Budget Deficit and Economic Growth t t t t t t t t t t t t t

to future researchers on matters concerning budget deficits in Nigeria and suggests ways to improve future research relating to a similar area of the economy. This research goes beyond helping the decisions of policy makers, but goes further to impact some stakeholders of the economy, like the financial institutions, to gain insights into debt management and economic growth, and also the general public on understanding the impact of budget deficits on economic growth in Nigeria. 1.7 Scope of The Study This study examines the impact of budget deficits on economic growth in Nigeria, covering the period from 1990 to 2023. The variables used in the study were GDPGR (Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate), EXBWGR (External Borrowing Growth Rate), DBWGR (Domestic Borrowing Growth Rate), and GEXPGR (Government Expenditure Growth Rate). The data was sourced from the CBN Statistical Bulletin and WDI, 2023. Section Two 2.1 Conceptual Literature Review 2.1.1 Budget Deficit A budget deficit occurs when government expenditure exceeds revenue, resulting in a deficit (IMF, 2019). According to the IMF (2019), budget deficits can have significant implications for economic growth, inflation, and debt sustainability. In Nigeria, Adegbite et al. (2017) define budget deficit as a situation where government expenditure exceeds revenue, resulting in a deficit. Nigerian authors have varying opinions on the impact of budget deficits on economic growth. For example, Udoh et al. (2020) argue that budget deficits can stimulate economic growth, while Ekeocha et al. (2018) suggest that budget deficits can lead to inflation and reduced economic growth. 2.1.2 Economic Growth Economic growth refers to an increase in the production of goods and services in an economy, often measured by GDP growth rate (World Bank, 2020). In Nigeria, Ojo et al. (2019) define economic growth as an increase in the production of goods and services in the economy. Nigerian authors have identified several factors that influence economic growth, including government expenditure, inflation, and external debt (Udoh et al.,2020; Ojo et al., 2019). 2.1.3 External Borrowing External borrowing refers to the borrowing of funds from foreign sources, such as international organisations or foreign governments (OECD, 2018). According to Nwosa (2019), external borrowing can provide a country with access to foreign capital, but can also lead to debt servicing problems and exchange rate risks. In Nigeria, Eze et al. (2019) defined external borrowing as the borrowing of funds from foreign sources. Nigerian authors have highlighted the importance of external borrowing in financing budget deficits and promoting economic growth (Ogbonna 2019; Ojo et al., 2019). 2.1.4 Domestic Borrowing Domestic borrowing refers to the borrowing of funds from domestic sources, such as commercial banks or the central bank (CBN, 2020). According to the IMF (2019), domestic borrowing can provide a country with access to capital, but can also lead to crowding out of private sector investment and inflationary pressures. In Nigeria, Oladipo et al. (2020) defined domestic borrowing as the borrowing of funds from domestic sources. Nigerian authors have identified several factors that influence domestic borrowing, including interest rates, inflation, and government policies (Amassoma et al., 2020; Adebayo 2019). 2.1.5 Government Expenditure Government expenditure refers to the spending of government funds on goods and services (CBN, 2020). According to the IMF (2019), government expenditure can have a positive impact on economic growth by increasing aggregate demand and providing public goods. In Nigeria, (Umaru, 2019) defined government expenditure as the spending of government funds on goods and services. Nigerian authors have identified several factors that influence government expenditure, including revenue, inflation, and economic growth (Aliero, & Abubakar, 2020). 2.1.6 Relationship between Budget Deficit and Economic Growth in Nigeria In Nigeria, studies have shown mixed results. Adegbite et al. (2017) find that budget deficits have a negative impact on economic growth, while Udoh et al. (2020) argue that budget deficits can stimulate economic growth. Amande, (2021) suggest that the relationship between budget deficits and economic growth is neutral. 