.031	.017	.054	1.853	.065
	regulatory_quality	-.095	.044	-.062	-2.177	.030
	rule_of_law	-.656	.053	-.474	-12.460	.000125
	accountability_and_transparency	.288	.041	.256	6.968	.000213
a. Dependent Variable: govt_rev_as_a_perce_of_GDP