CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background to the Study
Poverty is a global phenomenon which affects continents, nations, and peoples differently. It afflicts people in various depths and levels, at different times and phases of existence and development. As a matter of fact, there is no nation or people that can be said to be absolutely free from poverty. What is markedly different is the intensity, depth or prevalence of this malaise. Nations in Sub-Sahara Africa, South Asia and Latin America reflect the highest level of poverty, and consequently the lowest level of socio-economic development. These regions equally have an attendant higher level of social insecurity, violence, unrest, crime, poor capacity utilization and generally unacceptable low standard of living.
As it has been mentioned above, poverty manifests itself in different and various dimensions, and hence is susceptible to varying definitions and understanding. The Central Bank of Nigeria (1999) views poverty as ?a state where an individual is not able to cater adequately for his or her basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, is unable to meet social and economic obligations, lacks gainful employment, skills, assets and self esteem and has limited access to social and economic infrastructure such as education, health, portable water and sanitation; and consequently, has limited chance of advancing his or her welfare to the limit of his /her potentialities?. Whereas this definition of poverty is deductive, the World Bank (2000) on the other hand utilized inductive approach to uncover various dimensions of poverty such as well-being, psychological, basic infrastructure, illness and assets. One of such definitions is ?the lack of what is necessary for material well-being? especially food, but also housing, land, and other assets. In other words, poverty is the lack of multiple resources that leads to hunger and physical deprivation?. Another of such definitions is ?the lack of voice, power, and independence that subjects them to exploitation. Their poverty leaves them vulnerable to rudeness, humiliation, and inhumane treatment by both private and public agents of state and the hierarchy of society from whom they seek help?.
Nigeria, ranked among the 25 poorest countries in the world, started its independent nationhood with a poverty level of hereby 15% of its population in 1960, and is today struggling to bring it down from about 70% of its current teeming population of about 140 million people (2006 estimates). Of the number of the poverty stricken people, about 73% is concentrated in the rural areas where illiteracy prevalence is high, portable water and health facilities are rarely available, road and electricity infrastructures are either unavailable ill-managed, or under utilized. The World Bank and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)?s 2000 Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.461 aptly indicates the deplorable state of the nation?s level of poverty and low human development. This is in spite of the fact the country is richly endowed with all kinds of water, agricultural and mineral resources. In fact Nigeria?s proportion of the poor has doubled over the last two decades, during which time the country received well over $300 billion in oil and gas revenue. Paradoxically, Nigeria?s level of revenue and endowment are in opposite direction with her poverty level. For instance, according to World Bank, and UNDP (2001) Statistics, Nigeria which impressively ranked 6th and 7th in petroleum export and petroleum production respectively, is ranked 194th in Gross National Product (GDP) per capita and is unenviably classified as the 25th poorest nation in the world.
However, the above scenario has not come into being as a result of nonchalant attitude and non recognition of the problem at hand. It has also not come by as a result of lack of response to the yearning of the teeming poor people to be liberated from their rather deplorable and frustrating state of near-despair.
No Nigerian Government, be it military or civilian, has come without introducing and leaving behind one form of poverty alleviation or reduction programme meant to reduce the level of poverty, give hope and succor to the poor and, or move towards some sort of wealth creation. Strategies, policies and plans have been articulated; programmes and projects have been formulated and executed over the years. For instance, at independence in 1960, poverty eradication efforts in Nigeria centered on education, while Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), the Green Revolution, Peoples Bank of Nigeria (PBN), Community Banks (Now micro-finance banks), Directorate of Foods Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI), Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP), Better Life for Rural Women, Family Support Programme (FSP) and National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) have all existed at one point or the other during the period under review. These programmes have been implemented mostly through a top-bottom approach, originating from the central government and implemented through state offices down to the local level. The implication has been that at every point in the implementation of these policies, state governments across the nation are executing a uniform programme, though at different paces with recognition of state peculiarities.
Cross River State as one of the 36 states in the Nigerian federation, and one of the six states in the South-South geo-political zone has not been insulated from the various efforts at poverty reduction before, during and after the period under review. Though successive governments in the state have tried to address the issue of poverty as captured above, the effect of the policies and programmes on reducing poverty among the populace has been that of mixed feelings. The questions bothering a great number of the citizens are:
1. If so much efforts have been made towards reducing poverty, why is poverty on the increase?
2. What is the effect of the increasing poverty rate on the economy of the state, and the nation.
3. Are there, (or are there not) better ways or strategies of implementing poverty reduction programmes to make them more effective?

1.2 Theoretical Background/Framework
Recent literature on poverty, and its reduction uniformly acknowledges different theories of poverty, but the literature has classified these theories in multiple ways (for example, Blank, 2003; Goldsmith and Blakely, 1992; Jennings and Kushnick, 1999; Rodgers, 2000; Shiller, 1989; and Slaw, 1996).