2.2 Theoretical Literature Review 2.2.1 Keynesian Theory Of Economic Growth: Origin and Meaning of the Theory The Keynesian Theory was propounded by John Maynard Keynes, a British economist, in his book 'The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' in 1936. He emphasized the role of government intervention in stimulating economic growth during times of recession (Keynes, 1936). It suggested that aggregate demand, rather than supply, drives economic activity, and that government spending and fiscal policy increase aggregate demand, thereby stimulate economic growth. In simpler terms, the Keynesian Theory argued that when the economy is slow, the government should increase its spending and cut taxes to boost demand and create jobs. This, in turn, will stimulate economic growth and help the economy recover. Government spending and fiscal policy can increase aggregate demand, thereby stimulating economic growth (Keynes, 1936; Samuelson, 1948). Strength and weakness of the theory: One of the core strengths of the Keynesian theory is its ability to provide a framework for government intervention during economic downturns, promoting economic stability and growth (Friedman, 1968). However, the theory has a limitation. Critics argue that excessive government spending can lead to inflation, crowding out of private sector investment, and increased debt burden (Lucas, 1976). Justification for the use of the Theory: The Keynesian Theory is relevant to this research as it provides a theoretical foundation for understanding the impact of budget deficits on economic growth in Nigeria. The theory suggests that government spending can stimulate economic growth, which is a key aspect of this research (Adeyemi, 2024). The Keynesian Theory provides a useful framework for understanding the role of government intervention in stimulating economic growth, but its limitations, such as the potential for inflation and crowding out, must be considered (Blanchard, 2009). 2.3 Empirical Literature Review 2.3.1 Relationship between External Borrowing and Economic Growth Several empirical studies have examined the link between external borrowing and economic growth in Nigeria and other developing contexts. Aladejana, (2024), investigated the impact of external borrowing and economic growth in Nigeria, employing the Ordinary Least Squares Regression and found that external borrowing has a negative impact on economic growth. While Ojo et al. (2019) use the d VAR Model and found that external borrowing has a positive impact on economic growth. (Francis 2024) employed the Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model and found that external borrowing has a positive impact on economic growth in the short run. Nwosa (2019) used the Granger Causality Test and found that external borrowing does not Granger-cause economic growth. Ekeocha et al. (2018) employed Panel Data Analysis and found that external borrowing has a negative impact on economic growth. Eze et al. (2019) used the Error Correction Model and found that external borrowing has a positive impact on economic growth in the long run. Ogbonna (2018) employed the Johansen Cointegration Test and found that external borrowing has a positive impact on economic growth. 2.3.2 Relationship between Domestic Borrowing and Economic Growth Empirical literature also supports the existence of a strong positive relationship between domestic borrowing and economic growth in Nigeria. Nnandi (2020) employed the ARDL Model and found that domestic borrowing has a positive impact on economic growth in the short run. Egbetokun et al. (2018) employed Panel Data Analysis and found that domestic borrowing has a positive impact on economic growth. Matthew et al. (2019) used the Toda-Yamamoto Causality Test and found that domestic borrowing does not Granger-cause economic growth, and Chukwudi (2019) used the Granger Causality Test and also found that domestic borrowing does not Granger-cause economic growth. 2.3.3 Relationship between Government Expenditure and Economic Growth Research on the effect of government expenditure on economic growth in Nigeria also provides compelling evidence of a positive relationship. Aigbokhan (2018) employed OLS Regression and found that government expenditure has a positive impact on economic growth. Akpan (2019) used the VAR Model and found that government expenditure has a positive impact on economic growth. Babatunde (2020) employed the ARDL Model and found that government expenditure has a positive impact on economic growth in the short run. While Chukwu (2019) used the standard Granger Causality Test and found that government expenditure does not Granger-cause economic growth. Ikechukwu (2018) employed the Johansen Cointegration Test and found that government expenditure has a positive impact on economic growth. 2.4 Summary and Literature Gap The empirical literature review reveals that the relationship between budget deficits, external and domestic borrowing, government expenditure, and economic growth in Nigeria is a topic of ongoing debate among researchers. The studies reviewed employed various methodologies, including OLS regression, VAR models, ARDL models, and Granger causality tests, to examine the impact of budget deficits and government expenditure on economic growth. The findings of the studies are mixed, with some indicating a positive impact of external borrowing on economic growth, while others suggest a negative impact. Similarly, the impact of budget deficit and government expenditure on economic growth is also inconclusive, with some studies finding a positive relationship and others finding no significant relationship. This study aims to address these gaps by employing advanced econometric techniques, to capture the complexities of the relationships. Using a comprehensive dataset that covers a longer time period. Providing clear definitions of budget deficits and government expenditure and examining the impact of external and domestic borrowing on economic growth. By addressing these gaps, this study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between budget deficits, government expenditure, and economic growth in Nigeria, and inform policy decisions on fiscal management and economic development. Section Three Research Methodology 3.1 Research Design The research designed adopted in this study is Ex-post facto research design. This is ideal for conducting social research when is not possible or acceptable to manipulate the characteristics of human participant. 