Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 General Background
The pricing implication of common stocks has drawn considerable attention since
the publication of seminal work of Markowitz (1952) - the mean-ariance
portfolio theor!" #ince then there is an ongoing debate on whether the market risk
factors e$plain better or there are some other anomalies influencing common
stock returns" %ased on the mean-ariance portfolio theor!& #harpe (19'()& )inter
(19'5)& and %lack (19*2) then proposed e$tensiel! argued asset pricing theor!-
the capital asset pricing model (+,-M)" The central prediction of the +,-M is
that the rate of return associated with common stocks inestment is determined b!
the e$tent to which the common stock returns are correlated with market portfolio"
+,-M asserts that the market risk factors pro$ied b! beta can capture significant
ariation in common stock returns"
The empirical studies& such as %lack& .ensen& and #choles (19*2)& Miller and
#choles (19*2)& %lume and /riend (19*0)& among others& hae also documented
positie relationship between beta and stock returns" 1oweer& there are other
empirical eidences (for e$ample& %asu (19**)& %anz (1921)& /ama and /rench
(1992)& among others) which demonstrate the inabilit! of market risk factor (beta)
in full! e$plaining common stock returns as opposed to that suggested b! the
+,-M" ,s a result& these studies hae eoled the attempts to identif! firm
characteristics which e$plain differences in common stock returns" ,mong seeral
firm characteristics& the most prominent ones are earnings-to-price ratio (%asu
(19**))& firm size defined b! market alue of e3uit! (%anz (1921))& and book-to-
1
market e3uit! ratio (#tattman (1924)5 6osenberg& 6eid& and )anstein (1925)5
+han& 1amao& and )akonishok (1991))"
The 7oint role of beta& size& leerage& book-to-market e3uit! and earnings-to-price
in the cross-section of aerage stock returns was ealuated b! /ama and /rench
(1992)" The stud! demonstrated that firm size and book-to-market e3uit! tend to
absorb the significant role of leerage and earnings-to-price in aerage stock
returns" The empirical negatie relationship between firm size and stock returns&
and a positie relationship between book-to-market e3uit! and stock returns
encouraged /ama and /rench (1990) to propose a three-factor asset pricing model
comprising of the market risk factor& firm size factor and book-to-market e3uit!
factor& that competes with one-factor +,-M to e$plain cross-section of aerage
stock returns" Thus& the contemporar! debate on empirical performance of the
+,-M has broadened understanding of important asset-pricing factors" 8n
particular& the three-factor model& which includes the market factor& firm size and
book-to-market e3uit!& is now widel! considered to be state of art in cross-
sectional studies of common stock returns" 9espite of the success of the model in
empirical studies of matured capital markets& little is known about the results of
appl!ing the model to emerging and deeloping capital markets like :epal"
1ence& there is a need to e$plore whether +,-M beta alone can predict stock
returns& or inclusion of firm size& book-to-market e3uit! and earnings-to-price
ratio subsume the beta effect on stock returns in the conte$t of stock market in
:epal" %esides& there is a further need to e$amine the predictie power of the
three-factor model in the conte$t of :epal"
,dditionall!& the basic ersion of +,-M has one restrictie assumption as it oer
specifies the uni3ue role of market returns" ,s a result& multifactor model came
into e$istence in the form of ,rbitrage -ricing Theor! (,-T) as initiated b! 6oss
(19*')" The ,-T assumes that stock returns are determined b! a number of
unnamed factors in the econom! as opposed to single market risk factor"
#imilarl!& other studies on multifactor effect include ;ing (19'') and Merton
(19*0)" ,lthough these studies made contribution to asset pricing implications&
2
market factor was again the main pricing ariable in their models besides the
other macroeconomic ariables emplo!ed" %! using the statistical factor anal!sis&
,-T initiated the use of ariables without the need of pre-specification of the
ariables" %ut it did not take too long before the criticism to appear" <ne ma7or
criticism was that ,-T could not specif! the factors but 7ust derie them
statisticall!" +hen& 6oll and 6oss (192') then emplo!ed specific macroeconomic
ariables as pro$ies for undefined ariables in the ,-T" The stud! attempted to
e$press the stock returns as a function of macroeconomic ariables" 8n an attempt
towards this& the stud! found that economic forces influence diidends and
discount rate& and therefore stock prices and stock returns are s!stematicall!