Virtually all authors distinguish between theories that root the cause of poverty in individual deficiencies (conservative) and theories that lay the cause on broader social phenomena (liberal or progressive). Ryan (1976) addresses this dichotomy in terms of ?blaming the victim?. Goldsmith and Blakely, for example distinguish ?poverty as pathology? from ?poverty as incident or accident?, and ?poverty as structure?. On his part, Schiller, (1989) expounds a theory of poverty based on ?flawed characters, restricted opportunity, and Big Brother?. Jennings (1999) reviews a number of variants on these individual society conceptions, giving emphasis to racial and political dynamics. But for Rank (2004), he takes a clear theoretical stance, ?the focus on individual as the cause of poverty is misplaced and misdirected?. He contends that structural failings of the economic, political and social system are the cause instead. The various theories of the causes of poverty are divergent, and each of these results in, and determines the type of intervention strategy and policies. As, Schiller (1989) puts it, ?which view of poverty we ultimately embrace will have a direct bearing on the public policies we pursue?.
Arising from the preceding analysis of theoretical postulations, five explicit theories on the causes of poverty emerge and strategies for combating it (poverty) based on these theories also emerge. This research will be situated within this framework.
The first theoretical stance is the one that looks at poverty as being caused by individual deficiencies. This theory is a large and multifaceted set of explanations that focus on individual as responsible for their poverty situation. This theory, which is typical of politically conservative theoreticians (like Weber) blames the poor people for creating their own problems, and argue that with harder work and better choices, the poor could have avoided (and now can remedy) their problems. Still other variations of this theory ascribe poverty to lack of genetic qualities such as intelligence, and aptitude, that are not easily reversed.
It is noted that the belief that poverty stems from individual deficiencies is old. Even religious doctrine that equated wealth with the favour of God was central to the protestant reformation (Weber, 2001); and blind, crippled, or deformed people were believed to be punished by God for their or their parents? sins.
Ironically, neo-classical economics reinforces individualistic sources of poverty. The core premise of this dominant paradigm for the study of the conditions leading to poverty is that individuals seek to maximize their own well being by making choices, and investments, and that (assuming they have perfect information), they seek to maximize their well being. These theories argue that when some people choose short term and low payoff returns, economic theory holds the individual largely responsible for their individual choices ? for example, to forgo college or university education or other training that will lead to better paying jobs in the future.
This and similar arguments that cast the poor as a ?moral hazard? also hold that ?the problem of poverty continues to fester not because we are failing to do enough, but because we are doing too much that is counterproductive (Gwartney and McCaleb, 1985)?. Their economic model would solve poverty by assuring that the penalty of poverty was great enough that none would choose it.
Again, a less widely critiqued version of the individualistic theory of poverty comes from the American values of individualism ? the so-called Horatio Alger myth that any individual can succeed by skills and hard work, and that motivation and persistence are all that are required to achieve success, (Asen, 2002).
While scientifically it is routine to dismiss the individual deficiency theory as an apology for social inequality (Fischer, 1996), it is easy to see how it is embraced in poverty reduction policies which tend to suggests that penalties and incentives can change behaviour.

Poverty Reduction Programme from an Individual Theory of Poverty Perspective
Explicitly or implicitly, individual deficiencies have been an easy approach to poverty reduction, not always carefully explored as they get implemented. For instance, such initiatives like job creation, which invariably means pushing the poor to work as a primary goal, coupled or accompanied by an increasing emphasis on ?self help? strategies or policies for the poor to pull themselves from poverty, tends to encourage the elimination of other forms of assistance, which invariably reflects the main thrust of the individualistic theory of poverty.
Critics of this theory contend that the primitive approach of individual theories of poverty justify policies that restrict public assistance to services and goods, instead of cash because there is a lack of trust in the discretion of poor people. In sum, to the extent that policy makers or programme leaders hold the individual theory of poverty, it is increasingly unlikely that they will pursue a populist approach to poverty reduction. Thus, in spite of the widespread view that individuals are responsible for their own poverty, people oriented community workers need to look to other theories for more positive approaches.
Poverty Caused by Cultural Belief Systems that Support Sub-Cultures of
Poverty.
This theory of poverty roots its cause in the ?culture of poverty?. This theory suggests that poverty is created by the transmission over generations of a set of beliefs, values, and skills that are socially generated but individually held. For these theorists, individuals are not necessarily to blame because they are victims of their dysfunctional sub-culture or culture. It is believed that since culture is socially generated and perpetuated, reflecting the interaction of individual and community, the culture of poverty is merely a reflection of these conditions and circumstances created by this interaction. Technically, the culture of poverty is a subculture of poor people in ghettos, poor regions, or social contexts where they develop a shared set of beliefs, values and norms for behaviour that are separate from but embedded in the culture of the main society.
The most prominent proponent of this theory is Oscar Lewis. In his illustration, he summed this theory up with a graphic explanation; he notes that once the culture of poverty has come into existence, it tends to perpetuate itself. He notes that by the time slum children are six or seven, they have usually absorbed the basic attitudes and values of their subculture. Thereafter, they are psychologically unready to take full advantage of changing conditions or improving opportunities that may develop in their lifetime.
