Table 8.8—Estimated government resource allocation under investment analysis (percent)
Agricultural TFP growth due to
Baseline Indicator/sector scenario
Real annual growth rates Total GDP
Agriculture Nonagriculture
National TFP Agriculture
Nonagriculture
Total public spending Agriculture
Nonagriculture
Government expenditure shares PAE/total expenditure 2008 2015 2017
PAE/agricultural GDP 2008 2015 2017
Total expenditure/total GDP 2008 2015 2017
PAE growth only Low
elasticity
6.5 8.0 5.7 9.5 6.5
8.0
2.5 3.8 2.3 5.6 2.5 7.0 4.7 7.1
3.0 8.6
23.8 7.1
4.2 3.6 3.5
2.9 2.7 2.7
21.3 22.1 22.3
5.8
14.6 18.6
3.8 9.1
11.7 21.0
21.6 22.2
High elasticity Agricultural TFP
growth including effects of faster PNE growth
Low elasticity High elasticity
8.0 8.0 8.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.0
8.0
3.0 9.1
3.8 3.8 3.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 3.0 7.4
13.6 7.1
4.9 7.3 8.1
3.2 4.2 4.5
20.8 19.9 19.7
17.5 8.5
5.1 8.6 9.9
3.5 5.7 6.5
21.5 22.8 23.3
237
8.0
3.0 8.5 8.5 8.5
4.4 4.4 4.4
2.9 2.8 2.7
21.3 21.8 22.0
Source: The Nigerian investment analysis results. Notes: GDP = gross domestic product. PAE = public agricultural expenditure. PNE = public nonagricultural expen- diture. TFP = total factor productivity.
in 2015 and 8.1 percent in 2017 (see Table 8.8). It is necessary in practice to empha- size how to improve the spending effi ciency to better support agricultural growth with limited resources. This issue is also important when the CAADP target of allocating 10 percent of the government’s budget to the agricultural sector is con- sidered. If the government can signifi cantly improve its effi ciency in agricultural investment, much less spending is required to support the same amount of agricul- tural and economic growth, and hence the share of agriculture in total spending does not necessarily need to be 10 percent. In the fi rst two scenarios, we assume the growth in nonagricultural spending is at its baseline level, and required agricultural spending is the only driver to support