affected b! macroeconomic ariables" ,s postulated in the stud!& the discount rate
is e$pected to change with the leel of interest rates& term-structure and risk
premium and e$pected diidend& and hence stock returns& ma! change because of
inflation rate& real actiit! and consumption" Man! other studies& for e$ample&
+hen (1991)& +lare and Thomas (199()& Mukher7ee and :aka (1995)& =7erde and
#aettem (1999)& /lanner! and -rotopapadakis (2442)& ,del (244()& and =an& )ee&
>ong and ?hang (244')& hae documented the relationship of stock returns with
macroeconomic ariables in the conte$t of deeloped stock markets around the
world" #ome of these studies hae obsered that the rate of inflation& mone!
suppl!& interest rates and e$change rates hae significant predictie power in
e$plaining stock returns while others hae documented that real actiit! pro$ied
b! real =9- and industrial production growth hae significant e$planator! power"
8t is generall! argued that if the alue of corporate e3uit! depends on the
economic moement in the countr!& then uncertaint! in macroeconomic
enironment would affect olatilit! in stock returns assuming constant discount
rates ()il7eblom and #tenius (199*))" There are seeral reasons wh!
macroeconomic olatilit! affects stock returns" <ne of them is the implication of
risk management" ,d7asi (2449) stated that the use of information on
macroeconomic enironment could help market anal!sts and other market
participants manage better the risk of their portfolios" The stud! further argues
3
that polic!makers are also better placed to manage the econom! and help deelop
stock markets more efficientl! b! managing macroeconomic fundamentals that
affect stock market returns" 1oweer& there are no unanimous findings as to which
macroeconomic ariable or a set of ariables consistentl! predict the common
stock returns" ,s opposed to deeloped stock markets& this issue has been less
addressed and less e$plored in the conte$t of emerging and deeloping markets"
The importance of stock markets as financial channels for saing and inestment
is gaining significant role in :epalese econom!" ,s eidenced from
macroeconomic indicators of :epal as of mid-.ul! 2449& the ratio of stock market
capitalization to =9- is about 50"( percent" Macroeconomic stabilit!& therefore&
has become an important condition for financial deelopment and economic
growth of the countr!" 8n addition& inestment plans and financial sector returns
are drien largel! b! macroeconomic ariables and hence influence the olatilit!
on the stock market returns" 8n the light of these facts associated with
macroeconomic enironment of the countr!& it is necessar! to e$amine how far
stock market in :epal is being influenced b! macroeconomic ariables and how
far the stock market inde$ sere as the leading indicator of macroeconomic
olatilit!" This stud! is also an attempt toward this direction using more recent
data on selected macroeconomic ariables"
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The capital asset pricing model (+,-M) of #harpe (19'()& )inter (19'5)& Mossin
(19'')& and %lack (19*2) scripts the origin of asset pricing theor!" The primar!
implication of the +,-M is that the model is mean-ariance efficienc!" This
implies that differences in e$pected returns across stocks and portfolios are
entirel! e$plained b! differences in market beta" -ut differentl!& there e$ists a
positie linear relation between e$pected returns and market betas& and ariables
other than beta should not hae power in e$plaining the cross-sectional ariations
in common stock returns" The main attraction of the +,-M is that it offers
influential and naturall! agreeable predictions about how to measure risk and the
4
relation between e$pected return and risk" 1oweer& the empirical documentation
of the model is poor enough to nullif! the wa! it is used in application"
The empirical tests of the +,-M are based on three implications of the relation
between e$pected return and market beta implied b! the model (/ama and /rench
(1990))" /irst& e$pected returns on all assets are linearl! related to their betas& and
no other ariable has marginal e$planator! power" #econd& the beta premium is
positie& meaning that the e$pected return on the market portfolio e$ceeds the
e$pected return on assets& whose returns are uncorrelated with the market return"
Third& assets uncorrelated with the market hae e$pected returns e3ual to the risk-
free rate& and beta premium is the e$pected market return minus the risk-free rate"
The earl! empirical tests in @# stock markets focused on the modelAs predictions
about intercept and slope in the relation between e$pected return and market beta"
Man! tests re7ected the basic assumption of the +,-M" /or e$ample& /riend and
%lume (19*4)& %lack& .ensen& and #choles (19*2)& and #tambaugh (1922)
documented positie relation between beta and aerage stock returns& but it was
too flat" The +,-M also predicts that the intercept term is e3ual to risk-free rate
and the coefficient on beta is the e$pected market return in e$cess of risk-free
rate" <n the contrar!& the studies such as b! Miller and #choles (19*2)& %lume and
/riend (19*0)& /ama and Mac%eth (19*0)& among others& found intercept term
greater than the aerage risk-free rate& and the coefficient on beta less than the
aerage e$cess market returns" 1oweer& there are few tests on empirical alidit!