This theory of poverty based on perpetuation of cultural values has been fraught with controversy. No one disputes that poor people have subcultures or that subcultures of the poor are distinctive and perhaps detrimental. The concern, the critics argue, is over what causes and constitutes the subculture of poverty. These critics advocate a more sympathetic view of the poor. Such theories like Grondona, presents two ideal value systems, which he calls mental models, one of which has values only favouring development, the other only with values which resist development. He goes on to identify twenty cultural factors on which the two value systems stand in opposition.
Like Grondona, Harrison, identifies values which differ between ?progressive? cultures and ?static? cultures. Religion, value of work, overall justice and time orientation are included in his list. Also, Lindsay presents what he calls ?patterns of thought? which stand at opposite poles of the developmental scale.
Grondona, Harrison and Lindsay all feel that at least some aspects of development-resistant cultures need to change in order to allow underdeveloped nations (and cultural minorities within developed nations) to develop effectively, and move out of the poverty trap.

Anti Poverty Programme from a Culture of Poverty Perspective
These theories argue that if the theoretical reason for poverty lies in values and beliefs, transmitted and reinforced in sub-cultures of disadvantaged persons, then local poverty reduction efforts need to intervene to help change the culture. According to Valentive?s (1968), suggestion of different models of cultural theories of poverty, this may work in three ways.
a. If one thinks of the culture of the poor as a dysfunctional system of beliefs and knowledge, the approach will be to replace that culture with a more functional culture that supports rather than undermines productive work, investment, Feins, and Richardson, (2003) conducted a number of experiments in which they tried to relocate the poor from ghetto housing projects into suburbs with the hope that new culture will help the family emerge from poverty.
b. In the second way on the culture of poverty as an opportunistic and non-productive subculture that is perpetuated over generations, then the focus will shift to youths to stop the recreation of the detrimental culture. Things like Head start and many educational programmes are according to Zigler and Styfco (1996) successful at providing an alternative socialization for the next generation to reduce poverty, though the programmes will need more coherence and quality.
c. A third approach to the culture of poverty is to try to work within the culture to redefine culturally appropriate strategies to improve the group?s well-being. For example, poverty reduction workers can enhance and build upon cultural values with the subcultures of the poor which can become assets for economic development. Local crafts co-operatives are a good example of programmes that tap the traditions of small business and entrepreneurship found in subcultures, as different from urban gangs and other non-productive cultural practices.

Poverty Caused by Economic, Political and Social Distortions or Discrimination
Whereas the individualistic theory of poverty is advocated by conservative thinkers, the second is a culturally liberal approach, this third theory which we now turn is a progressive social theory. Theorists in this tradition look not to the individual as a source of poverty, but to the economic, political and social system which causes people to have limited opportunities and resources with which to achieve income and well being. Research and theories in this tradition attempt to redress the problem noted by Rank, Yoon and Hirschl (2003), ?poverty researchers have in effect focused on who loses out at the economic game, rather than addressing the fact that the game produces losers in the first place?.
Much of the arguments by theorists in this block suggest that the economic system is structured in such a way that poor people fall behind regardless of how competent they may be. The problem of the working poor is increasingly seen as a wage problem linked to structural barriers preventing poor families from getting better jobs, complicated by limited numbers of jobs near workers, and lack of growth in sectors supporting lower skilled jobs.
In their contention, they believe that elimination of structural barriers to better jobs through education and training should be the focus of man power training and other poverty reduction programmes. The problem highlighted indicates that in spite of the perceived importance of education, in actual sense, funding per student in less advantaged areas trails behind that which is spent on richer students; teachers are less adequately trained, books are often out of date or in limited supply, amenities are few, and the culture of learning is under siege. This systemic failure of the schools is thus thought to be the reason poor people have low achievement, poor rates of graduation, and few who pursue higher education, (Crubb and Moe, 1996).
A parallel barrier exists with the political system in which the interest and participation of the poor is either impossible or is deceptive. Some research have confirmed the linkage between wealth and power, and has shown how poor people who lack influence, are less involved in political discussions, and how their interests are more vulnerable in the political process, as such excluding them at various levels. Coupled with all these, poor people lack influence in the political system that they might use to mobilize economic benefits and justice.
A final broad category of system flaws associated with poverty relate to groups of people being given a social stigma because of race, gender, disability, religion, party affiliations, or other groupings, leading them to have limited opportunities regardless of personal capabilities. In this sense, Green (2006) describes the situation as ?poverty as a label?, in which case he says the terms describing the poor are given to them because they lack social and economic capital, and thus have little to no influence on how they are represented and / or perceived in the larger community. Invariably, this theory contends that no treatment of poverty can be complete or effective without acknowledging that groups against which discrimination is practiced have limited opportunities.