Project Description

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Over the past fifty years, many countries of the world and essentially African have been besieged by the challenges of poverty, stagnation and backwardness. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2006) report indicates that African countries account for about 80 percent of cumulative world poverty. As a result of this scenario, Okolie (2005:10) contends that “majority of the citizenry is affected by and mired in a culture of grinding penury occasioned largely by reckless, rapacious and unabashed misappropriation and misuse of public wealth.” Similarly, White and Killick (2001) noted that data on income poverty since late 1980s show Africa’s share of those living on less than a dollar a day to have risen, the absolute number of poor in Africa has grown five times more than the figure for Latin America and for South Asia. More so, Olukohi and Nyamjoh (2006:10) observe that:

The emergent leaders in successive order of the newly independent and post-colonial African states including Nigeria, have experimented with different fads nay a plethora of problematic and policy initiatives for overcoming challenges confronting African growth poverty reduction and overall development.

 

Prominent among these policies and programmes which have been severally prosecuted under the relevant United Nation’s Charter include, the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, the Highly Indebted Poor Country Initiative, the Napels Terms of the Group and African Debt Relieve, the United Nations Global Compact, the various summits organized by the UN on social issues, the Environmental and Racism and Discrimination, the Poverty Reduction Papers, the 98 Plan for Africa, the Comprehensive Development Framework, Neo-economic policies, privatization, commercialization, free market etc, and latest being the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Olukoshi and Nyamnjoh (2006).

Narsir (2002) see poverty as a concept that entails socio-economic and political deprivation which may affect individuals, households or communities and which may result in lack of access to basic necessities of life. Similarly, Ihejirika (2011) equated poverty to a complex multidimensional problem, which has to do with lack of control over resources, including land, skills, knowledge, capital and social connections. According to World Bank(1990) and United Nations (1995) the various manifestations of poverty include: lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihood, hunger and malnutrition and other basic services, homelessness and unsafe degraded environment among others.

In with the above, Nwaobi (2003) asserted that Nigeria presents a “bewildering paradox.” A country richly endowed with human and material resources unfortunately, this had never translated to improved living condition for her teeming population. Despite the huge foreign exchange earnings from petroleum her main economic stay, majority of Nigerians have continued to wallow in excruciating poverty. The country is on the downward slide. There are abysmal performances of the various sectors of the economy.

Nigeria, however, happens to be chiefly amongst several other countries far behind in the trajectory of development. The country which was once within the centimeter of the world’s most fiftieth richest countries in the early 1970s has rapidly retrogressed to become one of the twenty poorest countries at the dawn of the twenty first century. Given the abundant natural resources with which Nigeria is blessed, it defies imagination to think that Nigeria is leading the Group of 77 (G77) poorest countries of the world (Abdelkrim and Awoyemi, 2006). It is equally ironic that Nigeria is the largest exporter of crude oil in Africa, sixth largest in the world and at the same time hosts the third largest number of poor people after China and India. Uneven distribution of material wealth, especially of oil returns, has further impelled a colossal chasm between the rich and the hoi-polloi. As a result, Nigeria falls among the twenty countries in the world with the widest gap between the rich and the poor (Obadan: 2008).

This has posed a serious challenge to the Nigerian government over the years with its attendant effects of deprivation of basic necessities of life. It is the remote cause of many problems in the country. These problems include lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihood, hunger and malnutrition, ill health, limited or lacking access to education and other basic services, increased morbidity and mortality from illness, homelessness and inadequate, unsafe and degraded environment and social discrimination and exclusion (Alimika, 2001). According to Sala-i-Martin, et al (2009), in the global competitiveness index 2009-2010, involving 133 economies:

Nigeria is ranked 99^th this year, down five places since last year…Nigeria’s economy is characterized by weak institutions (ranked 102^nd) including a serious security problem (117^th), high levels of corruption (112^th), and government spending that is perceived as wasteful (120^th). It also receives poor assessments for its infrastructure (127^th) as well as health and primary education (132^nd).

 

It is so pathetic in the sense that the country that is potentially rich in oil and gas and other natural and agricultural resources cannot boast of putting foods on the tables of its citizens. In fact, an average Nigerian is said to be living below one dollar. Research has it that the foundation of most social vices and corrupt practices both in high and low places is this scourge called poverty. At present, Nigerian is rated as one of the poorest country of the world; a country with abundant resources both in human and mineral replication (Anger, 2010).