of +,-M in the conte$t of stock market in :epal and studies find no unanimous
conclusion about this" 1ence& the present stud! attempts to test& using more recent
data& whether the central prediction of +,-M holds true in :epalese stock
market"
+ontrar! to the predictions of the +,-M model& empirical studies hae found that
ariables relating to firm characteristics hae significant e$planator! power for
aerage stock returns& while beta has little power" The most prominent ariables
associated with firm characteristics are firm size& book-to-market e3uit!& cash
flow !ield and earnings-to-price ratio" ,mong the seeral contradictions& earlier
5
one was %asuAs (19**) eidence that when common stocks were sorted on
earnings-to-price ratios& future returns on high earnings-to-price stocks were
obsered higher than that predicted b! the +,-M" #imilarl!& 6einganum (1921)
reported e$cess returns on common stocks as a monotone increasing function of
earnings-to-price defined as the ratio of earnings per share to market price per
share" <n the contrar!& +han& 1amao and )akonishok (1991) obsered earnings-
to-price ratio to loose its significance in predicting stock returns" #imilarl!& )a
-orta (199') demonstrated low earning growth stocks to hae significantl! lower
standard deiations and betas than higher earnings growth stocks" The stud!
concluded that not onl! did low earnings growth stocks !ield higher aerage
returns than high earnings growth stocks& but the! also did perform significantl!
better than high earnings growth stocks in bear market" 1oweer& the studies hae
failed to gie unanimous conclusion regarding earnings-to-price effect on stock
returns" <n the other hand& in relation to firm size effect& %anz (1921)& 6einganum
(1921)& and ;eim (1920) obsered that small firms hae higher returns and larger
firms hae lower returns than those predicted b! the +,-M" .agadeesh (1992)
also documented no e$planator! power of beta in predicting cross-sectional
differences in aerage returns because when the test portfolios were constructed
the correlations between beta and firm size were found small"
/inall!& #tattman (1924)& and 6osenberg& 6eid& and )anstein (1925) demonstrated
high aerage returns for stocks with high book-to-market e3uit! ratios that were
not captured b! their betas" 8n later period& +han& 1amao& and )akonishok (1991)
reealed that the ratio of cash flow to price& in addition to book-to-market e3uit!&
could e$plain stock returns in .apan" There is a theme in the contradictions of the
+,-M summarized in these studies" 6atios inoling stock prices hae
information about e$pected returns missed b! market betas" 1oweer& most
empirical tests that hae found those contradictions to the +,-M& inole an
error-in-ariables problem& since true betas are unobserable and& thus& estimated
betas are used as pro$! for the unobserable betas" 1anda& ;othari& and Basle!
(1929)& and ;im (1995) showed that the errors-in-ariables problem could induce
6
an underestimation of price of beta risk and an oer estimation of other cross-
sectional regression coefficients associated with firm characteristics ariables
such as firm size& book-to-market e3uit!& cash flow to price and earnings-to-price
that might be obsered with error" ,s a mater of fact& a greater correlation
between the estimated betas and firm specific ariables causes more downward
bias in the price of beta risk estimate and more e$aggeration of the e$planator!
power of the firm specific ariables" 1ence& this stud! also attempts to identif!
