OYEBAMIJI Community Based Poverty Reduction

8/6/2019 OYEBAMIJI Community Based Poverty Reduction

1/12

Journal of Education in Developing Areas (JED A) Vol. 19, No. 1.

COMMUNITY-BASED POVERTY REDUCTION APPROACH: AN INITIATIVE FOR

ALLEVIATING POVERTY BEYOND FASHIONABLE RHETORIC IN NIGERIA

BY

OYEBAMIJI, M.A. PhD

DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND NON-FORMAL EDUCATIONFACULTY OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT.

[email protected]

08033515091

Abstract

Poverty is a condition of deprivation and lack of basic needs of life. Governmentalefforts at alleviating poverty in Nigeria cannot be understated. Different programmeshave been initiated but failed due to the top-down nature of the strategies. Theinitiatives are either mismanaged or mired by unethical practices. This papertherefore presents a new initiative tagged Community-based Poverty ReductionProject (CPRP), as an alternative. This paper discussed the nature, content and

process of the CPRP and concluded that: to enable the new initiative to achieve itsobjectives, it behoves on the government to target poverty alleviation programmes onthe rural communities where poverty afflicts them most. It is therefore recommendedthat government should stamp out corruption, mismanagement, fraud andembezzlement of government resources by officials; carryout enlightenment campaignand promote self-help projects for the total alleviation of poverty in Nigeria.


2/12

March, 2011 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING AREAS (JEDA) VOL.19 (1).

w w w . j e d a - u n i p o r t . c o m Page 1

Introduction

The main concern of both development theorist and social scientists has been on

how to promote issues that border on the welfare of human beings. This concernstems from the fact that any theory that have little or no relevance to the living

standard of the people, their income, health, shelter, education and environment

does not worth wasting time and energy on. The scourge of poverty has ravaged

many of our people, especially those communities in the rural areas. In fact, the

living condition of an average Nigerian seems to be worsening in spite of the huge

petroleum resources put at over 2 million barrels per day.

A report by the World Bank (1996) opens with the disturbing words, Nigeria

presents a paradox. The country is rich but the people are poor. The proportion of

Nigerians on income of less than $1.00 per day was 70%. The per capita Gross

National Income (GNI) of Nigeria was $930 as at 2009 while that of neighbouring

Ghana was $2,190 and that of South Africa was $10.270 (United Nations

Population Fund, 2005), Microsoft Encarta, (2009). Attempts by government to

empower Nigerians so as to alleviate poverty have been demonstrated in a number

of programmes initiated. These includes the Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural

Infrastructure (DFFRI), launched in 1986; the National Directorate for Employment

(NDE) established in 1986; the Better Life Programme (BLP) in 1987; the Family

Support Programme (FSP) in 1994; and the Family Economic Advancement

Programme (FEAP) in 1997; the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP) which is anaspect of the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) established in 2000

(Garba 2006). To solve the problem of finance that has been a major constraint in

self development for many Nigerians, the Federal Government established special

banks. These include the Peoples Bank of Nigeria established in 1989 and

Community Bank in 1990. The expectations was that the banks and FEAP will

focus on provision of credit facilities for the development of cottage industries, while

NDE was to concentrate on training and subsequently, provision of loans to ensure

that those trained start their own business (Oyebamiji and Adekola, 2008)

These programmes were well intentioned, but often ended up being mired in

controversy from total mismanagement of funds and unethical practices. Also, the

poverty alleviation programmes that Nigerians have had dangled before their eyes,

since independence in 1960, have failed woefully or yielded very little fruit for many

reasons. Some of these reasons include according to Garba (2006) includes:

The programmes were mostly not designed to alleviate poverty They lacked clearly defined policy frameworks with proper guidelines for

poverty alleviation.

They suffered from political instability, interference, policy andmacroeconomic dislocations

They lacked continuity.


3/12



Theyre riddled with corruption, political deception, outright kleptomania anddistasteful looting.

This was why the programmes were unable to alleviate or reduce poverty among

Nigerians, because the approach adopted was top-down, bureaucratic and

bottle-necking. This paper therefore presents the community-based povertyreduction approach (which is bottom-up approach) as an alternative strategy.

Concept of Poverty

Poverty as a concept is difficult to define categorically. This is because it is a social,

cultural, political and economic construct. Its conception and articulation is

context specific and depends on both the mode of production and social

organization. Therefore, the concept of poverty is not fluid but it almost defies

simple definitional categorization.

Poverty according to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English

(2000) is a state of wants of the necessities of life. The conceptualization of poverty

from this perspective is economic. The Encarta Dictionary (2004) defines poverty as

a level of income below which somebody is considered to be living in poverty. It is

based on the price of basic necessities and is usually determined by a government.

United Nations Department of Public Information (1996) describes poverty as

having various manifestations which include: lack of income and productive

resources sufficient to ensure a sustainable livelihood; hunger and malnutrition; ill-

health; limited or lack of access to education; and other basic services; increasingmorbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate housing;

unsafe environments; and social discrimination and exclusion. Poverty is also

characterised by lack of participation in decision making and in civil, social and

cultural life.

Yusuf (2000) sees poverty from absolute and relative points of view. To him,

absolute poverty has to do with the inability to provide ones material requirements,

defined in terms of a minimum subsistence level of income. Relative poverty views

poverty of each person in relation to other people in the community. This latter

concept relates to an index described as the national poverty line and for countries,

international poverty line. He therefore defines poverty summatively as the state of

being in which individuals and groups lack basic necessities of life and are less

privileged than other members of their societies.

Poverty therefore is a condition of deprivation and lack of basic needs of life

or when the supply of such needs is grossly inadequate. Those basic needs include:

food, water, clothing, housing, medical care, literacy and so on.

Measuring the Level of Poverty in Nigeria

Poverty is a multi-dimensional and multi-faceted phenomenon which may be

difficult to measure by just one index. Social scientists and statisticians have


4/12



therefore agreed to measure poverty by combined indices or composite indicators.

Such indices or yardsticks include: level of per capital income; percent of the people

that have access to clean water within 30 minutes; percent of people with electricity

lighting; literacy percent; percent of people with sanitary disposal, school

enrolment; percent of households that own different types of assets e.g. bicycles,motorcycles, press iron, radio, television, telephone, quality of child nutrition and

so on.

Oyediran (2005) identifies three anthropolometric indicators of growth:

stunting, wasting, and underweight can be identified as measures of poverty level

in our societies. Other indices used in measuring poverty level includes level of

reproductive health services, e.g. percent of live birth to total number of births;

percent of pre-natal attendance at hospital, ante-natal attendance and so on. In

fact, a number of indicators have now been devised to measure poverty level. One of

such innovative index is the percent of people that consider themselves poor ornot poor.

Based on combined indices outlined above, poverty level in Nigeria has been

measured and stood at 54.4% (Federal Office of Statistics, Dec. 2004). In each of

the six geographical zones of Nigeria, the levels of poverty are put as follows:

Table 1: The Level of Poverty in the Six Geographical Zones of Nigeria

Zones Poverty rate % Above poverty level %

North East 72.2 27.8

North West 71.2 28.8

North Central 67.0 33.0

South East 26.0 74.0

South West 43.0 57.0

South South 35.0 65.0

(Source: Federal Office of Statistics, 2004)

Poverty rate in the northern part of Nigeria is higher than that of the

southern part of Nigeria. This is why the poverty rate of the northern part of Nigeria

was put recently at 70.1% (N.T.A. 4th March, 2007). In a 174 country rating, Nigeria

is placed 151 in Human Development Index (HDI), 62 in Human Poverty Index (HPI)

among 85 countries, and 124 in Gender related Development Index (GDI) among

143 countries. These indicators are poor and over all Human Development

Countries (One World Guide, 2010). The table below shows the Human Poverty

Indicators for Nigeria.

Table 2: Human Poverty Indicators for Nigeria.


5/12



Human Poverty

Index.

(%)

Probability of not

surviving to age

40.

(%)

Adult Literacy

rate. (Ages 15 &

above).

( %)

People not using

an improved

water source.

(%)

Children under

weigh for age (%

under aged 5)

36.2 37.4 28.0 53 29

(Source: Human Development Report, 2009).

Causes of Poverty

The causes of poverty are many and varied; they range from individual, socio-

cultural to national and international dimensions. Any form of poverty can be

attributed to all these causes at the same time. Poverty can also be attributed to

the genetic makeup of the person. If the genes are weak, then the individual is not

really predisposed to being able to acquire skills that would enable him to competefavourably in the employment market. This view is problematic in that there could

be some individuals who are genetically weak, but given an improved and better

facilitated social environment, these so called weak individuals can be encouraged

to learn some skills that would enable them to live a productive life. The genes

argument according to Alock, (1993) ignores the aspect of nurture or the socio-

cultural environment in socialization. The genes argument has been closely

associated with the resignation of the poor to the culture of poverty. The

contention of the proponents of the culture of poverty being that the individuals

just become apathetic on the ground that they come from a poor family so there isnothing that they can do to improve their situation. They therefore results to what

is called fatalistic belief. (That their being poor is an act of God).

The causes of poverty include neglect of the people by the three tiers of

government, i.e. Federal, State and Local Governments; corruption in high and low

places, resulting in mismanagement and embezzlement of funds and resources

meant for the grassroots by various agencies; insensitivity to the plight of fellow

human beings resulting from greed and avarice and retrogressive cultural practices

e.g. wastages during burial of the dead and other moribund ceremonies.

Imoudu (2001) identifies problems associated with lack of access and

endowment as the major causes of the incidence, depth and severity of poverty in

Nigeria

Other factors listed are as identified by Garba (2006) includes:

Inadequate access to employment opportunities Inadequate physical assets, such as land and capital, and minimal access by

the poor to credit even on a small scale.

Inadequate access to the means of supporting rural development in poorregions.

Inadequate access to markets where the poor can sell goods and services.


6/12



Low endowment of human capital. Destruction of natural resources, leading to environmental degradation and

reduced productivity.

Inadequate access to assistance for those living at the margin and thosevictimized by transitory poverty.

Lack of inclusive participation; which is the failure to include the poor in theprocess of designing development programs.

Added to the above factors are:

Colonial and political factors; Economic factor; Biological/Health/Death factors; Natural Disasters; Governments insentivity/bad policy and poor policy;

Illiteracy/lack of Education.

With respect to education, it must be stated that the lower the level of

education the higher the incidence of poverty. Generally, however, the level of

poverty within different educational groups increased over the years. Studies have

established that households headed by those with no formal education had the

highest consistent contribution to total poverty in Nigeria. It has also been

established that poverty incidence, gap and severity seem to be positively related to

the size of households. The larger the size of the household, the more probable

incidence of poverty.

Efforts and Measures Directed at Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria

Poverty has been a longstanding issue of concern to policy makers in Nigeria.

Nigeria is endowed with an array of natural resources which most nations do not

have, still, Nigerians remain poor among the poorest in the world (Imoudu 2001).

Indeed, it is the consensus of researchers and policy makers that no other

development issues pose a fundamental challenge to Nigeria today than the

endemic state of poverty gripping most of the citizens. Poverty is now recognized as

the overarching enemy, which is to be confronted in the short run and defeated inthe long-run. There is the need for Nigerian government to pay more attention to

poverty alleviation among populace. This is the only way for Nigeria to emerge from

a struggling and lowly position of an underdeveloped country (151) and join the

ranks of newly industrialized nations emerging in Asia and Latin America,

(especially with her ambition of becoming one of the twenty biggest economy in the

world by the year 2020),

Governmental efforts and measures directed at alleviating poverty in Nigeria

can be classified into two broad categories namely:

(i) Direct impact efforts i.e. those efforts that are directed at increasing theincome of the poor people quickly, such as micro-credits, provision of


7/12



seedlings, crop varieties, provision of agricultural tractors and machineries;

provision of subsidized inputs such as fertilizers, chemicals. etc; provision of

infrastructures that have direct impact in improving the quality of lives of

people, especially in the rural areas, rural roads, electricity, motorized

boreholes, markets, and so on.(ii) Measures and efforts that do not have immediate direct impact on the poor,

but yield long term beneficial results to the poor, e.g. skills acquisition,

provision of educational facilities, primary health care facility, erosion

control, sanitation, portable clean drinkable water, etc.

Government has always been using conventional approach at alleviating

poverty in Nigeria at the various tiers (Federal, State and Local Governments). The

approach use to be in form of budgetary allocation and award of contracts, e.g.

contract on fertilizer distribution, contract for rural roads and so on. In the recent

past, Nigerian government has devised various schemes for poverty alleviation.Such schemes include Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution (GR),

Low Cost Housing, River Basin Development Authority, National Agricultural Land

Development Authority, Agricultural Development Programmes, Strategic Grains

Reserves Programme, Rural Electrification Scheme, Rural Banking Programme

Directorate for food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure, National Directorate of

Employment, Peoples Bank of Nigeria, Community Banks Programme, Family

Support Programme, Family Economic Advancement Programme, National Poverty

Eradication Programme, Youth Empowerment Scheme, Rural Infrastructure

Development Scheme and others earlier. Majority, if not all the schemes did notproduce the desired effects of getting people out of poverty.

Permit me to observe here that one of the causes of the failure of the schemes

is lack of involvement of the grassroots peoples in the planning, implementation,

monitoring and evaluation of the schemes. The operators adopt top-down

approach in planning and implementation, and do not empower the beneficiary

communities. The absence of grassroots participation especially in planning,

implementation and monitoring makes sustainability of the schemes a difficult

task. Poverty alleviation schemes in Nigeria often go into extinction immediately

the government that introduced such scheme gets out of power.

New Innovation to Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria.

The solution to the failure of poverty alleviation schemes in Nigeria is the adoption

of bottom-up strategy. This strategy will empower the beneficiary communities

maximally. This bottom-up approach has received the blessing of government

and organizations in and outside Nigeria. For instance, the Federal Government, in

collaboration with the World Bank and the African Development Bank came up

with a new strategy at alleviating poverty in Nigeria. It is named Community-Based

Poverty Reduction Project (CPRP). This strategy is bottom-up, demand driven and

capacity building scheme geared towards reducing poverty in Nigerias rural


8/12



communities and peril-urban areas.

The Objectives and Process Involved in Community-Based Poverty Reduction

Project in Nigeria

The operational modalities for achieving bottom-up community-based povertyalleviations long term objectives are as follows:

(a) Community Development Associations (CDAs) at the locality level wouldidentify, plan and implement as well as manage and maintain self-help

projects that will improve the living standard of the poor by providing them

with socio-economic infrastructures like: education, water and sanitation,

primary health care, rural electrification, feeder roads, skills acquisition

centre, rural markets, agricultural storage facilities and erosion control.

(b) Funds and technical assistance would be provided directly to CommunityDevelopment Associations, so as to increase management capacity, and

development of resources at community levels.

(c) Broad-based participation of the people in the development efforts to promotean all inclusive decision-making process.

(d) Beneficiaries to assume control and ownership of the project(s), enhance self-development efforts and process, in order to engender sustainability of

project benefits.

The primary beneficiaries of the Community-Based Poverty Reduction Projectscheme are organized poor communities in both urban and rural areas of Nigerian

states. Groups such as registered community development associations, youth

clubs, women groups, parent-teachers association, and old students association of

schools are eligible to act on behalf of communities. Individuals cannot present

themselves for CPRP support under this dispensation.

Participation by any interested communities or community development

associations in CPRP scheme begins with the following bottom-up process:

(i) Community members are expected to convene a meeting of the entirecommunities where the problems facing the communities will be discussed.

(ii) Form a new or re-organize an existing community based association (to bebroad base) and elect leaders democratically in a transparent manner.

(iii) Get the association registered with the local government council or theappropriate state or national agency.

(iv) Identify and list development needs that will improve the living standard ofthe people.

(v) All participating communities begins sensitization of its members in genuineparticipation and commitment by raising and contributing ten percent (10%)of the total cost of the identified project that will alleviate their poverty as

counterpart fund.


9/12



(vi) After raising the ten percent by the communities, the communities seek forassistance by collecting an application form from CPRP office in the state for

the ninety percent remaining for the implementation of the project.

Immediately the communities are able to provide the ten percent counterpartfund for a community based poverty reduction project, the state agency for CPRP

provide the ninety percent (90%) to the communities. It is not a loan, but

counterpart funding for a long term poverty alleviation process. Once the

programme is done, it is the duty of the communities to manage the project(s) for

the benefit of all and sundry in such communities.

Implications of the New Innovation to Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria

Given the complexities of the empowerment process as shown in the new strategy

(CPRP) and the nature of disadvantage and oppression at the community level, thedifficulties involved should not be underestimated. Indeed, we should not be

surprised by the slow pace of progress, that apparent successes in one location

may sometimes simply reflect displacement of difficulties to other areas that we

may need constantly to work in cycles of empowerment. We should not ignore a

wider understanding of the nature of power itself, how it is acquired how it is used,

and how it is sustained. With all these observed contradictions and pitfalls in the

empowerment process, the following implications must be properly taken care of for

the sustenance of the strategy:

(i) The need for continuous dialogue with community interest is very importantand strategic for effective bottom-up approach for poverty alleviation and

empowerment process.

(ii) The value of rational analysis of need, its nature, complexity and diversity asthe guiding influence on policy should not be underestimated.

(iii) The existence of strong-community-controlled institutions on bothgeographical and interest group basis cannot be underplayed.