3.2 Model Specification The model for this present study explored the relationship between budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria. The model was adopted from the model of (Adegbite et al,2017) who investigated the impact of budget deficit on economic growth in Nigeria. The study model specified as follows Gross Domestic Product = F (External Borrowing, Domestic Borrowing, Government Expenditure) .........................(3.1) However, modifying the above model, the model for this study is specifying thus; Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate = F (External Borrowing Growth Rate, Domestic Borrowing Growth Rate, Government Expenditure Growth Rate) ............................................. (3.2) The above model is transformed into the form below for easy estimation GDPGRt= α0 + α1EXBWGRt+ α2DBWGRt+ α3GEXPGRt+ μt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3.3) Where: GDPGR= Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate EXBWGR = External Borrowing Growth Rate DBWGR = Domestic Borrowing Growth Rate GEXPGR = Government Expenditure Growth Rate 0 3 − = coefficients of independent variables and t = error term. 3.2.1 Unit Root Test To fully explore the data generating process, we first examined the time series properties of model variables using the Augmented Dickey- Fuller test. The ADF test regression equations with constant are: 0 1 1 1 1 ... (3.4) k T T j T T j Y Y a Y − − = = + + + where Δ is the first difference operator εT is random error term that is iid k = no of lagged differences Y = the variable. The unit root test is then carried out under the null hypothesis α = 0 against the alternative hypothesis of α < 0. Once a value for the test statistics ..................(3.5) ( ) ADF SE = is computed we shall compare it with the relevant critical value for the Dickey-Fuller Test. If the test statistic is greater (in absolute value) than the critical value at 5% or 1% level of significance, then the null hypothesis of α = 0 is rejected and no unit root is present. If the variables are non-stationary at level form and integrated of the same order, this implies evidence of co-integration in the model. 3.2.2 Apriori Expectation External borrowing and domestic borrowing; expected to be a negative relationship with economic growth while government expenditure; expected to be a positive relationship economic growth. Further, the work set out to present an Engle-Granger Co-integration model because all the variables are integrated at 1(0) The use of Engle-Granger test approach is predicated on its advantages of simplicity and intuitive interpretability. The test is applied because the regressors are integrated at I(0). 3.2.3 Test of Hypothesis The Hypotheses were tested using the probability of f-statistics: Reject the Null hypothesis if the probability of f-statistics is less than the critical value (0.05), otherwise accept the Null hypothesis when critical value (0.05) exceeds probability of f-statistics. 3.3 Source of Data The study utilized the publications of the Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin (2022), World Development Indicator (2022 as the primary data sources. Section Four Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation 4.1 Data Presentation Table 4.1 Data Set on Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate, External Borrowing Growth Rate, Domestic Borrowing Growth Rate and Government Expenditure Growth Rate. YEAR GDPGR EXBWGR DBWGR GEXPGR 1990 11.77689 0.242208 0.79 0.469956 1991 0.358353 0.099926 0.381786 0.104802 1992 4.631193 0.657049 0.531529 0.393681 1993 -2.03512 0.163304 0.538738 1.060714 1994 -1.81492 0.024747 0.488417 -0.15864 1995 -0.07266 0.104888 0.172115 0.546169 1996 4.195924 -0.13886 -0.1209 0.35555 1997 2.937099 -0.03465 0.194715 0.269848 1998 2.581254 0.06223 0.117746 0.137543 1999 0.584127 3.071572 0.417197 0.945522 2000 5.015935 0.201759 0.130154 -0.26025 2001 5.917685 0.025475 0.132168 0.452101 2002 15.32916 0.2382 0.146539 0.000178 2003 7.347195 0.138688 0.140381 0.2041 2004 9.250558 0.091985 0.030564 0.226929 2005 6.438517 -0.44889 0.113536 0.276227 2006 6.059428 -0.83249 0.148995 0.061624 2007 6.59113 -0.02784 0.237488 0.202599 2008 6.764473 0.192219 0.069445 0.3223 2009 8.036925 0.128395 0.391208 0.065468 2010 8.005656 0.16835 0.410093 0.214766 2011 5.307924 0.300088 0.235295 0.12337 2012 4.230061 0.145012 0.162674 -0.02266 2013 6.671335 0.350985 0.088939 0.125946 2014 6.309719 0.175998 0.110275 -0.11531 2015 2.652693 0.294214 0.118037 0.087518 2016 -1.61687 0.647596 0.251353 0.174327 2017 0.805887 0.663597 0.138475 0.102097 2018 1.922757 0.340685 0.014688 1.135293 2019 2.208429 0.162798 0.117284 0.12683 2020 -1.79425 0.408227 0.122699 0.130144 2021 3.647187 0.247891 0.200867 0.13713 2022 3.251681 0.179563 0.154231 0.223699 2023 0.027405 1.397890 1.043596 0.328070 Source: Central Bank of Nigeria Statistical Bulletin (2023), World Development Indicator (2023). 4.1.1 Data Trends The data above in table 4.1 show that the fluctuations in GDPGR cannot be overemphasized. From 1990 to 2023, the GDPGR witnessed recession a few times, which corresponded to the variations in the country's total output traded with other countries worldwide. External borrowing in table 4.1, identifies that Nigeria's external borrowing was the highest in 1999. It fell steadily from then till 2008 but has continued to creep out and increase since then. Domestic borrowing growth rate in table 4.1 identifies that Nigeria's domestic borrowing has not been consistent over time. These inconsistencies have questioned the positive economic effects of borrowing especially in a developing economy like Nigeria. From table 4.1, it can be deduced that it was not until 2017 and 2018 that government began giving more attention to government expenditure which is why investment is low in Nigeria leading to a consistent budget deficit in the economy. 4. 2 Data Analysis 4.2.1 Unit Root Test Table 4.2: Summary of ADF test results at 5% critical value VARIABLE ADF TEST STATISTICS CRITICAL VALUE 5% ORDER OF INTEGRATION DECISION RULE GDPGR - 3.635505 -2.954021 I- (0) Reject Ho EXBWGR -4.864620 -2.954021 I- (0) Reject Ho DBWGR -3.219336 -2.954021 I- (0) Reject Ho GEXPGR -7.722937 -2.954021 I- (0) Reject Ho Source: Authors computation with E-views 2025 From table 4.2 above, Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate , External Borrowing Growth Rate , Domestic Borrowing Growth Rate and Government Expenditure Growth Rate were integrated of order zero (I ~ (0)) as they were stationary at level form. The decision is based on the fact the ADF statistics that is greater than the ADF critical values at 5%, we reject H0 and conclude that the variable is stationary. Since all the variables are integrated of order zero, we therefore, apply the Engle-Granger co-integration test. 4.2.2 Engle -Granger Co-integration Test The Engle-Granger cointegration test considers the case that there is a single cointegrating vector. The test follows the very simple intuition that if variables are cointegrated, then the residual of the cointegrating regression should be stationary. A necessary condition for testing Engle-Granger co-integrating test is that each of the variables be integrated of order zero (Engle Granger, 1987). Since all the variables are integrated of order zero, we proceeded to estimate the Engle-granger test. The null hypothesis of Engle-Granger co-integration is that the variables are not cointegrated as against the alternative that they are cointegrated. The decision rule is that if residual error term from the regression result is stationary at level, accept the alternative. It means that the variables are cointegrated and the regression that we have is not spurious. Table 4.3: Regression Test Result for the models Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob. EXBWGR -1.444152 1.314248 -1.098843 0.2806 DBWGR 0.365528 3.254913 -0.112300 0.9113 GEXPGR -1.929509 2.430044 -0.794022 0.4334 C 5.131299 1.088585 4.713731 0.0001 Source: Authors computation with E-views 2025 4.2.3 Test for Long Run Relationship It’s imperative to ascertain the long run relationship that exists between budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria. Table 4.4: Engle-Granger Test for Determination Value Prob.* Engle-Granger tau-statistic -4.270720 0.0696 Engle-Granger z-statistic -21.45942 0.1119 Source: Authors computation with E-views 2025 The Engle-Granger tau-statistic indicates that there is an unlikely chance of co-integration occurring since the prob value (0.0696) is greater than 0.05 (5% level of significance). This same thing could be observed with the Engle-granger z statistic. However, we buttress our point by carrying out a unit tests on the error variable generated for the purpose of carrying out the engle- granger co-integration in order to ascertain the long run relationship in the model. Table 4.5: Unit Root Test on the Error Variable (Long-run Co-integration) VARIABLE ADF TEST STATISTICS CRITICAL VALUE 5% ERROR - 4.209854 -2.954021 Source: Authors computation with E-views 2025 Since the error variable is significant at 5% critical value, it then proves that there is co- integration in the model. 