1
STATUS OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN TVET INSTITUTIONS AND INDUSTRIES IN
DELTA STATE OF NIGER DELTA REGION IN NIGERIA
BY
AYONMIKE, Chinyere Shirley
(Researcher in Industrial Technology Education)
Department of Technical and Business Education,
Delta State University, PMB1 Abraka,
Delta State, Nigeria
Email: chinyereshirley@ymail.com
Mobile: +2348033772087
AND
IGBERADJA, Serumu
(Researcher in Industrial Technology Education)
Department of Technical and Business Education,
Delta State University, PMB1 Abraka,
Delta State, Nigeria
Email: zerumuhjack@yahoo.co.uk
Mobile: +2347034623644
AND
IGBERAHARHA, Omovigho Clever
(Researcher in Business and Entrepreneurial Education)
Department of Technical and Business Education,
Delta State University, PMB1 Abraka,
Delta State, Nigeria
Email:ighoclevo@yahoo.com
Mobile: +2348033485476
AND
OKEKE, Benjamin Chukwumaijem
(Professor of Technical Education)
President /Vice Chancellor,
Federal University, Gausau,
Zamfara State, Nigeria
Email: benchuks2013@gmail.com
Mobile: +2348066393167
A Paper Presented at International Vocational Education and Training Association
(IVETA) Annual Conference on “Promoting and Sustaining Effective TVET Partnerships”
November 18-19, 2014 - Gaylord Opryland Hotel, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
2
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the state of partnership between TVET institutions and
industries in Delta State of Niger-Delta Region in Nigeria. Four research questions and
hypotheses guided the study. Survey research design was used in conducting this study. The
population of the study comprised of all the TVET teachers and lecturers in technical colleges
and tertiary institutions in Delta State from which a sample of 200 TVET teachers and lecturers
were randomly selected. Questionnaire was used to collect data and data were analysed using
mean and standard deviation for research questions and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
for testing hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance using F-statistics. The study revealed among
others, that partnership between industries and TVET institutions does not exists , and there are
numerous challenges militating against such partnership. In conclusion, partnership between
TVET Institutions and Industries can be established and sustained through collective efforts of
TVET stakeholders, government, industries, and the general public.
Keywords: TVET, Institutions, Industries, Partnership, Delta State, Niger-Delta Region, &
Nigeria
3
Introduction
The Niger-Delta, the delta of the Niger River in Nigeria is a very densely populated
Region sometimes called the Oil Rivers because it was once a major producer of palm oil. The
area was the British Oil Rivers Protectorate from 1885 until 1893, when it was expanded and
became the Niger Coast Protectorate. The Niger-Delta is defined officially by the Nigerian
government, and it extends over about 70,000 km² and makes up 7.5% of Nigeria's land mass.
Historically and cartographically, it consists of present day Bayelsa, Delta, and Rivers States. In
the year 2000, however, the Federal Government of Nigeria under President Olusegun
Obasanjo's regime included Abia, Akwa-Ibom, Cross River , Edo, Imo and Ondo States in the
Niger-Delta Region. Over 30 million people of more than 40 ethnic groups including the Bini,
Efik, Ibibio, Igbo, Annang, Oron, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Isoko, Urhobo, Ukwuani, and Kalabari, are
among the inhabitants in the Niger-Delta Region.
Delta State is an oil and agricultural producing state of Nigeria, situated in the NigerDelta Region, Warri is the economic nerve center of the state and also the most populated,
located in the southern end of the state. The state has a total land area of 16,842 square
kilometers. Delta State plays host to both multinational and indigenous companies/industries,
some of these industries include Chevron, Agip, Exxon Mobil, Niger Construction, Beta Glass,
Aladja Steel, Sectraco Construction, Gomene Construction, Flour Mills, WoodLand, African
Timber and Plywood (ATP), Asaba Aluminum, Lone Star Drilling, Shell Petroleum, Pan Ocean,
and Top Feeds. However, some of the Industrial/Trade Zones of Delta State include Asaba,
Warri, Agbor, Sapele, Koko, Oghara, Ogidigben, Ughelli, Patani, and Burutu. Despite, the fact
that Delta State plays host to various industries, partnership between educational institutions and
these industries that are operating in Delta State are hard to come by.
Public Private Partnership (PPP) is a contractual arrangement which is formed between
public and private sector companies involving the private sector in the development, financing,
ownership, and or operation of a public facility or service. In such a partnership, public and
private resources are pooled and responsibilities divided so that the partners‟ efforts are
complementary (Egbewole, 2011). Also, Public-private partnership (PPP) is generally defined as
a system in which a government service or private business venture is funded and operated
through a partnership for the purpose of delivering a project or services that was traditionally
provided by the public sector(Haruna, 2013).
Although there is no universal consensus about the definition of public-private
partnerships, the following elements typically characterize a PPP: The infrastructure or service is
funded, in whole or in part, by the private partner. Risks are distributed between the public
partner and private partner and are allocated to the party best positioned to manage each
individual risk. PPP are complex structures, involving multiple parties and relatively high
transaction costs (Egbewole, 2011). Public private partnership arose as a medium for
4
infrastructure development, i.e. to make available adequate infrastructure through public private
partnership‟s development. Such partnerships are characterized by the sharing of investment,
risk, responsibility and reward between the partners (British Colombia Ministry of Municipal
Affairs, 1999).
PPP is viewed as a generic term for the relationships formed between the private sector
and public bodies often with the aim of introducing private sector resources and/or expertise in
order to help provide and deliver public sector assets and services (Okoye & Okwelle, 2013
citing Education International, 2009). The perception of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in TVE
recognises the existence of alternative options for providing educational facility and services
besides public finance and public delivery (Olabiyi, Okafor & Bamidele, 2014). Public-Private
partnership according to Ahmed (2010) in Olabiyi, Okafor and Bamidele (2014) refers to a
contractual agreement between a government agency or authority and a private sector entity that
allows for greater private participation in the delivery of public infrastructure project.
