FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SLOW PACE+ OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN NIGERIA A STUDY OF THREE REPRESENTATIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCILS IN ENUGU STATE OF NIGERIA

ABSTRACT

Nigeria, even in this 21stcentury,is still regarded as an under-developed country. Various efforts made so far by successive governments  in Nigeria prior to and after Independence in 1960, to develop this country have proved a dismal failure. Nigeria today remains a third world country despite enormous resources at her disposal viz; a variety of rich mineral  deposits  in every region of the country especially in the Niger Delta, tremendous manpower base, very good and fertile agricultural land and climatic conditions well suited for all year round agricultural purposes

Efforts expended in the past by past successive governments in the country have been geared towards a systematic and integrated urban-biased development at the expense of the rural communities.  The urbanization phenomenon, instead of boosting  the developmental  status of the country,  turned out to improvise  the country the more with its attendant economic and social chaos in the form of un- employment, urban slums, rural-urban migration, loss of man-power needs at the rural areas especially for agricultural production, to mention but a few.   This in turn resulted in the loss of the enviable groundnut pyramids of the then Northern Nigeria,   the   cocoa/rubber   plantation   of   the   West   and   the  vast   Palm plantation/produce of the former Eastern Nigeria.  Most able-bodied rural dwellers soon moved to the urban towns to secure white collar jobs that  are  often not available and when and where available, they are usually ad hoc in nature, at the detriment  of  the  rural  areas  where,  nevertheless,  75%  of  the  populace  still resides.  The urban development syndrome of our past governments hardly had any beneficial affect on the rural dwellers  thus diminishing  rather to improving their standards  of living in particular  and the country’s march to progress and development in general. Thus a World Bank Report in 1996 which described Nigeria as a rich country but at the same time that the people of Nigeria are poor, remain up to this  day a paradox.  For sure Nigeria has not been able to put its productive capacity into effective  use.    Hence  successive  governments  in  Nigeria  since  1976  have changed    emphasis    from    urban-biased    to    rural-    biased    development. Consequently most  policies in the country are now fashioned towards achieving a rural biased development in a deliberate attempt to raise the standard of living of the rural populace hence the change from a ‘parliamentary’ to a ‘presidential system of government in 1984 and the creation and empowerment of 774 Local Government Areas in Nigeria as rural development centres, by virtue of the 1976 Local Government Reform, the   1976 Local Government Edict and the revised 1978 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The tilting of the Federal Allocation Formula twice since 1976 in favour of the Local  Governments (rural development  centres)   are all geared towards a quick  realisation of this noble gesture of developing the country through the rural set up. However, after more than two decades  of the introduction  of these  deliberate policies  in favour of a comprehensive  rural development  in the  country, rural development,  in  Nigeria,  still  remains  ‘a  mission  impossible’.  The  people  of Nigeria, especially in the rural communities, are still very poor.  What might be the cause(s) of this stranger-than-fiction story? Is this another cock and bull story of ‘water here, water there, but none to drink? Your guess is as good as mine. In an effort to un-ravel this mystery, the term local government area  has been inter- changeably used in place of rural development centre hence, chief executives of rural development  centres  have  been simply referred  to as local government chairmen and vice versa.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1    BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In world affairs  today,  every nation is regarded  as either developed  or developing/underdeveloped   depending  upon  what  fact  the  author  intends  to highlight at that particular point in time. A developed country is regarded as one that is economically  and technologically  advanced  and  which,  due to its vast wealth, is enjoying one of the highest levels of income and standard of living, eg. U.S.A,  U.K.,  Germany,  France,  Sweden,  Canada  and  a few  other  European countries. Whereas, an under-developed  country  is one, characterised  by poor technology and therefore very low  levels of income and standard of living eg, most of the African and Asian countries like Sudan, Chad,   Ethiopia, Uganda, Mali,  India,  Bangladesh,  Indonesia  and  Afganistan  to  mention  but  a  few. However some under-developed countries have started on a serious note, their journey to being classified too as a developed country. Such countries like Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brazil, Malaysia, China and South Africa are now on  the verge of achieving the ‘developed’ status.  A developed country easily attains the status of a world power and is consequently accorded all the privilege, respect  and  honour  usually  bestowed  on  such  countries.  Such  a  country  is admitted into the Security Council where her views on  international affairs are sought and respected due to its power to veto any subject matter in the council. Thus  every country in this World now strives  to achieve,  first, the developed status   and  secondly   the  ability  to  fend   for  herself  without  any  external interference or borrowing.