In response to the pervasiveness of poverty in the country, Onah (2007:47-48) has observed that “successive Nigerian governments at different levels for over four decades have introduced several policies and programmes, some of which were sector specific and others non-sector specific with poverty reduction as its centre-price.” Right from 1960 when Nigeria gained independence, the goal focus of national economic programmes has been the reduction of poverty, bridging inequality gaps and the achievement of a sustained economic growth that should translate to economic development. Additionally, several poverty reduction approaches have also been utilized in attempt to grapple with the beleaguered poverty situation of the country’s citizens. The implementations of poverty reduction approaches in Nigeria were incorporated into objectives stated in the first and second Development Plans of 1962-68 and 187-1995 respectively. Other poverty reduction programmes of pre-SAP era were the River Basin Development Authority (RBDA), the Agricultural Development Programmes (ADP), the Agricultural Credit Guarantee Scheme (AGCS), the Rural Electrification Scheme (RES), the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) and the Green Revolution (GR) of 1980. Other poverty reduction programmes in Nigeria after the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1985 were the Directorate of Food, Road and Rural Infrastructure (DFRR), National Directorate of Employment (NDE) Better Life Programme (BLP). Thus, in spite of these policies and programmes in Nigeria and third world in general, poverty still remains pervasive and on high increase.

Consequently, realizing the threat posed by poverty to global peace and security, the United Nations in September 2000 initiated and set as target of pursing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs is a set of 8 time-bound development goals, which was signed by 189 world leaders at the United Nations Millennium summit held in New York. It is aimed at reducing the number of people who lived on less than a dollar in year 2015 by pursuing the following eight objectives; eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promotion of gender equality and empowerment of women, reducing child mortality, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other deadly diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development (FRN 2008).

More so, with the aim of reducing poverty and suffering in the globe especially among the third world countries UN agencies like International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and World Trade Organization(WTO)  all helped to develop a policy with a collective responsibility to get the rich countries increase grant/aid, removal of unsustainable debts of the poorest Third World Countries, trade liberalization and improving the per-capital income of the concerned countries (Tadaro and Smith 2008). Thus the United Nation advocated for adoption of this neo-liberal policy measures of privatization, deregulation and liberalization which were mainly predicated on the World Bank/IMF initiated model for curtailing fiscal and external imbalances for developing countries which were experiencing high incidence of poverty, external indebtedness owed it and other bilateral institutions since the early 1980s (Mills 1989:5). According to the U.N if these policies and programmes are implemented, world poverty will be cut by half, tens of millions of lives will be saved, and billions more people will have the opportunity to benefit from the global economy.

Nigeria as a member state of the UN and in a bid to reduce extreme poverty, hunger and hardship adopted the MDGs and other neo-liberal economic policies. Successive Nigerian government (military and civilian) have adopted these programme, notably under the civilian leadership of Olusegun Obasanjo Nigeria keyed into MDGs by established the twin programmes of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) and National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) in successive manner. These programmes were developed through broad-based consultation with all major stakeholders across the country (UNDP, 2006). Besides, the programmes and policy were introduced by the political leadership in recognition that the fundamental challenges at the present stage of Nigeria’s development is to meet the basic needs of its diverse people through drastic reduction of poverty on a sustainable basis. To achieve this target therefore, the policies and programmes were meant to incorporate all the stakeholders namely, the federal government, state government, local government, civil society, research institutions, organized private sectors and concerned individual (Okoye and Onyukwu, 2007). As such States and Local governments further domesticate this strategy with the launch of State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEED) and Local Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (LEEDS).

Anambra State as component states of the Nigerian federation keyed into the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with special emphasis on eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. Arising from the above, Anambra state Government under the leadership of Mr. Peter Obi in 2006 launched the Anambra Integrated Development Strategy (ANIDS). Anambra Integrated Development Strategy (ANIDS) is the multi-sectoral strategy adopted for achieving the vision or the vehicle for reaching all targets of the MDGs in 2015 by pursuing all goals simultaneously. Although ANIDS was not specifically designed for the MDGs but equally serves a veritable tool for the implementation of MDGs projects in the state, aimed at re-orienting values, reducing poverty, creating wealth and employment generation (Ministry of Economic Planning and Budget Anambra State, 2013).

Consequently, Fifteen years after the signing of the MDGs, its goals and objectives in Nigeria are far from being realized. This is because the implementation of MDGs within the context of poverty and hunger eradication in Nigeria has been unthinkable, unrealizable and above all given up as a futility and mirage. This could be attributed to the nature of governance. Despite these constitutional provisions, as well as the enormous financial resources, and huge potentials for MDGs, including the social and economic policies that have been implemented by successive administrations good governance continues to be elusive to Nigeria.

It is against this background that this study sets out to unravel the impact of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) efforts on poverty reduction in Anambra State Nigeria, 2006-2015. The study specifically investigates the links between good governance in management of Millennium Development Goals funds and the policy of poverty reduction in Anambra State; and the state implementation of neo-liberal policies and poverty reduction programme.

 

1.2   Statement of the Problem

Poverty is one of the major issues facing the world today, it is the inability to attain a minimum standard of living and measured with some indices such as lack of access to resource, lack of education and skills, poor health, malnutrition, lack of shelter, poor access to water and sanitation, vulnerability to shocks, violence and crime, political discrimination and marginalization (World Bank Report, 2002).

