A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE COMMUNITY BASED POVERTY

REDUCTION (CPRP) PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATED BY THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (NPC)

A RESEARCH PROJECT

PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND LOCAL

GOVERNMENT IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE (M.SC) IN P PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

BY

EZEORA, J. NKEMDILIM

PG/M.Sc./10/58013

SUPERVISOR: DR. B. A. AMUJIRI

JUNE , 2013

i

TITLE PAGE

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE COMMUNITY BASED POVERTY

REDUCTION (CPRP) PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATED BY THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (NPC)

ii

APPROVAL PAGE

This project has been approved for the Department of Public Administration and Local

Government, Faculty of the Social Sciences, University of Nigeria Nsukka.

BY

……………………….. ……………………… Dr. B. A. Amujiri Prof. Fab. O. Onah Project Supervisor Head of Department

………………………… Prof. Tagbo Ugwu

Dean Faculty of the Social Sciences

…………………………… External Examiner

iii

DEDICATION

This research work is dedicated

To

God Almighty, for His unconditional grace and mercy.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The successful completion of this research work is as a result of a combination of efforts,

handwork, willing and sincere moral, financial and material support of many people. My special

thanks go to my project supervisor Dr. B.A. Amujiri whose co-operation, constructive criticisms

and intellectual guidance helped to sharpen my technical skills and for putting this project into an

academic shape.

My very sincere appreciation goes to my uncle and his beloved wife, Professor and Dr.

(Mrs.) Osita Ogbu for their supports, inspiration, advice and encouragement. The family has

stood with me to get this far in my life and I remain very grateful.

I will not forget to express my gratitude to my grandmother Nneokwukwe Comfort

Okoli, my aunts and uncles and the entire family of Okoli and Ogbu. Indeed, they have been very

supportive.

I sincerely appreciate my friends particularly Onyemaechi, Chimataram, Onyekachi,

Obinna and Mrs. Uche Atugwu for their love and encouragement. Finally, I thank my parents,

Mr. and Mrs. Fabian Ogbonna Ezeora and my siblings, Ngozi, Chizoba, Stella, Ogechi,

Akachukwu and my cousins who are numerous to mention for always being there for me. I

remain very grateful and love you all.

v

ABSTRACT

Poverty is an unfreedom and limitations to mankind and appears in different dimensions. This is why subsequent governments in Nigeria adopted different strategies to address the challenges posed by this monster called Poverty. The research work studied the implementation of the Community based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) by the Federal Government as a strategy to reduce the poverty of the citizens. The CPRP was piloted in 12 States of the Federation in two phases. The phase 1 which was assisted mainly by the World Bank was made up of Abia, Cross River, Ekiti, Kogi, Kebbi, and Yobe Sataes while the phase 2 states were Ebonyi, Kwara, Edo, Gombe, Osun and Zamfara States. While the World Bank funded two states in the phase 2 (Ebonyi and Kwara), the African Development Bank (ADB) funded the remaining four states (Edo, Gombe, Osun and Zamfara). The Study focused on the four states funded by the ADB which was coordinated by the National Planning Commission (NPC). The study opined that the CPRP is a feasible strategy in that it enabled the poor which ordinarily were difficult to reach because of their remoteness to access poverty reduction through the implementation of micro projects/sub programmes by the communities. The data collected for the study was obtained mainly from the secondary sources. The primary source data was by conducting oral/personal interviews to confirm, verify and reinforce or otherwise the result of the analysis carried out on the secondary data. The secondary data were obtained from the records of the Social Fund Agencies saddled with the implementation of the project at the states and from the National Planning Commission (NPC) which coordinated the implementation of the project. The study formulated three hypotheses to guide the analysis of the data. The data was analyzed using simple percentages and proportions, tables and chi-square. The result of the analysis revealed that the CPRP aimed at improving the living conditions of the poor through targeted, cost effective, demand driven and promptly delivered programmes. The findings revealed that within a short period of five years and with a total sum of N2,652,521,721.45,a total of 872 communities accessed different poverty reduction projects spread across social service, Economic and Infrastructural sectors. The findings also revealed that the non involvement of the Local Governments in the process affected the utilization of some completed projects which required specialized manpower example community health centres for operationalization. Based on the findings, the study recommended among others that the CPRP strategy should be adapted to fast track the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for Nigeria while the Local Government Councils which is closer to the communities should be involved by dedicating a department for CPRP activities. This would help in manpower planning and addressing such challenges if it crops up.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Approval Page ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgements iv

Abstract v

Table of Contents vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 3

1.3 Objective of the Study 6

1.4 Significance of the Study 7

1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study 8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Literature Review 9

2.1.1 Understanding Poverty in Nigeria 9

2.1.2 Causes of Poverty in Nigeria 16

2.1.3 Nigeria’s Development Planning and Economic Policymaking

In Relation to Poverty Reduction 21

2.1.4 Poverty Reduction Programmes in Nigeria 26

2.1.4.1 Justification of CPRP 31

2.1.5 Key Issues in Poverty Reduction in Nigeria 33

2.1.6 Effects of Unabated Poverty Growth in the Socio-Economic

Well being in Nigerians 38

2.2 Hypotheses 40

2.3 Operationalization of Key Concepts 41

2.4 Methodology 42

2.5 Theoretical Framework 47

vii

CHAPTER THREE: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON COMMUNITY

BASED POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT (CPRP)

3.1 Origin of CPRP 50

3.2 The Design of CPRP Programmes 51

3.3 States Participation and Selection in CPRP 52

3.4 CPRP Programmes/Projects 55

3.5 Resources Base and Budget Releases 56

3.6 Institutional Arrangements 58

3.7 CPRP Monitoring and Evaluation 62

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS

AND FINDINGS

4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis for Edo State 64

4.2 Data Presentation and Analysis for Gombe State 75

4.3 Data Presentation and Analysis for Osun State 88

4.4 Data Presentation and Analysis for Zamfara State 100

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary 128

5.2 Conclusion 134

5.3 Recommendations 136

Bibliography 138

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Poverty far from being a condition in which a person or people cannot afford the basic

material necessities without which life becomes virtually unlivable, is a multidimensional and

multifaceted phenomenon. Politically, it goes back beyond income inequality as it includes

rights, power relations and access to and distribution of resources. Socially, it involves the

question of human dignity, social relationships and opportunities. Thus poverty has become a

social reality and a global affliction which virtually seems to have defied a permanent solution.

This is why Onah (2006:314) emphasized that:

The issue of poverty has provoked concerns and debates among scholars and organizations in the world. It has become an issue of global interest. It is a socio-economic epidemic affecting majority of the people in the world, including Nigeria.

Poverty as the Central Bank of Nigeria (2004) and Word Bank (1991:1) stressed is one of the

symptoms and manifestations of underdevelopment. Nigeria’s poverty rate over the years has

continued to grow unabated. According to the United Nations Reports (1999-2001) Nigeria’s

Human Poverty Index (HPI) was 41.6% which places the country among the 25 poorest nations

in the world. The HPI for some other African countries as indicated in the reports indicated that

Zimbabwe, Botswana, Kenya Burkina Faso and Niger has 17.3%, 22.9%, 26.1%, 58.3% and

66.0% respectively.

Additional data from the Federal Office of Statistics (FOS, 1999) cited in Nwatu,

(2006:295) further indicated that the life expectancy for Nigeria was 51 years, literacy rate was

51% and 70% of the rural population do not have access to potable water, healthcare facilities

2

and electricity. The adult illiteracy rate for Nigeria is also increasing at a galloping rate while

the infant mortality rates for Nigeria were 82 and 191 by 1995 Soludo (2004:12).

Assessment of the Federal Office of Statistics (FOS) indicated that the state by state

poverty incidence in Nigeria between 1980 to 1996 show clearly high varying poverty levels

among the states of the federation which simply tells us that the issue of poverty affects every

nook and cranny of Nigeria (Soludo, 2004).

In the post colonial epoch of Nigeria, poverty has intensified by the many years of

military rule and political instability and failure of civilian government since over 50 years, of

independence from the British colonial era, coupled with poor policy and programme

implementation, fiscal neglect, mismanagement, lack of investment to create employment

opportunities that trickle down economic opportunities, corruption, and misappropriation, are

the root causes of poverty in the country. Although, poverty in Nigeria has colonial inducement

but there are still no holistic policy approach to tackle the problem in the post-colonial era.

Despite of the above, the Nigerian state through her government has expressed

determination and effort at uplifting the living conditions of Nigerians, especially the poor. All

of Nigeria’s National development plans since 1970, have emphasized poverty eradication as a

key area of every government in power. Since 1970, Nigerian governments-military and

civilian rules have created virtually tantalizing array of policies, plans, programmes and

projects to eliminate poverty. These include, Operation Feed the Nation (OFN); Green

Revolution (GR), Directorate for Food Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI); National

Directorate for Employment (NDE); Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP); Go

Bank to Land Porgamme (GBLP); Better Life for Rural Women Programme (BLRWP);

Federal Urban Mass Transit Authority (FUMTA), Nigerian Agricultural Corporative and Rural

3

Development Bank (NAPCRDB); National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP),

Community Based Poverty Reduction (CBPR), and others which billions of naira and dollars

have been invested in by both governmental and non-governmental agencies especially the

donor agencies such as World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations Children’s

Fund, International Development Association, among others.

Apparently, these policies, plans, programmes and projects initiated by the government

as its efforts to reduce poverty have explicitly failed to in their objectives to reduce poverty as

it is more evident that poverty is still a chronic national problem. There is still a strong believe

that poverty is at increase in some states where CBPR was implemented such as Ebonyi,

Kwara, Sokoto, Therefore, this study is an attempt to critically examine the Community Based

Poverty Reduction (CBPR) programme implemented by the Federal Government through the

National Planning Commission (NPC).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Poverty has indeed become a pandemic national disease with symptomatic effects of

high unemployment rates, poor health care, poor accessibility to water, food, housing, low

human development, low per capita income, and poor infrastructural development. This has no

doubt made poverty alleviation programme a recurring decimal in Nigeria’s public policy

either in the military or the civilian rule as no administration has come to power without

initiating a poverty alleviation package. In contrast, there are no empirical evidence or

justifications to show for the enormous resources put into these programmes, as the rate of

poverty has been progressively on the increase with each new poverty alleviation programme

being implemented. Many people particularly in the rural areas are not aware of various

government programmes on poverty alleviation. Those that are aware also hardly benefit from

4

such poverty alleviation programmes due to some problems which one could describe as poor

implementation and evaluation of programmes. The truth is that the beneficiaries of these

poverty alleviation programmes are mainly people far above the poverty line or the rich. This

situation has always present these programmes as illusive and deceit on the view of poor

population (Nwatu, 2006).

Also in a situation, where the programme pays off, the situation is such that while in

some areas governments addresses some of their community needs, in some other areas, there

are no adequate provisions of government social amenities to better their lives. Hence, such

communities resort to self-help community development projects in addressing some of their

community needs. This has been a recurring decimal in Nigeria especially in the rural

communities. Most communities in Nigeria exist with virtually no good roads, portable

drinking water, security, health care clinic, electricity and good education due to absence of

primary and secondary schools in the areas. For instance, the report of the National Economic

Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) 2004, gave that about 40 per cent of rural

communities lack electricity, good motorable roads, standard health centres and good water

supply. Evidence from the NEEDS (2004:1) put that:

Poverty has become endemic in Nigeria with almost 70% of the population below the poverty line. Poverty implies all the associated problems of low incomes, poor education and health, malnutrition, as well as social and political exclusion.

The failure of previous anti-poverty programmes is partly because of lack of involvement

or participation of the people and politicization of the programmes. As carefully demonstrated by

some scholars like (Nwatu, 2006:295; Onah, 2005:67 and Ukwedeh, 2003:245), this is true of

such national initiatives on poverty alleviation like National Accelerated Food Production

Programme (NAFPP), Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Nigerian Green Revolution (NGR),

5

Directorate for Food Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), National Directorate Employment

(NDE), Better Life for Rural Women Programme (BLRWP), Family Support Programme (FSP),

Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP), Former Poverty Alleviation Programme

and now National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP). As a matter of fact, the initiation of

these programmes as Abdullahi (2006:2) has strongly argued do not take into consideration, the

environmental impact analysis (EIA) and social impact analysis (SIA) to give the problem a

holistic approach.

Apparently, poverty alleviation programmes fail to achieve their objectives in the face of

high incidence of corruption and lack of accountability of the implementing agencies. In most

cases, at the implementing stage, the resources and funds allocated for the poverty alleviation

programmes in Nigeria are diverted to private purse leaving the objectives of the programmes

totally unachievable. In other words, programmes monitoring and evaluation are given less

attention. In this condition, it becomes difficult to clearly ascertain who actually benefits from

the programme, and the targeted population groups are not in most the true beneficiaries. Poor

programme monitoring and evaluation hinders the progress and success of poverty alleviation

programmes.

Therefore, it is against this lacuna that the researcher tends to investigate on the poverty

reduction strategies in Nigeria using the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP)

implemented by the Federal Government through the National Planning Commission (NPC).

Bearing in mind that poverty rate in most of the states where CPRP is being implemented such as

Abia, Cross-River, Ebonyi, Edo, Gombe, Kogi, Kwara, Osun, Zamfara and Yobe is still on the

high side. In view of the foregoing, the study raises the following questions:

6

i. To what extent has the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) reduced

poverty rate in the states where it is piloted?

ii. Why has Nigeria’s poverty rate continued to grow despite the government efforts to

reduce poverty through poverty alleviation programmes such as CPRP?

iii. How effective are the implementation strategies adopted by CPRP in achieving its

mandates in reducing poverty in the states where it is piloted?

iv. What are the implementation problems affecting the CPRP programmes in these

states where it is piloted?

v. What are the measures to be adopted in ensuring effective implementation and

sustainability of CPRP programmes in the participating states?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study are grouped into broad and specific objectives. The broad

objective of this study is to assess the poverty reduction strategies adopted by government in

Nigeria especially as it concerns CPRP.

Other specific objectives of the study are to:

i. Ascertain the extent Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) has

reduced poverty rate in the states where it is piloted.

ii. Ascertain why Nigeria’s poverty rate has continued to grow despite the government

efforts to reduce poverty through poverty alleviation programmes such as CPRP.

iii. Examine how effective the implementation strategies adopted by CPRP are in

achieving its mandates in reducing poverty in the states where it is piloted.

iv. Identify the implementation problems affecting the programmes of CPRP in these

states where it is piloted.

7

v. Outline measures towards ensuring effective implementation and sustainability of

CPRP programmes in the participating states.

1.4 Significance of the Study

The significance is two-fold, theoretical and empirical significance. Theoretically, the

study has the potential of contributing greatly to the growth of existing theories in social sciences

particularly in public administration by helping to enrich the bank of knowledge through its

reliable findings on the activities of the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Poverty (CPRP) in

the implementing states. This is to say that our study would assist in improving the frontiers of

knowledge especially in managing public programmes in Nigeria especially as it concerns the

evaluation of the poverty reduction programmes in Nigeria. The study will be of immense

significance in ascertaining the progress so far made by CPRP in reducing poverty in these

states. On the other hand, the study will assist in unveiling the challenges or factors militating

against effective implementation of poverty reduction programmes in Nigeria and will make

useful suggestions towards ensuring the achievement of goals of government poverty reduction

programmes.

Empirically, this study is considered significant because it will contribute in providing

the decision makers and other key actors in the government the road- maps that will necessitate

prompt, responsive and efficient policy making in Nigerian poverty reduction programmes. It

will also suggest the panacea through which frequent failures in Nigerian poverty reduction

programmes will be overcome in order to achieve the targeted objectives towards poverty

reduction in Nigeria.

8

1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Study

Every research study must have a scope and therefore must be pinpointed. This study, as

matter of fact, focuses on poverty reduction programmes in Nigeria but narrowed down to the

evaluation of the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in the states where it is

piloted.

Nevertheless, a study of this magnitude cannot be completed successfully without the

research encountering some constraints or limitations. Therefore, this work will not pretend to be

containing all information on the poverty alleviation programmes in Nigeria rather it will

endeavour to highlight the dominant issues on poverty reduction programmes in Nigeria

especially as it concerns the evaluation of CPRP.

It is pertinent to mention that inadequacy of data or near absence of a reliable and up-to-

date central data bank on the theme of this study, which has been compounded by the inability of

public bureaucrats to grant full access to the researcher nearly marred the effort of the researcher.

In other words, paucity of literature on the activities of CPRP in the states where it is

implemented almost marred the effort of the researcher. Also most of the relevant information

collected so far, for this study is not narrowed down to the states where CPRP is being

implemented.

On the other hand, some information was classified information and out of bound to non-

staff of the (CPRP). Considering this, the researcher sought other means to supplement and

consolidate the information through the use of internet materials, text books, journals,

newspapers, magazines and past research project by students and research institutes. Further

information was collected from the selected people both staff of CPRP in some states nearer to

the researcher and some communities that have benefited from CPRP programmes using

questionnaire and interview.

9

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Literature Review

The study reviewed some relevant literature that related to the subject matter of this

research work and for simplicity and understanding; the literature review was organized under

sub-headings as follow:

• Understanding Poverty in Nigeria

• Poverty: A Multi-Dimensional Concept

• Types of Poverty in Nigeria

• Causes of Poverty in Nigeria

• Nigeria’s Development Planning and Economic Policy-making in Relation to Poverty

Reduction

• Poverty Reduction Programmes in Nigeria

• Key Issues in Poverty Reduction in Nigeria

• Effects of Unabated Poverty Reduction Growth in the Socio-Economic Well-Being of

Nigerians

2.1.1 Understanding Poverty in Nigeria

In recent times, ideas about poverty conception increasingly broadened beyond the

original conception in terms of incomes. There are essentially two reasons for this broader

conception of poverty. In the first place, it has been increasingly recognized that the experience

of poverty is a multi dimensional one. To be poor is often to suffer ill-health, to be socially

excluded and to be vulnerable. Also, as understanding of the causes of poverty have developed,

10

there is now a greater perception of how economic, social, cultural, political and geographical

factors tend to reinforce, one another to keep the poor entangled in a vicious cycle of poverty.

Definitions of poverty based on a minimum income levels however continue to be

essential to poverty measurement, partly because they are quantitative, and so can be compared

over time and between groups, and be subject to the vigour of statistical testing. Measuring

poverty in this way requires the definition of poverty line that is a standard of living that

separates the poor from the non-poor. There are a number of ways of setting this line for example

as a minimum income or as a certain level of consumption or expenditure. In most surveys

carried out on Nigeria, the approach taken has typically been to fix two lines relatives to the

standard of living, a moderate poverty line equivalent to two thirds of mean per capital

expenditure, and a core, or extreme poor, moderately poor, and non-poor Enugu State Economic

Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEEDS, 2004:52).

Health and Education (human capital in economic terms) are as essential to wellbeing as

incomes. In a significant step towards broader definitions of poverty, UNDP in 1990 introduced

the Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI combines as single index gross domestic

product (a measure of average income) measures reflecting three basic components of human

development: longevity (life expectancy, knowledge) adult literacy mean years of schooling and

standard of living, purchasing power, based on purchasing power parity (UNDP, 1994:20).

Well-being has thus increasingly become recognized as a broad phenomenon,

encompassing the whole range of factors which influence human capabilities the capacities, the

person to be, and to do. These include the social and institutional environment within which

people live: levels of social autonomy, empowerment, political representation, access to justice

and physical security. Thus, poverty, or the lack of well-being, may take the form of physical

11

isolation, vulnerability and powerlessness as well as lack of income and assets. Some of these

attributes may be measured and are the emendable to quantitative analysis. Other aspects of

poverty, such as its institutional or cultural dimensions, or its lived experience, are more

subjective analysis thus best captured by the participatory method of research in which the

opinions of the poor are sought about their own conditions and experiences. This method is now

generally accepted as the best way of lessening about the subjective experience of poverty, and

of acquiring local insights into its causes and remedies.

Poverty: A Multi-Dimensional Concept

Poverty is a concept with multi-dimensional meaning (Ekot, 2000), cited in Onah

(2006:69). Many scholars view poverty from different perspectives based on their state of

existence, such as political, economical, social, cultural, technological, religious, gender and

educational perspectives. On that note, Aboyade (1975) states that it is relatively difficult to

demarcate poverty by given it a specific definition. This is due to the imprecision of the concept

and the difficulty of its measurement as a socio-economic phenomenon. However, Tamuno and

Alapila (1995:1) hold that despite the complex nature of poverty, social scientists have been able

to identify, describe and analyze poverty, as well proffer solutions to alleviate poverty.

According to Fields (1994:69) poverty “is the inability of an individual or family to

command sufficient resources to satisfy their basic needs”. Ekong (1991) says that poverty is

one’s general inability to attain or enjoy given social, cultural or economic benefits. The

significant issues in the views of Fields and Ekong are inability, basic needs and individuals or

groups, which states clearly, the incapability state of the poor. No wonder, Ekpe (2000:121)

states that the central theme of poverty is the state of inadequacy of essential needs of life. In a

similar view, Sen (1987:12) stated that poverty is “the lack of certain capabilities such as being

12

able to participate with dignity in society”. Demonstrating the dynamism of the concept further,

Engelama and Bamidele (1997) see poverty as a state of individual not being able to cater

adequately for his/her basic needs of food, clothing and shelter,… meeting social and economic

objectives, lack of gainful employment, skills, assets and self esteem, education, health, portable

water and sanitation, which reduces the opportunity of advancing his/her well being to the limit

of his/her capability. The above definition of poverty explicitly poverty is not only the inability

of individual to afford the basic needs of life, but reduces the strength and prestige of such

individual to participate in any given activity in the society. In a strict economic sense, Ekpo

(2000:49) states that poverty is a situation whereby income and consumption are low. Obandan

(1997:61) explains that the poor are those whose standard of living are measured in terms of

income or consumption and is below the poverty line, which separates the poor form the rich. In

a broader term, Chambers (1995:71) sees poverty as the lack of physical necessities, assets and

income. It is a general condition of deprivation, which comprises poverty itself, social inferiority,

isolation, physical weakness, vulnerability powerlessness and humiliation. The poor earn below

the international measurement of one US Dollar per day (World Bank, 1996), which affects their

purchasing power to acquire their basic needs. It is on that note that Achor (2001:35) states that

the poor lack cash income that is sufficient to cover their minimum standard of living. On the

other hand, the literature explains that poverty is not only a situation of poor standard of living,

but also a state of severe deprivation in the society.

Types of Poverty in Nigeria

Poverty as we know exist in different types and poverty is geographically relative. This is

why Onah (2006:72) carefully stated that “different types of poverty exist at different times and

stages in different parts of Nigeria, based on the socio-cultural, economic and political

13

environment”. However, the dividing line between types of poverty is thin because of

overlapping factors and sometimes it is the pre-fixing adjective that makes the difference, but the

need to classify poverty for whatever value is still founded. The common types of poverty in

Nigeria are:

Absolute Poverty: This is a kind of poverty in which the poor a severely deprived of basic needs

of life. Haralambos and Heald (2001:140) view it as the situation where the poor live below the

poverty line. It is a state of not having enough resources for basic needs of life, such as good

health, cloths, shelter, good water and food etc. This is one of the most prominent types of

poverty in Nigeria. The poor are unable to afford the required resources to acquire the elements

necessary to sustain life and health. The World Bank Report (1996) states that greater percent of

Nigerians are living below the universal poverty line of US one Dollar per day, which makes life

meaningless to the poor. Majority of Nigerians are unable to afford the required resources to

acquire elements necessary to sustain life. They find it difficult to afford at least one balanced

meal out of the required three per day. Today, many Nigerians struggle for shelters that are not

even worthy of accommodating domestic animals. They have turned under the bridges and

watersides better alternative shelters in absence of any. Good health care is now a strange issue

to majority of Nigerians, due to their inability to afford the resources for it. The high

unemployment rate has worsened the matter even those who are working, due to the higher

inflationary trend, suffer a lot of inadequacies. Indeed this type of poverty has eroded the dignity

of Nigerians and increased dependency unabated.

Relative Poverty: Poverty in this case is measured based on conventional standard of living in

the society. According to Townsend (1974) in Haralambose and Heald (2001:124) “individuals,

families and groups in the populations can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources

14

to obtain the type of diets, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and

amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved in the society to

which they belong. Their resources are below those commanded by the average individual or

family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities”. It

is a kind of poverty experienced by different people at different stages.

The standard of living of individuals differs and they experience the poverty whenever

there is a fall below the standard. In Nigeria, the socio-economic inequality has induced relative

poverty, resulting to creation of different classes of people (the rich, middle and poor) in the

country. The standard of living of various classes varies, as what may be seen as convenient and

accommodating by one class, might not be by the other class. Therefore, the deficiency or

inconvenience in the standard of living of any class makes that class poor in such a giving

period. For example, the acceptable standard of living of successful Nigerian politicians may be

different from that of civil servants. What could be seen as luxury by one class could be seen as

necessity by others.