Now in this classification, the big question is, to which of these three areas does Nigeria belong to? Well, Nigeria has been variously referred to as a giant in size but a poor country in Africa, a toothless bull-dog, a sleeping duck and a third world country. What these inferences  portend is that  Nigeria is still an under- developed country.  But should it be so?

A  cursory  study  of  the  countries  that  have  achieved  the  status   of

‘developed’  shows  that  they  have  a  lot  in  common  with  Nigeria  –  a  large population  with  adequate  manpower,  a vast expanse  of rich  agricultural  land endowed with rich mineral resources of all kinds and a  good climatic condition suitable for almost every kind of commercial activity all year round. And despite these  enormous  resources  at our  disposal  and  consequently  the potential  to develop very rapidly since independence in 1960, Nigeria is still regarded as an under-developed country.

Nigeria has engaged in about eight development plans periods since 1946 but  all to  no  avail.  However  a study  of Nigerian  development  plans  periods portrays that these development plans were geared towards urban development a.k.a ‘urbanization’ at the detriment of rural development.  Having developed the urban areas, the country is still regarded as simply ‘under-developed’ because it is in the rural areas that about 80% of the  inhabitants  of this country live in. Hence  there  has been  a change  of  emphasis  in the recent past from urban development  to rural development  in the country.   This  change  of emphasis culminated  in the change  of  the  leadership  style in this country too from the parliamentary to the  presidential system of government in 1978 as well as the elevation  of the  local government  areas  of the country  as rural development centres with adequate authority and added responsibilities toward improving the standard of living of the rural populace, via the 1976 Local Government Reform, the  1976  Local  Government  Edict  and  the 1979  Constitution  of  the  Federal Republic of Nigeria. Once again the question remains almost the same as in the beginning.  For  more  than  three  decades  of  the  deliberate  policy  on  rural development of this country, can we rightly say now that we have  attained the status of even a developing nation. Recent World Bank Reports has consistently classified Nigeria as one of the poorest nations of the world.   It also noted that Nigeria being a poor country is a paradox.

One major draw back to rapid development anywhere in the world is lack of adequate capital to embark upon and sustain the development  programme. But it is on record that there was a decade of oil boom in  Nigeria within this period of time especially around 1973 – 1983 and since  then oil has been the major source of the country’s revenue.  There was so much money in the country that the then Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon while squandering the money

on white elephant projects eg peace-keeping  operations, hosting of the  Africa and World Black Festival of Arts and Culture “Festac 77’ confessed to the entire world that money was no longer Nigeria’s problem but how to  spend it. Haba! But even as of today, the question is still the same, have we now known how to spend our money? Your guess is as good as mine.

Thus in this research it is intended to study the development pattern  in

three development centres a.k.a.  local government areas of Enugu state in the last three decades- due to lack of financial capability to spread the research over to the  other  geographical  zones  of  this  country-  in  an  effort  to examine  the dependability of the slow pace of rural development on in-adequacy of fund or poor management of our resources or both.  That is, whether fund actually and/or poor management of our natural and acquired  resources is/are responsible for the agonising slow pace of development  in  the country, especially in the rural communities.    This research  is also  extended  to examine  the affect of other extraneous factors like corruption and autonomy of the local government system on the pace of rural development in Nigeria.

From the analysis and evaluation of the responses obtained through the

questionnaires designed from the statement of the problems, the hypotheses for this research are formulated. Primary data, supported by secondary data from appropriate  data banks,  are  used  to test the  hypotheses  and  arriving  at our findings and conclusions.

1.2     OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The  objectives  of  this  research  work  include  but  not  limited  to  the examination of whether:

1.         The level of funding of local governments as rural development centres has any relationship with the pace of rural development in Nigeria.

2.         The  management  of  the  country’s  productive  resources  of  money [capital], men [labour] and materials in the development centres affects the pace of rural development in Nigeria.

3.         The degree of autonomy granted the local government system has any appreciable impact on the pace of rural development in Nigeria.

4.         Corruption in the local government system is independent of the pace of rural development in the country – and to what extent.

1.3     SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is intended to highlight the immediate and remote cause(s) of slow pace of rural development and its attendant low standing of living in the rural areas  in particular  and the country  in general.  By identifying  the  cause(s)  of under-development  in Nigeria, the governments  in Nigeria  -federal, state   and local-  can  then  take  remedial  measures  to  reverse  the  trend  whereby  rural development could be placed an a sound footing,  nurtured and encouraged to

grow.