The fundamental objective of a PPP is to encourage the private sector to use its facility to
raise capital and the capability to build projects on time and to budget for the welfare of the
technical vocational institutions, without having to compromise its profit motive (Olabiyi,
Okafor & Bamidele, 2014). At the same time, technical institutions would retain its
responsibility to provide goods and services to the public at affordable rates (Aimola, 2010 in
Olabiyi, Okafor & Bamidele, 2014). Public – Private Partnership therefore is one of the new
trends in partnership strategies; it is being popularized as an alternative approach to the delivery
of goods and services (Odekunle & Babalola, n.d). It refers to contractual arrangement between
the public sector and the private sector to achieve well-defined and shared objectives in a cost
effective, efficient and sustainable manner. This arrangement always specifies targets,
responsibilities, priorities and feedback processes. It primarily involves sharing of resources,
knowledge and risks between the two sectors so that the country at large can benefit from the
arrangement (Oni and Akinbinu, 2005).
PPP is a voluntary arrangement between non-governmental organization and government
to execute or jointly carry out a project with the aim of sharing the profits and bear any involving
risk together (Aina & Akintunde, 2013). More so, PPP describes a relationship in which public
and private resources are put together in achieving a goal or set of goals mutually beneficial to
both the private entity and the public (Witters, Marom & Kurt, 2012 in Aina & Akintunde, 2013
). Hence, Aina and Akintunde (2013) posited that Public-Private Partnership in Education
(PPPE) is a relationship in which the public (government) and private resources are voluntarily
put together mainly for achieving educational goals. Okpor and Hassan (2012) posited that
Public-Private Partnership is becoming an obvious facilitator and approach to sustainable
national development of any society, and the conceptual aspect of such relationship is based
towards contributing and providing for Technical and Vocational Education for the realization of
set goals of Vocational Technical Education in Nigeria.
5
However, Okpor and Hassan (2012) citing Karean and Garba (2008), opined that in
Nigeria and other developing countries sustainable access to technology development and
product are best achieved through Public Private Partnership with Vocational Technical
Education. If Vocational Technical Education is to be meaningful and successful in Nigeria, then
relationships are needed between public and private sectors to partner effectively with
Vocational Technical Education and skill acquisition programmes. Puyete (2005) in Okpor and
Hassan (2012), stressed that in an ideal situation, as obtainable in developed societies of the
world, the training and Education of nations citizenry is a collective effort of both governmental
and Non-governmental organizations, private firms, and private individuals or philanthropist.
Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (2009) posited that the Canadian Council for Public
Private Partnerships defines PPPs as a cooperative venture between the public and private
sectors, built on the expertise of each partner that best meets clearly defined public needs through
the appropriate allocation of resources, risks and rewards. In German, the Federal Report on PPP
in Public Real Estate commissioned by the German Federal Department of Transportation,
Construction and Real Estate (2003) in Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (2009) defines PPPs as
a long-term, contractually regulated co-operation between the public and private sector for the
efficient fulfillment of public tasks in combing the necessary resources (e.g. how-how,
operational funds, capital, personnel) of the partners and distributing existing project risks
appropriately according to the risk management competence of the project partners (Alfen et al.,
2009).
In the United Kingdom, PPPs include Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and other
arrangements where the public sector contracts to purchase quality services on a long term basis
to take advantage of private sector management skills. These include concessions and franchises,
where a private sector partner takes on the responsibility for providing public services, including
planning, designing, financing, constructing, operating and maintaining the specified services
(Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, 2009 citing HM Treasury, 2003).
According to Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (2009) the key features of most PPP
projects are as follows:
6

A private sector partner invests in public infrastructure facilities, and provides related
non-core services to the public sector client or the community,

The public sector client retains ultimate responsibility/accountability for the delivery of
the underlying core services to the public,

The public sector client and private sector partner work together under a long term
contract, whereby the payment to the private sector partner is spread over the term of the
contract and is made only to the extent that the required outputs are maintained to the
specified service standards.
According to Deich (2001) in Okoye and Okwelle (2013) a private public partnership
exists when the private sector joins with the public sector in pursuit of a common goal. The
personnel composition and structure of any private public partnership is unique. However, all
effective partnership shares the following characteristics in common.




The public sector appoints representatives who are authorized by their sector (say federal
or state government) and the private sector (say civil groups or organization) will elect or
appoint representatives.
Both partners usually work together to achieve common objectives or goals.
Each partner contributes money, technical expertise and time for the success of the
partnership.
Administrative/management responsibilities and decision-making rights/privileges are
shared among the personnel composition.
According to Aina and Akintunde (2013) government alone cannot bear the burden of
functional education in Nigeria; there is that need for private sectors to be more actively
involved. Individuals and nongovernmental agencies have a vital role to play in PPPE to ensure
quality and functional education. There are lots of risks involved in education leading to
wastages in educational system of the nation; since government is the major or only active actor
in the sector it bear the risk alone. Involvements of other actors in the sector will lessen the risks
and perhaps curtail the wastages. According to Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, and Guáqueta (2009)
there are ways in which the public and private sectors can join together to complement each
other’s strengths in providing education services and helping developing countries to meet the
Millennium Development Goals for education and to improve learning outcomes.
The concept of a public-private partnership (PPP) recognizes the existence of alternative
options for providing education services besides public finance and public delivery (Patrinos,
Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009).Public-private partnerships are also being used to build
school infrastructure. PPPs are a useful way to increase the funding available for constructing or
upgrading school buildings and often yield better value for money than traditional public sector
7
investments (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009). In such partnerships, the government
usually contracts a private company to build and/or maintain school buildings on a long-term
basis, typically 25 to 30 years. In this type of PPP, the private sector supplier assumes
responsibility for the risk inherent in the ownership and efficient operation of the project’s
facilities. This method of financing school buildings is used in many OECD countries but most
extensively in the United Kingdom. In recent years, several developing countries have also tried
this approach, though it is too early to see results.
Advantages of public-private partnerships
Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, and Guáqueta (2009) posited that theoretical literature on the
topic suggests four positive outcomes of the private provision of public services:




PPPs can create competition in the education market. The private sector can compete for
students with the public sector. In turn, the public sector has an incentive to react to this
competition by increasing the quality of the education that it provides.
PPP contracts can be more flexible than most public sector arrangements. Generally, the
public sector has less autonomy in hiring teachers and organizing schools than the private
sector does. Public-private contracts can be a better method for the supply of and demand
for education. Flexibility in teacher contracting is one of the primary motivations for
PPPs.
Governments can choose private providers in PPP contracts by means of an open bidding
process in which the government defines specific requirements for the quality of
education that it demands from the contractor. The contracts often include measurable
outcomes and clauses that specify the condition to deliver a certain quality of education,
and the contractor with the best or lowest cost proposal is then chosen. This one
characteristic of the contract alone can raise the quality of education.
