scholarly works
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://repository.ui.edu.ng/handle/123456789/454
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item Income Polarisation and Poverty Among Rural Households in Nigeria(2013) Ogunyemi, O. I. O.Poverty in Nigeria has been on the increase with consequence for Income Polarisation (IP). The IP which is the sum effect of alienation and identification between two groups at polar ends of the income distribution could worsen poverty. Studies on income distribution and poverty have mostly focused on income inequality to the total neglect of IP. Therefore, the extent and pattern of IP and its relationship with poverty among rural households in Nigeria were investigated. Data covering households’ socio-economic characteristics and consumption expenditure were obtained from secondary sources through the National Consumer Survey of 1980, 1985, 1992, 1996 and National Living Standards Survey of 2004 conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics. As a result of data collection and cleaning with elimination of households with some missing values considered important for the study, samples of 4,685, 4,044, 5,712, 11,358 and 22,152 households with relevant variables: household’s consumption expenditure, occupation, gender, education, age, household size and marital status were used for the survey periods. Analysis was done for the six geopolitical zones of rural Nigeria. Data were analysed using Duclos-Esteban-Ray (DER) polarisation index, Foster–Greer–Thorbecke poverty index and Tobit regression at p=0.05. Mean per capita household expenditure at 1980 prices was lowest (N89.75 ± N60.31) in 1996 and highest (N1,124.78 ± N1,072.00) in 2004. The IP decreased between 1980 (0.2389) and 1985 (0.2111), increased in 1992 (0.2371), then decreased in 1996 (0.2189) and 2004 (0.1874). The IP was highest in the southsouth in 1980 (0.2551), 1985 (0.1991) and 1996 (0.2147). In 1992, the southeast had the highest (0.2373) while the southwest was highest (0.1851) in 2004. The IP was lowest in the northcentral in 1980 (0.2019) and 1985 (0.1753). The southwest (0.2119) and northwest (0.1885) had the least values in 1992 and 1996 respectively. In 2004, the southsouth had the least IP of 0.1757. Among farming households, IP was highest (0.2169) in 1980 and lowest (0.1792) in 1985. Non-farming households had highest IP (0.2115) in 1980 and lowest IP (0.1806) in 2004. Male IP (0.2411) was higher than that of female (0.1792) in 1980. Also in 1996, IP was higher for male (0.1958) than female (0.1890). Except in 1992 when IP for educated households was higher (0.2140) than that of non-educated (0.2120), the other periods had non- educated being more polarised. Non-wage employed had higher IP over the periods with 0.1833 than wage employed 0.1799 in 2004. Polarisation increased with poverty level at N714.80 poverty line. A unit increase in age, household size and poverty significantly increased IP by 0.01%, 0.01% and 0.73% respectively. However, years of education and being married significantly decreased IP by 0.01% and 0.27% respectively. Income polarisation reduced among households over the periods but higher in the southern geopolitical zones as well as among farming households. Income redistribution policy should be based on poverty reduction.Item Impact of Fadama- II Project on Income Inequality and Poverty Reduction of Rural Households in Nigeria(2012) Akinlade, R. J.Efforts to reduce rural inequality and poverty in Nigeria have no appreciable impact partly due to their supply-driven approach. In recent times emphasis is shifting to demand driven approach through Community Driven Development (CDD) projects with focus on bottom-up development. Fadama-II (2004 and 2009), one of the CDD projects invested mainly in agricultural assets to increase the income of the users. However, the impact of the project on Income Inequality (IE) and poverty has not been fully established. Therefore, the impact of Fadama-II on IE and poverty reduction of rural households in Nigeria was investigated. Secondary data collected by the International Food Policy Research Institute from twelve World Bank supported Fadama-II states in 2006/2007 farming year were used. These states lie in three agroecological zones; three in Humid Forest (HF), three in Moist Savanna (MS) and six in Dry Savanna (DS). A sample of 3,750 households comprising: Fadama-II Beneficiaries (FB)-34%; Fadama-II non-beneficiaries within