892 resultados para Universities and colleges -- Nigeria -- Finance


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

"The basic material for this study ... was presented to the Graduate Faculty of Yale University for the degree of doctor of philosophy in 1937." - Author's pref.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Report year ends Mar. 31.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Vol.60 (1962) wrongly called v.67

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

"This report [is] ... within the framework of A national program of research for agriculture."

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

We investigate the impact of institutions on entrepreneurial entry, based on a large cross-country sample, combining working age population data generated by the GEM project with macro level indicators. Our four key findings indicate that: (a) institutional obstacles to entrepreneurship have different impact in rich countries compared to poor countries; (b) institutional obstacles have a stronger impact on 'opportunity entrepreneurship' than on 'necessity entrepreneurship'; (c) two institutional indicators - property right protection and access to finance - appear to have a dominant impact on entrepreneurship; (d) institutions have a long term impact. More than ten years after the Soviet system imploded in Central and Eastern Europe, these countries still experience significantly lower levels of entrepreneurship than economies coming from different legal traditions.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to study the perceived impact of some factors on the resources allocation processes of the Nigerian universities and to suggest a framework that will help practitioners and academics to understand and improve such processes. Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted the interpretive qualitative approach aimed at an ‘in-depth’ understanding of the resource allocation experiences of key university personnel and their perceived impact of the contextual factors affecting such processes. The analysis of individual narratives from each university established the conditions and factors impacting the resources allocation processes within each institution. Findings – The resources allocation process issues in the Nigerian universities may be categorised into people (core and peripheral units’ challenge, and politics and power); process (resources allocation processes); and resources (critical financial shortage and resources dependence response). The study also provides insight that resourcing efficiency in Nigerian universities appears strongly constrained by the rivalry among the resource managers. The efficient resources allocation process (ERAP) model is proposed to resolve the identified resourcing deficiencies. Research limitations/implications – The research is not focused to provide generalizable observations but ‘in-depth’ perceived factors and their impact on the resources allocation processes in Nigerian universities. The study is limited to the internal resources allocation issues within the universities and excludes the external funding factors. The resource managers’ responses to the identified factors may affect their internal resourcing efficiency. Further research using more empirical samples is required to obtain more widespread results and the implications for all universities. Originality/value – This study contributes a fresh literature framework to resources allocation processes focusing at ‘people’, ‘process’ and ‘resources’. Also a middle range theory triangulation is developed in relation to better understanding of resourcing process management. The study will be of interest to university managers and policy makers.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^