whether higher correlation e$ists between betas and firm specific ariables and
e$amine the 7oint role of beta& firm size and book-to-market e3uit! in e$plaining
common stock returns in the conte$t of :epal"
/ama and /rench (1992) updated and s!nthesized the eidence on the empirical
failures of the +,-M" %ased on the cross-section regression& the stud! confirmed
that size& earnings to price& debt-e3uit! and book-to-market ratios could add to the
e$planation of e$pected stock returns proided b! market beta" /ama and /rench
(199') reached the same conclusion using the time-series regression approach
applied to portfolios of stocks sorted on price ratios" The stud! also found that
different price ratios did hae much the same information about e$pected returns"
,s a result& /ama and /rench (//) (1990& 1995& 199') adocated a three factor
model in which a market portfolio return was attached b! a portfolio long in high
book-to-market stocks and short in low book-to-market stocks (1M)-high minus
low book-to-market e3uit!) and a portfolio that is long in small firms and short in
large firms (#M%-small minus big size)" #ince then seeral studies hae used the
// three-factor model as an empirical asset pricing model"
1oweer& there is controers! oer wh! the firm specific attributes that are used
to form the // three factors should predict stock returns" #ome argue that such
ariables ma! be used to find securities that are s!stematicall! mispriced b! the
market (for e$ample& )akonishok& #hleifer& and Cishn! (199()& 9aniel and Titman
(199*))" <thers argue that these measures are pro$ies for e$posure to underl!ing
economic risk factors that are rationall! priced in the market (for e$ample& /ama
and /rench (1990& 1995& 199'))" , third iew is that the obsered predictie
7
relations are largel! the result of data snooping and arious biases in the data (for
e$ample& ;othari& #hanken& and #loan (1995)& +han& .agadeesh& and )akonishok
(1995))" 8n similar case& %erk (1995) emphasized that& because returns are related
mechanicall! to price b! a present alue relation& ratios that hae price in the
denominator are related to returns b! construction" ,s a matter of fact& if the
numerator of such a ratio can capture cross-sectional ariation in the e$pected
cash flows& the ratio is likel! to proide a pro$! for the cross-section of e$pected
returns" 6atios like the book-to-market are therefore likel! to be related to the
cross-section of stock returns whether the! are related to rationall! priced
economic risks or to mispricing effects" /erson& #arkissian& and #imin (1999)
illustrated that spread portfolios like #M% or 1M) could appear to e$plain the
cross section of stock returns een when the attributes used in the sort bear no
relationship to risk" #ince the // three factors are not deried from a theoretical
model& such concerns about their interpretation are natural" =ien these
prominences of the // three factor model& it is interesting to test its empirical
performance as an asset pricing model" Therefore& this stud! also attempts to
e$amine whether stock returns are largel! associated with three factors as
suggested b! // in the conte$t of small capital market in :epal"
%esides firm specific ariables& studies also suggest that there is significant
relationship between macroeconomic ariables and stock returns" The underl!ing
theoretical constructs establish a link between macroeconomic olatilit! and stock
returns based on transmission mechanism between the ke! macroeconomic
ariables& namel!& inflation& mone! suppl!& interest rate& e$change rate& industrial
production growth and gross domestic product (=9-)" .affe and Mandelkar
(19*')& :elson (19*')& and /ama and #chwert (19**)& among others& hae argued
that stock returns are inersel! related to inflation" This argument shows a
contrar! opinion to the priori e$pectation of /isher h!pothesis which assumes that
stock returns are positiel! related to inflation& and hence stock inestment can be
used as a hedge against inflation" The empirical eidences obsered in 1924s (for
e$ample& /ama (1921) and #olnik (1920)) documented the negatie relationship
8
between stock returns and inflation" The eidences hae suggested three dominant
h!potheses& namel!& ta$ effect& pro$! effect& and the reerse causalit! h!potheses&
e$plaining the negatie effects of inflation on stock returns"
The ta$ effect h!pothesis of /eldstein (1924) argues that inflation lowers stock
market returns due to the fact that ta$ assessment of depreciation and inentor!
aluation are done in a non-neutral manner" 1ence& inflation introduces a
corporate ta$ liabilit! and reduces real after-ta$ earnings& thereb! reducing
common stock returns" The pro$! effect of /ama (1921) e$plains that real actiit!
is positiel! related to common stock returns& but negatiel! related to inflation
through the mone! demand effect" ,s a result& a negatie relation between stock
returns and inflation is possible to obsere"
,ccording to reerse causalit! h!pothesis of =eske and 6oll (1920)& the reaction
of stock markets to future economic actiit! is correlated with increased domestic
borrowing or increased suppl! of mone! through the central bank to balance the
budget" The increase in domestic borrowing or issuance of mone! has inflationar!
effects that dampen real actiit!" 8n the end& stock market returns also fall due to
fall in real actiit! and the inflationar! effect& and hence the negatie relation
e$ists between stock market returns and the inflation" 9hakal& ;andil and #harma
(1990) argued that mone! suppl! also influences stock returns through inflation"
1ere& because of positie relationship between inflation and mone! suppl!& an
increase in mone! suppl! could reduce stock prices" /urthermore& portfolio theor!