4.2.4 Interpretation of the Regression Result GDPGR =4.713731 - 1.098843EXBWGR + 0.112300DBWGR - 0.794022GEXPGR The coefficient from table 4.3 above shows that the joint impact of all exogenous variables (EXBWGR, DBWGR, and GEXPGR) on the endogenous variable will amount to 5.131299 units; this is on the basis that they are all held at constant. In other word if all the exogenous variables are held at constant it will amount to 5.131299 -unit contribution to economic growth in Nigeria . External Borrowing has a negative insignificant coefficient value of -1.444152; this implies that external borrowing has a negative relationship with economic growth in Nigeria. Entailing that on the long run, as external borrowing increases by 1 percent, it causes the Nigerian economic growth to decrease by 1.44%. And this conform to apriori expectation Domestic Borrowing has a positive insignificant coefficient value of 0.365528; this implies that domestic borrowing has a positive relationship with economic growth in Nigeria. Entailing that on the long run, as domestic borrowing in Nigeria increases by 1 percent, it causes the Nigerian economic growth to increase by 0.36%. This does not conform to apriori expectation. This can be viewed from the aspect that such borrowed funds might be channelled into productive sectors compared to external growth but the debt becomes unsustainable because such debt competes with private sector borrowing, making it's impact to be insignificant. Government Expenditure has a negative insignificant coefficient value of -1.929509; this implies that Government Expenditure has a negative relationship with economic growth in Nigeria. Entailing that on the long run, as Government Expenditure in Nigeria increases by 1 percent, it causes the Nigerian economic growth to decrease by 1.92%. This does not conform to apriori expectation, because it was not expended appropriately. 4.3 Hypothesis Testing The individual test was carried out to test for joint significance of the independent variables on the dependent variable at 5% level using t-probability and t-statistic shown in table 4.3. The rule applied was: If t-probability is greater than the prescribed level of 5% or 0.05, accept the null hypothesis, otherwise reject the null hypothesis when f-probability is less than 0.05. Ho1: External Borrowing has no significant relationship with Economic Growth in Nigeria. H02: Domestic Borrowing has no significant relationship with Economic Growth in Nigeria. H03: Government Expenditure has no significant relationship with Economic Growth in Nigeria. 4.4 Discussions of Findings The study examined the relationship between budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria for the period of 1990 to 2023.Budget deficit plays an extraordinary and growing role in achieving full employment, sustainable economic growth, price stability and poverty reduction. From the study, it was discovered that; budget deficit through external borrowing, domestic borrowing and government expenditure has no significant relationship with economic growth in Nigeria; this implies that on the long run, as budget deficit through external borrowing, domestic borrowing and government expenditure in Nigeria increases causes the Nigerian economic growth to decrease. The above result conform to the results of Efuntade (2020), Kolawole (2020), Yusuf and Abolaji (2020), were they analyzed the impact of budget deficit on economic growth and development. However, the result did not conform to studies such as Ubi and Inyang (2018), Ali et al (2018) and Onwioduokit and Inam (2018) who found out that there exist a significant and positive relationship between budget/fiscal deficit and economic growth in Nigeria. The effect of the budget deficit on economic growth in Nigeria hinges on the stance of the government regarding fiscal policy and macroeconomic target. Efforts are geared towards improving the public financial management through the implementation of the treasury single account, integrated financial management information system, and the payroll and personnel information system (Kolawole, 2023). Also, while plans are put in place to improve fiscal space by boosting revenues, yet, economic growth contracts by 6.1% in the second quarter of 2020 as debt service takes 23.2% of total expenditure in the same year. Consequently, in 2021, even as the country’s budget deficit/GDP and debt/GDP ratios of -4.0% and 21.6%, respectively are the lowest in Africa, the debt service/revenue ratio of 73% ranks highest in the continent. Nonetheless, as it stands, Nigeria has a fiscal challenge of growing the revenue given that the budget deficit negatively impacts on economic growth in the long-run. The conclusion therefore is that since it is for a fact that budget deficit can propel economic growth if used technically and appropriately as made evident by empirical literatures, Nigeria should not be different. The problem being majorly how to effectively and appropriately utilize budget deficit, should be taken care of by employing strategic actions which would be recommended in the next section. Section Five Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations 5.1 Summary of Findings This study examined the relationship between budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria, from 1990 to 2023. The following summarizes the research work: 1. External borrowing has a negative and insignificant relationship with economic growth in Nigeria. This is because a significant portion of borrowed funds goes towards debt servicing, and external borrowing in foreign currencies exposes Nigeria to exchange rate risks, potentially destabilizing the economy. 