PPP contracts can achieve an increased level of risk-sharing between the government
and the private sector. This risk sharing is likely to increase efficiency in the delivery of
services and, consequently, to induce the channeling of additional resources to the
provision for education.
So increasing the private sector’s role in education can have several potential advantages
over the traditional public delivery of education. Whether these benefits are actually realized
depends greatly on how well designed the partnership between the public and private sector is,
on the regulatory framework of the country, and on the capacity of the government to oversee
and enforce its contracts and partnerships with the private sector. When a PPP is implemented
correctly, it can increase efficiency and choice and expand access to education services,
particularly for households that tend to be poorly served by traditional delivery methods. PPPs
also allow governments to take advantage of the specialized skills offered by certain private
8
organizations and to overcome operating restrictions such as inflexible salary scales and work
rules that may prevail in the public sector (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009).
Another advantage is that governments can contract out to the private sector in a range of
initiatives that can include everything from nonacademic activities such as food services and
management contracts involving a few schools, to subsidizing the tuition at private schools for
hundreds of thousands of students, to long-term, multimillion dollar infrastructure partnerships.
For policymakers, contracting is a middle ground between government delivery and outright
privatization and does not attract as much controversy and criticisms as privatization.
Contracting can also enable governments to target initiatives towards particular groups in society
or to achieve specific outcomes (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009). In addition, it is a
way to bring the private sector’s skills and resources into the education sector (as is the case of
capital investments for school construction under private finance initiatives) and to increase
efficiency and innovation in the delivery of education. Contracting can do all of this while
allowing governments to keep schools accountable.
It is widely accepted that institution-industry partnership is a useful strategy for
integrating science into the productive sectors of the economy. As such, it offers a lot of
opportunities, for social and economic empowerment, not only to the stakeholders but also to
society at large. It also offers the university staff an additional avenue for generating income
through the sale of the inventions or the commercial exploitation of the technologies.
Universities can also exploit the opportunity offered by the partnership to enable staff to obtain
valuable practical experience, get job satisfaction and understand the needs of industry. The
partnership if it results in useful products and technologies can also enhance the profile of the
local scientists and the reputation of the scientific institution in the respective country. Under the
cooperation arrangement an opportunity may arise for university research to be hosted and
possibly financed by industry (Massaquoi, 2002).
More so, Industry can also envisage from institution-industry partnership an opportunity
to use the staff of academic/research institution as consultants in the execution of technical
assignment. This should lead to improvement in quality of products and increase in productivity.
The above paragraph presents the potential benefits that the university-industry partnership
offers to society and the stakeholders. But the circumstances (or state) of the stakeholders can
also be an opportunity for the university-industry partnership to flourish. In other words there are
certain developments in both universities and industry, which offer opportunities for universityindustry partnership to grow stronger. For instance, currently everywhere in Africa, there is
pressure on institutions to be self-sustaining. Thus efforts are being made to identify alternative
sources of income. This is an opportunity which can be exploited by the partnership. The
cooperation can be promoted as an income generating activity. Under such circumstances,
university authorities may be quick to provide the necessary support for the institution-industry
partnership (Massaquoi, 2002).
9
Disadvantages of public-private partnerships
According to Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta (2009) literature argues that there are
negative outcomes associated with the private provision of public services:



PPPs will lead to the privatization of education and thus will reduce the government’s
control over a public service.
Increasing the educational choices available to students and their families may increase
socioeconomic segregation if better prepared students end up self selecting into highquality schools, thus further improving their outcomes.
PPPs will lead to poorer students being left behind in the deteriorating public schools
that lose the support of more educated parents. PPPs may face resistance from certain
stakeholders. For instance, teachers and other employees may see PPPs as a threat to their
job stability, while teachers’ and public sector unions may see them as a way of
diminishing their influence over their members’ terms and conditions of service.
Policymakers need to take these points of view into account when designing their
contracting initiatives. They should consult with stakeholders and share the contract
documentation with them. It may also be useful for policymakers to recruit leading
figures in the politics and business communities who understand the potential benefits of
PPPs and can use their influence to help to overcome any resistance.
There can also be some challenges and risks involved in PPPs. Inputs to education,
processes, and outputs are very different and require several different forms of contracts
(including management, support, professional, operational, educational services, and
infrastructure). All of these variations need to be assessed separately as they require different
approaches in order to be effective. For example, in many countries, it is likely that the capacity
of public agencies will have to be developed before it will be possible to expand the schooling
options available to low-income students (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009).In some
cases, there may even be a need to build the capacity of private operators to deliver high-quality
schooling. While one advantage of PPPs is that they can be a more cost-effective way to provide
education than the tradition public sector approach, there are some instances in which this may
not be the case. For example, contracting for facility availability may be more expensive than
traditional procurement methods when the costs of awarding and managing contracts or of
private borrowing are particularly high. Also, if poorly handled, contracting can even reduce
already low levels of government accountability and control (Kingdon 2007 in Patrinos, BarreraOsorio, & Guáqueta, 2009). It can also create opportunities for corruption in the awarding of the
contracts. Therefore, partnerships that provide financing to private schools but do not demand
accountability can have negative consequences (Kingdon, 2007 in Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, &
Guáqueta, 2009).
10
Promoting and Sustaining Public Private Partnership
The main rationale for developing public private partnerships (PPPs) in education is to
maximize
the potential for expanding equitable access to schooling and for improving
education outcomes, especially for marginalized groups. The World Development Report 2004
(World Bank 2003) concluded that services can be provided to poor people most successfully
when citizens, service providers, and governments are accountable to each other. According to
Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, and Guáqueta (2009), in countries where PPPs have not been
extensively tried before, the government may need to change its education policies and
regulatory framework. The government must clearly create an enabling framework that includes:




defining the place of private providers in the national education strategy;
setting clear, objective, and streamlined criteria that the private sector must meet in order
to establish and operate schools;
introducing school funding systems that integrate public and private schools and that are
neutral, responsive, and targeted;
establishing an effective quality assurance system.
Good design cannot ensure the success of a PPP in education as it must also be
implemented effectively and efficiently. To ensure this, governments should choose their private
partners by means of a transparent, competitive, and multi-stages selection process. Second, they
should assign the roles of purchaser and provider of education services to different entities within
the education administrative agencies. Third, they must ascertain that the private agency in
question has sufficient capacity for the task at hand. Also, government education institutions
must develop their own capacity, establish quality assurance mechanisms, develop appropriate
performance measures for contractors, and devise incentives to achieve performance targets as
well as sanctions for nonperformance (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009).
PPPs can be defined as a contract that a government makes with a private service
provider to acquire a specified service of a defined quantity and quality at an agreed price for a
specified period (Taylor 2003 in Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009). For public-private
partnerships to live up to their potential of bringing many benefits to the education sector, they
must be well designed. Poorly designed PPPs can expose governments to significant financial
and policy risks, such as cost increases and unmet objectives. Governments can do several things
to create an environment that is conducive to the establishment of well designed and successful
PPPs in education However, according to Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, and Guáqueta (2009), the
following are actions that governments can take to promote public-private partnerships in
education:


Provide a sound basis for the establishment of the private school sector
Allow private schools to set their own tuition and other fees
11













Allow both not-for-profit and for-profit schools to operate
Promote and facilitate foreign direct investment in education
Establish clear, objective, and streamlined criteria and processes for establishing and
registering private schools
Provide subsidies to the private school sector
Ensure that PPP contracts give private providers considerable flexibility
Establish quality assurance processes and provide families with information to help them
to choose schools for their children
Use a transparent, competitive, and multi-stage process for selecting private partners in
PPPs
Separate the purchaser and provider roles within the education administrative agency
Ensure that the PPP contracting agency has adequate capacity
Establish appropriate performance measures and include performance incentives and
sanctions for inadequate performance in PPP contracts
Develop an effective communications strategy to inform parents about school
characteristics, and the public about the benefits and objectives of PPPs
Introduce a framework for evaluating the outcomes of contracts
Involve international organizations in encouraging the growth of PPPs
Principles for designing and implementing public-private partnerships
According to Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, and Guáqueta (2009), the following are principles
for designing and implementing public-private partnerships for effective and sustainable PPP.

Defining public-private partnerships in education
Principle 1: The nature and extent of PPPs should be based on a government’s assessment of its
appropriate role in education and the relative costs and benefits of private involvement in the
sector, whether this involves education delivery, financing, or regulation.
Principle 2: The equity impact of PPPs should be a key consideration in determining the nature
and extent of public and private involvement in education.

Promoting public-private partnerships in education
Principle 3: A sound general policy and regulatory environment, including high standards of
public and corporate governance, flexible labor markets, transparency, and the rule of law,
including protection of property and contractual rights, are essential for attracting the
participation of the private sector in all sectors of the economy, including education.
Principle 4: Authorities can promote private involvement by putting in place an enabling
regulatory environment, including recognizing the role of the private education, providing clear
12
and streamlined registration processes, setting up effective quality assurance systems, avoiding
regulation of private school fees, and providing incentives for private participation.
Principle 5: Access to capital markets is an essential factor in increasing private participation in
education. Restrictions on access to markets and obstacles to international capital movements
should be phased out. International organizations can help to promote private sector involvement
in education by widening access to capital markets.
Principle 6: Public authorities can promote foreign investment in education by treating local and
foreign providers equally, providing investment incentives, and ensuring a supportive and
efficient environment for investors. Investment promotion agencies can support investment in
education by promoting education as a priority investment sector.

Implementing public-private partnerships
Principle 7: PPP processes should be free of corruption and subject to appropriate levels of
accountability, while public authorities should take effective measures to ensure the integrity and
accountability of all partners and should establish procedures to deter, detect, and sanction
corruption.
Principle 8: Education authorities and private organizations should agree on the output- or
performance based specifications to be included in the contract as well as sanctions for
deviations.
Principle 9: The process for awarding PPP contracts should be competitive and should
guarantee procedural fairness, no discrimination, and transparency.
Principle 10: Governments should ensure that the public agencies responsible for forming and
overseeing PPPs have the resources, information, and skills required to design, develop, and
manage the complex contracting processes. They should ensure that the purchaser and provider
roles of the agency are separate; the government can assign responsibility for PPPs to specialized
agencies on partnerships and contracting education services if necessary.
Principle 11: Education authorities should have the capacity to identify fraud, track payments,
and ensure that subsidies and payment claims are legitimate and accurate. They should also
ensure that their private sector partners are paid in a timely fashion.
Principle 12: Public authorities can increase the popularity of PPPs by encouraging informed
debate on the role and impact of these partnerships, consulting stakeholders and the public about
the use of PPPs, putting in place an effective communications and awareness strategy, and
creating a rigorous evaluation program.

Encouraging responsible business conduct
13
Principle 13: Private partners should observe the principles and standards for responsible
business conduct that have been agreed on with the government and should participate in such
projects in good faith. They should not resort to bribery and other irregular practices to obtain
contracts, nor should they agree to be party to such practices in the course of their infrastructure
operations.
Principle 14: Private partners should participate in the government’s strategies for
communicating and consulting with the public.
Principle 15: Private providers need to be mindful of the consequences of their actions for
communities and to work together with public authorities to avoid and mitigate any socially
unacceptable outcomes.
Challenges to TVET Institution-Industry Partnership
There are several factors militating against TVET Institution-Industry Partnership in
Africa, According to Massaquoi (2002) there are several reasons why institution-industry
partnerships or the enabling institutional arrangements for institution-industry partnerships have
not developed over the years. These include the weakness of the research infrastructure in some
countries, which inevitably leads to a scarcity of scientific research of economic value of such
partnership. Another factor is the nature of the local industries, which tend to be infant factories
of the parent company normally located in Europe or North America. These factories do all their
technology development activities through their foreign parents and hence have no reason to
develop partnerships with local institutions. Consequently, these factors exist as a result of the
attitude of stakeholders such as scientists, the industry, the institution (university), society, the
general macroeconomic environment, and the government. However in this study we examined
the three core factors which are industry, the institution (university), and the government.