By developing the rural communities of the country, the entire nation is by implication developing due to the fact that about 75% of the population  of this country lives in the rural areas. The attempt to develop the rural communities will inadvertently attract capital projects and social services to the rural areas.  This phenomenon  will  in  turn  provide  the  necessary   check  against  rural-urban migration and its attendant problem of urban  slum, un-employment,  organised crimes, alas cultism and other social vices.   The yawning gap between the rich and  the  poor  will  be  reduced,  hypertension  related  illnesses,  eradicated  or minimized to a manageable proportion and Nigeria will be a better place to live in. It  is  when  the  rural  communities  are  developed  and  the  country  achieves economic independence as a result that we can take our rightful position in the comity of nations.

1.4    SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This research work is limited to the assumption that only two factors can bring about a slow pace of development in a system. And they are;

(i)            nature of funding (in-adequate fund)

(ii)            (poor) management of available resources.

The   other   factors,   nay   less   important,   that   can   sustain   or   mar developmental efforts are ignored. Such factors are:-

(iii)           the type of strategic planning by the policy makers. (iv)           a good and habitable agricultural land.

(v)           a healthy population.

(vi)           some mineral deposits.

The influence of any of these factors in (iii) – (vi) above could affect the  pace  of  development  in  any  given  community  to  an  appreciable standard but for this research work it is safe to ignore them.

The scope of this research work is intended not only to find out which of the two major factors is responsible for the slow pace of development in the rural communities but also to what extent does each of this factors contribute to the predicament.  This research is therefore carried out on the local government staff that have been part and parcel of the system under review for the past three to four decades.   The staff of the local government  system have witnessed many reforms, different administrative set ups and have directly worked under various chief executives in many capacities.  They are therefore more disposed than any other group in the rural communities to fit into our data source.

1.5    STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.

Almost   every   project   or  developmental   programme   a  state   or   an organisation  embarks  upon  for the  benefit  of  mankind  requires  a  substantial amount of working capital to implement.  The success or failure  of many such programmes  or projects depends upon the availability of this  capital to nurture and sustain them for subsequent growth and stabilisation.

Thus we intend to find out to what extent has the availability or otherwise, of this capital [fund], affected the pace of rural development in Nigeria. We also intend to find out to what extent, if any, other factors eg. poor management of the available fund, properties and equipments as well as  the labor force affect the pace of rural development in Nigeria.   Other  issues  like grant of full autonomy and corruption are also considered in relation to their effect, if any, on the slow pace of rural development in Nigeria.

1.6    STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESES

1.6.1  On funding of local government councils [development centres].

Ho:     The present level of funding of local government councils has  no significant effect on the slow pace of rural development in Nigeria.

H1:     The present level of funding of local government councils has some significant effect on the slow pace of rural development in Nigeria.

On application of modern management concept on our productive resources  of money, men and materials:

1.6.2  Money:

Ho:     The management of available fund in the local government councils has no significant effect on the slow pace of rural development in Nigeria

Hi:      The management of available fund in the local government councils has some significant effect on the slow pace of rural development in

Nigeria.

1.6.3  Men:

Ho:     The  management  of  labour  resource  in  the  local  government councils  has  no  significant  effect  on  the  slow   pace  of  rural development in Nigeria.

H1:     The management  of the labour resource in the local  government councils  has  some  significant  effect  on  the  slow  pace  of  rural development in Nigeria.

1.6.4  Material:

Ho:     The management of material resource of the local government has no  significant  effect  on  the  slow  pace  of  rural  development  in Nigeria

H1:     The  management  of  material  resource  of  the  local  government councils  has  some  significant  effect  on  the  slow  pace  of  rural development in Nigeria.

On the Issue of Grant of Autonomy

1.6.5  Autonomy:

Ho:     The degree of autonomy granted the local government council has no  significant  effect  on  the  slow  pace  of  rural  development  in Nigeria.

H1:     The degree of autonomy granted the local government council has some significant  effect on the slow pace of rural  development  in Nigeria.

On the Issue of Corruption:

1.6.6  Corruption:

Ho:     Corruption in the local government system has no significant effect on the slow pace of rural development in Nigeria.

H1:     Corruption  in  the  local government  system  has some  significant effect on the slow pace of rural development in Nigeria.

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :