82 | P a g e
ASSESSMENT OF POVERTY ALLIEVIATION PROGRAMME IN NIGERIA. A STUDY OF KADUNA
STATE, NIGERIA
Idris Muhammed Ango1, Bala Aliyu
2, Salihu Ahmed
31,2,3
NIMS University Jaipur, Rajasthan. Shoba Nagar Delhi highway Jaipur (India)
ABSTRACT
This study tittle An Assessment of poverty alleviation programme in Kaduna State was intended to assess the impact, implementation and evaluating the effectiveness of NAPEP, especially in relation to the policy and strategy formulation, coordination, monitoring, control, funding and utilization of human and material resources. Two alternative hypotheses were formulated to guide the study, related literature on poverty reduction strategies and programme were intensively and extensively review and relevant information and ideas obtained for the research.
The study also utilized the survey research and questionnaires administered on 240 respondent’s interview primarily and secondary sources of data collected and analysis. It was found that NAPEP has not alleviated the rate of poverty in Kaduna State, and reason we adduced to underfunding of the programme, non – challenge attitude of political and public offices holders, shortage of manpower and corruption which is a general phenomenon in Nigeria. Based on the above findings and conclusion, NAPEP and other stake holders should develop a multidimensional approach towards poverty alleviation programme, efforts should be made by Government to increase funding and fight corruption.
Keywords: Poverty, Employment Generation, Vocational Training, Enterprise Promotion And Development, Micro- Credit Finances, Kaduna- Nigeria.
I INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Poverty connote many adversities which manifest in different ways. Hunger, illiteracy, helplessness up all manifestations of poverty. Poor clothing, poor housing, poor nutrition and poor environmental sanitation are associated with poverty. Poverty brings failures in life, inferiority complex and withdrawal tendency from ones mates and former associate. Poverty may be of an individual or of an entire society. When it grips an individual or a few persons in a society, the causes could be attributed to their personal idiosyncrasies and solution could be found within the range of opportunities open to the individual concern. However, when it affects a very large proportion of the population, as it is the case in Nigeria today, it is a structural problem which could no longer be traced to individuals but to the socio- economic and political realities of the macro society.
83 | P a g e Poverty has been variously defined in view of people’s perspectives and modes of measurable. Encarta. Year Book (2006) define it as a condition of having insufficient resources or income to meet basic human needs such as adequate nutritious food, clothing, shelter, clean water and health services. It is about powerlessness – lack of access to and control over resources necessary for one’s livelihood and development, the lack of economic and political strength to compete with other interest groups for a better shares of scarce resources and benefits and the inability to influence decision – making affecting one’s life. (National Bureau of Statics, 2007).
According to Aliyu (2003) approaches to globalization from another perspective entirely though he agreed that it puts developing economics particularly in a disadvantage economics disposition. Nigeria shall remain at the receiving end of globalization. According to National economics employment development strategy (NEEDS 2004 33; 35) the strategy of various administration to poverty appear to have been largely adhoc and uncoordinated programme. Such as community Bank, family support programme, the National directorate of employment ( N.D.E.) included the vocational skills development programme ( V. S. D) the special public works programme ( S.
P. W.) the small scale enterprises programme ( S. S. P) and the agricultural employment programme.
(Obadan, 2001) the NDE could be said to be poverty alleviation focus, it create jobs, enhance productivity and income earning potentials of the beneficiaries.
II PURPOSE OF THE RESARCH
To know the outcomes and to assess the poverty alleviation programme in Kaduna state.
OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH
1. The major objectives of the study are to see the impact of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) in Kaduna State.
2. The study intended to access the implementation of the programme in relation with its predetermining objectives of the poverty eradication in Kaduna State.
3. To identify the major problems facing the effective’s implementation of the programed and make suggestions on how to enhance the programed policy of government to completely eradicate in meeting the set objectives of the M.D.G’S 215 target.
III METHODOLOGY
Survey research was used for the assessment of poverty alleviation programmed in Kaduna State.
However, sample and sampling techniques were also used to select the two local government
Makarfi and Hunkuyi, 200 respondents were drawn from two wards and 300 hundred from three
wards were selected to serves as the sample size.
84 | P a g e
IV RESEARCH FINDINGS
The data provided was that most of the respondents are of the opinion that they have not benefited from the loans provided by NAPEP. The loans scheme is among the major activities of NAPEP that are geared toward eradication of poverty in Nigeria, because our potentials farmers and people engage in hand works are the beneficiaries of this loans and they constituted more than 80% of the nation’s population. This nation was supported by 87% of the respondents while 13% one benefited by form the loan.