Subjective Poverty: This type of poverty is experienced due to some circumstances. People

graduate into it based on the available circumstance and perception of the individual. It arises

due to shift or reduction in income and status from a particular level to the other. For example, a

retired civil servant that lives on pensions sees himself or herself as a poor individual due to

retirement. He/ she earns income, but in a reduced capacity compared to what he/she was earning

before. At that point, the perception and status of the individual change Amuguo (2003). The

individual is subjected to poverty due to the circumstance.

Direct Poverty: This poverty is common among Nigerians and seriously increasing. It involves

inability to afford good portable water for drinking, inadequate food and shelter due to the

15

activities of the rich who have taken over the control of the state resources. In the Niger Delta

Region of the country, access to portable water had become difficult as virtually all the natural

sources of portable water have been polluted by the activities of multinational and oil exploration

companies, who are also reluctant to provide alternative water sources Onah (2006:75). He

further explained that in the North, the source of water supply is very low, due to their desert

environment. Some part of the South-West and virtually all the South-East suffer same. The

government has not taken adequate measure to correct the problem. Accommodation is a basic

problem in many cities and rural villages of the federation. Basic amenities generally are scarce

in our communities and towns, thereby causing high rate of urban migration to the few cities

where they are found. At the end, it results to overpopulation of the few urban towns and severe

hardship on the citizenry.

Subsistence Poverty: This poverty is common among the villagers. Sometimes they could have

access to safe water, adequate food, good shelter, based on their level, but poor because they lack

resources to maintain other sectors such as good health, access to good education, social

amenities etc. The consequences are constant rural-urban migration in search of resources to

maintain other sectors.

Socio- Cultural Poverty: According to Obadan (1997), poverty at this level is influenced by the

activities of the culture of the people. In the traditional, Hausa/Fulani communities, women are

not given equal opportunities like their male counterparts when it comes to formal education.

They are deprived due to the ethics of their culture. This results to a good number of the women

being poor at the end of the day. He also explained that before now, first sons in Ibibio and

Ikwere tribes of Akwa Ibom and Rivers states respectively were not given equal opportunities

like other children in terms of formal education. They are rather preferred to be farmers to enable

16

them be good custodian of their father’s farm lands. These men are deprived of formal education

on account of cultural practices (Obadan, 1997). Culturally, driven discrimination of various

dimensions against women observable all over Nigeria also leads to this variant of poverty

(Ozigboh, 1998).

Urban Poverty: From the view point of Umoh (2001) and Onah (2006), the poverty at this level

is common and associated with the urban areas. Poverty exists due to absence or inadequate

presence of the required basic needs of life in the urban area. In this case, there could be shelter,

portable water, good food etc. but these are inadequate due to the level of demands, the high

demand after the few supply results to high cost of living in the area, thereby making the low

income earners to suffer miserably in the urban areas. This results in forcing people to seek for

accommodation in urban slum, ghettos and under flyovers, eating unbalanced diet etc. Urban

poverty is usually caused by high rural-urban migration.

Endemic Poverty: This is a type of poverty caused be low productivity and income, and poor

nutrition and health Onah (2006). Many Nigerians today suffer from endemic poverty. The

productivity and income of many individuals are low. Since their income is low, they lack

sufficient resources to afford adequate food, good health and shelter.

2.1.2 Causes of Poverty in Nigeria

Literatures on the causes of poverty in Nigeria are indeed enormous as there are authors.

Many different factors have been attributed to be responsible for the national poverty rate. These

factors or causes will be holistically examined before proceeding to poverty reduction

programmes in Nigeria.

1. Macro- Economic Distortions: Poor macro-economic and monetary policies resulting in

low economic growth rate and continuous slide in the value of the Naira which depreciated

17

from N 1.0 to N138.0 to $1.0 between June 1986 and January 2002 in the parallel markets

Nwatu (2006:304). In this respect, for any poverty eradication/reduction to succeed,

government must ensure low inflation rate, low interest rate, stable national currency, and

high GDP Growth rate coupled with balanced income distribution. These are usually difficult

to achieve.

2. Effect of Globalization: The process of globalization which started about a decade and half

ago, caught Nigeria in the throes of political instability (Nwatu, 2006:305). The main features

of globalization process include liberation of trade, free movement of capital and accelerated

development in information technology. Globalization provides windows of opportunity if

the indices of development (interest and exchange rates, terms of trade, tariffs, etc) are on the

positive and favourable scale. In Nigeria, however, by the middle of the eighties, public

infrastructure and utility had gone into serious dilapidation. The road networks were in bad

shape, schools and hospitals deteriorated seriously to increase poverty among Nigerians.

Telecommunication and power supply became very erratic. According to Anyanwu (1997)

and Nwatu (2006) “as a result of petroleum related activities, agriculture was relegated to the

background and those that remained in it, were operating at subsistence level” and

characterized by the following:

(i) Collapsing and uncompetitive industrial sector activities (30% surviving in the last 10

years).

(ii) Rapid growth in unemployment, under-employment and poverty (about 60% among the

youths aged 14-25 years) translating into 3 million jobless persons entering the labour market

annually;

(iii) Social instability and intolerance (ethnic nationalists and religious friction);

18

(iv) Hyperinflation (averaging 50% between 1985-1995).

(v) Unstable interest and exchange rate (from $ 1=N1.0 in 1985 to $ 1 to N 100 in 1990

interest rate of 35% per annum as the September 2000);

(vi) Low productivity of Nigerian economic sectors; and

(vii) Endemic corruption, greed and avarice among Nigerian leaders.

Given the Nigeria’s political and socio-economic disposition, globalization presented

more challenges to the country as it lacks what it takes to be relevant or event adapt and/or cope

with it. Until the country can achieve certain level of good governance and revamped industrial

base to enhance modest economic growth and, fairly efficient public infrastructure and utilities,

Nigeria shall remain at the receiving end of globalization (Nwata, 2006:306).

3. Governance: Bad governance over the years had deprived Nigerians of the ideals and

dividends of democracy. It is objective of the government of Nigeria to tap through democratic

process, the energy and creative talents of the people and harness the nation’s resources to

enhance the welfare of the citizenry. This is with a mission to create a dynamic economy and

establish a free, democratic and just society through the pursuit of people centred programmes.

The process will facilitate and consistently cultivate a style of governance that places premium

on openness, transparency and accountability, probity and effective leadership.

Without any fear of contradiction, we can rightly say that governance with aggressive

instinct towards poverty had not been achieved in Nigeria. The assessment of different regimes

in Nigeria, right from the epoch of colonialism and post colonial period of military and civilian

administrations, there are no pragmatic policy commitment to tackle poverty from its root causes

(absence of basic needs to the people). Ake (1987) and Nnoli (1986) noted that in the colonial

administration, efforts were only made to build and construct facilities that would aid the

19

exploitation and exportation of natural resources for the British development. No infrastructural

development was initiated for the economic survival of Nigeria. This undoubtedly left Nigeria’s

on economic dependency and widened the gap of poverty unabated.

4. Corruption: Corruption comes in different forms and differs from country to country.

Corruption has been variously approached by scholars, Lipset and Lenz (2000:112) defined it as

“effort to secure wealth or power through illegal means, and it is usually for private gains at

public expenses; or a misuse of public power for private benefit”. In Nigeria, illegal takeover of

government, through military coup, embezzlement, nepotism, looting, bribery, vote buying abuse

of office powers, etc. are very common. The manifestation of corruption in Nigeria progressed

among individuals, and there after assumed an institutional and later national dimension. In

Nigeria, corruption has contributed immensely to poverty and misery of a large segment of the

population (Onah, 2006:78). He further observed that corruption exacerbates poverty and

disproportionately affects those of lower income because it pulls resources from the national

treasures, placing the money into the accounts of few individuals, who are politically powerful.

This has devastating effect on developing economy that needs the money for poverty alleviation

and development.

5. Debt Burden: Debt burden has been one of the drawbacks to Nigeria’s developmental efforts.

The debt portfolio which was slightly above 14.28 billion US dollars in 1980 rose to about 30

billion US dollars in the year 2000 (Nwatu, 2006). In a similar note, Business Times (1993:14)

noted that the serving of the debt has encroached on the volume or resources needed for socio-

economic development; as it is estimated that around 40 per cent of Nigeria’s national incomes

goes to debt payments. The high debt service ratio translate into resources constant needed for

20

such public infrastructure and utilities as: hospitals schools, roads (urban and rural); and supply

and portable water.

6. Low Productivity: Productivity sectors of the economy like agriculture, industry,

manufacturing etc. are equally constrained leading to low productivity, low capacity utilization,

underemployment and low purchasing power thereby throwing majority of Nigerians into object

poverty.

7. Unemployment: Unemployment in Nigeria assumed crisis level in the late 80s and early 90s

especially among school leavers and graduates in tertiary institutions. A survey carried out by the

centre for Investment Sustainable Development, Management and Environment in 1998 gave the

features as follows:

(i) Over 70% of the unemployed are relatively unskilled primary and secondary school between

age 13-25 years;

(ii) Graduates unemployment which hitherto was un-noticed, started to emerge in the 1980s, the

following influences the rising graduate unemployment;

a. Nigeria had a total enrolment of about 600,000 students in 149 tertiary institutions

1996/97 academic year,

b. There were 123,000 graduates in the 1995/96 session and about 130,000 graduates in

1996/97;

c. Commutatively, Nigeria produced a total of 1,110,000 graduates form tertiary; and

d. About 10 per cent i.e. 100,000 got formal jobs over one million might be openly

unemployed or under-employed.

The unemployment situation was further worsened by the primary schools, secondary

schools and college dropouts and retrenched workers due to the closure of many industries.

21

Although there are no reliable data for all these unemployed, it has roughly been estimated to be

over 5.0 million Soludo (2004) cited in Nwatu (2006). All these unemployment worsened the

high level of poverty recorded by Federal Office of Statistics (FOS) in 1999.

8. High Population Growth Rate: Statistics show that in 1980, Nigeria’s population was about

65 million, it rose to 88 million in 1991 and further increased to 102.3 million in 1996. It is

estimated that the Nigeria’s population is currently about 140 million (National Population

Commission Census 2006). This increase in population has over stretched the basic social and

infrastructural facilities as well as public goods in the face of dwindling national resources. A

situation in which population growth average of 2.83 against GDP growth rate of 2.7% meant

that resources meant for investment are consumed with little left for development thereby

reinforcing the vicious cycle of poverty.

2.1.3 Nigeria’s Development Planning and Economic Policymaking in Relation to Poverty

Reduction

At independence in 1960, Nigeria adopted five-year National Development Plans

(NDPs), based on import substitution industrialization and agricultural development strategies, to

promote social and economic development (Anyanwu, 1997). As put by Iwayemi (1994:75) “the

first Nigeria development plan 1962-1966 focused on infrastructural development, rapid

industrialization, job creation and poverty reduction which were to be achieved through import

substitution industrialization and agricultural development strategies”. Thus, the overriding

objective of any government is to improve the quality of life of its citizens which in effect is

reducing the poverty of its citizens. This is justifiable in their policy making and development

planning objectives as is in the view expressed by Eboh (2003:12) “growth, poverty reduction

and improved welfare are usually acknowledged as central goals of Nigeria’s economic

policymaking and development planning”. Okeke (2001:67) noted that the government of

22

Nigeria, between the periods 1962-1985 executed four National Development Plans (NDPs)

categorized as follows:

1962 – 1966 - 1st National Development Plan

1971 – 1975 - 2nd National Development Plan

1976 – 1980 - 3rd National Development Plan

1981 – 1985 - 4th National Development Plan

Adu (2009:34) stressed that what is supposed to serve as the 5th National Development

Plan was prepared by the National Planning Commission recently to cover the period 2010-2013.

It is a four-year development plan meant to serve as the 1st development plan for the

implementation of the Nigeria Vision 20:2020. How far Nigeria will go in this respect, time will

surely tell. Although, the 1st National Development Plan ended with the declaration of the

Nigeria civil war in 1966, the 2nd National Development Plan was developed to address the new

challenges (destruction of infrastructure, poverty, fear, etc) aftermath of the war. Consequently,

there was some political undertone to the drawing up of the 2nd National Development Plan

(NDP) as emphasis was placed on reconstruction, rehabilitation and reconciliation of all parts of

the country. The implementation of the 2nd NDP benefited immensely from increased oil revenue

which was occasioned by the oil boom at that period. However, by the time the 3rd NDP was

hatched, there was burst in the international oil market which triggered the economic crises of

the 80s and consequently led to inability of government to execute the plan effectively. The

fourth plan was not implemented at all because the economic crises had deepened. Government

could not generate the resources needed to finance the plan. The resulting consequences of the

unfulfilled plans and subsequent rise in the population was the over stretching of the existing

23

infrastructure and its collapse, soaring unemployment and increase in poverty level from mere 15

percent at independence in 1960 to 27.2 percent in 1980 Ozughalu in NESG (2008:49).

In 1986, following the depth of the economic crises the nation was undergoing, the then

military government under General Ibrahim Babangida introduced a new economic framework,

the short-term economic stabilization policies referred to as the Structural Adjustment Plan

(SAP). At the point of the introduction of the economic stabilization programme, the economic

productive frontier had contracted and there were so much distortions, leakages and wastages in

the system. As explained by Eboh (2003:12) “the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) was

adopted to broaden the economy’s productive base, eliminate distortion and reduce the role of

government in order to encourage competition”. In other words, the non implementation of the

National Development Plans must have contributed to the bastardization of the economy by

subsequent governments and soaring incidence of poverty. The assessment of the pro-poor

impact of the Structural Adjustment Programme showed mixed results.

In the view of the World Bank (2002:156) “the SAP measures triggered significant

supply responses from the rural economy in terms of a substantial increase in food and export

crop production. It led to an expansion of rural income and a dramatic reduction in rural poverty

with the incidence decreasing from 51 percent in 1985 to 46 percent in 1992”. Whereas the

assessment of SAP by the World Bank seems palatable, the unintended effect on the vulnerable

groups was unsatisfactory. This is supported by Nigeria Government view on SAP (NPC 2004:9)

“The onset of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1986, stressed greater realization

of the need for policies and programmes to alleviate poverty and provide safety-nets for the poor.

This emphasis arose from an awareness of the unintended negative effects of structural

adjustment policies on vulnerable groups in the society.

24

There was no doubt that while structural adjustment had its salutary effects on economic

growth, it lacked emphasis on development which also accentuated socioeconomic problems of

income inequality, unequal access to food, shelter, education, health and other necessities of life.

It indeed aggravated the incidence of poverty among many vulnerable groups in the society”.

Reinforcing its position on the SAP, the Report of the Federal Government of Nigeria on Vision

20:2020 on page 17 affirmed thus; “SAP was introduced in 1986 against the background of the

negative economic growth rate of the first half of the 1980s, but then, the performance of the

economy in the light of the SAP policy reform was generally sluggish”. Perhaps, the observation

of government may have suggested the accompanying of the SAP economic measure with some

targeted poverty reduction initiatives among which were Directorate for Food, Road and Rural

Infrastructure (DFRRI) aimed at developing rural infrastructure (road, agro-facilities, electricity

etc), National Directorate of Employment (NDE) for skill acquisition, job creation and

entrepreneurship development, Peoples Bank to ease access to credit in the informal sector of the

economy and gender development-Better Life Programme for Rural Women aimed at improving

women’s productive abilities and income. In 1990, the Government of Nigeria adopted another

development planning strategy – the Rolling Plan. The rolling plan is more flexible and was

expected to have ameliorated the short comings of the fixed five-year development plans earlier

adopted and link policy to budget. According to Eboh (2003:12) “the Government, between 1990

and 2001 put in place several two-year horizon Rolling Plans” which were intended to

consolidate the achievement of the economic reform programme. The programmes seem not to

have tracked poverty. This is evidenced from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) 2005

poverty profile which revealed that poverty level had reached 65.6 percent by 1996. Over the

period surveyed, the depth and severity of poverty in Nigeria more than doubled, increasing with

25

household size and decreasing with the level of education. There is also an indication of rapidly

increasing urban poverty which certainly will constrict consumption and therefore

production/output.

Faced by consistent poverty and other socio-economic related challenges, the

Government thereafter constituted a committee in 1997 with members from the public and

private sectors and the civil society to articulate a new development framework, the Vision 2010.

Although, the final document produced envisioned people-centered, broad based, market

oriented, highly competitive, and self-reliant and private sector driven economy with government

proactively providing the enabling environment, the vision document was abandoned following

the collapse of the military regime (General Sani Abacha) that initiated it. As noted by Eboh

(2003:13) “the abandonment of the Vision 2010 is a vivid example of policy inconsistency in

Nigeria, a situation inimical for economic growth and poverty reduction”. Furthermore, most

government programmes failed to make the desired impact on the people because right from the

design to the implementation, the programmes lacked ownership and participation by the

beneficiaries. This view is collaborated by Eboh (2003:14) when he stated that “post

independence development planning and policymaking in Nigeria was largely predicated on

trickle-down hypothesis, being essentially top-bottom they failed to alleviate poverty”. Besides,

another key challenge is the issue of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of programmes and

projects. According to Obadan (2003:34) “The implementation and impact of planning strategies

were undermined by weak M&E systems and apparent disconnect between fiscal/budgeting and

planning/policies (misalignment of public expenditures, that is, budget process and execution

with economic policies and development plans)”. The National Planning Commission (NPC)

was established in 1992 to fill this gap. The responsibility of the Commission was to formulate,

26

coordinate and monitoring of development plans and economic policies. On inception, the NPC

combined its functions of planning and capital budgeting but the capital budget component was

removed from the NPC in 1993 i.e a year after commencing operation; thus deteriorating further

the weak link between budgets and planning thereby reducing their impact on poverty reduction

as observed by Eboh (2003:14). Given the shortcomings of the previous development planning

approaches and policies in reducing poverty, it has become imperative to consider a dynamic

approach which is demand-driven and participatory capable of guaranteeing sustainable poverty

reduction. Hence, according to NPC in Madu et al (2009:2) “the Federal Government in

consultation with the State Governments and donor agencies drew up the concept of Community

Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in December 1999. The CPRP is a Community Driven

Development (CDD) with emphasis on bottom-top approach to development.

2.1.4 Poverty Reduction Programmes in Nigeria

Poverty reduction is the most difficult challenge facing Nigeria and its people and the

greatest obstacle to pursuit of sustainable socio-economic growth (NEEDS, 2005:28). Poverty

reduction or eradication has appeared as most priority of every regime in power in Nigeria and

its emphasis as the top most priority or objective of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGS)

“to eradicate extreme poverty” makes news approach in the government programmes on poverty.

Poverty reduction is a global and national task. Globally organizations like United

Nations International Children’s Emergency/Fund (UNICEF) United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and

United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), United States Agency for

International Development (USAID), International Development Association (IDA), Joint

United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), to mention but a few have taken the lead

27

on poverty reduction especially on developing countries like Nigeria. Nationally, agencies and

establishment, such as Nigerian Agricultural Cooperation and Rural Development Bank

(NACRDB), National Empowerment and Economic Development Strategy (NEEDS), National

Poverty Eradication Porgramme (NAPEP), Partnership for Transformation of Health System

(PATHS), National Action Committee on Aids (NAC), State Empowerment and Economic

Development Strategy (SEEDS), Stated and Local Government Programme (SLGP), Local

Empowerment and Economic Development Strategy (LEEDS), Local Empowerment and

Environmental Management Project (LEEMP), Community Development Co-coordinating

Council (CDC), Community Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) etc. have also taken the

challenges of poverty reduction in Nigeria.

The establishment of these agencies has been necessitated due to high poverty level in

Nigeria for instance, the establishment of poverty alleviation/reduction strategy by each state

under the State Empowerment and Economic Development Strategy (SEEDS). Poverty reduction

constitutes measures taken by the government to address the problems of poverty. These

measures include improving delivery of basic social services, improving basic infrastructures,

supporting entrepreneurship and self help human development and empowerment, etc. This is

why Nnamani (2003) cited in Nigeria, the State Empowerment Economic and Development

Strategy (SEEDS) is “state and community approach to achieve sustainable poverty reduction by

the enhancement of livelihood and human capabilities through board based wealth creation and

employment generation”.

The awareness on poverty reduction and actions on poverty alleviation programmes are

both global and national efforts. We shall proceed to examine the various efforts of the federal

environment to cub poverty in Nigeria and other component programmes in Nigeria.

28

Before the creation of Nation’s Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) in 2002, there

had been various efforts by the Federal Government or Nigeria to attack national poverty Ukoha

(2003:15). Ukoha further noted that by 1999, eighteen (18) Federal Ministries and 30 Agencies

and Extra-ministerial Department were involved in poverty alleviation activities at the federal

levels.

Although national efforts to tame poverty in Nigeria can be traced to the nation’s fourth

national development plans which were indirectly aimed at tackling people’s poverty Ukaoha

(2003). Observations from and Anyanwu (1997), Onah (2006) and Ukaoha (2003) showed that

the most serious poverty reduction programmes of the Federal Government of Nigeria took place

in the post 1980s era following the consequences that followed the introduction of the structural

adjustment programme (SAP) by the Babangida military regime in 1986.

Ukoha (2003) for instance noted that “the austerity measures contained in SAP were

believed to have worsened the poverty situation in Nigeria. Indeed, even today, many economists

do argue that the present socio-economic situation which is receiving the present administrative

economic reforms is still as a result of SAP (UNNP 2000).

By 1997, Nigeria was ranked as the 5th poorest nation among 78 developing nations in

recent times; poverty has become pervasive in the country. According to the World Bank report

of 2000 “the poverty situation has aptly been described as a paradox, the paradox is that the high

level of poverty in Nigeria contradicts the country’s enormous wealth. Among other things,

Nigeria is endowed with immense human agricultural, petroleum, gas and solid mineral

resources, much of which have not been harnessed, yet Nigeria’s remained poor (Ogwunike,

2005:94). He further stated that “it is important to note that the country’s has earned over 300

billion U.S dollars from its natural resources during the last decade of the 20th century. But

29

instead of making progress in the national socio-economic development, the country retrogressed

to become the 25th poorest country in the world at the beginning of the 21st century where as she

was among the richest 50 countries in the early 1970 (Ekhator, 2003:73).

In the light of the above, Federal Government has apparently concern its policy directives

mainly for poverty reduction in Nigeria, numerous policies and programmes have been designed

at one time or the other to solve the problem of poverty in the country. It is important to

emphasize that the advent of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1986 brought out more

forcibly, the need for policies and programmes to alleviate poverty and provide safety nets for

the poor. Indeed, since after the introduction of SAP there have been conscious efforts by various

governments towards the alleviation of poverty situation in the country has been worsening over

the years.

Consequently, when the former President Chief Olusegun Obasajo came to power as an

elected President of Federal Republic of Nigeria on May 29th,1999, the first step taken in solving

the county’s poverty problems was creation of Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) under

which the regime intended to create 200,000 jobs within the first year of his tenure, that is by the

year 2000 Aliyu (2003:24). Also, the then first Lady, Chief (Mrs.) Stella Obasanjo (now late)

followed suit and introduced of the Child Care Programme for the disabled children of the

indigent people. The wife of the former Vice President, Chief (Mrs) Titilayo Atiku Abubakar

complemented this with the WOTCLEF, a programme designed to fight against abuse of poor

women and prostitution. Ezeonu (2011) also attributed that the objectives of Child Care

Programme and WOTCLEF have been carried over in the new programme by the wife of

incumbent President Mrs. Dim Patience Jonathan in her “Women for Change Initiative”

programme.

30

Ekhator (2003:74) asserts that “if the only success determinant for measuring the

performance of the various programmes so far implemented is the degree of poverty in the

country, it would not be difficult to conclude that they have all failed woefully since the number

of the poor people has been on the increase” (Ekhator, 2003:57).

Asiodu (2000) cited in Ekhotor (2003:74) further stated that “the United Nations and its

Development Report of 1998 indicates that about 48% of Nigerian population live below the

poverty line”. According to Ekhator (2003), Asiodu who made the statement in his address at the

Annual Directors Conference held in Ibadan on 28th June, 2000, asserted that the United National

Report provided the basis upon which the present administration formulated its poverty

alleviation programme to attest for poverty and improve the standard of living of Nigerians.

A sum of N 10 billion was voted for this programme (Ekhator, 2003). No sooner did the

programme started that public outcry began to trail it. Beneficiaries of the earmarked N3,500

monthly stipends were believed to be more the relations and friends of politicians in the ruling

Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) (Ogwumike,2005:54). Following the recommendations of the

Technical Committee on the Review of Alleviation Programme (TCRPAP), the Obasanjo’s

administration re-designed the programme and again came up with another term” name- National

Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) to carry on the objectives of the government from

where the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) stopped.

The issue of poverty has provoked concerns and debates among scholars and

organizations in the world. It has become an issue of global interest. It is an epidemic affecting

majority of the people in the world, including Nigeria. It is one of the symptoms and a

manifestation of underdevelopment says the Central Bank of Nigeria/World Bank (1991:1). The

World Bank report (1996) show that in the sub-Sahara Africa; Nigerians are among the world

31

poorest class of people in terms of Gross National Products (GNP) and access to social and

political life. The social statistics show that Nigerian is the worst in terms of poverty in the Sub-

Sahara Africa despite her numerous natural resources. World Bank report (1996) also holds that

greater percentages of Nigerians are living below the universal poverty line of US$1.00 dollar

per day. This very high incidence of poverty is equally expressed by Government agencies thus;

Nigeria population is projected at between 115 to 120 million people out of which over 66% or

70 million people in 2000 were classified poor as against the 55 million in 1998 (National

Population Commission 2000 and UNDP reports 2001). Amogu (2003:1) adds that the 2003

Federal Office of Statistics (FOS) now National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) shows that the

national poverty rate is projected at 70% amounting to 80 million poor people in Nigeria.

Similarly, Onah (2006) observed that poverty incidence has become alarming as two thirds of the

population is poor and is detrimental to Nigeria socio-economic and political development. The

UNDP 2001 report also agreed that poverty in Nigeria has been heightened. According to

Ighatayo (2001:1) poverty undermines development activities in Nigeria. The bottom line of all

these views is that poverty has found a place in the Nigeria society and much of the citizens have

become victims of poverty in several ways.

2.1.4.1 Justification of CPRP

Prior to the implementation of the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP)

model in Nigeria, the Federal Government had addressed the issue of poverty reduction through

sector-specific strategies or through multi-sectoral or cross cutting strategies. The Strategies

Programme (ADP), Mass Transit Programmes, Primary Health Care, Peoples Bank of Nigeria,

National Directorate of Employment among others were aimed at providing economic

infrastructure programmes to generate employment, enhance income earnings, increase

32

productivity and those targeted at equitable distribution of income (Adu, 2008). Others were

aimed at increased production and supply of food, increased economic activities and curtailing

the spread of epidemics among others (NPC, 2000).

Although, these strategies were put in place, to target key poverty issues, they were

fraught with implementation and coordination challenges and consequently unable to produce

the desired result. The poverty alleviation institutional landscape is fraught with duplicity and

proliferation of programmes and implementing agencies (sometimes with overlapping

responsibilities and even conflicting mandates) leading to waste, poor coordination and

unhealthy rivalries and projects implement through the strategies did not eventually differentiate

the life of the poor, especially the rural poor who lacked basic social and economic amenities

needed for improved well being. Despite good intensions and technical feasibility of poverty

reduction projects, failure of most poverty alleviation projects is attributed to over centralized

administration and bureaucracy in government system. Hence, Federal Government in

consultation with state governments and donor agencies drew up the concept of a Community-

Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in December 1999 (NPC, 2001). Thus, by implication,

the CPRP strategy of poverty reduction was adopted to break the barrier of over centralization

and coordination at the Federal level and quicken the trickle-down of poverty reduction efforts to

the Local Government and community levels.

The rational for the community Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) is premised on

the fact that most of the rural areas, the major target of CPRP, are characterized by limited or

complete non-existence of basic socio-economic infrastructure necessary for meaningful and

improved standard of living (Madu et. al. 2009). The Poverty Profile or rural dwellers (NBS,

2006) reveals that more than 70 percent of their income is spent on other necessities of life like

33

clothing, shelter, health, education, sanitation, clean water, etc. If Government efforts to improve

the standard of living of her citizens is to be met, a more pragmatic approach to reach this group

have to be found hence the new concept of Community Based Poverty Reduction Project (Madu

et al 2009). The CPRP, unlike other previous strategies was considered as thought of as model

that can guaranty the participation of intending beneficiaries in the identification, implementation

and management of their developmental needs as opposed to Government imposition of projects

and programmes.

2.1.5 Key Issues in Poverty Reduction in Nigeria

The nature of the poverty problems and lessons learnt from efforts in combating the problems

has given indication to four major issues and concerns. These are the issues of Growth with

Equity; Human Capital; Targeted assistance to the poor; and Governance and Institutions.

Growth with Equity: According to the World Bank (1999:254), there is evidence that rapid

economic growth is important for poverty reduction. A decomposition of poverty between 1980

– 1996 into growth and redistribution shows that about 90% of poverty increase is due to fail in

real income. Similarly, the result of the simulation of the relationship between economic growth

(real income) and poverty level in Nigeria by the World Bank indicate that an aggregate

economic growth rate of not less than 8% is required for a considerable decline in poverty. To

achieve a decline of about 50% in the 1996 poverty level, a growth rate of not less than 5% is

mandatory (see annex 4). The table depicts a distribution neutral growth and also based on a

largely oil sector lead growth with poor income distribution pattern. The inequality of the growth

rates of 3.2%, 6.0% and 7.0% as depicted in the annex 4 with the respective poverty levels is

very undesirable. Thus as the World Bank puts it “if the inequality were to change, then the

poverty level in future years will also change”. This position is based on the computed elasticity

34

of poverty incidence to change in Gini index (see annex 5.). The implication of the information is

that economic growth alone is not sufficient for poverty reduction. It is widely acknowledged

that growth must be deliberately accompanied with equity, promoted by participation for

sustainable poverty reduction. Participation of the poor themselves in the activities that would

“push” or “pull” them out of poverty is therefore a key to poverty reduction. A further

confirmation of the fact that growth alone is not sufficient for poverty reduction is confirmed by

the CBN (1999) and NBS (1999) see annex 6. From the table, it is clear that Nigeria did not

experience considerable or commensurate poverty reduction even in period of economic growth.

In 1985 – 1992 for instance, there was slight increase in GDP and per capita income and there

was a slight drop in aggregate poverty headcount level, but inequality worsened and the core-

poor did not share in the growth as the depth and severity of poverty did not improve

significantly. As opined by the NPC (2004:18), Government need to maximize its position by

focusing its efforts on the policy aspects of improving the welfare of its human resources and

rely more on the informal and private sector to increase capital investment. Land laws, property

rights tax structure are vital policy instruments in this regard, particularly for farming, mining

and manufacturing, improve access to credit, technology and materials and markets as well as

ancillary incentives to increase output and income are vital consideration for broad based

economic growth to aid poverty reduction.

Human Capital Issue: In the case of human capital, the poor people need to participate in

the growth process for assurance that the returns of the growth will be directly available to them

to increase their ability to improve their welfare. The human capital has to therefore be such that

can effectively and productively participate in the growth process. Sustained long-term growth

depends critically upon increasing the access of poor people to quality social services and

35

essential infrastructure in order to enable them to increase their human capital and make full use

of their main asset, namely their labour. The dearth of the key social services – in terms of

availability, accessibility and usage exemplified by the poor social indicators trends described in

annex 2 explains the strong relationship between human capital and poverty. The key priorities

are health, education, water supplies and sanitation, rural roads, and urban transport. The present

situation requires an increase in funding in order to expand the number of facilities and to

improve service at each facility. Provision and maintenance of rural roads and affordable and

timely mass transportation in urban areas are important to provide people with access to jobs and

to markets. Access could be made effective, efficient and sustainable through increased

community and private sector participation in the development and maintenance of infrastructure

and provision of services. This of course is the key to ensuring growth with equity.

Targeting of Interventions: In the words of NPC (2004:19) shows the magnitude and profile of

the poverty situation in Nigeria and indicates that a sizable number of poor and disenfranchised

people cannot participate directly in broad growth process. They may not also be able to access

and use the social and economic infrastructure provided to improve human capital given the level

of impoverishment”. This means that targeted resources transfers as with the case of the CPRP

and support to such group of people in the rural and urban areas of Nigeria is very essential. A

large proportion of the core poor is in this category. The number of the core poor is increasing

rapidly and this is evidenced from professional beggars and street merchants at traffic junctions

across the country. Women and street kids, people living in remote and marginalized areas,

destitute and disabled, culturally disenfranchised groups, small scale farmers, micro enterprise

operators, civil servants and other categories of people that are open to risks and changing

fortune also belong to this group. The Government can target the delivery of some services and

36

resources to reach poor areas and to communities living in poverty, building on existing

community-based organizations, civil society groups and their activities where possible. Some

elements of targeting should also be introduced into public expenditure particularly for social

sector spending.. According to NPC (2004:19), “Over the years, the share of the defence and

security in the budgets have consistently been higher than health and education which touch the

lives of the poor people than most of other public expenditure”. The Primary education and

healthcare and basic infrastructures should command larger share of their sectoral allocations.

Similarly, rural finance and microcredit programme to entrepreneurial poor and safety nets

programmes which include social funds, social action programmes, pension schemes,

employment schemes, public works programmes, school feeding programmes for the vulnerable

poor are all imperative to improve the well being of the citizens.

Governance and Institutional Issues: The inability of past government poverty programmes

and projects to yield the required results has been attributed not only to the unclear

understanding of the nature of the problem but also to the divergence in views and practices in

poverty alleviation strategies, particularly under a rather unconducive political and governance

arrangement. The persistence and pervasiveness of poverty in Nigeria has been linked to the lack

of popular participation in governance and decision making.. This has led to poor accountability

and transparency in resource allocation, program implementation and monitoring. The poor in

Nigeria and probably elsewhere had no voice and no right. Poverty usually flourishes in societies

deprived of human freedom and fundamental human rights as they are always engulfed in a

series of vicious circle of poverty. A state of pervasive social deprivation consequently creates a

condition of social and political unrest. In addition, because past governments were not based on

popular participation, corruption thrived. Although, the current development in Nigeria did not

37

immune democratic governance from corruption, but for the fact that there is popular

participation, democratic governance is critical to poverty reduction. This is because, as the NPC

(2004:20) puts it “democracy is the gateway for human freedom and good political system”. A

lot of poverty reduction programmes had been instituted in the past some of which were DFRRI,

NALDA, MAMSER, FEAP, People’s Bank etc but performed below expectations. The most

probable reason for the non performance of these programmes is their top down approach. All

the initiatives were taken by the Federal authorities and States and Local Governments were

reduced to mere implementing authorities without consultation with the supposed beneficiaries

in the conceptualization and implementation of the programme. The programmes in all cases, did

not involve linkages with Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as well as Private Sectors.

The programmes are far removed from the beneficiaries. The poor and their social networks do

not participate NPC (2004:20). The implication of this state of being is that the comparative

advantage of the lower levels of governments (closeness to beneficiaries), private sector

effectiveness and the civil society trust were not utilized in implementing poverty reduction

programmes. Therefore, in the new dispensation of CPRP, decentralization and partnership

between the state governments, local government, private sector and the civil society is very

crucial. The private sector development is particularly important for poverty reduction in several

ways. First, it enhances competition which produces growth and jobs. Second, by allowing

governments to divest themselves of activities that the private sector can do as well or better it

reduces waste and free up public resources that can be invested in the social sectors and

infrastructure. The resources can also help to finance social safety nets and targeted programmes

to deal with the transitional costs of privatization and civil service reforms that could produce

retrenchments. Third, the financial system, hitherto preoccupied with financing state enterprises

38

will be more able to provide financing to small and medium size entrepreneurs at affordable

interest rates. Finally, the decline in the budget deficit and the lowering of real interest rates that

will flow from the development will cause inflation to fall. Therefore, in essence, good

governance is a fundamental requirement for poverty reduction.

2.1.6 Effects of Unabated Poverty Growth in the Socio-Economic Well-Being of Nigerians

Perhaps, due to its (poverty) complexity and its corrosive effect on humanity, many

formal articles and books have tackled the issue of poverty. Schiller (2000) stated that poverty

destroys aspirations, hope, and happiness. Poverty affects tolerance of others, support of civil

liberties and openness towards foreigners’, affects positive relationships with subordinates, self-

esteem and sense of personal competence. It also affects ones disposition to participate in

community affairs, interpersonal trust and self satisfaction (Obadan, 2007:271). It has been noted

that deprivation of elementary capabilities can be reflected on premature morality and significant

undernourishment (especially on children), persistent mobility and illiteracy among other

problems. Life expectancy, literacy are correlated with the productivity and prosperity of a

nation (Adu, 2000:271). High level of poverty could also lead to brain drain - emigration of

many of the most highly educated workers to rich countries, where they can enjoy higher

standard of living (Mankiw, 2001). The poverty of a nation can also lead to human trafficking,

prostitution, spread of HIV/AIDS, child labour and abuse of human and civil right (Guardians

online June 28, 2002). Poverty also leads to corruption, disruption of family relations, social life,

rising crime rate, among other vices. Amartya Sen, (1997:87), argues persuasively that an

individual’s advantage (or otherwise) in society should not be judged solely on his or her income

poverty but must also be measured in “terms of substantive freedoms he or she enjoys to lead the

kind of life he or she had reason to value”. Thus, poverty is a deprivation of basic capabilities

39

(such as undernourishment and illiteracy) rather than merely as lowness of income, which is the

standard criterion of identification of poverty. He adds that the “capability-poverty” perspective

does not involve any denial of the fact that low income is clearly one of the major causes of

poverty since lack of income can be a principal reason for person’s capability deprivation. He

notes that poverty as capability inadequacy and lowness of income are related because income is

such an important means of capacities that would tend to expand a person’s ability to be more

productive and earn a higher income. Poverty is degrading to human beings and the life of the

person afflicted by it is comparatively miserable and brief.

Political instability and national insecurity are other negative effect of poverty. According

to Onah (2006:97), poverty as a state of deprivation makes the deprived to be venerable and

violent in nature. Poverty increases illiteracy and poor performance of political leaders. Poverty

deprives the poor, who are majority of the electorate from having basic education. Since they are

not educated, it becomes difficult to impact on them such democratic values as freedom of

choice of candidate, freedom of speech, value and respect for the right of people, peaceful co-

existence. Illiteracy deprives the electorate the opportunity to participate effectively in

democratic activities. Even the elected representatives default in their responsibility as a result of

their ignorance-poverty of the mind arising from illiteracy. Most of the elected representatives

who are by circumstances victims of poverty find it difficult to effectively formulate and

implement good public policies for the masses they represent Onah 2006 (98:99).

Another negative effect of poverty is its social impacts on the poor masses which makes

them vulnerable to criminal behaviour or act. The unemployed and underemployed sometimes

always indulge in criminal activities to enable them afford their basic needs. In many occasion, a

good number of Nigeria young girls have been repatriated from Europe on account of

40

prostitution. Outside the shores of Nigeria, several studies have shown that the involvement of

young girls in prostitution was as a result of poverty. The implication of Nigeria girls being in

such dimension of prostitution not only impacts negatively on Nigeria health record, but also

gives bad signal to foreign communities on the state of poverty and health in Nigeria.

Gap in Literature

Explicitly, this study has reviewed some salient literatures that have some degree of

relevance to the subject matter under the study. These literatures concentrated generally on

dominant issues on poverty and government efforts to reduce through policies decisions and

programmes with little emphasis on Community Based Poverty Reduction (CPRP) which is a

major focus of this research. The review of literature in this study did not detail us on the

programmes, achievements and failures of programmes of Community Based Poverty Reduction

(CPRP) in the states where it is being implemented. A thorough knowledge of the success and

the challenges encountered by CPRP is needed to refine the programme in meeting up with the

primary objectives. This study therefore, intends to cover this lacuna by examining in detail the

CPRP with the aim of noting the achievements and failure in poverty reduction in Nigeria.

2.2 Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were stated to guide this study:

Hypothesis One: Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) has not reduced poverty

rate in the states where it is piloted.

Hypothesis Two: Effective implementation strategies have not been adopted by Community-

Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in achieving its mandates in reducing poverty in the

states where it is piloted.

41

Hypothesis Three: Poor funding and unintended beneficiaries due to corruption are key problems

affecting the CPRP programmes in the states where it is piloted.

2.3 Operationalization of Key Concepts

The operationalization of key concepts present the contextual use of terms in this

research study. These concepts includes:-

Effective Implementation Strategies:- Effective implementation strategies are measures

towards ensuring that objectives of poverty reduction are achieved.

High Incidence of Corruption by Implementing Agencies:- High incidence of corruption is

seen as any form of official miss-conduct to breach the official protocols or bend some rules and

regulations governing the implementation of government poverty alleviation policies or

programmes to achieve personal interest or that of others.

Policy:- Policy is governmental actions or course of actions or proposal actions or course of

proposed actions directed at achieving certain goal.

Programme-: A programme is a set or package of decisions, rule and regulations, activities and

structures designed to implement a particular policy.

Poor Funding:- Poor funding of programmes is a situation of making inadequate allocations to

poverty reduction programmes. It is the unwillingness to spend adequately to attain success in

programmes objectives. This is often gap between resources on the one hand and responsibilities

and directed accomplishment levels and expectations on the other hand.

Standard of Living:- Standard of living here refers to the state of economic well-being of the

people.

Unintended Beneficiaries:- Unintended beneficiaries here refer to people who are not within the

policy or programme targets but, who get benefited by manipulating the implementation

protocols of programmes on poverty reduction.

42

Weak Implementation Strategies:- Implementation strategies are measures map-out framework

to be followed in administering policy actions. In other words, weak implementation strategies

are defaults in implementation of poverty alleviation policies or programmes.

2.4 Methodology

This section deals with the methods or the procedures of obtaining relevant data and

utilizing or analyzing them. According to Odo (1999:40), methodology is the authority base for a

research. The process followed in carrying out the research is presented below:

Research Design

According to Nwana (1985:34), research design relates to the general approach adopted

in executing a study. The study used the descriptive survey method to investigate into the topic:

Poverty Reduction Project in Nigeria: A Case Study of the Community-Based Poverty Reduction

Project (CPRP) implemented by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the National

Planning Commission. The study is limited to Four States (Edo, Osun, Gombe and Zamfara)

funded from the facilities provided by the African Development Bank (ADB).

Sources of Data Collection

The data used for this research work was obtained from primary and secondary sources.

The Primary Source of Data

Primary data are the original data put together in the course of this study such as account

of eye witness or participant and they include data from personal/oral interviews and

observations. The research made use of personal/oral interview and observation. The respondents

were chosen at random and the questions administered were uniform, thereby reducing biased

errors. The personal/oral interview and observation were undertaking because of the nature of the

43

study which has four states (Edo, Osun, Gombe and Zamfara) as the population of the study. The

responses of the respondents were used to make inference and generalization.

The Secondary Source of Data

Secondary sources of data consist of all information recorded by someone else or event

observers published or unpublished. The secondary data used in this study were collected from

research and conceptual literatures such as journals, newspapers, magazines text books, past

research works by students and research institutes/organizations and some documents and

publication derived from government offices (specifically the National Planning Commission,

State Social Fund Agencies (i.e the offices of the State CPRP for Edo, Osun, Gombe, Zamfara

states), and the African Development Bank office in Nigeria.

Population of the Study

The term population has been defined by Odo (1992:40) as “the entire number of people,

objects, events, and things that all have one or more characteristic of interest to a study”. The

population of this study is the 12 pilot CPRP states made up of the 6 states in the phase 1 assisted

by the World Bank and the 6 states in the phase 2. Two of the States in the phase 2 were assisted

by the World Bank while the remaining 4 states by the African Development Bank. The CPRP

states are as follows; Abia, Cross River, Ekiti, Kogi, Kebbi, Yobe, Kwara, Ebonyi, Edo, Osun,

Gombe and Zamfara.

Sample of Study

The population sample is used to approximate the population size of the study. According

to Odo (1992:47), research sample is the “process of selecting a proportion of the population

considered adequate to represent all existing characteristics within the target population and to

any other population having similar characteristics with the target population”. To draw the

44

sample for the research work, the researcher selected 4 states in the phase 2 of the CPRP project

which were assisted by the African Development Bank (ADB) and coordinated by the National

Planning Commission (NPC). The states are Edo, Osun, Gombe and Zamfara.

Sampling Procedure or Technique

The sampling procedure or technique adopted for this study is the random sampling

technique. The technique is used for the selection of respondents who were interviewed. Odo

(1992:51) said simple random sampling assume all the elements in the population to be studied

or identified, having all the characteristics, symmetrical, same and similar”. The Researcher, in

adopting the random sampling selected the respondents from the communities who are the

beneficiaries of the implemented micro projects/sub projects.

Data Gathering Instruments

The data used for the analysis were the secondary data obtained from the project document.

Reliability and Validity of Instrument

According to Obasi (2000:103), Black and Champman and Nachinias and Nachimas

(1981), the success of any research lies to a large extent on the dependability of the data

employed in analysis. This then raises the question of validity and reliability. Validity as the

name implies is the appropriateness of an instrument in measuring what is intended to measure.

According to Odo (1992:50) validity is the extent to which a test measures what it is supposed to

measure. Validity therefore, occurs when a careful attempt has been made to ensure that an

instrument adopted measures achieve the desired results by applying the theoretical knowledge

in the field about what is being studied and by convincing oneself common sense that the items

in the instrument has been logically validated Obsasi (2004:104). In validating the instruments

for data collection, we shall be concerned with establishing their content validity. We are doing

45

this first, to ensure that they measure what they are expected to measure and more importantly,

because content validity comprises of face validity, predictive and concurrent validity, construed

validity or criterion related or empirical validity Black and Chempion (1976:91). We shall

therefore ensure that the interview questions we shall use will be appropriately structured; well

worded and covers a reasonable representation of the beneficiary communities of the CPRP

micro projects/sub projects in the ADB States. We shall ensure validity by insisting that our

empirical measure adequately reflects the real meaning of the concept under consideration. We

shall employ content or face validity method which will enable us to ensure that the instrument

we shall use will be valid. To ensure this, we must ensure that the questions our instruments are

good ones. We must equally ensure that they are logically and relevantly measuring what the

instruments are set out to measure.

Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the ability of an instrument to produce the same

results consistently over some time when applied to the same sample, Good and Hart (1952:86).

The reliability of our instruments will be assured by our consistency in our interview models.

According to Odoh (1992:54), reliability means consistency and it is the consistency of the test

in measuring whatever it purports to measure. We shall ensure reliability of our instruments by

ensuring that the questions we shall pose on the personal interviews shall be simple, good,

precise and understandable form to the respondents. To ensure reliability, we shall use internal

consistency method whereby cross-checking questions are built into the oral/personal interviews.

We shall further ensure reliability by cross-checking our information against many sources and

by ensuring that facts and figures collected from various sources earlier stated shall not only be

accurate and authentic but would remain same if the collection is repeated again and again. In

addition to the above measures aimed at ensuring validity and reliability of the study, we shall

46

employ external criterion to check how correct the findings of a particular instruments are. We

shall do this by comparing the result with existing knowledge as well as our findings from field

work, oral interview, participants observation and content analysis. With the above processes, the

validity and reliability of the instruments as well as the study will be assured.

Method of Data Analysis

The method of data analysis shows the techniques used in analyzing the data collected.

The study made use of qualitative analysis which also includes the use of oral/personal

interviews and literature review in analyzing the data. Thus, the researcher would be guided by

the objectives of the study, the research hypotheses that were formulated for the study and

personal/oral interviews while analyzing the data. Also, as part of the analysis, the study adopts

the use frequency tables, pie charts, chi-square as well as content analysis. We will also make

use of simple percentage analysis to ascertain the proportionality contents of the implementation

of the micro projects/sub projects and chi-square statistical method to test the variables in our

hypothetical statements. Consequently, the formulas the computations are presented as follows:

Percentage:

y⁄Y×100

where, y = the number of micro projects or sub projects in each sector

Y = the total number of the micro projects or sub projects

100 = percentage term or constant factor

Chi-Square:

Y2 = ∑ Xij − Mij Mji Where Xij = number observed in the ith row and jth column

Mij = number expected in the cell under the null hypothesis. This is obtained with the formula: Mij = Ai x Bj

N

47

Where Ai = Marginal row total

Bj = Marginal column total

N = Total number of observations

For the chi-square, we make use of the degree of freedom (df) and the df is obtained with the

formula: df = (r – 1)(c-1) where r = the number of rows and c = number of columns.

2.5 Theoretical Framework

For the purpose of this study, efforts have been made to incline on a theory that has

holistic view on the subject matter of public policy making and analysis and such that can

explain the present scenario of Nigeria poverty in the context of her potential wealth. Therefore,

the study adopted elite theory because of its significance to the problem under study. Elite theory

is supported by Karl Marx (1873), Frank Gunder (1967) Feldman,H (1967), David Easton

(1971), among other scholars, who see society from the class/ social class perspectives. The elite

class theory, being one of the most popularly advocated theories for public policy making and

analysis conceives public policies and programmes as the initiatives of the elites and not the

masses (the people). This is why Ikelegbe (1996:53) states that “the elite theory postulates that

public policy reflects the values and preference of the elites rather than the demands of the

masses. It is the elites that make policies, while administrators and public officials carry out the

elites’ policy decisions. The elites have common interest in the preservation of societal status

quo, policies are bound to be conservative, non innovative and marginal rather than those with

bold and high change potentials. Policies might sometimes be in the masses interest, even though

the long term interests may be that of the elites, but this happens as concessions to or reactions

by the elites to threats to the status quo by the masses. The elites are few in the society but they

wield power and influence, allocate values and rules. The majority (i.e. the masses only obey and

48

are guided, controlled and governed by the few). The elites consist of those who hold leading

positions in the strategic aspects of society and who wield power in the strategic groups. There

are thus military elites, business elites, bureaucratic elites, political or governing elites, religious

and traditional elites. Many of the elites do not hold formal or legal authoritative powers but are

rather behind the scene, tele-guiding and manipulating overt political and policy actions. The

elites owe their positions to the control of the productive resources of the society and of the

social or religious values held by the society such as wealth, economic influence, social status

and education.

In summary, the theoretical tenets of the elites’ theory attempt a realistic explanation of

the source of public policy by predicating it on the elites rather than the masses. In the reality,

however, the masses of the population hardly have any considerable influence on public policies.

Again, elite theorists however have tended to see elite power as cumulative and pervasive in all

aspects of society. To them, the same few wield power in all areas. This enables the elites to

maintain and preserve the societal status quo where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Application of the Theory

The elites’ theory has much significance to the continuous rise or increase of Nigerian

poverty rate. Ordinarily, in Nigeria, it may be assumed that public preferences articulated by

representatives are the main source of policy flow. In reality, however, the masses of population

hardly have any considerable influence on public policies made or initiated by government

judging from the elites theory. In other words, poverty reduction programmes such as the

National Poverty Alleviation Programme (NAPEP), National Directorate of Employment (NDE),

National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS), Local Empowerment

and Environmental Management Project (LEEMP), Community Based Poverty Reduction

49

(CPRP), among others, are considered as the policy actions and programmes to the society’s

status quo. In common sense, these create more avenue for the exploitation of the masses and as

well create more poverty among the masses. This is why the true beneficiaries of poverty

alleviation programmes deviate from the poor to the rich.

Demonstratively, the practical tenets or postulations of the elite theory show that

Nigerian society is controlled by the elite who have the control of economic, social, cultural,

political, and religious powers. In other words, the elites view poverty as a normal economic

phenomenon that must exist and should be maintained, if the society must grow Onah

(2006:80).The elites also look at poor as a normal economic class that must exist and need not to

be allowed to leave their status quo. In Nigeria, however, poverty alleviation programmes are

structurally designed to enrich the elites and create more poverty. For instance, certain jobs are

structurally designed for the poor. By so doing, the elites continue to deprive the poor from

having access to enhance their poverty. This is achieved by the elites through authoritative

allocation of values to the poor. Therefore, it is believed that Community Based Poverty

Reduction (CPRP) is one of poverty alleviation policies made by the Nigerian elites as an

attempt to solve the multi-dimensional problems of high poverty rate in Nigeria, but the question

that often comes to mind is who are the actual beneficiaries and how far has such policy been

able to reduce poverty in the country? This question becomes more imperative considering the

structural designs fashioned out in the implementation of some key programmes of CPRP such

as human empowerment-(micro-credits/loans and skill acquisition), community development

projects (water boreholes, roads, schools, healthcare centres, rural electrification, etc),

agricultural assisted projects (irrigations, distribution of fertilizers, agricultural extensions

services).

50

CHAPTER THREE

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE COMMUNITY-BASED POVERTY

REDUCTION PROJECT (CPRP)

3.1 Origin of CPRP

The failure of the respective initiatives to empower the poor, improve their poverty status

and enhance their wellbeing prompted the Nigerian Government to start thinking of a new

pragmatic approach that will allow the beneficiaries of poverty alleviation programmes to have

say. Thus, in 1994, the Nigerian Government, through the National Planning Commission (NPC)

set up a broad based committee which comprised government institutions, the World Bank,

(WB), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Children Education

Fund (UNICEF), United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), experts

from Nigerian universities, Organized Private Sector (OPS) including labour to design an

appropriate framework for poverty reduction in Nigeria (NPC, 1996:23). After two years of

activity, the committee, in February 1996, proposed to the Government of Nigeria a community

based approach to poverty alleviation which adopts a combination of social funds and social

action strategies known as Community Action Programme for Poverty Alleviation (CAPPA)

which was subsequently accepted by the Government (NPC, 2001).

The CAPPA document draws largely from the past experiences in poverty reduction

efforts in the country. Unlike the previous strategies, the CAPPA approach was to ensure that the

poor are not only carried along in the design and implementation of poverty projects that affects

them but the poor themselves actually formulate and manage the poverty projects (NPC, 1996).

The pilot programme that will arise from CAPPA will emphasize (a) coordination of all on-going

and new sector specific programmes and projects that may impact on the poor, and (b)

51

implementation by selected communities (themselves), of relatively small, well targeted,

demand-driven projects and sub-projects that would impact on their poverty situation. According

to the (NPC, 2001:34), the objectives of the pilot programme were:

i. To improve the living condition of the poor through targeted, cost effective, demand-

driven and promptly delivered programme;

ii. To enhance the productivity of the poor by increasing their access to and resources

through skill improvement;

iii. To empower the poor by increasing their participation in decision making and

mobilizing their talents for community development projects;

iv. To enhance the capacity of the poor to help themselves on a sustained basis through

the strengthening of appropriate local institutions.

v. To build on existing safety nets for alleviating transient or transitory poverty at the

local level; and

vi. To improve the nutritional status of the poor through improved household food

security and health practices.

The emphasis on the CAPPA anticipated pilot programmer as well as its objectives gave birth to

the “Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) which funding was declared effective

by the World Bank in September 2001 (NPC, 2001).

3.2 The Design of CPRP Programmes

The CPRP is a pilot poverty reduction programme designed to operationalize the concept

of CAPPA. This concept is born out of Government desire to tackle poverty challenges whose

incidence is high among rural areas and increasing at the urban centres. The CPRP is anchored

on an all inclusive, participatory process that focuses on a paradigm shift from the top-down,

52

supply driven approach to poverty reduction to a bottom-up, demand-driven and multi-sectoral

project development approach that puts communities in charge of the decision making process,

as well as heir basic needs (NPC, 2009). The operationalization at community levels was

targeted as the best approach to enhance effective implementation of CPRP programmes. The

communities are to identify their priority needs, implement and maintain the projects (NPC,

2009). The involvement of the communities in the entire project process is to engender

ownership and sustainability.

The concept of CPRP is new and unique when compared with all the poverty reduction

strategies implemented by the Government of Nigeria before the piloting of CPRP. The past

poverty reduction strategies such as (NALDA, MAMSER, ADP, NDE, Peoples Bank, Primary,

Health Care, etc) had been implemented in a top-down manner without the involvement of the

beneficiaries in the choice of projects as well as he implementation process. The expected output

according to (NPC, 2009:231) at the community level includes:

• Improved living conditions of the poor through improved access to basic infrastructure in

the management of developmental resources, project implementation and management.

• Improved access to socio-economic infrastructure.

• Reduced level of poverty in the rural areas arising from gainful employment through the

improved access to socio-economic infrastructure.

3.3 States Participation and Selection in CPRP

The design of the CPRP implementation created a platform for the sub-national levels of

government (State and Local Government) to operate in the implementation process. The state

selection process is quite unique, simple and scientific, thus; did not give rise to protest or

agitation from any quarter. The states were selected based on the poverty profile from the report

53

of the National Bureau of Statistics (NPC, 2004) which ranked the states and Federal Capital

Territory (FCT) according to their poverty levels. Based on the poverty profile, the Nigerian

Government selected the most poorest state from each of the six geopolitical zones to form the

very first six states in the phase 1 namely Abia (South East), Cross River (South South), Ekiti

(South West), Kebbi (North West), Kogi (North Central) and Yobe (North East).

The additional six states referred to as the phase 2 were similarity selected the next

poorest state in the geopolitical zone. Based on the same NBS poverty index, the next ranked

poorest state from the geopolitical zones were identified as Benue (North Central), Delta (South

South), Enugu (South East), Gombe (North East, Osun (South West) and Zamfara (North West).

The three states (Benue, Delta and Enugu), however, opted out of the arrangement and were

subsequently replaced with the next poorest states from their zones as follows: Kwara State

(North Central), Edo Sate (South South), and Ebonyi State (South East), thus, completing the

phase II states as Kwara (North Central), Edo (South South), Ebonyi (South East), Gombe

(North Eas), Osun (South West) and Zamfara (North East), Osun (South West) and Zamfara

(North East), Osun (South West) and Zamfara (North West).

The phase II states were assisted by the World Bank (WB). The preparation of the states

for the take-off of the project stared in year 2000 and by September 28, 2001 was formerly

declared effective by the WB. The phase I eventually closed on August 31, 2006. In the phase 2,

states, the WB assisted only two of the states (Kwara and Ebonyi) while the African

Development Bank (ADB) four states (Edo, Gombe, Osun and Zamfara) popularly referred to as

ADB states. The phase 2 states became effective in year 2003 and closed in June 2009. In order

to facilitate the implementation of the CPRP in each of the pilot states, the states were by law

mandated to establish a community based Poverty Reduction Agency (CPRA). The CPRA is the

54

State Social Fund Agency which is saddled with the responsibility to set the processes of

identifying and appraising appropriate micro projects applications for approval, disburse funds

and liaise with the National Planning Commission (NPC) at the Federal level which is the

“Clearing House” for CPRP via the Poverty Alleviation United (Madu et. al, 2009). The

establishment of the CPRA is part of the preparatory activities which must be completed before

the finding becomes effective. The State House of Assemblies promulgates a law which set up

the Agency and the law grants autonomy to the Agency such that the State Government signs off

every control including financial control of the Agency. This might equally opted out of the

programme because it is not easy to relinquish financial authority. The agencies according to the

report of the NPC, (2005:67) were changed with the following responsibilities:

• Collation of project proposal from communities.

• Review of projects from communities.

• Desk and field appraisal of proposed projects.

• Approval of the micro-projects to be implemented; and

• Routine supervision of community projects.

In this regard, in order to facilitate the project execution at the community level, the various

communities were required to establish Community Project Implementation Committee (CPIC).

The CPIC facilitates the execution of projects in their communities. The CPIC is only acceptable

to the CPRA if women are included or occupy some key positions in the committee. As part of

the bottom-top approach, the beneficiary communities are responsible for the following:

• Identifying, prioritizing and proposing projects; and

• Management of resources, implementation of identified projects and maintenance of

projects on completion.

55

3.4 CPRP Programmes/Projects

The programmes and projects implemented under the CPRP are mainly micro projects.

They are broadly classified under three main groups namely: economic projects, infrastructure

projects and social service projects.

Economic Projects

According to the (NPC, 2006) report the micro projects under this category seek to

empower the beneficiaries economically. The focus is to improve the income status of the

beneficiaries. The micro projects involve:

• Market development

• Community agricultural mini processing plan.

• Small-scale community age industry.

• Skill acquisition centres

Infrastructure Projects

The infrastructure projects provide the beneficiaries the platform to create economic

empowerment. The micro projects in this category include:

• Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of roads, drainage, erosion and flood

control.

• Rural electrification.

• Construction of bridges and culverts.

• Construction and maintenance of water and sanitation facilities.

Social Service Projects

The social service projects cover micro projects or sub-projects that improve human

capital development. The projects involve:

56

• Provision of new and improvement of existing health care services and provision of

essential medicines and equipment.

• Expansion and improvement of school buildings and educational facilities including

laboratories, libraries.

• Television viewing centres for public enlightenment.

The project selection process starts with the identification of the project by the

community. The community then applied to the state CPRA for funding. The CPRA then carries

out desk and field appraisal of the project. If the project satisfies the spelt out criteria, it is

approved by the state CPRA and funded. The detailed schematic framework is at annex, while

the detailed list of CPRP micro projects and sub-projects is at annex.

3.5 Resources Base and Budget Releases

Public finance is central to poverty reduction and the practice of public expenditure

management can hinder or promote the achievement of poverty reduction objectives (World

Bank; 2002). The hall mark of CPRP success is dependent upon sound financial control and

expenditure management. The resource base of the CPRP is funded from four major sources.

These four sources are the African Development Bank (ADB), Federal Government of Nigeria

(FGN), (i.e. four ABD states) and the communities.

The ADB provided a loan facility of UA 20 million (an equivalent $26.74 million) for the

project through credit agreement with the FGN for on-lending to the four states. This

arrangement implies that the FGN takes he loan from ADB and then lend the fund to the four

states for use for implementation of the CPRP. Since the ADB credit/loan is on-lending, the

participating states ensure responsibility for repayment (NPC 2009). Consequently, a subsidiary

57

between the FGN and each of the four benefiting states exist to facilitate the programme

implementation.

The FGN is represented by the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF) in contracting the loan

while the NPC is the executing agency on behalf of the FGN. By the loan agreement, the FGN

will provide 109% counterpart fund for its component of the loan which is utilized by the NPC

for preparation of states for the take-off of the project and overall coordination activities. The

participating four states also provide 10% counterpart fund for their respective credit/loan

component that was on-lend to them for the State Social Fund Agency to implement its

programmes. This counterpart contribution by each state is estimated at about N6million yearly

(NPC, 2009). The proof of thee fact that 10% counterpart fund has entered the Naira account of

the executing agency qualifies the Agency to begin to drawdown the loan which had been

credited to a separate dollar account.

At the community level, when a project has been approved by the state CPRA, the

beneficiary community was required to open an account with a bank where an equivalent of 10%

of the project cost is credited into as their counterpart fund component. The remaining 90% cost

of the project is provided from the loan by the state CPRA aid paid into he community project

account. This means that communities benefiting from the projects automatically operate two

accounts. In a situation where a beneficiary community does not have cash to credit into a

counterpart fund account, it will then be computed in kind. The inputs provided by such

community in terms of labour and materials for execution of the project is costed to cover he

required counterpart contribution.

The fund release process is very interesting and unique. When a community project is

approved, funds are released to them for execution of the project in three branches in the ratio of

58

30:30:40. The unique aspect is that when a tranche is released, it will be divided into two pars

90% it from the loan account (project account) and the remaining 10% from the counterpart fund

account. The next tranche is released only when the state CPRA is satisfied with the expenditure

of the previous release and proper records are kept. The CPIC which executes the project on

behalf of the community manages the accounts. As part of the preparatory activities, the

members of the CPIC have been trained on simple book keeping (even in a local language where

needs be). Usually, the cheque is handed over to the community by the state CPRA at a project

launching. Depending on the type of project, selected by the community, they are usually

completed within 3 to month 6 months range.

3.6 Institutional Arrangements

The institutional arrangement is the administrative structure put in place to facilitate the

implementation and realization of the objectives of CPRP. The administrative is at three levels as

follows:

• Federal level

• State level

• Community level

Institutional Structure at the Federal Level

The operations at the federal level are domiciled at the National Planning Commission

(NPC). The NPC is the policy-level focal point for poverty reduction efforts in Nigeria (ADB-

PAD, 2006). Its broad responsibilities include coordinating and monitoring all activities of the

government funded poverty alleviation programmes (Madu et al 2009).

59

Poverty Alleviation Steering Committee (PASC)

In the light of its mandate and to be able to effectively manage the CPRP, the NPC set up

a Poverty Alleviation Steering Committee (PASC). The PASC is a multi-sectoral inter-

ministerial committee whose role is an advisory board and plays an over sight function to

Poverty Alleviation Unit (PAU) The operation manual of CPRP state that the PASC do not take

part in the day-to-day running of CPRP belt carries out is function by:

a. Set overall policy for the PAU;

b. Review work programme, progress reports audit and evaluation.

The committee is made up 15 members and meets quarterly.

The membership are drawn from the NPC, Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF), Federal

Ministry of Agriculture, Federal Ministry of Health, Federal Ministry of Works, Federal Ministry

of Women Affairs and social Development, Federal Ministry of Education, Central Bank of

Nigeria (CBN), representatives of State Social Fund Agency and Civil Societies.

Poverty Alleviation Unit (PAU)

The Poverty Alleviation Unit (PAU) is established within the National Planning

Commission (NPC). The NPC serves as a “Clearing House” for all CPRP activities. This is done

through the PAU which has the responsibility to manage, coordinate and facilitate the overall

activities of CPRP. The PAU provides the national framework and common set of standards for

financial reporting accounts/procurement, monitoring evaluation of the project (Madu et al

2009). The key role of NPC which is exercised by the PAU includes:

a. Formulation of poverty policies and strategies and disseminations;

b. Coordination of the CPRP programmes in the ADB-states;

c. Advocacy and sensitization;

d. Capacity building at the Federal, state and communities;

60

e. Monitoring and Evaluation; and

f. Impact assessment.

The PAU is headed by a Project Manager appointed by the Government and is assisted by four

Operational Project Officers, Project Accountant and Project International Auditor. The Project

Officers are responsible for the four components of the project that helps the NPC in carrying out

its mandates – Poverty Policy Analysis and Disseminations; Advocacy and sensitization;

capacity building; and monitoring and evaluation (M & E). The PAU also relates with Federal

line Ministries in carrying out its functions in the following:

• Involve the expertise of relevant line sectoral ministries through formation of

technical committee whenever call for evaluation of proposal/study is to be made.

• From time to time liaise with relevant sectoral ministries in designing and

propagation of public awareness programmes;

• Harnessing the expertise of relevant ministries when carrying out monitoring and

evaluation of programmes and projects;

• Designing of Terms of Reference (TOR) as it relates to activities of policy

coordination, Awareness and mobilization, capacity building, Poverty Monitoring

and Impact Assessment.

• Sensitization, mobilization and Advocacy for the poor against Malaria and AIDS.

State Level

Each participating state by law of their State House of Assembly established a state social

Fund Agency referred to as the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Agency (CPRA). The law

establishing the agency granted it autonomy in all its daily operations from the State Government

and independent from the National Planning Commission. Consequently, funds accruing to the

61

Agency either from the State Government or account. Also, all replenishment by the ADB are

carried out directly on meeting the requirement.

The CPRA is headed by a Project Manager and assisted by a Project Officer and

Assistant, Project Accountant and Assistant; Procurement officer and other support staff

(secretary, messenger, cleaner, Driver). The key staff were recruited by the NPC in a competitive

manner at the preparatory stage of the states. He CPRA is responsible for the following:

• Collation of project proposals from the communities.

• Review of projects from communities desk and field appraisal of projects proposed by the

communities.

• Approval of the micro projects to be implemented.

The State Agency has its own Board which plays advisory role and oversight function. Strategic

implementation of the CPRP at the state involves: sensitization and awareness creation for the

local government chairmen, community development officers in the local government council,

traditional rulers, community leaders, community development organization (e.g. Town Unions,

Community Based Organisations and Associations (CBOSWCBAS)). The CPRA also assist in

capacity building of the community members in the areas of project and financial management,

disbursement of funds to CPICS, ensuring that the 10% counterpart contribution is made by the

beneficiary communities. In a situation where a communities implementing a project and a skill

required in an aspect of the project is lacked in the community, the CPRA assists the community

to procure such skill so that the final product meets the required standard.

The Community Level

The Community level is the last level in the institutional arrangement for the

implementation of the CPRA. All physical activities for implementation of projects are carried

62

out at that level. The community themselves identify baskets of projects, prioritize them and

apply to the State Social Fund Agency-CPRA for approval. After the usual desk and field

appraisal, the Agency approves the community project. On approval of the project, the

community establishes community project implementation committee (CPIC). The CPIC is

saddled with the responsibility of implementing the project and management of resources.

Usually, women are encouraged to hold some key positions like Treasure, secretary, chairman

etc in the CPIC. The members of the CPIC are usually available to conduct any Supervisory

Mission round the project whenever there is mission from Tunisia (ADB), NPC and even the

State Agency.

3.7 CPRP Monitoring and Evaluation

The project Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) of CPRP is one of the major components

of the project. It is done to track down the implementation of projects with a view to attaining

project goals and objectives. It is also for the assessment of performance, efficiency and impacts

of project in relation to stated objectives. The purpose of the M & E was to track project

implementation, compare actual project performance with the planned activities for a period, to

ensure that the CPRP remain on course, meeting expected outputs and outcomes in a timely

manner and that impediments to smooth implementation of projects are nipped in the bud (NPC;

2009).

The M & E activities are carried out at two levels. The first level is the State Social Fund

Agency. The Agency visits the projects at the communities very regularly to ensure that project

implementation are carried out in accordance with work plan and the financial disbursements.

The Agency assists the communities to address various challenges that may crop up in the course

of project implementation. The other level is the NPC. The NPC carries out M & E exercise at

63

the beneficiary communities in the states on quarterly basis. It is usually carried out in

conjunction with relevant Federal Ministries, most especially the Federal Ministry of Finance

(FMF). The M & E is usually preceded by a Quarterly Review Meeting (QRM) organized by the

NPC to address issues relating to project implementation as well as expectations in the quarter.

The report of the quarterly monitoring exercise conducted by the NPC is forwarded to the

African Development Bank (ADB) for their information. The ADB also usually undertakes

supervisory mission of the community projects twice annually to assess the performance of the

project. This activity is carried out in conjunction with the NPC.

64

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The chapter four of this research work will deal with the presentation and analysis of the data

used for the study. The data is mainly compiled or derived from the secondary source (project

documents) and interfaced with the results of the oral/personal interviews conducted with the

beneficiaries of the micro-projects or sub-projects. The chapter also focused on the testing of the

research hypotheses with a view to ascertaining the consistence of the hypotheses in relation with

the findings. Consequently, in presenting and analyzing the data, we followed alphabetically

thus; Edo State, Gombe State, Osun State and Zamfara State respectively.

4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis for Edo State

Table 4.1 Funding of Edo State CPRP

Source Amount (N) Percentage (%)

African Development Bank (ADB) 730,109,103.75 95.31

Edo State Government 30,006,580.20 3.92

Miscellaneous Income 5,890,750.60 0.77

Total 766,006,434.55 100

Source: Compiled from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.1 above shows the sources of funds for Edo State Community based Poverty

Reduction Project (CPRP). The total funds obtained for the financing of the activities of CPRP in

Edo State amounted to N766,006,434.55. This is N233,993,565.45 or 30.55 percent less than one

billion naira marked for state reduction programmes under the joint partnership of Edo state and

the donor agencies especially the African Development Bank. Of the total funds mobilized, the

65

African Development Bank (ADB) alone provided the sum of N730,109,103.75 or 95.31

percent, while, the Edo State Government provided the sum of N30,006,580.20 or 3.92 percent.

The miscellaneous sources which comprised interest payments and other charges amounted to

N5,890,750.60 or 0.77 percent. The researcher however attempted to find out why there was no

contribution from the beneficiary communities of the micro-projects/sub-projects which

originally as clearly stated in the project document were supposed to contribute equivalent 10

percent of the project cost as counterpart contribution in cash or kind. The oral interview

conducted among the staff of the State Agency revealed that the contributions by the beneficiary

communities are not part of disbursements made by the Agency and therefore not an ADB

component of funds. The response also disclosed that community contributions are paid directly

by the Project Implementing Committee (PIC) into the community project account which is

managed directly by the community, thus alluding to the social fund and demand driven qualities

of the project. Similarly, the share of the contribution by the ADB – 95.31 percent justifies the

ascribing of the project as ADB-Assisted Project. The oral interview also revealed that the

management of the project funds directly by the beneficiary communities necessitated or helped

in the building of the capacity of the rural communities to be able to handle the implementation

of the micro projects/sub projects at the communities.

Table 4.2 Utilization of Funds

Activity Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Fixed Asset 18,230,490.00 2.38

Training/Workshops 25,725,865.00 3.36

Micro Projects/Sub Projects 650,918,630.00 84.98

Operating Costs 71,130,449.55 9.28

Total Expenditure 766,006,434.55 100

Source: Compiled from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

66

The table 4.2 shows the utilization of the mobilized funds by the Edo State Social Fund

Agency-the CPRP. As depicted on the table, the funds was expended on procurement of fixed

assets, training and workshops for Agency staff and Project Implementing Committee members,

implementation of micro-projects/sub- projects at the community levels and operating costs. The

share of the expenditures on fixed assets is 2.38 percent or N18,230,490.00 while, that on

training/workshops amounted to N25,725,865.00 or 3.36 percent. The expenditures on micro-

projects and operating costs amounts respectively to the sum of N650,918,630.00 or 84.98

percent and N71,130,449.55 or 9.28 percent. The revelation of the table is very interesting to any

project management and worthy of note. For instance, it is often advocated that operating costs

of projects should not exceed 20 percent of the total funds. In the case of the Edo CPRP, this

component only took 9.28 percent which is very reasonable. The oral interview also revealed that

salaries and wages as well as other sundry expenditures benefited from the operating costs

components. The highest proportion of the expenditure was on the implementation of micro-

projects/sub-projects and this also reveals some prudence on the side of the Agency in the

management of the project funds.