Fadama Local Government Areas (LGAs)-33%; and Fadama-II non-beneficiaries outside Fadama LGAs-33% was used for the study. Information used was on socio-economic characteristics, major assets and major components of household income and expenditure. The data were analysed using propensity score matching, descriptive statistics, double difference estimator, Gini-coefficient, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke weighted poverty index, and Poverty Equivalent Growth Rate (PEGR) at p=0.05 There were 1738 households with similar characteristics across the strata. Mean age (42.7 ± 11.8years) and household size (9.0 ± 6.4) of FB were not significantly different from those of the non-beneficiaries. The Per Capita Expenditure (PCE) of FB before the project was N52,703.4 ± 91,730.3. Annual PCE increased by 13.8%, 17.1% and 29.1% for HF, MS and DS zones respectively. Income inequality of FB before the project was 0.547. Fadama- II decreased IE nationwide by 21.2% with female FB having higher reduction of 27.2% compared with male of 14.1%. Income inequality of FB engaged in Up- stream Farming Activities (UFA) decreased by 19.6%, while those in Down-stream Farming Activities (DFA) decreased by 10.1%. The IE reduced by 28.4%, 12.9% and 11.7% in HF, MS and DS respectively. At a poverty line of N35,299.0 per annum, 52.2% of FB were poor before the project. Poverty Incidence (PI) reduced by 34.0% for female FB compared with 7.8% for male. The poverty incidence of FB in UFA reduced by 14.2% compared with 7.1% for those in DFA. The PI reduced by 31.8%, 7.9% and 5.6% for HF, MS and DS zones respectively. The annual growth rate of PCE of 27.7% was less than the PEGR of 45.3% for FB nationwide. The PCE growth rate of 13.8%, 17.1% and 29.1% in HF, MS and DS respectively was less than their PEGR at 48.7%, 41.0%, and 39.3% respectively. Fadama-II significantly increased income and reduced both income inequality and poverty of beneficiaries especially among females across the three agroecological zones. The project benefited a larger percentage of the poor. Hence, Economic Community Driven Development projects should be encouraged to reduce income inequality and poverty in rural Nigeria.Item Economic Growth, Income Redistribution and Poverty Reduction in Rural Nigeria(2012) Adigun, G. T.The Nigerian economy over the past few years grew at one of the highest rates in Africa. Yet, this growth has not led to substantial reduction in inequality and poverty, particularly in the rural sector. This was partly attributed to redistributional problem of national wealth which has not been adequately investigated. Therefore, the study assessed the contribution of growth and wealth distribution to poverty reduction in rural Nigeria from 1996 to 2004. Data from the National Consumer Survey (NCS) of 1996 and National Living Standard Survey (NLSS) of 2004 sourced from the National Bureau of Statistics were used. The number of households sampled under the NCS and NLSS were 11,577 and 22,200 respectively. The rural household components of NCS and NLSS totaling 9377 and 14,515 respectively were used. Variables extracted for the study included demographic and socioeconomic characteristics as well as average household expenditure. The data were analysed using Gini, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke measures of poverty, the Shapley decomposition rule in co-operative game theory and Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique at p = 0.05. Rural household mean ages in 1996 and 2004 were 44.8 ±13.2 and 43.0 ±14.2 years respectively. Mean family size was 5.4 ± 3.7 in 1996 and 4.9 ± 2.9 in 2004. Gini coefficient and poverty incidence in 1996 were 48.0 and 69.2% compared to 46.0 and 65.1% in 2004 respectively. In 1996, the poverty gap and severity indices were 34.5 and 21.2% respectively while in 2004, the corresponding values were 27.6 and 14.9% respectively. Poverty severity was highest (61.8%) among Remittances Income Earners (RIE) and least (32.8%) among non – farm income earners in 2004. Highest variation (67.1%) in income was among RIE while the least (45.3%) was among agricultural income group. Both economic growth and income redistribution reduced poverty by 0.025 and 0.056% respectively. A 10% decrease in inequality resulted in 0.04 and 2.45% reduction in poverty in 1996 and 2004 respectively. Similarly, a 10% increase in growth in 1996 and 2004 reduced poverty in both periods by 0.02 and 0.23% respectively. Variations