2. Domestic Borrowing has a positive and insignificant relationship with economic growth in Nigeria. This is because domestic borrowing is used more effectively compared to external borrowing, but the impact is not significant enough to affect any constant growth due to leakages of funds. 3. Government Expenditure has a negative and insignificant relationship with economic growth in Nigeria. This is because funds might be misallocated into unproductive projects, and also, corruption and leakages of funds reduce the effect on growth. 5.2 Conclusion The study analyzed the effect of budget deficit on the economic expansion of Nigeria, spanning from 1990 to 2023. The study obtained the data from the CBN Statistical Bulletin (2023) and the World Development Indicator (2023). The variables of interest in this study were the Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate , which was the dependent variable, and external borrowing , Domestic Borrowing , and Government Expenditure , which were the explanatory factors. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller test was employed to determine the stationarity of the model, revealing that the variables were all integrated at order I(0). The Engle-Granger co-integration test was used to determine the long- term link between the variables. The analysis revealed the existence of co-integration, thereby confirming a relationship (though negative) between budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria in the long term. The findings demonstrated a clear and substantial negative correlation between budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria. In conclusion, the study found that budget deficit impacts negatively on economic growth, which aligns with the perspective of many scholars. However, it also found that if used technically and appropriately, budget deficit can impact positively and propel economic growth. 5.3 Recommendations The following recommendations are made from the findings of this research: 1. Given that external borrowing is negatively related to economic growth in Nigeria, this study recommends that, the government should boost domestic resources mobilisation and reduce reliance on external debt, but even if we do borrow from external bodies, then proper measures should be put in place for repayment within the agreed time frame, to reduce the danger of debt overhang. 2. Though domestic borrowing is positive but insignificant, the study recommends that there should be a platform that educates young individuals who intend to go into politics, with strict moral values against corruption and leakages of funds, because I believe the best way to change a society is by early imbibing strong values in the citizens. 3. Knowing that government expenditure has a negative relationship with economic growth in Nigeria, this study recommends that the government should focus on high-impact, revenue-generating projects. References Adegbite et al. (2017). Effect of government deficit on the growth of the Nigerian economy (1981–2022). (Working paper / ResearchGate). Recent working paper covering deficits across government tiers and quasi-fiscal activities. Adeyemi (2022) Empirical analysis of impact of deficit budget on economic growth of Nigeria from 1991 to 2021. International Journal of Accounting Research, 9(1), 37-39. Uses ARDL to analyse budget deficit & GDP relationship for Nigeria. Aigbokhan. (2018). Fiscal deficit on capital project and economic growth in Nigeria: The nexus. American Journal of Economics and Business Management, 5(8). Looks at how fiscal deficits affect capital projects and thus growth. Akpan (2019). Fiscal Deficit and Economic Performance in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Allied Research. Investigates fiscal deficits’ effect on economic performance (1987- 2018) in Nigeria. Aladejana, S. A., Alabi, J. A., Olaosebikan, O. I., & Joseph, F. A. (2024). Addressing Budget Deficits to Promote Sustainable Economic Growth in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Research in Accounting and Sustainability, 9(4), 15-25. Uses OLS/co- integration to show budget deficits impede sustainable growth. Aliero, & Abubakar (2020). Budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria: A further assessment (1981–2020). Futurity EconLaw. Re-assesses earlier literature and provides updated econometric results to 2021. Amande (2021). Budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria: An empirical analysis (1983– 2021). International Journal of recent time-series analysis extending to 2022/2023 with policy discussion on deficit management and growth. Babatunde (2020). An