Table 4.3 Sectoral Implementation of Micro-Projects/Sub-Projects

Sub-Sectors No. of Micro Projects

Implemented

Percentage (%)

Education 27 16.87

Health 15 9.37

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 49 30.63

Water 52 32.50

Power (Electricity) 10 6.25

Environment (Sanitation) 1 0.63

Markets 6 3.75

Total 160 100

Source: Computed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.3 is the focus of the project. The table showed the sectoral implementation of

the micro-projects/sub-projects through the duration of the CPRP activities. As disclosed by the

67

table, a total of 160 micro projects/sub projects were executed or implemented with the total

amount of N650,918,630.00 as indicated in table 4.2. The water sub-sector had the highest

number of micro- projects with about 52 of them representing 32.50 percent. The next in that

order is skill acquisition/civic/computer education centres with 49 micro-projects representing

30.63 percent, education with 27 micro-projects or 16.87 percent, health with 15 micro-projects

or 9.37 percent, power (electricity) with 10 micro- projects or 6.25 percent while markets and

sanitation/environment projects were 6 and 1 projects or 3.75 and 0.63 percent respectively. The

researcher attempted to find out the preference for water micro-projects. The oral interview with

some respondents in the beneficiary communities revealed that most of the communities actually

lacked portable water. Furthermore, beside the fact that water table is high within the region

thereby making it relatively cheap to implement mini water projects, the respondents also poised

that their sources of water had been either stream, ponds, local well, collected rain water and

paid water tankers. The researcher observed that with the mini water projects, the beneficiary

communities saved money as well as time spent in search of water. Also, some of the

respondents informed that agriculture is the predominant occupation of the rural dwellers and

that they had been relying on seasonal rain water for their farming activities but that the mini

water scheme has facilitated local irrigation of their backyard vegetable and fruit farms and

enabled them to embark on dry season farming and consequently boosting their income and

reducing poverty. The least of micro-projects came from the environment/sanitation sub-sector.

68

Table 4.4 Total Expenditure on Sub-Sectors

Sub Sectors Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Education 107,280,314.00 16.48

Health 64,063,836.00 9.84

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 230,007,194.00 35.34

Water 181,310,063.00 27.85

Power (Electricity) 44,949,561.00 6.91

Environment (Sanitation) 3,514,818.00 0.54

Markets 19,792,844.00 3.04

Total 650,918,630.00 100

Source: Computed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.4 shows total expenditure on micro projects for each sub sectors. As shown

on the table, total amount of money expended on implementing micro- projects/sub-projects in

Edo State amounted to N650,918,630.00. This is made up of the highest expenditure of

N230,007,194.00 or 35.34 percent on skill acquisition/civic/computer centres micro projects and

N107,280,314.00 or 16.48%, N64,063,836,00 or 9.84% and N181,310,063.00 or 27.85% for

executing Education, Health and Water micro-projects respectively. The least expenditure is on

Environment/Sanitation with the total amount of N3,514,818.00 while the Power/Electricity and

Market sub-sectors shared N44,949,561.00 and N19,792,844.00 respectively. The researcher

attempted to find out the share of the community contributions on the micro each sub sector with

a view to ascertaining the real cost to the communities. The oral interview conducted on the

respondents however revealed that the contributions by the communities were either in cash or

kind and expended by the community directly without remitting to the CPRP Agency while the

amounts shown on the table is the share of the contributions by the ADB and State Government

69

counterpart contributions. Similarly, more than one third of the total expenditure was on

empowerment and job creation through skill acquisition.

Table 4.5 Mean Cost of Micro Projects in each Sub Sectors

Sub-Sectors Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Education 3,973,344.96 14.33

Health 4,270,922.40 15.40

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 4,694,027.37 16.93

Water 3,486,731.98 12.57

Power (Electricity) 4,494,956.10 16.21

Environment (Sanitation) 3,514,818.00 12.67

Markets 3,298,807.33 11.89

Total 27,733,608.14 100

Source: Computed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.5 shows the mean cost of implementing the micro-projects/sub- projects in

each sub sector in Edo State. The average cost of the micro projects in Edo State is

N4,068,241.44. From the table, the least cost sub-sector micro- projects are those of the markets

with an average cost of N3,298,807.33 while water and environment/sanitation micro-projects

are the next lowest at N3,486,731.98 and N3,514,818.00 respectively. The most expensive

projects are the ones implemented under the Skill Acquisition/Civic/Computer Centres at an

average cost of N4,694,027.37. The high cost of the micro-projects of this sub- sector may have

suggested the highest expenditure of N230,007,194.00 or 35.34 % of the total expenditures as

recorded in table 4.4. The researcher attempted to find out the justification for the high cost of

Skill Acquisition projects in relation to other sectors. The oral interview conducted on the

respondents confirmed that the cost of furnishing and equipping the centres contributed to the

70

high cost of implementing projects in the sub sector in Edo state. The respondents similarly

attributed the capital intensive nature of the Power/Electricity projects and equipping and

furnishing of Health and Education projects as reasons for the average costs of N4,494,956.10,

N4,270,922.40 and N3,973,344.96 respectively.

Table 4.6 Categorization of the Implementation of Micro Projects into Main Sectors

Main Sector No. of Micro Projects

Implemented

Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 42 26.25

Economic Sectors Projects 55 34.38

Infrastructure Sector Projects 63 39.37

Total 160 100

Source: Computed/Analyzed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.6 shows the categorization of the implementation of micro- projects in Edo

State into main sectors. The National Planning Commission (NPC) defined the CPRP micro-

projects across three main sub-sectors namely Social Service sector projects, Economic Sector

Projects and Infrastructure Sector projects. From the table, of the 160 micro projects

implemented, 42 of them representing 26.25 percent was implemented from the social services

while 55 or 34.38 percent and 63 or 39.37 percent were from the Economic and Infrastructure

sectors respectively. The Edo State seems to have preferred infrastructure projects which include

Power/Electricity, mini Water projects, Environment/Sanitation projects than the Economic and

Social Service sector projects. The social service projects comprised Education and Health micro

projects while the Economic sector projects included Skill Acquisition Centres/Civic/Computer

Centre and Markets.

71

Table 4.7 Categorization of the Expenditures on Micro Projects into Main Sectors

Main Sector Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 171,344,150.00 26.32

Economic Sectors Projects 249,800,038.00 38.38

Infrastructure Sector Projects 229,774,442.00 35.30

Total 650,918,630.00 100

Source: Computed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.7 shows the categorization of the expenditures on the Edo CPRP micro

projects into the three main sectors. Of the total resources expended on the micro projects, the

sum of N171,344,150.00 or 26.32 percent was spent on provision of social services related

micro projects while the economic sector projects gulped N249,800.038.00 or 38.38 percent. The

share of expenditure on infrastructure sector micro projects amounted to N229,774,442.00

representing 35.30 percent. As shown by the table, more funds were expended on the economic

sector than the infrastructure and social service sectors. The total expenditure pattern correlated

with the mean costs. For instance, eventhough the number of micro projects in the infrastructure

sector is more than the economic projects, the amount spent on economic projects is higher

because of the average costs of the micro projects that constitute that sector as reflected on table

4.5

Table 4.8 Mean Expenditure on Micro Projects Categorized into Main Sectors

Main Sector Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 4,079,622.62 33.25

Economic Sectors Projects 4,541,818.87 37.02

Infrastructure Sector Projects 3,647,213.36 29.73

Total 12,268,654.85 100

Source: Computed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

72

The table 4.8 shows the mean expenditure on micro projects categorized into main

sectors namely the Social Service sector projects, Economic sector projects and Infrastructure

sector projects. The table shows that the most expensive micro projects are the ones implemented

under the economic sector which averaged N4,541,818.87 while the cheapest were the projects

of Infrastructure sector at N3,647,213.36. The mean cost of Social service sector projects as

shown on the table amounts to N4,079,622.42. The mean cost of the economic sector projects

may have attributed to the more money expended on the sector as confirmed on table 4.7

Table 4.9 Approved and Completed Micro Projects

Sub Sectors Total Micro

Projects

Approved

No. of Micro

Projects

Completed

Completion

Percentage

(%)

Education 27 27 100

Health 15 15 100

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 49 49 100

Water 52 52 100

Power (Electricity) 10 10 100

Environment (Sanitation) 1 1 100

Markets 6 6 100

Total 160 160 100

Source: Computed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.9 shows the sub-sectoral distribution of the approved and completed projects

in the Edo CPRP. The table showed that all the 160 micro projects approved for the communities

for implementation by the Edo CPRP Agency were fully implemented. There is no sector where

a project is still on- going. The researcher attempted to find out why the CPRP was able to

complete all the approved projects. The result of the oral interview conducted revealed that the

73

decision to implement any project was demand driven and bank rolled with little demonstration

of counterpart contribution. The counterpart contributions have been made easier through the

equating of kind to cash for the communities.

Table 4.10 Distribution of Completed Micro Projects put into use

Sub-Sectors No. of Micro

Projects

Completed

No. of Micro

Projects in

Use

Proportion

in Use in

Percent

(%)

Education 27 27 100

Health 15 15 100

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 49 49 100

Water 52 52 100

Power (Electricity) 10 10 100

Environment (Sanitation) 1 1 100

Markets 6 6 100

Total 160 160 100

Source: Computed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.10 shows the number of micro-projects put into use vis-a-vis the completed

projects. As the table portrayed, all the 160 micro-projects completed by the Edo State CPRP

Agency have been put into use by the beneficiary communities. The implication of this is that all

160 communities have accessed the various micro projects implemented by the CPRP Agency to

reduce the poverty of the rural people.

74

Table 4.11 Abandoned or Uncompleted CPRP Projects

Sub-Sectors Total Micro

Projects

Approved

No. of Micro

Projects

Abandoned or

Uncompleted

Percentage

(%)

Education 27 0 0

Health 15 0 0

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 49 0 0

Water 52 0 0

Power (Electricity) 10 0 0

Environment (Sanitation) 1 0 0

Markets 6 0 0

Total 160 0 0

Source: Computed from Edo State and NPC CPRP documents

Table 4.11 shows that there is no micro project that was approved for implementation

that has been stalled or abandoned. All the 160 approved micro projects have been completed

and being used by the beneficiary communities to alleviate whatever type of poverty that was

identified by the community. That there is no abandoned project also shows the efficacy of the

CPRP strategy in tackling poverty in Nigeria. The researcher however sought opinion of some

beneficiary why the projects were not abandoned. The result of the oral interview attributed it to

regular release of funds by the CPRP Agency and transparent management of resources by the

PIC members. They also confirmed that training received by the PIC members helped the

community in the implementation process.

75

4.2 Data Presentation and Analysis for Gombe State

Table 4.12 Funding of Gombe State CPRP

Source Amount (N) Percentage (%)

African Development Bank (ADB) 753,046,512.32 95.34

Gombe State Government 30,028,769.12 3.80

Miscellaneous Income 6,797,460.05 0.86

Total 789,872,741.49 100

Source: Compiled from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.12 above shows the sources of funds for Gombe State Community based

Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP). The total funds accessed for financing of the activities of

CPRP in Gombe State amounted to N789,872,741.49. This is N210,127,258.51 or 21.01 percent

less than one billion naira mark. Of the total funds mobilized, the African Development Bank

(ADB) alone provided the sum of N753,046,512.32 or 95.34 percent, while the Gombe State

Government provided the sum of N30,028,769.12 or 3.80 percent. The miscellaneous sources

which comprised interest payments and other charges amounted to N6,797,460.60 or 0.85

percent. The researcher similarly attempted to find out why the counterpart contribution from

beneficiary communities of the micro-projects/sub-projects which originally as clearly stated in

the project document were to contribute equivalent 10 percent of the project cost as counterpart

contribution in cash or in kind. The oral interview conducted among the staff of the Gombe State

CPRP Agency revealed that the contributions by the beneficiary communities are not part of

disbursements made by the Agency and therefore not an ADB component of funds. The

responses also disclosed that community contributions are paid directly by the Project

76

Implementing Committee (PIC) into the community project account which is managed directly

by the community, thus alluding to the demand driven qualities of the project. Similarly, the

share of the contribution by the ADB–95.34 percent justifies the ascribing of the project as

ADB–Assisted Project. The oral interview also revealed that the management of the project

funds directly by the beneficiary communities necessitated or helped in the building of the

capacity of the rural communities to be able to handle the implementation of the micro-

projects/sub-projects at the communities.

Table 4.13 Utilization of Funds

Activity Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Fixed Asset 23,258,293.20 2.95

Training/Workshops 27,582,928.05 3.49

Micro Projects/Sub Projects 653,207,986.66 82.70

Operating Costs 85,823,533.95 10.86

Total Expenditure 789,872,741.49 100

Source: Compiled from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.13 shows the utilization of the mobilized funds by the Gombe State Social

Fund Agency–the CPRP. As depicted from the table, the funds was expended on procurement of

fixed assets, training and workshops for Agency staff and Project Implementing Committee

members, implementation of micro projects/sub projects at the community levels and operating

costs. The share of the expenditures on fixed assets is 2.95 percent or N23,258,293.20 while that

on training/workshops amounted to N27,582,928.05 or 3.49 percent. The expenditures on micro

projects and operating costs amounts respectively to N653,207,986.66 or 82.70 percent and

N85,823,533.95 or 10.86 percent. Again, the performance of this table is very interesting and

77

worthy of note for project management. For instance, it is often advocated that operating or

administrative costs of projects should not exceed 20 percent of the total funds. In the case of the

Gombe State CPRP, this component took only 10.86 percent which is very reasonable. In fact,

all other costs components consisting of fixed assets, training/workshop and the operating costs

shared a total of 17.30 percent of the total expenditure/fund. The oral interview also revealed

that salaries and wages as well as other sundry expenditures benefited from the operating costs

components. The highest proportion of the expenditure was on the implementation of micro

projects/sub projects and this also reveals some prudence on the side of the Agency in the

management of the project funds.

Table 4.14 Implementation of Micro-Projects/Sub-Projects

Sub Sectors No. of Micro Projects

Implemented

Percentage (%)

Education 133 57.08

Health 36 15.45

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 5 2.15

Water 30 12.87

Power (Electricity) 4 1.72

Environment (Sanitation) 1 0.43

Roads & Culverts 19 8.15

Markets 4 1.72

Others (Orphanage) 1 0.43

Total 233 100

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

78

The table 4.14 table showed the sectoral implementation of the micro projects/sub-

projects through the duration of the CPRP activities. As depicted on the table, a total of 233

micro-projects/sub-projects were executed or implemented in Gombe State with the total amount

of N653,207,986.66 as indicated in table 4.13. The Education sub-sector had the highest number

of micro projects with a total of 136 representing 57.08 percent. This is more than half the

number of projects executed in the State. The next project in demand in the State is the Health

sector projects with a total of 36 projects representing 15.45 while Water sector projects which

was the highest in Edo State took a third position in preference with a total of 30 micro-projects

representing 12.87 percent. The roads projects executed were 19 representing 8.15 percent, Skills

acquisition projects were 5 representing 2.15 while, the Power/Electricity projects and Markets

projects were 4 projects each representing 1.72 percents respectively. As usual, the researcher

attempted to find out the preference for Education micro projects in Gombe State. The oral

interview with some respondents in the beneficiary communities revealed that most of the

remote communities actually lacked education facilities. Some respondents informed the

researcher that many children trekked a long distance to get to school and in the schools the

classes are overcrowded with some pupils or students seating on the floor to take their lessons.

Furthermore, the researcher also observed that the choice of Education projects more than the

other sector projects was for the State to take advantage of the CPRP to support their move to

bridge the gap in education. This therefore tallies with the growing concern for the Northern

States being disadvantaged in education. Thus, the CPRP is being used by the Gombe State to

address the challenge. Similarly, the next preferred projects – Health and Water projects

according to the researcher’s oral interview respondents are to help the State improve their

human development index as well as addressing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

79

needs of the State. To an extent, the objective is being achieved since 36 remote communities

had health facilities and 30 communities had good sources of drinking water under the CPRP

project. Similarly some of the respondents informed the researcher that they are farmers and that

they preferred road projects/culverts to enable carry their farm produce to markets where they

can obtain relatively fair prices. This of course would in the short and long-run improve the

income poverty of the people.

Table 4.15 Total Expenditure on Sub Sectors

Sub-Sectors Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Education 339,091,218.00 51.91

Health 156,337,179.66 23.93

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 16,247,832.14 2.49

Water 46,242,053.06 7.08

Power (Electricity) 16,310,400.00 2.50

Environment (Sanitation) 1,530,000.00 0.24

Roads & Culverts 66,655,387.20 10.20

Markets 7,013,916.60 1.07

Others (Orphanage) 3,780,000.00 0.58

Total 653,207,986.66 100

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.15 shows total expenditure on micro projects for each sub- sectors for Gombe

State. As depicted on the table, total amount of money expended on implementation of micro-

projects/sub-projects in Gombe State amounted to N653,207,986.66. This is made up of the total

expenditure on Education amounting N339,091,218.00 representing 51.91 percent, Health

projects amounting N156,337,179.66 representing 23.93 percent, Rural roads projects

80

amounting N66,655,387.20 representing 10.20 percent, Water micro projects amounting to

N46,242,053,06 representing 7.08 percent, Power/Electricity projects amounting

N16,310,400.00 representing 2.50 percent, Skills Acquisition/Civic/Computer centre micro-

projects amounting N16,247,832.14 representing 2.49 percent. The least expenditure is on

Environment/Sanitation with the total amount of N1,530,000.00 representing 0.24 percent of the

total expenditures on micro projects. The researcher similarly attempted to find out the share of

the community contributions on the micro-projects of each sub-sector with a view to ascertaining

the real cost to the communities. The oral interview conducted on the respondents however

revealed that the contributions by the communities were either in cash or kind and expended by

the community directly without remitting to the CPRP Agency while the amounts shown on the

table is the share of the contributions by the ADB and State Government counterpart

contributions. The very huge amount spent on the Education sub sector which gulped more than

half of the total expenditures is a proof and indication of Gombe State people wanting to rise to

the club of educationally advantage states rather than continue to remain as an educationally

disadvantaged state. Also, the expenditure on roads according to the respondents of the oral

interview conducted by the researcher is to make the rural roads accessible to help the rural

people to transport their farm products to the urban markets.

81

Table 4.16 Mean Cost of Micro Projects in each Sub-Sectors

Sub Sectors Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Education 2,549,558.03 9.68

Health 4,342,699.43 16.50

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 3,249,566.43 12.34

Water 1,541,401.77 5.84

Power (Electricity) 4,077,600.00 15.49

Environment (Sanitation) 1,530,000.00 5.81

Roads & Culverts 3,508,178.27 13.33

Markets 1,753,479.15 6.65

Others (Orphanage) 3,780,000.00 14.36

Total 26,324,483.08 100

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.16 shows the mean cost of implementing the micro-projects/sub- projects in

each sub sector in Gombe State. The average cost of the micro-projects in Gombe State is

N2,803,467.75. From the table, the least cost sub-sector micro projects are those of the

Environments/Sanitation with an average cost of N1,530,000.00, Water projects with an average

cost amounting N1,541,401.77 and Markets projects amounting to N1,753,479.15. The most

expensive projects are the micro projects implemented under the Health sector whose average

cost amounted to N4,342,699.43 and the Power/Electricity micro projects amounting to

N4,077,600.00. The researcher attempted to find out the justification for the high cost of Health

and Power/Electricity sectors micro projects in relation to other sectors. The oral interview

conducted on the respondents confirmed that the cost of furnishing and equipping as well as

providing seed drugs to the rural health centres contributed to the high cost of implementing the

82

sub sector projects in Gombe state. The respondents similarly attributed the capital intensive

nature of the Power/Electricity projects as reasons for the high mean costs.

Table 4.17 Categorization of the Implementation of Micro Projects into Main Sectors

Main Sector No. of Micro Projects

Implemented

Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 170 72.96

Economic Sectors Projects 9 3.86

Infrastructure Sector Projects 54 23.18

Total 233 100

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.17 shows the categorization of the implementation of micro projects in

Gombe State into main sectors. In line with the National Planning Commission (NPC) the

researcher grouped the CPRP micro projects into three main sectors namely Social Service sector

projects, Economic Sector Projects and Infrastructure Sector projects. From the table, of the 233

micro projects implemented at the State, 170 of them representing 72.96 percent was

implemented from the Social Services while 9 or 3.86 percent and 54 or 23.18 percent were

from the Economic and Infrastructure sectors respectively. The Gombe State from the table have

preference for the Social Service sector projects which include Education and Health projects

than the Economic and Infrastructure sector projects. The Economic sector projects included

Skill Acquisition Centres/Civic/Computer Centre and Markets while the Infrastructure projects

include Power/Electricity, Environment/Sanitation, Water and Road/Culverts. The high number

of projects implemented from the Social Services is a further indication for the quest by the

Gombe State to improve on the Human Development Index (HDI) of the state. The Human

Capita Development contributes immensely to economic and overall development of the people.

83

Table 4.18 Categorization of the Expenditures on Micro Projects into Main Sectors

Main Sector Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 499,208,397.66 76.42

Economic Sectors Projects 23,261,748.74 3.56

Infrastructure Sector Projects 130,737,840.26 20.02

Total 653,207,986.66 100

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.18 shows the categorization of the expenditures on the Gombe CPRP micro

projects into the three main sectors. Of the total resources expended on the micro projects, the

sum of N499,208,397.66 or 76.42 percent was spent on provision of social services related

micro projects while the economic sector projects took only N23,261.748.74 or 3.56 percent. The

share of expenditure on infrastructure sector micro projects amounted to N130,737,840.26

representing 20.02 percent. As depicted by the table, more funds were expended on the social

services sector projects than the economic and infrastructure sectors. The total expenditure

pattern correlated with the total number of projects in each group as in table 4.17 and even partly

related to mean costs of the social services projects represented by health sector projects mean

costs in table 4.16.

Table 4.19 Mean Expenditure on Micro Projects Categorized into Main Sectors

Main Sector Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 2,936,519.99 36.98

Economic Sectors Projects 2,584,638.75 32.54

Infrastructure Sector Projects 2,421,071.12 30.48

Total 7,942,229.86 100

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

84

The table 4.19 shows the mean expenditure on micro projects categorized into main

sectors namely the Social Service sector projects, Economic sector projects and Infrastructure

sector projects. The table shows that the most expensive micro projects are the ones implemented

under the Social Services sector which averaged N2,936,519.99 while the cheapest were the

projects of Infrastructure sector at a mean cost of N2,421,071.12. The mean cost of the

Economic sector projects as shown on the table amounts to N2,584,638.75. The mean cost of the

social services sector projects as well as the number of the projects executed in the sector may

have attributed to the more money expended on the sector as found in table 4.18. Also, the cost

of equipping and furnishing the social services micro projects could increase the unit costs of the

sector micro projects.

Table 4.20 Approve and Completed Micro Projects

Sub Sectors Total Micro

Projects

Approved

No. of Micro

Projects

Completed

Completion

Percentage

(%)

Education 133 133 100

Health 36 36 100

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 5 5 100

Water 30 30 100

Power (Electricity) 4 4 100

Environment (Sanitation) 1 1 100

Roads & Culverts 19 19 100

Markets 4 4 100

Others (Orphanage) 1 1 100

Total 233 233 100

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

85

The table 4.20 shows the sub-sectoral distribution of the approved and completed projects

in the Gombe State CPRP. The table showed that all the 233 micro projects approved for the

communities for implementation by the Gombe CPRP Agency were fully implemented. There is

no sector where a project is still ongoing. The researcher attempted to find out why the CPRP

was able to complete all the approved projects in the State. The result of the oral interview

conducted revealed that the decision to implement any project was taken by the communities in a

demand driven manner and the projects were bank rolled in three tranches in the ratio 40 : 30 :

30 with little demonstration of counterpart contribution by the beneficiary communities. The

counterpart contributions have been made easier for the communities by the monetization of the

in-kind contributions to cash.