suggests that an increase in mone! suppl! results in portfolio shift from non-
interest bearing mone! assets to financial assets including common stocks" 8n the
opinion of Mukher7ee and :aka (1995)& the effect of mone! suppl! on stock price
is an empirical 3uestion" ,n increase in mone! suppl! would lead to inflation& and
ma! increase discount rate and reduce stock prices (/ama (1921))" #imilarl!&
/lanner! and -rotopapadakis (2442) reported the significant negatie effect of
mone! suppl! on market alue weighted returns indicating that higher than
anticipated inflation or mone! suppl! depressed e3uit! alues" 1oweer& contrar!
opinion holds that negatie effect might be countered b! the economic stimulus
9
proided b! mone! growth& which ma! increase future cash flows and stock
prices" /or e$ample& Ma!asami and ;oh (2444) obsered a positie relationship
between mone! suppl! and stock returns" 1oweer& the studies hae also
documented the effect of inflation and mone! suppl! on stock prices that are not
consistent" /or e$ample& in an attempt to establish a d!namic linkage between
stock prices and macroeconomic ariables& 8brahim and ,ziz (2440) reported a
positie relationship between stock prices and inflation in the conte$t of Mala!sia"
The stud! demonstrated that the obsered positie relation between stock prices
and inflation could proide better hedge against inflation for inestors from stock
inestment in Mala!sia" 1oweer& the same stud! documented a long-term
negatie relationship between stock prices and mone! suppl! indicating that
increase in mone! suppl! could contribute to the inflation uncertaint! and as a
result it might e$ert the negatie influence on stock prices" This stud! also
h!pothesizes similarl! that an increase in inflation is likel! to result into tight
economic policies that increase interest rate leel causing the stock price to
decline"
8n relation to interest rate effect& seeral studies argue in faor of inerse
relationship between stock returns and leel of interest rates" /or e$ample&
Thorbecke (199*) and #mal and .ager (2441) demonstrated that li3uidit! in the
econom! could increase with reduction in interest rates" This e$tra li3uidit! could
be channeled to the stock market thus driing up the demand and prices of stocks"
=an& )ee& >ong and ?hang (244') obsered that interest rate in the econom!
could determine stock returns consistentl!" #imilarl!& ;andir (2442) demonstrated
a negatie relationship between stock returns and interest rate" #uch a negatie
relation implies that inestors tend to inest less in stocks when interest rates go
up causing stock price to fall" Though there are these eidences associated with
interest rate effects& the studies also reeal that interest rate changes ma! not be
enough to influence stock-price misalignments" /or e$ample& %ernanke and
=ertler (2441) argued that the olatile nature of stock prices makes them hard to
predict and that monetar! authorities should onl! change interest rates in reaction
10
to stock price moements& when the! e$pect such moements to affect inflation"
=oodfriend (2440) also noted no stable correlation between stock returns and
short-term interest rates& as a result it would be difficult for interest rates to target
stock price changes appropriatel!" %ecause of these controersies& this stud!
attempts to identif! the interest rate effect on :epalese stock market" /or this
purpose& the stud!& howeer& h!pothesizes that substantial inestment in stocks
are made with borrowed funds and thus increase in interest rates make stock
transactions more costl!& and lead to decline in demand and price of stocks"
The empirical eidences in relation to real sectorsA influence pro$ied b! =9- and
industrial production growth on the stock returns also document mi$ed results" 8t
is argued that stock prices respond to the olatilit! in real macroeconomic
ariables such as =9- and industrial production growth" 8n this conte$t& =7erde
and #aettem (1999) obsered a significant positie association between the
industrial production and stock prices" The main reason for this relation to e$ist is
the fact that an increase in the real sector actiit! raises the future cash flows that
create a higher future diidend" Bith the e$pectation of higher diidend& inestors
are alwa!s willing to bu! common stocks at higher prices" :asseh and #trauss
(2444)& and McMillan (2445) also found similar results" +ontrar! to these
findings& in an attempt to e$amine effects of macroeconomic ariables on stock
returns& /lanner! and -rotopapadakis (2442) reported no relation between stock
returns and two popular measures of aggregate economic actiit!& namel!& real
=9- and industrial production" #imilarl!& a recent stud! b! ;andir (2442)
reealed no significant effect of industrial production growth on the common
stock returns" 1oweer& this stud! h!pothesizes a positie relation between real
=9- and stock market returns and attempts to identif! whether there is significant
predictie power of =9- in the conte$t of :epalese stock market"
The empirical results hae shown mi$ed eidences on macroeconomic ariables
influencing common stock returns" This stud! does not consider the role of ast
ma7orities of macroeconomic ariables" The effort simpl! confines to the
predictie power of real =9-& inflation and interest rates in e$plaining common
11
stock returns in :epal" %esides& the stud! also focuses to e$amine whether there is
cointegration relationship between macroeconomic ariables and stock market
returns" The main issue of this stud! is to anal!ze the ariation in stock returns in
:epal with respect to firm specific and macroeconomic ariables" The stud!
