In But this is not to say that

In support of Peacock and Wiseman hypothesis, according to (Rapu et al,2012 cited Ricardo,1820;Barro,1974; Gupta et al,1967) posited that the growth of an economy would certainly be accompaniedby the rising share of public expenditure in GDP. But this is not to say that the relationship betweengovernment income (Revenue) and government spending (Expenditure) to bring about growth are notcontentious, as some studies reveals that increase in government spending will be fuelling inflation(Emmanuel et al,2012) and government spending may either be beneficial or detrimental to economicgrowth (Kapunda and Topera,2013). Also recent event like the fiscal crisis in Greece and theprotracted budget concern in the U.S. attest to the prime place of government expenditure in theeconomy (Dogo et al, 2013). From the ongoing it shows however that, there is no consensus in thetheoretical literature on the impact of public expenditure on growth (Paternostro et al, 2007 inUsman). And empirically there are conflicting results of this impact as some studies reflect significantrelationship between Government expenditure and Economic Growth others proved otherwise.Examining the growth impact of recurrent, capital and sectoral expenditures over the period 1970 –1993, Ogiogio (1995) in his study observed the existence of a long-run relationship between economicgrowth and government expenditure. Contemporaneous government expenditures, however, had moresignificant effect than the capital expendituresBut technically economic growth is the product of the quality of output and output is determined bythe quality of input. In traditional production theory resources used for the production of a product areknown as factors of production, factors of production are now termed as inputs which means the useof the services of land, labour, capital and organization in the process of production. The term outputrefers to the commodity produced by the various inputs (Jhingan, 2004). Economic growth is the rateof change of real output of which it’s input are capital (human and physical capital), labour, rawmaterials, and technical knowledge (Begg, 2000). Therefore, the quality and efficiency of these inputlies in government spending on items like education, training, research, skill acquisition and technicalknowledge which will improve labour productivity and economic growth in general. Efficiency on itsown according to Adam Smith, cited in (Koutsoyiannis, 2006) is a necessary prerequisite foreconomic growth and He believed that economic growth resulted in the increase of social welfarebecause growth increases employment and goods available for consumption to the community.Also to justify government spending in this regard one will ask why did West Germany and Japanrecover successfully from the devastation of world war ll? Germany and Japan sustained extensivedestruction of their cities and industries during World War ll and entered the post-war periodimpoverished. Yet within 30 years both countries had not only been rebuilt but had becomeworldwide industrial and economic leaders. What accounts for these economic miracles? Mosteconomists agree, however, that high levels of human capital played a crucial role in both countries.At the end of the war Germany’s population was exceptionally well educated, with a large number ofhighly qualified scientists and engineers. The country also had (and still does today) an c (Frank andBernanke, 2004). Presently in Nigeria, the fall in the price of crude oil has reduce government revenuewhich has impact on expenditure leading to economic recession, meaning government expenditure inNigeria is the lubricant driving economic activities. In less developed countries like Nigeria, lessattention had been given to examining the productiveness of the various components of publicspending. Therefore, expenditure should be more on productive and economic activities that willresult into positive and continuous growth of the economy.