Furthermore, the data portrays that most of the respondents are of the that they have not benefited from KEKE NAPEP projects which is one of the major activities of NAPEP that provided employment opportunities among youths in the country, but KEKE NAPEP is fraud and politics of politicians in government. When unemployment is on the increase poverty is also by its side. This was also supported by 75%, while 25% were beneficiaries which are just little percentage of the populace.
The data also indicated that most of the respondents are of the view that the
social welfare services scheme of NAPEP did not promoted any project that improve the well-being of people in Kaduna and this scheme is among the 10 wards major activities of NAPEP that are geared towards eradication of poverty in the country. However the findings shows that 93% agreed that they have not benefited from the resettlement of tailoring and raining programme which geared towards creating jobs opportunities for the unemployed youths while 7% believe to have been beneficiaries. Based on the information obtained from the questionnaire and interview the result showing that NAPEP as poverty reduction strategy has not succeeded in addressing every this issue in Kaduna and the country in general, because from the explanations the prgramme activities of NAPEP by the Local Government Coordinator which is clearly showing that NAPEP has only implemented less than 35% of its projects programmes, and even those executed were partially implemented as started by coordinator.
V DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The Neo classical economics, Clark (2002; 417) says tries to explain both wealth and poverty with the same theory and individualist paradigm wealth derives from productivity end its reward for effort “which poverty is due to the absence of productivity and the in ability or unwillingness to work hard and wait” the theory assuming – that the key determinants are individual characteristics and not social structures and institutions. This absolute society and the rich of any responsibility for creating poverty and having a small role in its alleviation.
The UN central for human settlement (HABITAT) state that “the great challenge will present itself in Africa and Asian, where an explosive demographic challenge is expected by 2015, 153 of the world 358 with more than one million in habitats will be in Asia and Africa. According to (satterwaite 2001) he acknowledge that the basic causes of poverty for a rural house hold that relies on small hand holding and that suffers from a low crop yield productivity is not the same as for an urban house hold in a squatter shack community whose main income earners has lost a job
85 | P a g e due to recession or ill health or has suffered a drop in real income. Programme aims at reducing rural and urban poverty need to recognize these difference (satterwaite 2001).
5.1 Cumulative impact of poverty are as follows:
1. Lack of access to credit for business or house loan 2. Lack of employment, in ability to have a regular job 3. Lack of regular income and social security
4. Poor nutrition, poor health, poor education 5. Sense of security, isolation and disempowerment
6. Inability to afford adequate housing, tenure security, eviction, loss of small savings invested in housing 7. Unhygienic living Conditions, low quality public services.
Satterwaite “has argued that the scale and depth of absolute poverty in developing countries” have long been underestimated for two reasons
The first is that estimates are based only on income levels and take no account of other deprivations such as very poor housing conditions and lack of basic services.
The second is that the “ income based poverty line” used to make this estimates are set too low in relation to the cost at basic needs in most urban centuries ( satterwaite 2003; 75).
From the forgoing aim and objectives of poverty alleviation programed by different Nigerian governments, it could be noted that they are not at variance with each other. As noted earlier, the major emphasis of all are on job creation, wealth creation and empowerment of the masses through education, vocational training and political participation.
The first problem lies in the lack of continuity of the programs. Every government in power wants to be credited with success. Therefore, once a government has come and gone, all her programs will be stop or terminated by the successor no matter how good they are.
VI CONCLUSION
The NAPEP program awareness level and her programs are quite okay, the implementation level remains very minimal. Only few persons are beneficiaries from the activities and a lot of people are dissatisfied with the manner and way NAPEP conducts her poverty eradication programs. NAPEP, just like previous poverty eradication programs in Nigeria, has encountered a lot of avoidable problems in the course of policy designing and implementation. This to show that these problems are not inherent but could be avoided.
Notwithstanding the problems encountered by previous poverty eradication programs in Nigeria, and problems currently battling with the perfect implementation of National Poverty Eradication Programs (NAPEP), the latter still has impacted significantly on the economic development of Kaduna community.
86 | P a g e
REFERENCES
1.
Ahiyo A. (2002): Re-Structuring of poverty alleviation Activities of The Federal of Nigeria.
2.
Augustine Gbosi and Philip C. Omoke (2004), the Nigerian Economy and Current Problems. Pack Publishers, Abakaliki, Ebonyi State.
3.
Ayodele, A. et al (2003), The Nigerian Economic Concepts and Techniques.General Iabour Organizations.
4.
NAPEP Today (2007), National Poverty Eradication Programme, Nigeria.
5.
Naraya D et al (2000), Voice of the poor crying out for Change. World Bank, New York.
6.
National Population Commission; Projected Population Abuja,(1999-2002).
7.
National Poverty Eradication Council (2000).
8.
National Poverty Eradication Programme, (2001); A Blueprint for the Schemes, Revised Edition.
9.
National Poverty Eradication Programme, Abuja.
10.