Table 4.21 Distribution of Completed Micro Projects put into use

Sub Sectors No. of Micro

Projects

Completed

No. of Micro

Projects in

Use

Proportion

in Use in

Percent

(%)

Education 133 133 100

Health 36 35 97.22

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 5 5 100

Water 30 29 96.67

Power (Electricity) 4 4 100

Environment (Sanitation) 1 1 100

Roads & Culverts 19 18 94.74

Markets 4 4 100

Others (Orphanage) 1 1 100

Total 233 230 98.71

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.21 shows the number of micro projects put into use vis a vis the completed

projects. As the table portrayed, of the 233 micro projects completed by the Gombe State CPRP

86

Agency, 230 of them representing 98.71 percent have been put into use by the beneficiary

communities. The implication of this is 230 communities have accessed the various micro

projects implemented by the CPRP Agency to reduce the poverty of the rural people. From the

table, 1No. project each from the Health, Water and Roads/Culverts were not put into use

immediately. The researcher attempted to ascertain why a project which had been completed was

not put into use. The response from the respondents revealed that the delay in the use of the

Health project was occasioned by the delay of the Local Government Council to post or deploy

skilled staff to man the project. Although, the project has eventually become operational, it

however took more time than similar projects. Further revelation from the respondents in the oral

interview pointed to the fact that the Local Government was not carried along in the

implementation of the project and as a result, the required manpower plan for the Local

Government did not accommodate the community health project. This of course is a serious

challenge for communities which are very remote and require some kind of inducements to

attract staff to go on posting to such areas. On the issue of the Water project, the researcher was

informed that initially when the borehole was drilled as the installation of the overhead tanks and

reticulation to some points, the water was running and that after a while, the water seized. This

problem is associated with the water level which is also common in other parts of Nigeria and

not necessarily the failure of the CPRP. The road project was a bridge and it was washed away

not long after it was completed when a serious down poor led to the overflowing of a nearby

river which broke down the bridge.

87

Table 4.22 Abandoned or Uncompleted CPRP Projects

Sub-Sectors Total Micro

Projects

Approved

No. of Micro

Projects

Abandoned or

Uncompleted

Percentage

(%)

Education 133 0 0

Health 36 0 0

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 5 0 0

Water 30 0 0

Power (Electricity) 4 0 0

Environment (Sanitation) 1 0 0

Roads & Culverts 19 0 0

Markets 4 0 0

Others (Orphanage) 1 0 0

Total 233 0 0

Source: Computed from Gombe State and NPC CPRP documents

Table 4.22 shows the uncompleted or abandoned projects in the Gombe State CPRP. The

above table depicted that there is no micro project that was approved for implementation that has

been stalled or abandoned in Gombe State. All the 233 approved micro projects have been

completed. The projects are being used by the beneficiary communities to alleviate whatever

type of poverty that was identified by the community. That there is no abandoned project also

shows the efficacy of the CPRP strategy in tackling poverty in Nigeria. The researcher however

sought opinion of some beneficiary why the projects were not abandoned. The result of the oral

interview also attributed it to regular release of funds by the CPRP Agency, commitment by the

PIC members and the transparent management of resources by both the PIC members and

Gombe CPRP staff. They also confirmed that training received by the PIC members helped the

community in the implementation process.

88

4.3 Data Presentation and Analysis for Osun State

Table 4.23 Funding of Osun State CPRP

Source Amount (N) Percentage (%)

African Development Bank (ADB) 738,928,801.01 92.85

Osun State Government 52,059,942.75 6.54

Miscellaneous Income 4,845,246.52 0.61

Total 795,833,990.28 100

Source: Compiled from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.23 above shows the sources of funds for Osun State Community based

Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP). The total funds accessed for financing of the activities of

CPRP in Osun State amounted to N795,833,990.28. This is N204,166,009.72 or 20.42 percent

less than one billion naira mark. Of the total funds mobilized, the African Development Bank

(ADB) alone provided the sum of N738,928,801.01 or 92.85 percent, while the Osun State

Government provided the sum of N52,059,942.75 or 6.54 percent. The miscellaneous sources

which comprised interest payments and other charges amounted to N4,845,246.52 or 0.61

percent. The researcher also attempted to find out why the counterpart contribution from

beneficiary communities of the micro projects/sub projects which originally as clearly stated in

the project document were to contribute equivalent 10 percent of the project cost as counterpart

contribution in cash or in kind. The oral interview conducted among the staff of the Osun State

CPRP Agency disclosed that the contributions by the beneficiary communities are not part of

disbursements made by the State CPRP Agency and therefore not an ADB component of funds.

The responses also confirmed that community contributions are paid directly by the Project

Implementing Committee (PIC) into the community project account which is managed directly

89

by the community, thus alluding to the demand driven qualities of the project. Similarly, the

share of the contribution by the ADB – 92.85 percent justifies the ascribing of the project as

ADB – Assisted Project. The oral interview also revealed that the management of the project

funds directly by the beneficiary communities is an inbuilt plan to help in the building of the

capacity of the rural communities to be able to handle the implementation of the micro

projects/sub projects at the community level.

Table 4.24 Utilization of Funds

Activity Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Expenditure on Goods 9,237,715.00 1.16

Expenditure on Services 26,976,243.00 3.40

Micro Projects/Sub Projects 627,692,525.48 79.03

Operating Costs 130,290,560.04 16.41

Total Expenditure 794,197,043.52 100

Note: Unspent Balance = N1,636,946.76

Source: Compiled from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.24 shows the utilization of the mobilized funds by the Osun State Social Fund

Agency – the CPRP. The Osun State CPRP sent a total of N794,197,043.52 out of the total

mobilized funds of N795,833,990.28 with an unspent balance of N1,636,946.76 or 0.21 percent.

As depicted from the table, the funds were expended on procurement of goods, services,

implementation of micro projects/sub projects at the community levels and operating costs. The

share of the expenditures on goods is 1.16 percent or N9,237,715.00 while that on services

(including training/workshops) amounted to N26,976,243.00 or 3.40 percent. The expenditures

on micro projects and operating costs amounts respectively to N627,692,525.48 or 79.03 percent

90

and N130,290,560.04 or 16.41 percent. As with the case of international best practices, the tabled

exhibited some credible performance. The operating costs component of expenditure is 16.41

percent which is 3.59 percent less than the internationally recommended figure of 20% of total

project cost. The oral interview conducted by the researcher regarding the payment of salaries of

staff revealed that salaries and wages as well as other sundry expenditures benefited from the

operating costs components. The highest proportion of the expenditure was on the

implementation of micro projects/sub projects and this also reveals some prudence on the side of

the Agency in the management of the project funds. On the curiosity of the researcher regarding

the unspent balance while other communities could have used it for any project, it was disclosed

that the money could not be used to fund any activity at that time because it was against the rule

to continue spending if the project implementation has been closed. This thus implied that the

communities or the Agency cannot access the fund after project has closed.

Table 4.25 Implementation of Micro Projects/Sub-Projects

Sub-Sectors No. of Micro Projects

Implemented

Percentage

(%)

Education 48 21.43

Health 17 7.59

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 8 3.57

Water 72 32.14

Power (Electricity) 44 19.64

Environment (Sanitation) 1 0.45

Roads & Culverts 15 6.70

Markets 13 5.80

Others (Cassava Storage/Processing skill Unit) 6 2.68

Total 224 100

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

91

The table 4.25 table showed the sectoral implementation of the micro projects/sub

projects in Osun State. As depicted on the table, the State implemented a total of 224 micro

projects/sub projects with the total amount of N627,692,525.48 as indicated in table 4.24. The

Water sub sector had the highest number of micro projects with a total of 72 projects

representing 32.14 percent. The next projects demanded in the State are the Education and

Power/Electricity sector projects with total of 48 projects representing 21.43 and 44 projects

representing 19.64 percent respectively. The Health sector projects executed were 17

representing 7.59 percent while Road projects were 15 representing 6.70 percent, Market

projects were 13 representing 5.80 percent, Skills acquisition projects were 8 representing 3.57

percent while the Cassava storage/processing skill units had 6 projects representing 2.68 percent.

The least sector project demanded in Osun State was the Environment/Sanitation sub sector with

only 1No. project representing 0.45 percent. As usual, the researcher attempted to find out the

preference for water micro projects in Osun State. The oral interview with some respondents in

the beneficiary communities revealed that most of the remote communities actually lacked

portable water and that probably may have led to the high demand for water in the state.

Similarly, some respondents from the visited communities which implemented education

projects informed the researcher in an oral interview that they want to decongest the classroom

and improve the quality of education of their children hence their preference for education

projects.

92

Table 4.26 Total Expenditure on Sub Sectors

Sub-Sectors Amount (N) Percentage

(%)

Education 137,305,059.43 21.87

Health 50,404,475.24 8.03

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 28,707,838.06 4.57

Water 154,999,998.10 24.69

Power (Electricity) 143,788,610.50 22.91

Environment (Sanitation) 7,763,855.00 1.24

Roads & Culverts 43,949,445.05 7.01

Markets 42,323,244.10 6.74

Others (Cassava Storage/Processing skill Unit) 18,450,000.00 2.94

Total 627,692,525.48 100

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.26 shows total expenditure on micro projects for each sub sectors for Osun

State. As depicted on the table, total amount of money expended on implementation of micro

projects/sub projects in Osun State amounted to N627,692,525.48. This is made up of the total

expenditure on Education amounting N137,305,059.43 representing 26.87 percent, Health

projects amounting N50,404,475.24 representing 8.03 percent, Rural roads projects amounting

N43,949,445.05 representing 7.01 percent, Water micro projects amounting to N154,999,998.10

representing 24.69 percent, Power/Electricity projects amounting N143,788,610.50 representing

22.91 percent, Skills Acquisition/Civic/Computer centre micro projects amounting

N28,707,838.06 representing 4.57 percent. The expenditure on Market and Cassava

Storage/Processing Skill unit amounted to N42,323,244.10 or 6.74 percent and N18,450,000.00

93

or 2.74 percent respectively. The least expenditure is on Environment/Sanitation with the total

amount of N7,763,855.00 representing 1.24 percent of the total expenditures on micro projects.

The researcher equally attempted to find out the amount contributed by the communities for each

sub sector of the project with a view to ascertaining the real cost to them. The oral interview

conducted on the respondents however revealed that the contributions by the communities were

either in cash or kind and expended by the community directly without it being remitted to the

CPRP Agency. The amounts shown on the table is the share of the contributions by the ADB and

State Government counterpart contributions. The Education, Water and Power/Electricity sub

sectors alone consumed a total of 69.47 percent of the total expenditure. The researcher was

curious regarding the issue of gender in implementing projects. The respondents at one of the

cassava storage/processing skill unit revealed that the project was designed to empower women

and that since the project was put into use, it has been spinning money for women. Again, this

affirmed the CPRP as a good strategy for poverty reduction by enhancing the income earning

capacity of the rural women of the affected communities.

Table 4.27 Mean Cost of Micro Projects in each Sub-Sectors

Sub-Sectors Amount (N) Percentage

(%)

Education 2,860,522.07 8.98

Health 2,964,969.13 9.31

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 3,588,479.76 11.26

Water 2,152,777.75 6.76

Power (Electricity) 3,267,922.97 10.25

Environment (Sanitation) 7,763,855.00 24.37

Roads & Culverts 2,929,963.00 9.20

Markets 3,255,634.16 10.22

Others (Cassava Storage/Processing skill Unit) 3,075,000.00 9.65

Total 31,859,123.84 100

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

94

The table 4.27 shows the mean cost of implementing the micro projects/sub projects in

each of the sub sectors in osun State. The average cost of the micro projects in Osun State is

N2,802,198.77. From the table, the least cost sub sector micro projects are those of the Water

micro projects with a mean cost of N2,152,777.75, Education projects with a mean cost of

N2,860,522.07, Roads projects with a mean cost of N2,929,963.00 and Health with a mean cost

of N2,964,969.13. The most expensive projects are the micro projects implemented under the

Environment/Sanitation with a mean cost of N7,763,855.00, Skills Acquisition/Civic/Computer

Centre with a mean cost of N3,588,479.76, Power/Electricity with a mean cost of

N3,267,922.97, Markets projects with a mean cost of N3,255,634.16 and the Cassava Storage

and Processing with a mean cost of N3,075,000.00 The researcher attempted to find out the

justification for implementation of just 1No. Environment/Sanitation project which gulped as

much as more than thrice the cost of the least mean cost project – Water. The oral interview

conducted on the respondents revealed that erosion menace grounded the economic life of the

people and the implementation of the project was a choice for economic rescue.

Table 4.28 Categorization of the Implementation of Micro Projects into Main Sectors

Main Sector No. of Micro Projects

Implemented

Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 65 29.02

Economic Sectors Projects 27 12.05

Infrastructure Sector Projects 132 58.93

Total 224 100

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.28 shows the categorization of the implementation of micro projects in Osun

State into main sectors. In line with the National Planning Commission (NPC) the researcher

95

grouped the CPRP micro projects into three main sectors namely Social Service sector projects,

Economic Sector Projects and Infrastructure Sector projects. From the table, of the 224 micro

projects implemented at Osun State, 65 of them representing 29.02 percent was implemented

from the Social Services while 27 or 12.05 percent and 132 or 58.93 percent were from the

Economic and Infrastructure sectors respectively. The Osun State from the table have preference

for the Infrastructure sector projects which include Power/Electricity, Water,

Environment/Sanitation and Roads projects than the Economic and Social Service sector

projects. The Economic sector projects included Skill Acquisition Centres/Civic/Computer

Centre, Cassava Storage/Processing Skill Unit and Markets while the Social Service projects

include Education and Health. The high number of projects implemented from the Infrastructure

sectors is an indication of the area of challenge facing the Osun State. Beside the general

deterioration of infrastructure in Nigeria, Osun State is among the new generation rural states

grappling with renewed vigour for rapid infrastructural development.

Table 4.29 Categorization of the Expenditures on Micro Projects into Main Sectors

Main Sector Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 187,709,534.67 29.91

Economic Sectors Projects 86,459,244.10 13.77

Infrastructure Sector Projects 353,523,746.71 56.32

Total 627,692,525.48 100

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.29 shows the categorization of the expenditures on the Osun CPRP micro

projects into the three main sectors. Of the total resources expended on the micro projects, the

sum of N187,709,534.67 or 29.91 percent was spent on provision of social services related

micro projects while the economic sector projects shared N86,459.244.10 or 13.77 percent. The

96

share of expenditure on infrastructure sector micro projects amounted to N353,523,746.71

representing 56.32 percent. As depicted by the table, more funds were expended on the

Infrastructure sector projects than the economic and Social Services sectors put together. The

total expenditure pattern also correlated with the preference sector of the State as obtainable in

the total number of projects in each group as in table 4.28.

Table 4.30 Mean Expenditure on Micro Projects Categorized into Main Sectors

Main Sector Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 2,887,838.99 32.94

Economic Sectors Projects 3,202,194.23 36.52

Infrastructure Sector Projects 2,678,210.20 30.54

Total 8,768,243.42 100

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.30 shows the mean expenditure on micro projects categorized into main

sectors namely the Social Service sector projects, Economic sector projects and Infrastructure

sector projects. The table shows that the most expensive micro projects are the ones implemented

under the Economic sector which averaged N3,202,194.23 while the cheapest were the projects

of Infrastructure sector at a mean cost of N2,678,210.20. The mean cost of the Social service

sector projects as shown on the table amounts to N2,887,838.99. The cost of equipping the

economic projects may have suggested to the high mean cost of the sector.

97

Table 4.31 Approved and Completed Micro Projects by Osun CPRP

Sub Sectors Total Micro

Projects

Approved

No. of Micro

Projects

Completed

Completion

Percentage

(%)

Education 48 48 100

Health 17 17 100

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 8 8 100

Water 72 72 100

Power (Electricity) 44 44 100

Environment (Sanitation) 1 1 100

Roads & Culverts 15 15 100

Markets 13 13 100

Others (Cassava Storage/Processing skill

Unit)

6 6 100

Total 224 224 100

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.31 shows the sub sectoral distribution of the approved and completed projects

in the Osun State CPRP. The table showed that all the 244 micro projects approved for the

communities for implementation by the Osun CPRP Agency were fully implemented. There is

no sector where a project is still ongoing. The researcher attempted to find out why the CPRP

was able to complete all the approved projects in the State. The result of the oral interview

conducted revealed that the Communities unanimously decided to implement their projects in a

demand driven manner. The approved projects were funded adequately after appropriate desk

and field appraisals in three tranches in the ratio 40 : 30 : 30 with counterpart contribution by the

98

beneficiary communities. The counterpart contributions have been made easier for the

communities by the monetization of the in-kind contributions to cash.

Table 4.32 Distribution of Completed Micro Projects put into use

Sub Sectors No. of Micro

Projects

Completed

No. of Micro

Projects in

Use

Proportion

in Use in

Percent

(%)

Education 48 48 100

Health 17 17 100

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 8 8 100

Water 72 72 100

Power (Electricity) 44 44 100

Environment (Sanitation) 1 1 100

Roads & Culverts 15 15 100

Markets 13 13 100

Others (Cassava Storage/Processing skill

Unit)

6 6 100

Total 224 224 100

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.32 shows the number of micro projects put into use vis-a-vis the completed

projects. As the table portrayed, all the 224 micro projects completed by the Osun State CPRP

Agency have been put into use by the beneficiary communities. The implication of this is that

224 communities have accessed the various micro projects implemented by the CPRP Agency to

reduce the poverty of the rural people.

99

Table 4.33 Abandoned or Uncompleted CPRP Micro Projects/Sub-Projects

Sub-Sectors Total Micro

Projects

Approved

No. of Micro

Projects

Abandoned or

Uncompleted

Percentage

(%)

Education 48 0 0

Health 17 0 0

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 8 0 0

Water 72 0 0

Power (Electricity) 44 0 0

Environment (Sanitation) 1 0 0

Roads & Culverts 15 0 0

Markets 13 0 0

Others (Cassava Storage/Processing skill Unit)

6 0 0

Total 224 0 0

Source: Computed from Osun State and NPC CPRP documents

Table 4.22 shows the uncompleted or abandoned projects in the Osun State CPRP. The

above table depicted that there is no micro project that was approved for implementation that has

been stalled or abandoned in Osun State. All the 224 approved micro projects have been

completed. The projects are being used by the beneficiary communities to alleviate whatever

type of poverty that was identified by them. That there is no abandoned project in Osun state

equally indicates the efficacy of the CPRP strategy in tackling poverty in Nigeria. The researcher

however sought opinion of some beneficiary why the projects were not abandoned. The result of

the oral interview also attributed it to regular release of funds by the CPRP Agency, commitment

by the PIC members and the transparent management of resources by both the PIC members and

100

the Osun CPRP staff. The respondents also commended the Osun state government which

allowed the Agency free hand to operate. It was also confirmed that training received by the PIC

members equally helped the community in the implementation process.

4.4 Data Presentation and Analysis for Zamfara State

Table 4.34 Funding of Zamfara State CPRP

Source Amount (N) Percentage (%)

African Development Bank (ADB) 812,081,499.58 91.36

zamfara State Government 70,028,769.41 7.88

Miscellaneous Income 6,797,460.96 0.76

Total 888,907,728.95 100

Source: Compiled from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.34 shows the sources of funds for Zamfara State Community based Poverty

Reduction Project (CPRP). The total funds accessed for financing the activities of CPRP in

Zamfara State amounted to N888,907,728.95. This is N111,092,271.05 or 11.11 percent less than

one billion naira mark. Of the total funds mobilized, the African Development Bank (ADB)

alone provided the sum of N812,081,499.58 or 91.36 percent, while the Zamfara State

Government provided the sum of N70,028,769.41 or 7.88 percent. The miscellaneous sources

which comprised interest payments and other charges amounted to N6,797,460.96 or 0.76

percent. The researcher also attempted to find out why the counterpart contribution from

beneficiary communities of the micro projects/sub projects which originally as clearly stated in

the project document were to contribute equivalent 10 percent of the project cost as counterpart

contribution in cash or kind. The oral interview conducted among the staff of the Zamfara State

CPRP Agency disclosed that the contributions by the beneficiary communities are not part of

disbursements made by the State CPRP Agency and therefore not an ADB component of funds.

The responses also confirmed that community contributions are paid directly by the Project

101

Implementing Committee (PIC) into the community project account which is managed directly

by the community, thus alluding to the demand driven nature of the project. Similarly, the share

of the contribution by the ADB – 91.36 percent justifies the ascribing of the project as ADB –

Assisted Project. The oral interview also revealed that the management of the project funds

directly by the beneficiary communities is an inbuilt plan to help in the building of the capacity

of the rural communities to be able to handle the implementation of the micro projects/sub

projects at the community level.

Table 4.35 Utilization of Funds

Activity Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Fixed Asset 15,253,753.00 1.72

Training/Workshops 39,532,288.09 4.45

Micro Projects/Sub Projects 720,702,579.31 81.08

Operating Costs 113,419,108.55 12.75

Total Expenditure 888,907,728.95 100

Source: Compiled from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.35 shows the utilization of the mobilized funds by the Zamfara State Social

Fund Agency-the CPRP. As depicted from the table, the funds was expended on procurement of

fixed assets, training and workshops for Agency staff and Project Implementing Committee

members, implementation of micro projects/sub projects at the community levels and operating

costs. The share of the expenditures on fixed assets is 1.72 percent or N15,253,753.00 while that

on training/workshops amounted to N39,532,288.09 or 4.45 percent. The expenditures on micro

projects and operating costs amounts respectively to N720,702,579.31 or 81.08 percent and

N113,419,108.55 or 12.75 percent. Again, the performance of this table is very interesting and

102

worthy of note for project management. The operating or administrative costs of projects did not

exceed 20 percent of the total funds. This ceiling is the international best practice for project

management. In the case of the Zamfara State CPRP, this component took only 12.75 percent

which is very reasonable. In fact, all other costs components consisting of fixed assets,

training/workshop and the operating costs shared a total of 18.92 percent of the total

expenditure/fund. The oral interview also revealed that salaries and wages as well as other

sundry expenditures benefited from the operating costs components. The highest proportion of

the expenditure was on the implementation of micro projects/sub projects and this also reveals

some prudence on the side of the Agency in the management of the project funds.

Table 4.36 Implementation of Micro Projects/sub projects

Sub-Sectors No. of Micro Projects

Implemented

Percentage (%)

Education 166 65.10

Health 12 4.70

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 23 9.02

Water 28 10.98

Power (Electricity) 5 1.96

Environment (Sanitation) 12 4.70

Roads & Culverts 8 3.15

Markets 0 0.00

Others (Transport) 1 0.39

Total 255 100

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

103

The table 4.36 table showed the sectoral implementation of the micro projects/sub

projects by the Zamfara State CPRP. The table showed that a total of 255 micro projects/sub

projects were executed or implemented in Zamfara State with the total amount of

N720,702,579.31 as indicated in table 4.35. The Education sub sector had the highest number of

micro projects with a total of 166 projects representing 65.10 percent. This is more than half the

number of projects executed in the State. The next project in demand in the State is the Water

sector projects with a total of 28 projects representing 10.98 percent. The Skill Acquisition

projects executed were 23 representing 9.02 percent, while Health and Environment/Sanitation

projects were 12 projects each representing 4.70 percent respectively. The Road and

Power/Electricity projects were 8 and 5 projects representing 3.15 percent and 1.96 percent

respectively. As usual, the researcher attempted to find out the preference for Education micro

projects in Zamfara State. The oral interview conducted with some respondents in the beneficiary

communities revealed that most of the remote communities lacked education facilities. The

respondents informed the researcher too their schools classrooms are overcrowded with some

pupils or students seating on the floor to take their lessons. The researcher also observed that the

choice of Education projects more than the other sector projects was for the State to use the

opportunity created by the CPRP to increase opportunities for the state indigenes to earn more

education. It also revealed the growing concern for the Northern States being disadvantaged in

education. Thus, the CPRP is being used too by Zamfara State to address the challenge of

belonging to the so called educationally disadvantaged states. The table also showed the State

preference for Water and Skill Acquisition centres. The oral interview conducted by the

researcher also revealed that Water is of high necessity in the remote communities of Zamfara

State while the demand for Skill Acquisition centres was to help provide skills for the street

104

children popularly referred to as Almajeri in order to take them out of the streets. The objective,

to some extent is being achieved with 28 communities provided good sources of drinking water

and people acquiring skills at the Skill Acquisition centres.

Table 4.37 Total Expenditure on Sub Sectors

Sub-Sectors Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Education 458,630,120.42 63.64

Health 43,029,667.53 5.97

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 90,331,798.00 12.53

Water 59,525,073.00 8.26

Power (Electricity) 17,687,690.00 2.45

Environment (Sanitation) 17,835,727.30 2.47

Roads & Culverts 32,562,503.06 4.53

Markets 0.00 0.00

Others (Transport) 1,100,000.00 0.15

Total 720,702,579.31 100

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.37 shows total expenditure on micro projects for each sub sectors for Zamfara

State. As the table showed, total amount of money expended on implementation of micro

projects/sub projects in Zamfara State amounted to N720,702,579.31. This is made up of the

total expenditure on Education amounting N458,630,120.42 representing 63.64 percent, Health

projects amounting N43,029,667.53 representing 5.97 percent, Rural roads projects amounting

N32,562,503.06 representing 4.53 percent, Water micro projects amounting to N59,525,073.00

representing 8.26 percent, Power/Electricity projects amounting N17,687,690.00 representing

2.45 percent, Skills Acquisition/Civic/Computer centre micro projects amounting

105

N90,331,798.00 representing 12.53 percent and Environment/Sanitation with N17,835,727.30

representing 2.47 percent of the total expenditures on micro projects. The researcher similarly

attempted to find out the share of the community contributions on the micro projects of each sub

sector with a view to ascertaining the real cost to the communities. The oral interview conducted

on the respondents however revealed that the contributions by the communities were either in

cash or in kind and the communities were directly responsible and not the State CPRP Agency.