in income distribution within the two periods contributed 0.248 to total inequality compared with 0.362 between the two periods. Income distribution disparity within the two periods (0.245) contributed less to poverty than the variation between the two periods (2.934). A 10% increase in growth from 1996 to 2004 reduced poverty by 6.2% and decreased inequality by 3.4%. The respective key determinants of growth for both periods were age of household head (0.011, 0.199), housing (0.038, 0.032), education (0.129, 0.141) and hours worked (0.183×10-4, 0.002). Others were gender (- 0.117, -0.213) and household size (-0.044, -0.140). Economic growth and income redistribution generally ameliorated poverty between 1996 and 2004 in rural Nigeria and the growth facilitating factors comprised quality of housing, education, longer hours of work and being a middle aged household head. The effect of poverty was however more noticeable among remittances income earners.Item Income Diversification and Poverty Among Rural Farm Households in Southwest Nigeria(2011) Idowu, A. O.Rural development has been erroneously equated to agricultural development. The former works to diversify income through non-farm activities to complement proceeds of the latter. However, the actual role of non-farm income in poverty alleviation is not yet known among rural households. There is therefore the need to critically explore the roles of non-farm income diversification in rural poverty alleviation. The patterns and contributions of non-farm income diversification to poverty reduction among rural farm households in Southwest Nigeria were investigated. A multistage sampling technique was used to obtain data from rural farm households. Three states (Ekiti, Ogun and Osun) from the six south western states were randomly selected. Five agricultural zones were randomly selected from the three states based on probability proportionate to size. In each zone, four blocks and three cells per block were selected. Lastly, two farming communities per cell and four farming households per community were selected to make 480 farming households. Structured questionnaire was used to collect data on socio-economic characteristics, household assets, income generating activities, labour-use, income and expenditure. Descriptive statistics, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke poverty measures, Herfindal index, Tobit and Probit regression methods were employed for data analyses at p = 0.05. Mean age of household heads, household size and dependency ratio were 49.9 ± 0.6 years, 6.8 ± 0.1 and 0.7 ± 0.1, respectively. The mean year of schooling of household heads was 8.8 ± 0.2 and 83.7% of households were headed by male. The mean per capita income was N206.7 ± 160.3/day while the per capita cost of basic needs was N253.4 ± 28.6/day. The incidence, depth and severity of poverty were 76.4%, 32.9% and 17.3% respectively. Ninety four percent of the households derived their income from a diversified portfolio of livelihood activities, with non-farm activities accounting for 67.1% of the income. The non-farm activities included skilled (18.0%) and unskilled (22.9%) wage employment, self-employment (81.3%) and social and community service (8.8%). Self-employment was the largest non-farm income source contributing 42.1%. Involvement in non-farm labour activities was significantly higher among poor than non-poor farm households. The level of income diversification depicted by Herfindal index was 2.8 ± 0.04 and it was significantly higher among poor than non-poor farm households. The implicit wage rate of household labour use in farming activities (N1,773.4/manday) was significantly higher than in non-farm activities (N878.0/manday). Education (0.1) and electricity (0.5) significantly increased non-farm income diversification while distance to urban centre (-0.04), landholding (-0.6) and animal asset base (-0.2) significantly reduced non-farm income diversification. Participation in non-farm skilled (-0.1) and unskilled (-0.1) wage employments significantly reduced the probability of being poor. Other characters of respondents that significantly reduced the probability of being poor included education (-0.1), landholding (-0.4), investment asset base (-0.000005) and rural electricity (-0.1) while household size (0.1) increased the probability. Participation in skilled and unskilled wage employment significantly reduced poverty among rural farm households in Southwest Nigeria.