Empirical Investigation of Deficit Financing and Economic Growth in Nigeria. Jalingo Journal of Social & Management Sciences. VECM (1981-2018) study of deficit financing growth. Blanchard (2009). Budget Deficit and Private Domestic Investments in Nigeria: An Empirical Analysis (1980–2008). Jalingo Journal of Social & Management Sciences, 5(4). Examines how deficits affect private domestic investment, a growth channel. Budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria, Matthew et al. (2019). Budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria: Linear & non-linear perspective. CBN Economic & Financial Review, 59(2), 23-41. Analyses both ARDL and TAR models; finds positive growth impact if deficit is below ~2.02% of GDP. Central Bank of Nigeria- CBN Statistical Bulletins & CBN Update (2023–2024). Official data source for government revenue/expenditure, fiscal balance series and working papers. Chukwu (2019). Fiscal deficit and macroeconomic performance in Nigeria. Journal of Science Education and Humanities. — Uses ARDL (1991-2022) to link fiscal deficit to GDP growth/unemployment. Chukwudi (2019). Fiscal deficit and Nigeria economic growth (1990-2020). International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 8(5), 411-433. Uses long-span data (1990-2018) to measure impact of fiscal deficits. Efuntade & Kolawole (2020). Addressing Budget Deficits to Promote Sustainable Economic Growth in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovative Research in Accounting and Sustainability, 9(4), 15-25. Egbekotun et al. (2018). An Empirical Investigation of Deficit Financing and Economic Growth in Nigeria. Jalingo Journal of Social & Management Sciences. Uses VECM technique (1980-2017) to analyse deficit financing and growth. Eze et al. (2019). Fiscal Deficit and Economic Performance in Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Allied Research. Examines the relationship between fiscal deficits and broader economic performance (1985-2018). Francis (2024). An Examination of Fiscal Deficit - Economic Growth Nexus for Nigeria using the Bound Test Approach. AKSU Journal of Administration and Corporate Governance, 4(1). Applies ARDL/Granger causality to the fiscal deficit–growth link in Nigeria. Ikechukwu (2018). Twin deficit hypothesis and economic growth in Nigeria. American Journal of Social and Humanitarian Research, 5(2). Examines the fiscal deficit → current account deficit → growth connection (1985-2017). Keynes (1936). His book ' General Theory of Employment.' Kolawole (2023). The asymmetry effect of budget deficit and inflation in Nigeria. Journal of Global Economics and Business, 4(13), 97-110. Nnoruga, O. M., Olunkwa, N. C., Iwegbu, O., & Nwokoma, N. I. (2024). Budget deficit on economic development in Nigeria. In E. A. Onwioduokit & G. E. Akpan (Eds.), Essays in Public Finance – A Tribute to Professor Akpan H. Ekpo (pp. 86-99). Akwa Ibom: Modern Business Press. Covers 1981-2023, looks at budget deficit and human development/growth. Nwosa (2019). The asymmetry effect of budget deficit and inflation in Nigeria. Journal of Global Economics and Business, 4(13), 97-110. Focuses on how budget deficits affect inflation (which can link to growth) using NARDL. Ogbonna (2019). Fiscal deficit and human development: Empirical evidence from Nigeria. CBN Journal of Applied Statistics, Vol.15 No.2 (Dec 2024), 37–70. Links fiscal deficits with human development indicators, useful if you plan to discuss welfare or HDI-channel effects. Ojo et al. (2019). Deficit budget financing and economic growth in Nigeria (1981–2019). International Journal / IJBLR (2025). Latest empirical study including 2024 data; discusses optimal deficit thresholds and policy implications. Onwioduokit & Inam (2018). An Examination of Fiscal Deficit. Economic Growth Nexus for Nigeria using the Bound Test Approach. AKSU Journal of Administration and Corporate Governance, 4(1). Ubi & Inyang (2018). Budget deficit on economic development in Nigeria. In Onwioduokit & Akpan (Eds.), Essays in Public Finance – A Tribute to Professor Akpan H. Ekpo. (pp. 86- 99). Modern Business Press. Udoh et al. (2020). The impact of budget deficit on economic growth in Nigeria. IIARD / IJSSMR (2024). A regional journal paper that finds deficit financing may have a positive and significant short-run impact on activity (uses ARDL/VECM variants). Umaru (2019). Budget deficit and economic growth in Nigeria. CBN Economic & Financial Review, 59(2), 23–41. ARDL and threshold (non-linear) analysis covering 1981–2019; finds persistent deficits can have short-run positive growth effects but threshold issues matter. World Bank. (2024). Nigeria Development Update / Country note (Oct 2024): Bringing the reform gains home. Provides the latest macro/fiscal context (fiscal balance, public debt trends, growth projections) and policy commentary-handy for recent background and policy framing. Yusuf & Bolaji (2020). Budget Deficit and Private Domestic Investments in Nigeria: An Empirical Analysis (1981-2019). Jalingo Journal of Social & Management Sciences, 5(4).