Constraints on the side of industry
According to Massaquoi (2002) Most of the inhibiting factors may have their origin in
the nature of the ownership of the local industries (i.e. factory units of multi-nationals) and the
size (usually small) of local industries. The following are the major factors that constrain the
active involvement of some industries in university-industry cooperative development:
 There is scarcity of relevant human resource to undertake the evaluation of ideas and
convert scientific knowledge into commercial technologies. In particular there is an
absence of industrial economists and highly skilled technical staff capable of undertaking
product development. The availability of the appropriate human resources will facilitate
an integrated approach in design that will involve scientists, engineers and industrial
economists. Because of the small size of most of the industries, human resources
14
available are mainly engaged in production and maintenance and not many are involved
in product development.
 Furthermore, and again as a result of the weak human resource capacity in some of the
local industries, the assessment and management of risk is not undertaken. Such an
assessment is important in order to enhance the ability of success in the technology
development effort.
 Industry also faces difficulty in securing loans for the commercial development of
scientific ideas and inventions. Commercial banks are often not forthcoming with loans
for the development of new ideas and there is an absence of appropriate venture capital
finance.
 Some industries, again by virtue of their sizes, do not undertake a comprehensive market
plan /strategy comprising market research, distribution networks, promotion and
packaging of product. They are therefore unable to access accurately the economic values
of new products.
 Local industries do not have any policy for their relationship with local institutions. This
may be as a result of another problem, which is the general lack of confidence in the
ideas of local scientists. The lack of policy can only lead to unsustainable ad hoc
arrangements with individual scientists.
Institutional constraints
According to Massaquoi (2002) University and Research institutions which host the
scientists have certain administrative structures and practices that adversely affects their own
ability to promote University-industry partnership. These include:
 Poor management of funds. There have been cases where funds meant for a particular
project are temporarily diverted to other activities. This slows the implementation of the
projects, which tends to exasperate the industrial partner providing the funds.
 The nature of the project administration: Sometimes the administration of the project
does not involve key players. The scientist involved in the daily activities of a project
may not even be part of its steering committee. Thus important management decisions
such as the location of the pilot plant are taken without the prior knowledge of the
scientist and this can sometimes have negative effect on the progress of the project.
 Institutional politics (e.g. departmental rivalries) can also frustrate the technology
development process. Some useful results are often "shelved" while others with less
promise are pushed forward.
15
Government policies
According to Massaquoi (2002) one key stakeholder in the university-industry
partnership is the government. The later has the responsibility to create the environment and
climate for nurturing such partnerships. Government's main role is to promote the partnership
through the institution of appropriate policies and institutional framework. It can also assist by
providing financial support to scientific institutions to carry out research and development work.
In connection with this, the following factors are known to inhibit the role of government in
fostering university-industry partnership.
 Attitude of Government officials towards local inventions and research. Like the
industrial counterpart, there is general perception among some Government officials and
institutions that local inventions are not good enough. Hence there is not much
enthusiasm, on the side of government, to in promote indigenous technologies.
 Government policies towards local inventions and research. African governments do not
normally provide an incentive such as tax breaks for industries involved in the
commercial developments of new ideas. Such policies if they were adopted will
encourage local industries to take up the commercialisation of locally generated scientific
research results.
 Absence of science and technology policy in some countries. University-Industry
partnership is a useful strategy for building technological capacity in any country. Thus,
national science and technology policy usually have instruments that promote universityindustry partnership. Hence the existence of Science and technology policy is important
for university industry cooperative technology development.
 Political instability in some countries. Project survival depends on political and
economic stability. Frequent changes in government and policy prevent industry from
engaging in long term investments. And by nature, the development of technologies or
the commercialization of scientific research result is a long-term investment, which
requires long periods of stable policy environment.
Theoretical Framework
In this work, the Expectancy Theory of Motivation was applied. This theory proposes
that a person will decide to behave or act in a certain way because, they are motivated to select a
specific behaviour over other behaviours due to what they expect (Oliver, 1974) in (WikipediaEncyclopedia, 2012). Vroom (1964) defines motivation as a process governing choices among
alternative forms of voluntary activities, a process controlled by the individual. The individual
makes choice based on estimates of how well the expected results of a given behaviour are going
to match up with or eventually lead to the desired results. The Expectancy Theory of Motivation
16
explains the behavioural process of why individuals choose one behavioural option over another.
It also explains how they make decisions to achieve the end they value. Vroom introduces three
variables within the Expectancy Theory which are Valence (V), Expectancy (E) and
Instrumentality (I). The three elements are important behind choosing one element over another
because they are clearly defined;
i.
Valence is the value the individual places on the rewards based on their needs, goals,
values and sources of motivation.
ii.
Expectancy is the belief that one’s effort (E) will result in attainment of desired
performance (P) goals.
iii.
Instrumentality is the belief that a person will receive a reward, if the performance
expectation is met. This reward may come in the form of a pay increase, promotion,
recognition or sense of accomplishment.
This theory was used by the researchers to explain how partnership between TVET
institutions and industries can be promoted and sustain because of what TVET institutions and
industries stand to gain in the partnership, both partners will want to continue the partnership
project and possibly extend the partnership to other geographical location. For example, when
the industries build and equipped TVET laboratories and workshops, during staff retraining
programme, they will send their staff to TVET institutions for such retraining programme which
will not attract any training cost because of their contribution as a result of the partnership
between the institutions and industries. Furthermore, TVET institutions can send staffs and
students to industries for occupational skills training and internship respectively without
disappointment from the industries due to the partnership in place.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to examine the status of partnership between TVET
institutions and Industries in Delta State of Niger-Delta Region in Nigeria. Specifically, the study
examined the:
1.
2.
3.
4.
State of partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Challenges to partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Strategies for introduction of partnership between TVET institutions and industries in
Delta State.
Strategies for sustaining partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta
State.
17
Statement of Problem
In February 1994 UNESCO launched the University-Industry Science Partnership
(UNISPAR) Programme in Africa with the view of promoting cooperation between universities
and industries in the region. The main objective of the programme is to facilitate indigenous
technology development through transfer of research results from university to Industry. Since
the inception of the UNISPAR-Africa programme, UNESCO has financed many activities aimed
at promoting partnership between universities and industry. These activities include conferences,
dissemination of information, publications and award of grants for university-industry joint
projects (Massaquoi, 2002).Despite the call by researchers and international organization such as
UNESCO-UNEVOC for partnership between TVET institutions and industries to foster the
production of productive, competent, and employable graduates of TVET institutions across the
globe and Africa in particular, no visible forms of partnership have been established by TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State. In support, Massaquoi (2002) opined that, in most
African countries, partnership between local industries and universities is not very common.