(iv) There must be evidence that such institutions have real influence (thoughnot sovereignty) over the public policy agenda.

(v) There must be evidence of increased direct control of local resources andaffairs including community ownership of community assets including

premises, equipment and information.

(vi) There must be evidence that equity is a demonstrably central principle in thepolicy process at all levels.

(vii) There must be evidence that material gains are being achieved fordisadvantaged people.

(viii) There must be evidence that there is strong but accountable andrepresentative local leadership.

(ix) There must be evidence, corroborated by the views of the poor that principlesof equal opportunity are being upheld.

(x) There must be evidence of increasing decentralization and democratization of


10/12



services and resources allocation within the overall policy framework to

alleviate poverty.

(xi) Finally, there must be evidence of personal development of citizens measurednot only by increased levels of participation or achievement but also self-

esteem.

Conclusion

It has been shown in this paper that poverty is now been recognized as the

overarching enemy, which is to be confronted with double edge sword for Ikire and

Nigeria in general to become a developed and industrialized nation. Different efforts

have been used to alleviate poverty but failed because the approach was bottle-

necking, bureaucratic and top-down in nature. The bottom-up approach strategy

is now been adopted by Nigeria government to battle poverty to a standstill. The

approach embraces dialogue with community interest, rational analysis of needs,its nature, complexity and diversity which provide opportunities for member

communities to be part and parcel of the strategy adopted for poverty alleviation in

their communities.

Recommendations

Efforts at rescuing and liberating more and more people from poverty trap must

be a task that must be done in Nigeria. Based on the above, it is hereby

recommended that:

(1) Government programmes should target the rural sector for particularattention, as rural poverty afflicts most Nigerians in the grassroots.

(2) Corruption, mismanagement, fraud and embezzlement of resources bygovernment officials and agencies should be stamped out completely from

development strategies.

(3) Enlightenment campaign and awareness programmes should be extended tomore people at the grassroots.

(4) Self-help projects should be encouraged among the rural people for improvedstandard of living. Consequently, government should Endeavour to supportrural institutions, such as cooperatives and provide them with economic

support to enhance their income generating capacities necessary to improve

their functions.

References

Alock, P. (1993). Understanding Poverty. London: Macmillan Press.

Barr, A. (1995). Empowering Communities beyond Fashionable Rhetoric:

Some Reflections on Scottish Experience. Community DevelopmentJournal, 30(2):121-132.


11/12



Encarta Dictionary (2004). Computer Software Albuquerque: Microsoft

Corporation.

Federal Office of Statistics (2004). Levels of Poverty in the Six Geographical

Zones of Nigeria.

Garba, A (2006). Alleviating Poverty in Northern Nigeria. A paper presented at

the annual convention ofZumunta Association, U.S.A., Minneapolis, MN. 26

July.

Hornby, A.S. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English,

6th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Human Development Report (2009). The Human Development Index Going

beyond Income. Microsoft Corporation.

Imoudu, P.B. (2001). Enhancing National Unity through Conflict Management,

Poverty Alleviation and Gender Empowerment in Nigeria. A lead paper

presented at the National Conference organized by the National Association

for the Promotion of Arts and Social Sciences (NAPSASS)at the Federal

University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. 30th July.

National Television Authority (2007). Network Newsof 14th April.

One World Guides (2010). Nigeria Briefings Poverty, Food and Energy in a

Changing Climate. Microsoft Corporation.

Oyebamiji, M.A. & Adekola, G. (2008). Fundamentals of Community

Development in Nigeria, Port Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt

Press.

Oyediran, S.O. (2005). Reducing Poverty Level in our Community: The Way

Forward: An annual lecture of Ikire Patriotic Front held on the 19th ofNovember, at Ayedaade Grammar School Hall, Ikire, Osun State, Nigeria.

United Nations Department of Public Information (1996). Beijing Declaration

and Platform for Action, New York.

United Nations Population Fund (2005). State of the World Population.

Retrieved on May 15, 2006 from

http.//www.c.org/srop/2005/images/e.indicator 2.pdf.

The World Bank (1996). Nigeria Poverty in the Midst of Plenty: The

Challenges of Growth with Inclusion Report No. 14733, New York: The World


12/12



Bank.

Yusuf, N. (2000). Poverty and Nigerias Development: A Sociological Analysis.

African Journal of Development Studies. 2(1&2): 198-199.

Documents

OYEBAMIJI Community Based Poverty Reduction