The total amount shown on the table is the share of the contributions by the ADB and Zamfara

State Government counterpart contributions. The very huge amount spent on the Education sub

sector which gulped more than half of the total expenditures is a proof and an indication of the

zamfara State people effort to climb the ladder to the educationally advantage states instead of

settling with the educationally disadvantaged state. Also, the expenditure on skill acquisition and

water projects revealed the need of the projects to improve the well being of the people.

Table 4.38 Mean Cost of Micro Projects in each Sub Sectors

Sub-Sectors Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Education 2,762,832.05 12.23

Health 3,585,805.63 15.87

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 3,927,469.48 17.38

Water 2,125,895.46 9.41

Power (Electricity) 3,537,538.00 15.65

Environment (Sanitation) 1,486,310.61 6.58

Roads & Culverts 4,070,312.88 18.01

Markets 0.00 0.00

Others (Transport) 1,100,000.00 4.87

Total 22,596,164.11 100

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

106

The table 4.38 shows the mean cost of implementing the micro projects/sub projects in

each of the sub sectors in Zamfara State. The average cost of the micro projects in Zamfara State

is N2,826,284.62. From the table, the least cost sub sector micro projects are the others

(Transport) with a mean cost of N1,100,000.00, Environment/Sanitation projects with a mean

costs of N1,486,310.61, Water projects with mean cost of N2,125,895.46 and Education projects

with a mean cost of N2,762,832.05. The most expensive projects are the micro projects

implemented under the Roads subsector with a mean cost of N4,070,312.88, Skills

Acquisition/Civic/Computer Centre with a mean cost of N3,927,469.48, Health projects with

mean cost of N3,585,805.63 and Power/Electricity with a mean cost of N3,537,538.00. The

researcher attempted to find out the justification for the high mean cost for road projects. The

oral interview conducted on the respondents revealed that the topography of the communities

involved is very poor and involved construction of culverts which escalated unit costs.

Table 4.39 Categorization of the Implementation of Micro Projects into Main Sectors

Main Sector No. of Micro Projects

Implemented

Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 178 69.80

Economic Sectors Projects 24 9.42

Infrastructure Sector Projects 53 20.78

Total 255 100

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.39 shows the categorization of the implementation of micro projects in

Zamfara State into main sectors. As with the National Planning Commission (NPC), the

researcher grouped the CPRP micro projects into three main sectors namely Social Service sector

projects, Economic Sector Projects and Infrastructure Sector projects. From the table, of the 255

107

micro projects implemented at the State, 178 of them representing 69.80 percent was

implemented from the Social Services while 24 or 9.42 percent and 53 or 20.73 percent were

from the Economic and Infrastructure sectors respectively. The Zamfara State as can be deduced

from the table had preference for the Social Service sector projects which include Education and

Health projects than the Economic and Infrastructure sector projects. The Economic sector

projects included Skill Acquisition Centres/Civic/Computer Centre and Markets while the

Infrastructure projects include Power/Electricity, Environment/Sanitation, Water and

Road/Culverts. The high number of projects implemented from the Social Services is an

indication of the efforts of Zamfara State to improve on the Human Development Index (HDI) of

the state. The performance on the infrastructure is to help advance the economic well being of

the people.

Table 4.40 Categorization of the Expenditures on Micro Projects into Main Sectors

Main Sector Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 501,659,787.95 69.61

Economic Sectors Projects 91,431,798.00 12.69

Infrastructure Sector Projects 127,610,993.36 17.70

Total 720,702,579.31 100

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.40 shows the categorization of the expenditures of the Zamfara State CPRP

micro projects into the three main sectors. Of the total resources expended on the micro projects,

the sum of N510,659,787.95 or 69.61 percent was spent on provision of social services related

micro projects while the economic sector projects had a total of N91,431.789.00 or 12.69

percent. The share of expenditure on infrastructure sector micro projects amounted to

N127,610,993.36 representing 17.70 percent. As depicted by the table, more funds were

108

expended on the social services sector projects than the economic and infrastructure sectors add

together. The total expenditure pattern correlated with the total number of projects in each group

as in table 4.39.

Table 4.41 Mean Expenditure on Micro Projects Categorized into Main Sectors

Main Sector Amount (N) Percentage (%)

Social Services Projects 2,818,313.41 31.19

Economic Sectors Projects 3,809,658.25 42.16

Infrastructure Sector Projects 2,407,754.59 26.65

Total 9,035,726.25 100

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.41 shows the mean expenditure on micro projects categorized into main

sectors namely the Social Service sector projects, Economic sector projects and Infrastructure

sector projects. The table shows that the most expensive micro projects are the ones implemented

under the Economic sector which averaged N3,809,658.25 while the cheapest were the projects

of Infrastructure sector at a mean cost of N2,407,754.59. The mean cost of the Social service

sector projects as shown on the table amounts to N2,818,313.41. The cost of equipping the

economic projects may have suggested to the high mean cost of the sector.

109

Table 4.42 Approved and Completed Micro Projects by Zamfara CPRP

Sub-Sectors Total Micro

Projects

Approved

No. of Micro

Projects

Completed

Completion

Percentage

(%)

Education 166 166 100

Health 12 12 100

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 23 23 100

Water 28 28 100

Power (Electricity) 5 5 100

Environment (Sanitation) 12 12 100

Roads & Culverts 8 8 100

Markets 0 0 NA

Others (Transport) 1 1 100

Total 255 255 100

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.42 shows the sub sectoral distribution of the approved and completed projects

in the Zamfara State CPRP. The table showed that all the 255 micro projects approved for the

communities for implementation by the Osun CPRP Agency were fully implemented. There is

no sector where a project is still ongoing. The researcher attempted to find out why the CPRP

was able to complete all the approved projects in the State. The result of the oral interview

conducted also revealed similar positions that the Communities selected their projects for

implementation in a demand driven manner. The approved projects were funded adequately after

appropriate desk and field appraisals in three tranches in the ratio 40 : 30 : 30 with counterpart

contribution by the beneficiary communities. The counterpart contributions have also been made

easier for the communities by the monetization of the contributions in kind to cash.

110

Table 4.43 Distribution of Completed Micro Projects in use

Sub-Sectors No. of Micro

Projects

Completed

No. of Micro

Projects in

Use

Proportion

in Use in

Percent

(%)

Education 166 165 99.40

Health 12 10 83.33

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 23 23 100

Water 28 27 96.43

Power (Electricity) 5 5 100

Environment (Sanitation) 12 12 100

Roads & Culverts 8 8 100

Markets 0 0 NA

Others (Transport) 1 1 100

Total 255 251 98.43

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

The table 4.43 shows the number of micro projects put into use vis-a-vis the completed

projects. As the table portrayed, of the 255 micro projects completed by the Zamfara State CPRP

Agency, 251 of them representing 98.43 percent have been put into use by the beneficiary

communities. The implication of this is that 251 communities in Zamfara State have accessed the

various micro projects implemented by the CPRP Agency to reduce the poverty of the rural

people. From the table No. 1 Education project, 2 Nos. from Health and 1 No. from Water

projects were not put into use immediately. The researcher attempted to ascertain why the

projects were not put into use after it had been completed. The response from the respondents

revealed that the delay in the use of the Health projects was occasioned by the delay of the Local

Government Council to deploy skilled manpower to the two projects. Although, the projects

have eventually become operational, it however took more time than similar projects. Further

revelation from the respondents in the oral interview pointed to the fact that the Local

111

Government was aware of the project but did not have the necessary skilled manpower at the

time of the completion. On the issue of the Water project, the researcher was informed that that

the tap became dry after it had served for sometimes. This problem is associated with the water

level which is also common in other parts of Nigeria and not necessarily the failure of the CPRP.

The plan is to drill the borehole at another site with government resources since the CPRP has

closed. The Education project was a school laboratory which was not put into use initially

because of lack of science teachers. The researcher was however informed that the School has

secured the services of Youth Corp members who now make use of the laboratory.

Table 4.44 Abandoned or Uncompleted CPRP Projects

Sub-Sectors Total Micro

Projects

Approved

No. of Micro

Projects

Abandoned or

Uncompleted

Percentage

(%)

Education 166 0 0

Health 12 0 0

Skill Acquisition/ Civic/Computer Centre 23 0 0

Water 28 0 0

Power (Electricity) 5 0 0

Environment (Sanitation) 12 0 0

Roads & Culverts 8 0 0

Markets 0 0 0

Others (Transport) 1 0 0

Total 255 0 0

Source: Computed from Zamfara State and NPC CPRP documents

112

Table 4.44 shows the uncompleted or abandoned projects in the Zamfara State CPRP.

The above table depicted that there is no micro project that was approved for implementation

that has been stalled or abandoned in Zamfara State. All the 255 approved micro projects have

been completed. The projects are being used by the beneficiary communities to alleviate

whatever type of poverty that was identified by them. That there is no abandoned project in

Zamafara state, again confirmed the efficacy of the CPRP strategy in tackling poverty in Nigeria.

The researcher also sought opinion of some beneficiary why the projects were not abandoned.

The result of the oral interview also attributed it to regular release of funds by the CPRP Agency,

commitment by the PIC members and the transparent management of resources by both the PIC

members and the Zamfara State CPRP staff.

Hypothesis One: Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) has not reduced poverty

rate in the states where it is piloted.

Hypothesis Two: Effective implementation strategies have not been adopted by Community-

Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in achieving its mandates in reducing poverty in the

states where it is piloted.

Hypothesis Three: Poor funding and unintended beneficiaries due to corruption are key problems

affecting the CPRP programmes in the states where it is piloted.

Test of Hypotheses

The researcher made some assumptions in the stating of the hypotheses for this study.

These assumptions will now be subjected to chi-square test. The result of the test is expected to

further certify the analysis carried out in the previous section and affirm the findings. Three

hypotheses were formulated by the researcher for the study. These hypotheses will be tested

113

using 5% level of significance to ascertain their validity or otherwise. The chi-square formula is

stated thus:

Chi-Square:

X2 = ∑ Oij − Eij Eji Where Oij = number observed in the ith row and jth column

Eij = number expected in the cell under the null hypothesis. This is obtained with the formula: Eij = Ai x Bj

N Where Ai = Marginal row total

Bj = Marginal column total

N = Total number of observations

For the chi-square, we make use of the degree of freedom (df) and the df is obtained with the

formula: df = (r – 1)(c-1) where r = the number of rows and c = number of columns.

Restatement of Hypotheses

The four hypotheses earlier formulated for the study is stated as follows:

� Hypothesis One: Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) has not reduced

poverty rate in the states where it is piloted.

� Hypothesis Two: Effective implementation strategies have not been adopted by

Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in achieving its mandates in

reducing poverty in the states where it is piloted.

� Hypothesis Three: Poor funding and unintended beneficiaries due to corruption are key

problems affecting the CPRP programmes in the states where it is piloted.

114

Decision Rule

The decision rule is thus: When the calculated value is greater than the critical value i.e

the table value, we reject the hypothesis and accept the hypothesis if otherwise at 5% or 0.05

level of significance.

Research Hypothesis One

Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) has not reduced poverty rate in the states

where it is piloted. In order to test the hypothesis, we combined the analysis of tables 4.3, 4.14,

4.25 and 4.36.

Table 4.45

Implemented Micro Projects by all ADB States

States Edu Health Skills Water Power Env Roads Mkts Others Total

Edo 27 15 49 52 10 1 0 6 0 160

Gombe 133 36 5 30 4 1 19 4 1 233

Osun 48 17 8 72 44 1 15 13 6 224

Zamfara 166 12 23 28 5 12 8 0 1 255

Total 374 80 85 182 63 15 42 23 8 872

Source: Field Work, 2012.

Computation of the expected (e)

e1 = 374x160 = 68.62 872

e2 = 80x160 = 14.68 872

e3 = 85x160 = 15.60 872

e4 = 182x160 = 33.39 872

115

e5 = 63x160 = 11.56 872

e6 = 15x160 = 2.75 872

e7 = 42x160 = 7.71 872

e8 = 23x160 = 4.22 872

e9 = 8x160 = 1.47 872

e10 = 374x233 = 99.93 872

e11 = 80x233 = 21.38 872

e12 = 85x233 = 22.71 872

e13 = 182x233 = 48.63 872

e14 = 63x233 = 16.83 872

e15 = 15x233 = 4.01 872

e16 = 42x233 = 11.22 872

e17 = 23x233 = 6.14 872

e18 = 8x233 = 2.14 872

e19 = 374x224 = 96.07 872

e20 = 80x224 = 20.55 872

e21 = 85x224 = 21.83 872

116

e22 = 182x224 = 46.75 872

e23 = 63x224 = 16.18 872

e24 = 15x224 = 3.85 872

e25 = 42x224 = 10.79 872

e26 = 23x224 = 5.91 872

e27 = 8x224 = 2.05 872

e28 = 374x255 = 109.37 872

e29 = 80x255 = 23.39 872

e30 = 85x255 = 24.86 872

e31 = 182x255 = 53.22 872

e32 = 63x255 = 18.42 872

e33 = 15x255 = 4.39 872

e34 = 42x255 = 12.28 872

e35 = 23x255 = 6.72 872

e36 = 8x255 = 2.34 872

117

Computation of the Chi-Square

o e o – e (o – e)2 (o – e)

2/e

27 68.62 -41.20 1696.44 62.87

15 14.68 0.32 0.102 0.01

49 15.60 33.40 1115.56 71.51

52 33.39 18.61 346.33 10.37

10 11.56 -1.56 2.43 0.21

1 2.75 -1.75 3.0625 1.11

0 7.71 -7.71 59.44 7.71

6 4.22 1.78 3.168 0.75

0 1.47 -1.47 2.1609 1.47

133 99.93 33.07 1093.62 10.94

36 21.38 14.62 213.74 10.00

5 22.71 -17.71 313.644 13.81

30 48.63 -18.63 347.077 7.14

4 16.83 -12.83 164.609 9.78

1 4.01 -3.01 9.06 2.26

19 11.22 7.78 60.53 5.39

4 6.14 -2.14 4.58 0.74

1 2.14 -1.14 1.2996 0.61

48 96.07 -48.07 2310.72 24.05

17 20.55 -3.55 12.6025 0.61

8 21.83 -13.83 191.2689 8.76

72 46.75 25.25 637.5625 13.64

44 16.18 27.82 773.9524 47.83

1 3.85 -2.85 8.1225 2.11

118

15 10.79 4.21 17.7241 1.64

13 5.91 7.09 50.2681 8.50

6 2.05 3.95 15.6025 7.61

166 109.37 56.63 3206.9569 29.32

12 23.39 -11.39 129.7321 5.55

23 24.86 -1.86 3.4596 0.14

28 53.22 -25.22 636.0484 11.95

5 18.42 -13.42 180.0946 9.77

12 4.39 7.61 57.9121 13.19

8 12.28 -4.28 18.3184 1.49

0 6.72 -6.72 45.1584 6.72

1 2.34 -1.34 1.7956 0.7673

Total X2 i.e chi-square calculated is 410.27 410.27

Source: Research Data 2012

The hypothesis shall be tested at 0.05 significant level to find out its correlation with the research

findings. The critical value using the degree of freedom (r – 1)(c – 1) where r which is the

number of row is 4 and c which is the number of column is 9. Thus, the degree of freedom (df)

will be (4 – 1)(9 -1) which is 3x8 = 24. Thus, X2 critical value using the table of sampling

distribution, chi-square for 24 df at 0.05 significant level is 36.415.

Decision Rule: Reject hypothesis if the chi-square calculated is greater than the chi-square

critical value and do not reject if otherwise.

Conclusion:

From the result of the calculation, the value of calculated chi-square (X2) is greater than

the chi-square (X2) critical value. We therefore reject and accept the hypothetical statement that

the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) has not reduced poverty rate in the

119

states where it is piloted. Judging from the poverty profiles in Nigeria, Edo, Zamfara, Gombe,

and Osun states still have high poverty indices based on human development, unemployment

rate, healthcare, infrastructures, etc. It is the opinion of this study that CPRP has recorded partial

success in reduction of poverty considering the recent statistics released by the Federal Bureau of

Statistics that Nigeria’s poverty rate increased despite the effort by the government. This attracts

questions in the implementation of the programmes, who actually benefit from the programmes

(the societal elites or the those within the poverty line?), achievements and failures of these

programmes, etc.

Research Hypothesis Two

Effective implementation strategies have not been adopted by Community-Based Poverty

Reduction Project (CPRP) in achieving its mandates in reducing poverty in the states where it is

piloted.

We will test this hypothesis using the combination of the following tables 4.6, 4.17, 4.28 and

4.39

Table 4.46 Sectoral Implementation of Micro Projects by the four ADB States

States Social Services

Sector

Economic

Sector

Infrastructure

Sector

Total

Edo 42 55 63 160

Gombe 170 9 54 233

Osun 65 27 132 224

Zamfara 178 24 53 255

Total 455 115 302 872

Source: Research Data 2012

Computation of the expected (e)

e1 = 455x160 = 83.49 872

e2 = 115x160 = 21.10 872

120

e3 = 302x160 = 55.41 872

e4 = 455x233 = 121.58 872

e5 = 115x233 = 30.73 872

e6 = 302x233 = 80.69 872

e7 = 455x224 = 116.88 872

e8 = 115x224 = 29.54 872

e9 = 302x224 = 77.58 872

e10 = 455x255 = 133.06 872

e11 = 115x255 = 33.63 872

e12 = 302x255 = 88.31 872

Computation of the Chi-Square

o e o – e (o – e)2 (o – e)

2/e

42 83.49 -41.49 1721.42 20.62

55 21.10 33.90 1149.21 20.89

63 55.41 7.59 57.6081 1.04

170 121.58 48.42 2344.496 19.28

9 30.73 -21.73 472.1929 15.36

54 80.69 -26.69 712.3561 8.83

121

65 116.88 -51.88 2691.153 23.03

27 29.54 -2.54 6.4516 0.22

132 77.58 54.42 2961.5364 38.17

178 133.06 44.94 2019.6036 15.18

24 33.63 -9.63 92.7369 2.76

53 88.31 -35.31 1246.7691 14.12

Total X2 i.e chi-square calculated is 179.50 179.50

Source: Research Data 2012

We obtain the chi square (X2) critical value using the degree of freedom (r – 1)(c – 1)

where r which is the number of row is 4 and c which is the number of column is 3. Thus, the

degree of freedom (df) will be (4 – 1)(3 -1) which is 3x2 = 6. Thus, X2 critical value using the

table of sampling distribution, chi-square for 6 df at 0.05 significant level is 12.592.

Decision Rule: Reject the hypothesis if the chi-square calculated is greater than the chi-square

critical value and do not reject the hypothesis if otherwise.

Conclusion

From the result of the calculation, the value of calculated chi-square (X2) is greater than the chi-

square (X2) critical value. We therefore accept the hypothetical statement that effective

implementation strategies have not been adopted by Community-Based Poverty Reduction

Project (CPRP) in achieving its mandates in reducing poverty in the states where it is piloted.

Research findings showed that the implementation strategies are not grassroots based and the

coordination of projects as well as funding were not efficient. This finding is truth because

sectoral coverage of CPRP micro projects/sub projects has not enhances the outreach and

122

efficacy of the CPRP model of poverty reduction. Analytically, the implementation of CPRP

micro projects covered the critical sectors of the Nigeria economy namely the social services,

economic and infrastructure. The UN Human Development Index ranked Nigeria as number 158.

If the CPRP model is adopted by legislating on it, the likelihood that the human capital

development for Nigeria would be fast tracked is but this has not materialized. Also, the

importance of the other two sectors to national development cannot be overemphasized. This

explains the why the present Nigeria government considered it necessary to appoint a

coordinating Minister for the Economy in the person of Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and

continually emphasizing development of critical infrastructure. However, the spillover effects of

sectoral development needed to speed up the standards of livings are not well harnessed in the

socio-economic projects of the CPRP.

Research Hypothesis Three

Poor funding and unintended beneficiaries due to corruption are key problems affecting the

CPRP programmes in the states where it is piloted.

In order to test the hypothesis, we shall combine the analysis of tables 4.10, 4.21, 4.32 and 4.43.

Table 4.47

Completed Micro Projects put into use by all the four ADB States

States Edu Health Skills Water Power Env Roads Mkts Others Total

Edo 27 15 49 52 10 1 0 6 0 160

Gombe 133 35 5 29 4 1 18 4 1 230

Osun 48 17 8 72 44 1 15 13 6 224

Zamfara 165 10 23 27 5 12 8 0 1 251

Total 373 77 85 180 63 15 41 23 8 865

Source: Research Data 2012

123

Computation of the expected (e)

e1 = 373x160 = 68.99 865

e2 = 77x160 = 14.24 865

e3 = 85x160 = 15.72 865

e4 = 180x160 = 33.29 865

e5 = 63x160 = 11.65 865

e6 = 15x160 = 2.77 865

e7 = 41x160 = 7.58 865

e8 = 23x160 = 4.25 865

e9 = 8x160 = 1.48 865

e10 = 373x230 = 99.18 865

e11 = 77x230 = 20.47 865

e12 = 85x230 = 22.60 865

e13 = 180x230 = 47.86 865

e14 = 63x230 = 16.75 865

e15 = 15x230 = 3.99 865

e16 = 41x230 = 10.90 865

e17 = 23x230 = 6.11 865

124

e18 = 8x230 = 2.13 865

e19 = 373x224 = 96.59 865

e20 = 77x224 = 19.94 865

e21 = 85x224 = 22.01 865

e22 = 180x224 = 46.61 865

e23 = 63x224 = 16.31 865

e24 = 15x224 = 3.88 865

e25 = 41x224 = 10.61 865

e26 = 23x224 = 5.96 865

e27 = 8x224 = 2.07 865

e28 = 373x251 = 108.23 865

e29 = 77x251 = 22.34 865

e30 = 85x251 = 24.66 865

e31 = 180x251 = 52.23 865

e32 = 63x251 = 18.28 865

e33 = 15x251 = 4.35 865

e34 = 41x251 = 11.90 865

125

e35 = 23x251 = 6.67 865

e36 = 8x251 = 2.32 865

Computation of the Chi-Square

o e o – e (o – e)2 (o – e)

2/e

27 68.99 -41.99 1763.16 25.56

15 14.24 0.76 0.5776 0.04

49 15.72 33.28 1107.5584 70.45

52 33.29 18.71 350.0641 10.51

10 11.65 -1.65 2.7225 0.23

1 2.77 -1.77 3.1329 1.13

0 7.58 -7.58 57.4564 7.58

6 4.25 1.75 3.0625 0.72

0 1.48 -1.48 2.1904 1.48

133 99.18 33.82 1143.7924 11.53

35 20.47 14.53 211.1209 10.31

5 22.60 -17.60 309.76 13.71

29 47.86 -18.86 355.6996 7.43

4 16.75 -12.75 162.5625 9.70

1 3.99 -2.99 8.9401 2.24

18 10.90 7.10 50.41 4.62

4 6.11 -2.11 4.4521 0.73

1 2.13 -1.13 1.2769 0.60

48 96.59 -48.59 2360.9881 24.44

17 19.94 -2.94 8.6436 0.43

8 22.01 -14.01 196.2801 8.92

126

72 46.61 25.39 644.6521 13.83

44 16.31 27.69 766.7361 47.01

., 3.88 -2.88 8.2944 2.14

15 10.61 4.39 19.2721 1.82

13 5.96 7.04 49.5616 8/31

6 2.07 3.93 15.4449 7.46

165 108.23 56.77 3222.8329 29.78

10 22.34 -12.34 152.2756 6.82

23 24.66 -1.66 2.7556 0.11

27 52.23 -25.23 636.5529 25.81

5 18.28 -13.28 176.3584 9.65

12 4.35 7.65 58.5225 13.45

8 11.90 -3.90 15.21 1.28

0 6.67 -6.67 44.4889 6.67

1 2.32 -1.32 1.7424 0.75

Total X2 i.e chi-square calculated is 387.25 387.25

Source: Research Data 2012

We obtain the chi square (X2) critical value using the degree of freedom (r – 1)(c – 1)

where r which is the number of row is 4 and c which is the number of column is 9. Thus, the

degree of freedom (df) will be (4 – 1)(9 -1) which is 3x8 = 24. Thus, X2 critical value using the

table of sampling distribution, chi-square for 24 df at 0.05 significant level is 36.415

Decision Rule: Reject hypothesis if the chi-square calculated is greater than the chi-square

critical value and do not reject if otherwise.