Therefore, this study examined the status of partnership between TVET institutions and
industries in Delta State of Niger-Delta Region in Nigeria.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Are there any partnerships between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State?
What are the challenges to partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta
State?
What are the strategies for introduction of partnership between TVET institutions and
industries in Delta State?
What are the strategies for sustaining partnership between TVET institutions and
industries in Delta State?
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested at .05 level of significance:
1.
2.
There is no significant difference between the mean response of teachers and lecturers
from TVET institutions in Delta State on the state of partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State.
There is no significant difference between the mean response of teachers and lecturers
from TVET institutions in Delta State on the challenges to partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State.
18
3.
4.
There is no significant difference between the mean response of teachers and lecturers
from TVET institutions in Delta State on the strategies for introduction of partnership
between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
There is no significant difference between the mean response of teachers and lecturers
from TVET institutions in Delta State on the strategies for sustaining partnership between
TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Scope of the Study
The study was limited in scope to TVET teachers and lecturers in TVET institutions in
Delta State of Niger-Delta Region in Nigeria.
Significance of the Study
The findings from this study will be beneficial to TVET institutions, teachers, and
lecturers; Delta State Ministry of Education; Industries; and Future researchers. TVET
institutions, teachers, lecturers, Delta State Ministry of Education; and Industries will benefit
from this study, since the findings will give them the insight to know the state of partnership
between TVET institutions and industries and also how partnership between TVET institutions
and industries can be introduced and sustained. Furthermore, future researchers will make the
findings of this study a reference point when conducting related research.
Methods and Procedure
The survey research design was used in this study because no variable was manipulated
in the study. The population of the study comprised of all the teachers and lecturers in all the
TVET institutions in Delta State. Two hundred TVET teachers and lecturers were selected
randomly using stratified random sample technique using the level of the educational institutions
(that is, tertiary and post-primary). A four-point scale questionnaire titled “Status of Partnership
between TVET Institutions and Industries” SPTVETII with four sections and thirty seven items
was used to collect data. The instrument was content and face validated by three experts from
Delta State University, Abraka, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Akwa, Anambra State and Rivers
State Univesity of Science and Technology, Port-Harcourt, Rivers State and was found to be
valid. Also, test retest methods were use to ascertained the reliability of the instrument using
Cronbach Alpha, a reliability coefficient of 0.69 was obtained. Data were collected by the
researchers and mean and standard deviations were used for the research questions and one-way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to test the hypotheses at .05 level of significance. However,
when the mean value of an item was 2.50 and above it was regarded as ‘Agree’ and below 2.50
was regarded as ‘Disagree’. More so, when the F-calculated is greater than the F-critical, the
hypothesis will be rejected and when F-calculated is less than F-critical, the hypothesis will be
accepted.
19
Results and Discussion
The results were presented based on the research questions and hypotheses.
Research Question 1: Is there any partnership between TVET institutions and industries in
Delta State?
Table 1: Shows the response of TVET teachers and lecturers on partnership between
TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
S/N Item Statement
My school have partnership with
the following industries:
1. Advertising
2. Agricultural
Teachers
Lecturers
Mean
1.12
1.52
S.D Remark
0.32 Disagree
0.91 Disagree
Mean
1.16
1.11
S.D Remark
0.52 Disagree
0.34 Disagree
3.
Automobile
1.43
0.97 Disagree
1.16
0.54 Disagree
4.
5.
Aviation
Banking
1.69
3.38
0.96 Disagree
0.48 Agree
1.12
3.16
0.59 Disagree
0.67 Agree
6.
Cement
2.48
1.12 Disagree
2.43
0.81 Disagree
7.
8.
Construction
Electronics
2.32
1.12
0.76 Disagree
0.32 Disagree
2.45
1.12
0.64 Disagree
0.32 Disagree
9.
Furnishing
1.34
0.71 Disagree
1.27
0.86 Disagree
10.
Hospitality
1.27
0.61 Disagree
1.16
0.52 Disagree
11.
Insurance
1.22
0.41 Disagree
1.08
0.39 Disagree
12.
Oil and Gas
1.20
0.49 Disagree
1.17
0.68 Disagree
13.
Paint
1.18
0.38 Disagree
1.00
0.00 Disagree
14.
Plastic
1.42
0.92 Disagree
1.19
0.66 Disagree
15.
Power
1.30
0.59 Disagree
1.06
0.37 Disagree
16.
Publishing
1.36
0.84 Disagree
1.26
0.57 Disagree
17.
Telecommunication
1.20
0.44 Disagree
1.16
0.54 Disagree
20
18.
Textile
1.24
0.42 Disagree
1.22
0.69 Disagree
19.
Tourism
1.25
0.60 Disagree
1.20
0.63 Disagree
20.
Transportation
1.33
0.76 Disagree
1.19
0.48 Disagree
Grand Mean & S.D
1.52 0.57
1.38 0.58
The results in table 1 revealed that partnership between TVET institutions and industries
do not take place in Delta State. Although, there exist some kind of partnership between the
TVET institutions and the banking industries. A good example of the partnership that exist is the
construction and management of school facilities like information and communication
technology centre and completion of hostels in Delta State University by Former Oceanic Bank
(now Ecobank) which the bank will manage for some time and later handover to the school. But
in the real sense partnership between industries and TVET institutions do not exist in TVET
institutions in Delta State. These findings supported by Massaquoi (2002) who opined that, in
most African countries such as Nigeria, partnership between local industries and universities is
not very common.
Research Question 2: What are the challenges to partnership between TVET institutions and
industries in Delta State?
Table 2: Shows the response of TVET teachers and lecturers on challenges to partnership
between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
S/N
Item Statement
Mean
1.
The
following
are
challenges to partnership
between TVET institutions
and industries:
Immediate gains from the 3.53
partnership
Teachers
S.D
Remark Mean
Lecturers
S.D
Remark
0.90
Agree
3.65
0.47
Agree
2.
Its time consuming
3.46
0.50
Agree
3.26
0.73
Agree
3.
Lack of finance
2.83
1.44
Agree
2.69
0.78
Agree
4.
Lack of interest by TVET 3.26
institutions and industries to
partner
Poor government policies on 3.05
0.44
Agree
3.27
0.48
Agree
1.08
Agree
2.80
1.26
Agree
5.
21
participation in TVET
6.
