Manuscript Title:

ASYMMETRIC IMPACT OF INVESTMENT AND LABOUR FREEDOMS ON THE INFORMAL ECONOMY: EVIDENCE FROM NIGERIA

Author:

LONGINUS CHUKWUDI ODOH, CHIDIEBERE NNAMANI, IJEOMA PERPETUA ONUOHA, VICTORIA NNENNA CHUKWUDI, SERGIUS EMEKA EZE, QUEENDALINE UGOCHI CHIGBO, SAMUEL IKECHUKWU NWAFOR

DOI Number:

DOI:10.5281/zenodo.21720669

Published : 2026-07-30

About the author(s)

1. LONGINUS CHUKWUDI ODOH - Department of Accountancy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. 2. CHIDIEBERE NNAMANI - Department of Accountancy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. 3. IJEOMA PERPETUA ONUOHA - Accountancy Department, Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu Alike, Ebonyi State. 4. VICTORIA NNENNA CHUKWUDI - Department of Accountancy, University of Science and Technology, Enugu State. 5. SERGIUS EMEKA EZE - Department of Accounting, Federal Cooperative College, Oji-River Enugu State. 6. QUEENDALINE UGOCHI CHIGBO - Department of Accounting, Micheal Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike. 7. SAMUEL IKECHUKWU NWAFOR - Accountancy Department, Federal Polytechnic, Oko, Anambra State.

Full Text : PDF

Abstract

This study examines the asymmetric relationship between economic freedoms and informal sector dynamics in Nigeria using a Nonlinear Autoregressive Distributed Lag (N-ARDL) approach. The analysis employs dynamic general equilibrium (DGE) model-based estimates of informal sector size to evaluate long-run and short-run asymmetries while accounting for macroeconomic and institutional factors. Wald test results confirm significant asymmetries in both temporal dimensions. The empirical results demonstrate that investment freedom changes generate pronounced asymmetric effects: a 1% increase reduces informal sector size by 0.15%, while a 1% decrease expands it by only 0.08%, indicating a "ratchet effect" in formalization. Labour freedom demonstrates similar but more modest asymmetry, with a 1% increase and decrease yielding -0.10% and +0.06% effects, respectively. This pattern aligns with theoretical expectations that positive regulatory changes elicit stronger responses than negative ones, with investment freedom showing greater asymmetry due to higher responsiveness of capital flow to favourable conditions compared to labour market adjustments. The analysis of control variables indicates that GDP per capita growth (-0.20%) and institutional quality (-0.30%) constrain informality, while unemployment (0.35%) and urbanization (0.50%) expand it. The error correction term (-0.52) indicates rapid equilibrium adjustment. The Practical policy implications of the findings are discussed.


Keywords

Informal Economy; Investment Freedom; Labour Freedom; Asymmetry.