Is it correct to assert that Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) stimulation and attraction are based on certain preconditions? To what extent should the preconditions be allowed to determine the content, character and method of studying and analysing FDI? Should research efforts be focused on these preconditions? Are the preconditions the necessary determinants of FDI stimulation and attraction? What are these preconditions, and to what extent are they fundamental and critical to the stimulation and attraction of FDI? Do the preconditions only exist in an economy? Do they exist in the polity as well? How can their existence and totality be explained, analysed and interpreted? To what extent have existing efforts been able to accurately explain, analyse and interpret these preconditions? What conclusions that can be drawn from these existing efforts and initiatives? Finally, what are the implications for theory construction and formulation? Approached from the angle of critique as a method of social inquiry, the article interrogates these efforts and initiatives to reveal their bogus intellectual claims and logical inconsistencies. The methodology of research is rooted in the very eclectic IJAH 5(1), S/NO 16, JANUARY, 2016 124 Copyright © IAARR 2016 sources in which these explanations and analyses are contained. The overall objective is to determine the extent to which these explanations and analyses are able to sufficiently account for, and capture the critical forces, processes and factors that tend to shape the movement of capital globally. The article concludes that the existing initiatives and efforts still remain inadequate in helping to concretely address how well the assumed preconditions are indeed the needed prerequisites for FDI attraction and stimulation.

No abstract

How important is money to politics? In other words, what important role does money play in politics? What explains the role of money in politics, and further its importance? How can the importance attached to the role of money in politics be scholarly demonstrated, and by what empirical yardsticks of presentations and analyses? The paper, with special focus on what it calls: “…the use and mis-use of money in politics”, seeks to, within the context of the Nigerian political system, investigate and analyze the role of money in politics. The research methodology combines historical cum analytical mode of data sourcing with evidence-based investigations organized around important thematic and sub-thematic issues and problems in the sub-field of psephology. The methodology, further advanced within the perspective of provocative and inquisitive scholarship, raises fundamental questions that were considered useful for the interrogation of the subject matter and the consequent organization of the accompanying research. For instance, how are money, politics and power related, and within what scholarly template of critical social science inquiry? Which influences the other and to what extent and degree of consequences and relationships? How can the relationships between and among these be measured and by what indices and criteria of strict scientific measurement and evaluation? The answers to the questions provide important findings/information with respect to the future of democracy in Nigeria when approached from the perspective of the cost of elections which tend to favour the highest bidders, the “money-bags” as called. The fact that the future of democracy becomes endangered under the circumstance, recommendations are consequently made on how to mitigate the cost of elections and further enhance democratic political practice. Green University Review of Social Sciences Dec 2021; 7(1-2): 35-64

Are debates of value to social science research?To what extent has the debate on the preconditions and determinants of foreign direct investments (FDI) helped in the understanding of the totality of the forces, factors, and processes of international capitalism? How does the knowledge of the preconditions and determinants present themselves as the knowledge of the debate on how best to attract and stimulate FDI? To what degree/extent do regimes necessarily influence and shape the determinants and preconditions of FDI attractions and stimulations? How can the research on the preconditions and determinants of FDI be designed in such a way and manner that the purpose of the scholarship is best served? What are the associated consequences of the choice and technique of the research design? The article attempts a review of the significant initiatives that give meaning to the debate on the affinities of FDI to either democracy or authoritarianism and presents the debate within the intellectual foundation stones of the understanding and grasp of international political economy. The method of data collection is qualitative and scattered in the diverse sources of information on the subject of study. The objective is to contribute meaningfully to understanding the debate and chart future research directions. The study finds out that while the debate on the subject matter is scintillating, it is, however, convoluted by three interrelated failures and shortcomings: (i) lack of clear specification of the research period, (ii) lack of detailed examination of the domestic economy of study, and (iii) lack of comparative study of the periods, which altogether compound the likelihood of in-depth knowledge and generalization, the ultimate goal of academic debates.

No abstract