7.
Poor
public
relations 3.31
practice
by
TVET
institutions and industries
Risk sharing pattern
3.65
Grand Mean & S.D
3.29
0.46
Agree
3.50
0.74
Agree
0.47
Agree
3.57
0.49
Agree
3.24
0.37
0.28
The results in table 2 revealed that partnership between TVET institutions and industries
is faced with numerous challenges such as: Immediate gains from the partnership; Its time
consuming; Lack of finance; Lack of interest by TVET institutions and industries to partner;
Poor government policies on participation in TVET; Poor public relations practice by TVET
institutions and industries; and Risk sharing pattern. In support of these findings, Massaquoi
(2002) posited that there are several factors militating against TVET Institution-Industry
Partnership in Africa. Massaquoi further opined that several reasons are responsible why
institution-industry partnerships or the enabling institutional arrangements for institutionindustry partnerships have not developed over the years. Consequently, these factors exist as a
result of the attitude of stakeholders such as scientists, the industry, the institution (university),
society, the general macroeconomic environment, and the government.
Research Question 3: What are the strategies for introduction of partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State?
Table 3: Shows the response of TVET teachers and lecturers on strategies for introduction
of partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
S/N
Item Statement
Mean
1.
2.
3.
The following strategies
can be use to introduce
partnership
between
TVET institutions and
industries:
Formulation of government 3.24
policies that will encourage
industries to partner TVET
institutions
Government should award 3.69
contract to industries that
are in partnership with
TVET institutions
Government
should 3.33
establish special grant
Teachers
S.D
Remark Mean
Lecturers
S.D
Remark
1.18
Agree
3.16
0.67
Agree
0.46
Agree
3.88
0.32
Agree
0.88
Agree
3.65
0.47
Agree
22
scheme for industries to
partner TVET institutions
4.
NBTE should organized 3.38
seminars and workshops
for industries and TVET
institutions on the benefit
of partnership
5.
Reduction of tax for 3.03
industries that are in
partnership with TVET
institutions
Grand Mean & S.D
3.33
0.48
Agree
3.11
0.68
Agree
1.16
Agree
3.27
0.48
Agree
3.41
0.33
0.23
The results in table 3 revealed some strategies for introducing partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State. The strategies are: Formulation of government policies
that will encourage industries to partner TVET institutions; Government should award contract
to industries that are in partnership with TVET institutions; Government should establish special
grant scheme for industries to partner TVET institutions; NBTE should organized seminars and
workshops for industries and TVET institutions on the benefit of partnership; and the reduction
of tax for industries that are in partnership with TVET institutions. These findings are in line
with the recommendation from the report of the meeting on University-Industry Partnership in
Africa held in Harare, Zimbabwe. In this report, it was stated that governments’ role is to create
the enabling policy environment and provide financial support (directly or through the national
institutions) to the partnership. One of the recommendations is that government should give tax
incentives to industries that support research and development work, this implies that
government should give tax relief for a reasonable period to industries that are producing
products from local technologies (Massaquoi, 2002).
Research Question 4: What are the strategies for sustaining partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State?
23
Table 4: Shows the response of TVET teachers and lecturers on strategies for sustaining
partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
S/N
Item Statement
The following strategies can
be used to sustain partnership
between TVET institutions
and industries:
1.
Establishment
of
special
ministry to manage and
supervised partnership between
TVET
institutions
and
industries
2.
Establishment
of
TVET
institutions
and
industries
partnership intervention fund
scheme
3.
Giving national award to
industries that are in partnership
with TVET institutions
4.
Granting of loans to TVET
institutions and industries to
fund partnership projects
5.
Imposition of tax for TVET
institution
and
industries
partnership
Grand Mean & S.D
Mean
Teachers
Lecturers
S.D
Remark Mean S.D
Remark
3.66
0.47
Agree
3.11
0.68
Agree
3.69
0.46
Agree
3.89
0.31
Agree
2.91
0.97
Agree
3.88
0.32
Agree
3.80
0.40
Agree
3.05
0.57
Agree
3.24
0.42
Agree
3.17
0.53
Agree
3.46
0.37
3.42
0.42
The results in table 4 revealed some strategies for sustaining partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State. These are: Establishment of special ministry to manage
and supervised partnership between TVET institutions and industries; Establishment of TVET
institutions and industries partnership intervention fund scheme; Giving national award to
industries that are in partnership with TVET institutions; Granting of loans to TVET institutions
and industries to fund partnership projects; and Imposition of tax for TVET institution and
industries partnership. In support, Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, and Guáqueta (2009), opined that the
following are principles for designing and implementing public-private partnerships for effective
and sustainable PPP. Governments should ensure that the public agencies responsible for
forming and overseeing PPPs have the resources, information, and skills required to design,
develop, and manage the complex contracting processes. They should ensure that the purchaser
and provider roles of the agency are separate; the government can assign responsibility for PPPs
24
to specialized agencies on partnerships and contracting education services if necessary. In
addition, a sound general policy and regulatory environment, including high standards of public
and corporate governance, flexible labor markets, transparency, and the rule of law, including
protection of property and contractual rights, are essential for attracting the participation of the
private sector in all sectors of the economy, including education. More so, access to capital
markets is an essential factor in increasing private participation in education. Restrictions on
access to markets and obstacles to international capital movements should be phased out.
International organizations can help to promote private sector involvement in education by
widening access to capital markets.
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between the mean response of teachers and
lecturers from TVET institutions in Delta State on the state of partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State.
Table 5: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of TVET teachers and lecturers response on the
state of partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean Square F
12.267
19
.646
Between Items .182
1
.182
Residual
.243
19
.013
Total
.425
20
.021
12.692
39
.325
Between People
Within
People
Total
14.271
Sig
.001
Based on the result in Table 5, hypothesis 1 was rejected since the value of Fcalculated (14.271)
was greater that Fcritical (4.12) at df 39. This implies that there was significant difference
between the mean response of teachers and lecturers from TVET institutions in Delta State on
the state of partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between the mean response of teachers and
lecturers from TVET institutions in Delta State on the challenges to partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Delta State.