basicall! deals with following issuesD
a" 9oes +,-M hold true in e$plaining stock returns in :epalE
b" Bhether +,-M beta alone can predict stock returns& or inclusion of firm size
and book-to-market e3uit! subsume the beta effect on stock returnsE
c" 8s there an! relationship between earnings-to-price ratio and cross-section of
common stock returnsE
d" 8s there an! consistenc! in e$planator! power of firm size& book-to-market
e3uit!& stock beta and earnings-to-price ratio when considered indiiduall! and
when considered togetherE
e" ,re the stock returns related to three factors& namel! market risk factor& size
factor& and book-to-market factor& as suggested b! // three factor modelE
f" Bhat is the direction and magnitude of causal relationship between stock
market returns and macroeconomic ariables such as inflation& interest rate&
and gross domestic productE
g" 9o stock prices in :epal offer a hedge against inflationE
h" 1ow do stock prices ar! with interest rateE
i" 9oes the real =9- hae significant power to predict common stock returns in
:epalE
7" Bhat are the iews of market participants such as inestors& e$ecuties and
securit! businesspersons in relation to preferences toward t!pes of stock
market choice for trading& stock market efficienc!& and factors affecting stock
returns in :epalE
1.3 Objectie! of the Stud"
The main ob7ectie of this stud! is to anal!ze the cross-sectional ariation in stock
returns in :epal with respect to firm specific and macroeconomic ariables"
1oweer& the specific ob7ecties of the stud! are as follows"
12
a" To ealuate the e$planator! power of +,-M in e$plaining cross-section of
stock returns in :epal"
b" To e$amine whether +,-M beta alone can predict stock returns& or inclusion
of firm size and book-to-market e3uit! subsume the beta effect on stock
returns"
c" To anal!ze the relationship of cross-section of stock returns with earnings-to-
price ratio and ealuate whether inclusion of this ariable subsume the effect
of beta& firm size and book-to-market e3uit!"
d" To anal!ze the relationship of common stock returns with three factors&
namel! market risk factor& size factors (SMB)& and book-to-market factor
(HML)"
e" To e$amine the causal relationship between stock market returns and
macroeconomic ariables such as real =9-& inflation& and interest rate"
f" To anal!ze the iews of market participants such as e$ecuties& inestors& and
securit! businesspersons in relation to preferences toward t!pe of stock market
choice& stock market efficienc!& and factors affecting stock returns in :epal"
1.# Organi$ation of the Stud"
The stud! is organized into a total of fie chapters" +hapter one contains general
background of the stud! including statement of the problem& ob7ecties of the
stud!& and organization of the stud!" The chapter two consists of conceptual
reiew& reiew of literatures related to studies in global conte$t as well as the
reiew of studies in :epalese conte$t" %esides& this chapter ends up with
concluding remarks associated with the findings and ma7or ideas of the studies"
The chapter three coers the research design& nature and sources of data& selection
of enterprises& models used for data anal!sis and conclusion along with the
limitations of the stud!" The chapter four focuses on the s!stematic presentation
and anal!sis of data" This chapter is further diided into three sections& namel!&
anal!sis of secondar! data& anal!sis of primar! data and concluding remarks
associated with the ma7or findings of the stud!" The chapter fie proides a
summar! of oeriew on all works carried out in chapter one through four
13
including ma7or conclusions deried from the stud!" This chapter also includes a
separate section for recommendations and scope for future research based on
ma7or findings of the stud!"
14