127

Conclusion:

From the result of the calculation, the value of calculated chi-square (X2) is greater than

the chi-square (X2) critical value. We therefore reject and accept the hypothetical statement that

poor funding and unintended beneficiaries due to corruption are key problems affecting the

CPRP programmes in the states where it is piloted. Based on the findings of the study especially

from the oral interviews, the researcher found out most projects were allocated and executed

based on political sentiments and not necessarily on the need for poverty reduction. Though

these projects have the tendencies to reduce poverty level of the implementing states but the

issue of actually serving the people was poor as most projects are still fully completed and as a

matter of fact, they still do not serve the purpose in savaging the effects of poverty in the states.

The major reason of most the respondents interviewed by the researcher was mainly on poor or

inadequate funding of projects by the stakeholders (i.e. the federal and state governments as well

as donor agency ADB). This really affected the human and material resources needed to make

the implementation of projects a success.

This study also found out that delay or lack of posting of skilled staff to completed CPRP

projects by the state governments or the Local Government Council did affect the smooth

implementation of the CPRP micro projects/sub projects. The result reinforced the concern

raised by some of the respondents that they were unable to commence immediate use of their

project because they were either waiting for the commissioning of the project by the State

Governor/ high government functionary or as a result of lack of operational manpower. It is

however observed that this kind of delay was common to all the four states except that it was

pronounced in Gombe and Zamfara where some of the Local Government did not cooperate very

well at first. All the projects have eventually been put into use thereby improving the living

conditions of the poor as stated in the objective of the CPRP.

128

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

The research work attempted to study the implementation of poverty reduction strategies in

Nigeria with a particular interest on the implementation of the Community based Poverty

Reduction Project (CPRP). The CPRP is a Community Driven Development (CDD) approach

implemented through social actions and by Social Fund Agencies. This approach to development

had been implemented successfully in Botswana, Malawi, Egypt, China, etc. In order to share

from their experiences, the Nigeria Government piloted the CPRP strategy in 12 states of the

federation. The first 6 states namely Abia, Cross River, Ekiti, Kogi, Yobe and Kebbi were on the

phase 1 of the project and received assistance from the World Bank. The second 6 states

popularly referred to as phase 2 states were made up of Ebonyi, Kwara, Edo, Gombe, Osun and

Zamfara. The World Bank supported two states (Ebonyi and Kwara) in the phase 2 while, the

African Development Bank (ADB) assisted the implementation in the remaining 4 states (Edo,

Gombe, Osun and Zamfara) popularly referred to as ADB-States. The focus of the study is on the

implementation of the CPRP project in the ADB assisted states. In the past, the Government of

Nigeria had adopted different strategies among which were Operation Feed the Nation, DFFRI,

Green Revolution, People’s Bank etc. to address the issue of poverty reduction. In all these

efforts, the desired results were not achieved. However, the CPRP in its case seeks to reduce

poverty using the strategy of making social and economic infrastructure available to the poor.

Thus, the objectives of the CPRP include:

� Promote and strengthen poverty reduction in Nigeria through investments in community

based projects;

129

� Improve the living conditions of the poor through targeted, cost effective, demand driven

and promptly delivered programmes;

� Enhance the capacity of the poor by increasing their participation in decision making and

mobilizing their talents for community development projects; and

� Promote a new approach to development that empowers communities to drive the

process.

In order to achieve these objectives, the government of Nigeria piloted the Community based

Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) model in the ADB States (Edo, Gombe, Osun and Zamfara)

by the act of the State Houses of Assemblies. The act was to enable the agencies operate

independently without undue interference from the state executives. Each agency is headed by a

General Manager with supports from Project Officers and Assistants, Project Accountants and

Accounts Assistants, among others. The recruitment of the staff was conducted for each state

competitively and independent of the states by the National Planning Commission (NPC) in

collaboration with the African Development Bank (ADB). The ADB provided the fund for the

implementation of the project with a counterpart contribution by the State Governments. Each

community executing a micro project was required to provide an equivalent 10% of the total

cost of the project in the form of counterpart contribution in cash or in kind. This requirement

was not only for participatory purposes but also for the communities themselves to own the

project. Therefore, the broad objective of the study is to critically assess the implementation of

the Community based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) as a strategy for reducing poverty in

Nigeria with a specific objective to determine the extent to which the Community based Poverty

Reduction Project (CPRP) has effected poverty reduction in the four states where the African

Development Bank (ADB) funded their CPRP activities and coordinated by the National

130

Planning Commission (NPC); investigate the efficacy or otherwise of the Community based

Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) model in reducing poverty in Nigeria; ascertain the

desirability or otherwise of replicating the CPRP model in all the states of the federation and the

Federal Capital Territory (FCT); identify peculiar challenges/problems associated and unique to

the implementation of the Community based Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in the states

funded by the African Development Bank (ADB); and make recommendations for strengthening

and sustainability of the CPRP programme thereby enhancing its effectiveness in reducing rural

poverty in Nigeria.

The research work then delved into the views, opinions, and ideas of scholars regarding

poverty reduction/alleviation with a view to presenting a general and holistic picture of the

subject matter. Because of the nature of the implementation of CPRP activities and other

poverty reduction programmes in Nigeria, the research work inclined to the elites’ theory-which

tends to postulates that the public policies and programmes are manipulated by the elites to

satisfy their interests. Therefore, the major thrust of the elites theory is that the socio-economic

gains of public policies and programmes are seized by the elites class to set the societal status

quo. On the methodology, the research work made use of mostly secondary data for analysis and

the result of oral interview for crosschecking for confirmation or otherwise. The use of simple

average, percentages and chi-square were also adopted in analyzing the data collected from the

secondary sources.

Having carried out the detailed study of the implementation of the Community based

Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP) in the four African Development Bank (ADB) assisted states

(Edo, Gombe, Osun and Zamfara), the study came up with the following findings:

131

• The implementation of the CPRP in the states has fast tracked the provision of micro

projects especially the social service sector goods (education and health) to the rural and

remote communities. Within the short timeframe of the piloting of the project, over 800

communities had been provided with either a school or health facilities with millions of

individuals benefiting from it.

• The time frame for starting and completing a micro project by any community had been

within three months. Only very few projects had lasted beyond three months but not up to

six months.

• The implementation of the CPRP did not create room for any project to be abandoned.

First, appraisal of the micro projects is carried out by the state CPRP Agency to ensure

that the benefiting community had the capacity to undertake such project and thereafter

funds are provided in three tranches in the ratio of 40 : 30 : 30 to complete the project

within the estimated time frame.

• Most rural communities had no capacity to manage the implementation of CPRP.

Because of this development, the CPRP made provision for capacity building, especially

of the people entrusted the implementation of the project (the Project Implementation

Committee (PIC) members) which are usually 10 people in number including women.

Although, most beneficiary communities PIC members had no requisite education, they

were sometimes trained in their local languages to understand project design and

implementation, monitoring of micro projects and financial management. Over 8,000

community PIC members have received such trainings thus constituting a plus to the

CPRP.

132

• Within the project implementation period, the four ADB states (Edo, Gombe, Osun and

Zamfara) have completed a total of 872 micro projects/sub projects in 872 communities

at a total cost of N2,652,521,721.45. This amount is more than what Nigeria politicians

stash away to foreign countries.

• The CPRP encouraged cost effectiveness. The overall mean cost of undertaking the

CPRP micro projects in the four states is N3,041,882.71. This mean cost have been

observed to be by far (30 – 40%) cheaper than the cost of implementing similar projects

by other conventional means like through the treasury or by contracting.

• On the average, it is pretty more expensive executing micro projects in Edo State than in

any of the remaining three states (Gombe, Osun and Zamfar). The average cost of the

micro projects executed in Edo State is N4,068,241.44 and it is 31.09% or N1,264,773.69

higher than that of Gombe State, 31.12% or N1,266,042.67 higher than Osun State and

30.53% or N1,241,856.82 higher than Zamfara State micro projects.

• The implementation of the CPRP micro projects by the four states exposed further the

peculiar differences of the Nigeria nation. The two Northern States (Gombe and Zamfara)

preference was in the Education sub sector projects while the two Southern States (Edo

and Osun) preference was in Water sub sector projects. This is a very unique divide.

• There is no imposition of projects on the communities in any form by either the State

CPRP Agency or the influential people from the communities. The communities decides

on projects to be implemented through a townhall meeting and women involvement in

arriving at a decision on what project is implemented is usually given a high priority by

the State CPRP Agency before it is approved for implementation.

133

• In over 800 communities where the CPRP micro projects were implemented in the four

ADB states, there has been no evidence or cases of fraud at the community level. The

funds provided for the communities had been judiciously applied on the project by the

community members.

• The implementation of CPRP micro projects/sub projects in over 800 communities of the

four ADB states has increased the access of the communities to poverty reduction

projects.

• The CPRP micro projects implemented by the beneficiary communities cut across many

sectors. The opportunity provided by the CPRP by allowing the projects to be selected

from different or any sector by the communities reduced to the barest minimum the

problem of choice or selection and ability of communities to participate in the

programme. Thus, the sectoral coverage has enabled the communities accessed the

poverty reduction project.

• An international best practice has been achieved in the management of the CPRP in

Nigeria. In line with best practices, it is often recommended that not more than 20% of

project funds should be used for administration or operating costs. This costs component

which also included procurement of goods and services, training, payment of salaries etc

is only 18.11%. This is a high point of the CPRP and thus worthy of note or

commendable.

• Although the CPRP had made some significant contribution to in the poverty reduction

process in both in terms of number and spread of micro projects as well as the

accessibility by the poor, the role of the third-tier of government–the Local Government

134

which is closer to the rural people which the CPRP activities are actually meant for was

very negligible in the management and implementation process.

• Following the non involvement of the Local Governments administration in the CPRP

process, there have been some cases of delay in the posting of skilled staff to some very

remote communities to man the completed projects causing a delay in the use of the

micro project. This is experienced mostly in health related projects and few education

projects (primary education). This kind of thing happen because most often the Local

Government administration may not be aware of the project being implemented by the

community until after completion and probably commissioning and as result may not

have made adequate manpower plan for such a project.

• The staffing of State CPRP Agency is very thin. Traversing of the state by this few staff

for the purpose of supervision/monitoring of the implementation of the micro project is

overwhelming and may yield the desired result.

5.2 Conclusion

The research work studied the implementation of CPRP as a poverty reduction strategy in

four states of Nigeria – Edo, Gombe, Osun and Zamfara. It is noted that prior to the piloting of

CPRP, the government of Nigeria had adopted several poverty reduction strategies to tackle the

problem of rising poverty. Most of these strategies did not address the problem from the point of

view of accessibility. The strategy of addressing poverty reduction from the angle of accessibility

is the high point of CPRP. From the study, the CPRP had recorded very great positive

achievements in poverty reduction. Our findings showed that many rural communities in the four

states implemented different micro projects or sub projects and therefore have access to such

facility in record time. It is often said that time is money and the CPRP has played it out. The

135

communities which implemented water projects for instance would have reduced the time spent

in search of potable water and may have reduced water related diseases while the primary health

centres could have at the least a first aid treatment before they could be rushed to far away

hospitals for further treatment if the need arises.

Although the CPRP had made giant stride in addressing poverty reduction through

enhancing accessibility to the poor, the implementation nonetheless from the findings of the

study is also saddled with some challenges. These challenges include among others the level of

literacy amongst the rural/remote communities, terrible and difficult terrains, non involvement of

the Local Governments from the early stage of project identification through implementation

especially in high skilled related projects like those in the health sector, thin staffing of State

CPRP agencies, delay in posting of skilled staff to completed micro projects and delay in the use

of already completed projects because they were awaiting commissioning by Governor or a very

top State Government official.

These challenges not withstanding however, the researcher reasonably concludes that the

CPRP is a very unique approach to poverty reduction in relation to previous approaches by the

Government of Nigeria. Within a short period, micro projects have spread like wild fire. The

activities of CPRP has been able to touch the lives of over 800 communities and millions of

citizens across the four states because the choice of which micro project to implement is not

limited to any area/sector and communities had freedom to implement projects that they are in

need of and could alleviate their poverty. Also, the cost of implementing CPRP micro projects is

relatively cheap with no recorded fraud from any of the over 800 communities.

136

5.3 Recommendations

Consequent upon the findings of the study and given the peculiar nature of the CPRP

activities, the researcher wishes to make the following recommendations:

1. The Local Government administration should be involved in the implementation of

the CPRP programme. This would help that tier of government to be aware of the

choices of communities of some projects which may require Local Government

contributions in the form of deployment of skilled manpower for its

operationalization and plan in advance for it. The poor involvement of the local

governments tend to make the rural communities lose focus of the implementation of

development projects and programmes of the CPRP.

2. The sources of funding of CPRP activities should be expanded to include Local

Governments. The CPRP projects are micro in nature and are often within the

purview of the Local Government administration. The Nigerian Local Governments

today is riddled with corruption and there have not been any meaningful

achievements across boards from this tier of government. If the Local Governments

are made to contribute into CPRP funds through a compulsory deduction from the

source, more money would be made available for communities to implement more

projects and consequently improve the lives of the rural poor rather than leaving the

money in the hands of Local Government Chairmen for mere political patronage.

With less than N4.0 billion and for 5 years, over 800 communities have seen some

good things of life whereas more than that amount has been fraudulently taken away

by Governors whose cases have never ended in the Nigeria law courts.

137

3. The organization of community members as well as the number of micro projects

executed and their accessibility is a proof of itself (CPRP) as an undoubtedly a

vehicle for rapid rural development and social mobilization. The community

members came together without coercion and agreed on projects, rallied among them

to provide the necessary counterpart contribution in cash or kind. With this level of

cooperation exhibited by communities in the implementation of CPRP, the

Government could legislate on CPRP model to make it a means or strategy for rapid

rural development and community mobilization for national development.

4. Implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The CPRP model

has worked in prompted delivery of poverty reduction micro projects and should be

adopted in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. By taking this

step, the Nigerian Government would achieve the Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) targets on or before the 2015 target year without much ado.

5. Usually, there are some communities that are very rural and remote which may have

implemented some micro projects such as cottage hospital that may require

specialized and skillful manpower to man it. Such communities may have suffered

delay in getting these staff to be deployed to them to operationalize the project. In

cases of this nature, the researcher is inclined to recommend that such communities

should be encouraged from the onset of the project to volunteer some of their people

who are literate enough to undergo some basic trainings in such fields (eg traditional

birth attendants, rural nursing and drug dispensing etc). By this process, the door of

the project will be opened to patience for minor or first aid activities pending the

deployment of more sophisticated staff.

138

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Abayole, O. (1975) Integrated Economics: A study of Developing Economics. London: Addition-

Wesley publishers. Addison .D. (2002) Nigeria: Policy Options for Growth and Stability in a Challenging

Environment. Washington D.C: The World Bank, June 2002. Achebe, C. (1987) The Trouble with Nigeria. Enugu. Fourth Dimension. Achor, U.J (ed.) (2001) Managing the Environment in Popular Neighborhoods: A Manual for

Action. Ake, C. (1981) A Political Economy of Africa. Ibadan: Longman Nigeria Plc. Alapiki, H. (1995) Politics and Governance in Nigeria. Owerri: Corporate Impressions. Amuguo, A. (2003) The Poverty Problem: Will Nigerians Ever Get it Right. London:

Libertarian Variance. Anyanwu, J. C. et al (1997) The Structure of the Nigerian Economy (1968-1997). Onitsha: Jonee

Education Publishers. Black, J. and Champion, D. (1976) Methods and Issues in Social Research. New York: John

Wiley and Sons. Eboh E. C. and Ogbu .O. (2010) The Global Economic Crisis and Nigeria: Taking the Right

Lessons Avoiding the Wrong Lessons. Enugu: EL ‘Demak Publishers Ltd. Ekekwe, Eme (1986) Class and State in Nigeria. Lagos: Longman. Ekong, E. (1991) Rural Development and the Persistence of Poverty in Nigeria. Ugo: University

of Cross Rivers State Press. Egpe, B.O. (2000) “Implementation of Poverty Alleviation Programmes at the Grassroots” in

Uyo, O.E. and Oloro, J. (eds.) Local Government and Grassroots, Administration in

Nigeria. Calabar: University Pres. Fields, G. (1974) “Poverty Changes in Developing Countries” in Vander, H.R. and Anken, R.

(eds), Poverty Monitoring: An Internal Concern. New York: St. Martins Press.

139

Goode, W.J and Hart, P.K. (1952) Methods in Social Research. New York; McGraw Hill

Company. Haralambos, M. (1980) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London: University Tutorial Press. Ikelegbe, A.O. (1997) Public Policy Making and Analysis. Benin City: Uri Pushing Ltd. Kerlinger, F.N. (1973) Foundations of Behavioural Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston. Lipset, S. M. and Lenz, G.S. (1997) “Corruption, Culture and Markets”, in Harrison, E.I. and

Huntington, S.P. (eds), Culture Matters. New York: Basic Books. Nnadozie, U.O. (2004) The State, Civil Service and Underdevelopment in Nigeria An Analysis of

Public Policy Making Process in a Neo-Society. Enugu. Johnkens and Willy Publishing. Nwatu, R. (2006) Principles of Development Administration. Enugu Zik- Chuks Press. Obadan, M.I. (1997) “Analytical Framework for Poverty Reduction: Issues of Economic Growth

and other Strategies’ in Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria. Ibadan: The Nigerian Economic Society.

Obadan .M. I. (2003) “Poverty Reduction in Nigeria: The Way Forward” In

Obadan M.I, Fajingbesi A. A. and Uga B. O. (eds) Integrating Poverty Alleviation Strategies into Plans and Programmes in Nigeria, Ibadan, NCEMA.

Obadan M. I. (2003) National Development Planning and Budgeting in Nigeria:

Some Petinent Issues, Lagos, Broadway Press Ltd. Obasi, I. (2002) Politics and Globe Dictionary, Enugu: Jamoe Publishers. Obasi, I.N. (1999) Research Methodology in Political Science: Enugu: Academic Publishing

Company. Obikeze, D.S. (1990) Methods of Data Analysis in the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Enugu:

Auto- Century Publishing Company. Obuoforibo, G.I.J. (2002) “Local and Regional Government”. In Alagoa, E.J. and Derefaka, A

(eds) The Land and People of Rivers State. Port- Harcourt: Onyoma- Research Publishers.

Odo, M.O. (1992) Guide to Proposal Writing in Social and Behavioural Sciences; EnuguL

SNAAP Press Ltd.

140

Onah, F.O. (2006) Managing Public Programmes and Projects. Nsukka: Great AP Express Publishers Ltd.

Soludo, C.C. (2004) Nigeria: National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

(NEEDS). Abuja: National Planning Commission. Sen .A. K. (1999) Development as Freedom, New York: Anchor Books. Tendier, Judith (2000) “Why are Social Funds so Popular?” In Shahid Yusuf,

Weiping Wu and Simon, (ed.) The Changing Development Landscape, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Todd David (1995) Nigeria Participatory Poverty Assessment, ETC Foundation for the Oversea

Development Administration of the United Kingdom. United Kingdom Official Report.

Journals and Periodicals

Abdullahi .S. (2008) “The Hope for Nigeria: Vision 2020 Faces Difficult Challenges Ahead” In The Nigerian Economic Summit Group Economic

Indicators Journal, July – September 2008, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 40.

Booth .D. (ed) (2003) Are PRSPs Making a Difference? The African Experience. Development

Policy Review, Special Issue Vol. 21, No. 2. Ekhator, V.E. (2003) “Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Nigeria: An Over View of Effort by

the Past and Present Administration”. International Journal of Governance and

Development, March, 2003, Vol. I No. 1 p. 73. Jamal Vali and Weeks John (1988) The Vanishing Rural – Urban Gap in Sub-Saharan Africa,

International Labour Review, Vol. 127 No. 3, p. 278. Ogwumike F. O. (2000) “An Appraisal of Poverty Reduction Strategies in Nigeria”, Central

Bank of Nigeria Financial and Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 4. Oluba .M. (2008) “Reducing Poverty in Nigeria” In the Nigerian Economic

Summit Group Economic Indicators Journal, July – September 2008, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 54.

Ozughalu .M. (2008) “Poverty, Underdevelopment and Global Competitiveness: A Reflection on Nigeria’s Situations’ In the Nigerian Economic Summit Group Economic

Indicators Journal, July – September 2008, Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 48.

141

Newspapers

African, Pius (2007) “Social and Economic Cost of Corruption”, This-Day Wednesday, August

08, 2007, p. 28.

Anosike, K. (2001) “The Fictiveness of Poverty Alleviation” in the Guardian, Tuesday, February 20.

Seminar and Conference Papers

Aigbokhan .B.E. (2000) Poverty, Growth and Inequality in Nigeria, A Case Study, AERC Research Paper 102, Nairobi, November 2000.

Bernier, Rene (1994) Issues in the Financing and Delivering of Social Services in Nigeria: Lessons from other Federal Systems, Background Paper.

Canagarajan .S., Ngwafon .J. and Thomas .S. (1997) The Evolution of Poverty

and Welfare in Nigeria, 1985 – 1992. Policy Research Working Paper No. 1715. Washington D.C. The World Bank.

CDD – Centre for Democracy and Development (2003) “Communique of the CDD Poverty

Eradication Programme Consultative Forum held at Makurdi, Benue State, Nigeria on August 28, 2003

Dorosh, Paul (1994) Implication of Macroeconomic Policy for the Poor in Nigeria CGE

Analysis, Background Paper. Eboh .E. C. (2003) “The Poverty Reduction Process in Nigeria” Being Discussion Paper

presented at the Third Meeting of the African Learning Group on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper held at the Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 3 – 5 December, 2003.

Eboh .E. C., Amakom .U. and Oduh .M. (2006) “Budget and Public Expenditureacross Nigerian

States” BECANS Working Paper 3, Enugu; African Institute for Applied Economics.

Marrissey .O. (2001) “Pro-Poor Conditionality and Debt Relief in East Africa”

Being Paper Prepared for the WIDER Development Conference on Debt Relief, Helsinki, 17 – 18 August, 2001.

Okonjo-Iweala .N. (2003) “Nigeria Economic Challenges Going Forward” Being Nigerian

Economic Summit Group Public Lecture Delivered at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Lagos, July 15, 2003.

142

Okunmadewa F. and Williams .K. (2000) Nigeria: Voice of the Poor –Consultations with the Poor, Country Synthesis Report.

Soludo .C. C. (2006) “Law, Institutions and Nigeria’s Quest to Join the First World Economy”

Being a Lecture Delivered in Honour of the Retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Justice Kayode Eso, at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, July 25, 2006.

Government Documents

Enugu State Government (2004) State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

(SEEDS), Enugu State Government Press. Federal Government of Nigeria (2004) National Economic Empowerment and

Development Strategy (NEEDS), National Planning Commission, Abuja. Federal Government of Nigeria (2009) Nigeria Vision 20:2020, National Planning Commission,

Abuja. Federal Government of Nigeria (2001) Areas of International Assistance, National Poverty

Eradication Programme (NAPEP), Abuja. Federal Government of Nigeria (2003) Nigeria I-PRSP; Draft Interim Paper on

National Poverty Reduction Strategy, August 2003, Economic Policy Coordinating Committee (EPCC), Abuja.

Federal Government of Nigeria (2008) Community Economic Empowerment and Development

Strategy (CEEDS) Model for Nigeria, National Planning Commission, Abuja. Federal Government of Nigeria (2005) SEEDS Manual, From Strategy to Action, A Framework

Guide for Development Planning, National Planning Commission, Abuja. Federal Government of Nigeria (2005) Local Government Assessment Scorecard: Governance

Tool for Poverty Targeting – Lessons from the Local Empowerment and Environmental management Project (LEEMP), Federal Ministry of Environment, Housing and Urban Development, Abuja.

Federal Government of Nigeria (1994) Government Policies and Program to Reach the Poor,

Background paper, National Planning Commission, Abuja. Federal Government of Nigeria (2010) Nigeria 2010 Millennium Development Goals Report,

National Planning Commission, Abuja.

143

FOS – Federal Office of Statistics (1999) Poverty Profile for Nigeria: A Statistical Analysis of 1996/1997 National Consumer Survey (with Reference to 1980, 1985 and 1992 Surveys), Abuja.

Poverty Alleviation Programme Development Committee (PAPDC), June (1995), Report on

Consultative Surveys in Thirty-Six Communities. World Bank (1996) Report on Consultative Surveys in Thirty-Six Communities

Prepared for the Poverty Alleviation Programme Development Committee. World Bank (2002) A Source Book for Poverty Reduction Strategies Vol. 1: Core Techniques

and Cross Cutting Issues. Washington D.C. The World Bank. World Bank (1996) Nigeria: Poverty in the Midst of Plenty: The Challenge of

Growth with Inclusion, A World Bank Poverty Assessment, Washington D.C. The World Bank.

World Bank (1995) The Evolution of Poverty and Welfare in Nigeria, Washington .D.C. The

World Bank.