25
Table 6: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of TVET teachers and lecturers response on the
challenges to partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean Square
Between People
.559
4
.140
Within
People
Between Items
.016
1
.016
Residual
.122
4
.030
Total
.138
5
.028
.697
9
.077
Total
F
Sig
.526
.508
Based on the result in Table 6, hypothesis 2 was accepted since the value of Fcalculated (.526)
was less than Fcritical (2.89) at df 9. This implies that, there was no significant difference
between the mean response of teachers and lecturers from TVET institutions in Delta State on
the challenges to partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between the mean response of teachers and
lecturers from TVET institutions in Delta State on the strategies for introduction of partnership
between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Table 7: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of TVET teachers and lecturers response on the
strategies for introduction of partnership between TVET institutions and industries in
Delta State.
Sum of
Squares
Between People
Within
People
Total
df
Mean Square
1.247
6
.208
Between Items
.009
1
.009
Residual
.081
6
.013
Total
.090
7
.013
1.336
13
.103
F
Sig
.650
.451
Based on the result in Table 7, hypothesis 3 was accepted since the value of Fcalculated (.650)
was less than Fcritical (2.41) at df 13. This implies that, there was no significant difference
between the mean response of teachers and lecturers from TVET institutions in Delta State on
26
the strategies for introduction of partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta
State.
Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between the mean response of teachers and
lecturers from TVET institutions in Delta State on the strategies for sustaining partnership
between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Table 8: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of TVET teachers and lecturers response on the
strategies for sustaining partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta
State.
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean Square
Between People
.366
4
.091
Within
People
Between Items
.004
1
.004
Residual
.921
4
.230
Total
.925
5
.185
1.291
9
.143
Total
F
Sig
.017
.902
Based on the result in Table 8, hypothesis 4 was accepted since the value of Fcalculated (.017)
was less than Fcritical (2.89) at df 9. This implies that, there was no significant difference
between the mean response of teachers and lecturers from TVET institutions in Delta State on
the strategies for sustaining partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Delta State.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, it was concluded that no partnership exist between
the TVET institutions and industries in Delta State. More so various challenges to partnership
between TVET institutions and industries include, lack of fund, the time it consumed, lack of
interest by TVET institutions and industries to partner, poor government policies on participation
in TVET, poor public relations practice by TVET institutions and industries, and risk sharing
pattern between TVET institutions and industries. Furthermore, it was concluded that
government can help in introducing, promoting and sustaining partnership between TVET
institutions and industries in Nigeria by, formulating policies that will encourage industries to
partner TVET institutions, award contract to industries that are in partnership with TVET
27
institutions, establish special grant scheme for industries to partner TVET institutions, organized
seminars and workshops for industries and TVET institutions on the benefit of partnership,
reduction of tax of industries that are in partnership with TVET institutions amongst others.
Recommendations
For effective partnership between TVET institutions and industries in Nigeria,
government, it’s agencies, and TVET institutions administrators have great role to play from the
partnership project initiation stage to completion stage. This roles include planning,
implementation, and monitoring of TVET. Based on the findings of this study, the following
recommendations were made:











Government should establish special ministry to manage and supervised partnership
between TVET institutions and industries.
Government should establish TVET institutions and industries partnership intervention
fund scheme.
Government should give national award to industries that are in partnership with TVET
institutions.
Government should provide loans to TVET institutions and industries to fund partnership
projects.
Government should Impose tax for TVET institution and industries partnership.
Formulation of government policies that will encourage industries to partner TVET
institutions.
Government should award contract to industries that are in partnership with TVET
institutions.
Government should establish special grant scheme for industries to partner TVET
institutions.
National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) should organized seminars and
workshops for industries and TVET institutions on the benefits of partnership.
Government should reduced tax of industries that are in partnership with TVET
institutions.
Administrators of TVET institutions should have good and cordial relationship with
administrators of industries to help create room for partnership.
28
References
Aina, J. K., & Akintunde, Z.T. (2013).Repositioning science education in Nigerian colleges of
education through public- private partnership (ppp). Science Journal of Education, 1(5),
64-67.
British Colombia Ministry of Municipal Affairs (1999). Public private partnership; A guide for
Local
Government.
Retrieved
15th
September,
2014
from
www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/policy.../public_private_partnerships.pdf
Egbewole, Q. A. (2011). Examining public private partnership in Nigeria: potentials and
challenges. A Long Essay Submitted to the Faculty of Law, University of Ilorin, Ilorin,
Nigeria, In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Award of the Degree of
Bachelor of Law (LL.B Hons) in Common Law.
Haruna, R.F (2013). The role of public-private partnership in the development of technical
vocational education in Nigeria. A Keynote Address Presented on 25th September, 2013
at the 1st National Conference Organized by the School of Technical Education, Federal
University of Technology, Minna, Niger State Nigeria.
Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors (2009). Practical guide to public private partnership (ppp)
projects. Hong Kong SAR, China, Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors.
Kolade, O., & Babalola, J. B.(n.d). Impact of public private partnership on quality assurance
management of higher education in Nigeria.
Massaquoi, J.G.M.
(2002).University-industry partnership for cooperative technology
development in Africa: opportunities, challenges, strategies, and policy issues. Nairobi,
Kenya, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Regional Office
in Nairobi.
Odekunle, K. & Babalola, J. B. (n.d). Impact of public private partnership on quality assurance
management of higher education in Nigeria. Retrieved 15th September, 2014 from
www.academia.edu/.../Public_Private_Partnership_and_Management_of_Higher_Educati
on_in_Nigeria.
Okoye, K.R.E. & Okwelle, P.C. (2013.)Private-public partnership and technical vocational
Education and training (tvet) in a developing economy. Arabian Journal of Business and
Management Review 2(10), 51-61.
Okpor, I., & Hassan, N. (2012).Public-private partnership for skill acquisition and vocational
technical education development in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3
(4), 91-94.
29
Olabiyi, O. S. , Okafor, B. O. , & Bamidele, O. E. (2014).Facilities improvement through
public-private partnership for enhancing foundation skills among technical vocational
education students in Nigeria. Environment and Natural Resources Research, 4(2), 1119.
Oni, B. & Akinbinu eds. (2005). Public private partnership in Nigeria: A multi- disciplinary
approach. Ibadan, NISER.
Patrinos, H. A., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guáqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private
partnerships in education. Washington DC, The International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development / The World Bank.
Wikipedia-Encyclopedia (2012). Expectancy theory. Retrieved 20th July 2012 from
http://www.en.wikipeia.org/wiki//Expectancy_theory.