The issues of poverty reduction and improved living standards constitute one of the critical challenges facing Nigeria today. In Nigeria the situation appears to have defied all solutions, this is because of the nature of governance which is characterized by catastrophic governance, corruption, mismanagement, thereby neglecting good governance which is predicated on transparency, accountability, responsiveness and rule of law. More so, is the implementation of neo-economic policies, which often results to retrenchment and more hardship to the populace. These have often been a clog in the wheel of poverty reduction programmes, that why despite different policies and programmes the scourge still remains high. At present, the government of Nigeria at the federal level is still running the National Poverty Eradication Programme, NAPEP, which is replicated in all the states of the federation.  Ever since the programme started in 2001 and billions of naira spent, there is very little or nothing to show for it in terms of poverty eradication (Mbaegbu, 2015).  This is attributed to the corrupt nature and politicization of this programme, which sees resources which could pay for public goods or directed towards investment ( create employment and other opportunities for citizens) are being misappropriated and directed for private use, this makes the initiation of this programme fruitless.

Nigeria embraced the objectives of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through the policy document called the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS).  In 2004, the Federal Government of Nigeria set up the NEEDS Strategy with a view to fighting the poverty scourge which it described as the most difficult challenge facing Nigeria and its people and the greatest obstacle to the pursuit of socio-economic growth. States also were equally encouraged to further domesticate this strategy with the launch of State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (SEED). Over the years attempts were made at alleviating poverty as reflected in the expression of commitment by successive governments, increase in the number of programmes and increasing commitment of resources in the process, however, very minimal success has been recorded or achieved. It is sad that fifteen years into MDGs programme, the incidence of abject poverty is high and the welfare of the people which are of utmost importance in achieving the goals and objectives are still a cause for concern as inequality and unemployment persists.

The failure to effectively combat the problem has largely been blamed on infrastructural decay; endemic corruption, poor governance and accountability ( Okonjo-Iweala, Soludo and Muhtar, 2003). Similarly, Muo (2007) attributes it to lack of coordination and commitment, lack of continuity, improper appreciation of the roots and magnitude of the problem, policy inconsistency, deficient infrastructural facilities and corruption.

Arising from the foregoing, despite huge budgetary allocation to the state, Anambra state still has a long way to go in terms of meeting the demands and expectations of its citizenry. The State is considered a poverty ridden state owing to the prevalence of most poverty indicators such as ill-health, drought, job loss, economic decline, poor standard of living etc. Poverty has taken its toll on the citizens as evidenced in the increasing rate of poverty among the populace.

Anambra State is daily faced with the challenges posed by poverty, as successive Government administration in the state since its creation in 1991 adopted different poverty reduction and development strategies to redress the age long backwardness that has reduced the much endowed state to being one of the poor states of the federation. Some of these strategies includes: Think Home Philosophy, Joint Action on Development and the likes. These poverty reduction and development strategies were not holistic as social welfare was poorly provided, high unemployment rate and ill-health cases, thus Given the scenario painted above, achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) became more challenging for State because the poverty situation was becoming more precarious and many Anambrarian are more threatened now than at any time in the recent past.

To be exact, the MDGs which should be complemented with  good governance suffers from bad governance which abhors transparency, accountability, fair play, among others rather encourages inefficiency, corruption, nepotism, cliental and patronage politics.

It is an attempt to address this ugly trend of poverty that Anambra State, under the immediate past administration of Mr. Peter Obi adopted the Millennium Development Goals as a vision in the commitment to the development of the state under the frame work called Anambra Integrated Development Strategy (ANIDS). This basically was to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 as stipulated by the United Nations. Thus, ANIDS is a policy framework of Mr. Peter Obi in pursuing Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in the State, it is essentially a strategy that allows the State Government to plan carefully, budget properly, implement the plan, monitor the implementation and ensure delivery of the plan.

However, despite billions of Naira been allocated to the state by federal government and other international agencies for  the above programme and adoption of neo-liberal policies, despite the euphoria that greeted them, little or nothing has been achieved in the state. This is as result of bad governance. Thus this poverty scenario and its associated problems have since aroused scholarly debate on MDGs and neo-liberal economic policies as a framework of poverty reduction in Nigeria.

Scholars such as  Oyoze, (2003), Nwafor, (2005), Adamu, (2006), Nwankwo (2012) among others has faulted the method of governance which affect the poverty reduction programs, they separately contend that bad governance which  characterized by mismanagement, inconsistency, poor implementation, corruption, lack of accountability, transparency and human right impede the programme to alleviate poverty.

Contrary, to this view are scholars like Abani (2005), Adebowale (2004) and others attributed it to the MDGs framework in reducing poverty, they contend that MDGs is imperfect, as it ignored environment issues such as climate change, land degradation, more so, it is donor-centric and foreign agenda to monitor closely and continue exploit of developing countries. They equally criticize it for excluding targets for good governance, which they considered a contributor to development and key outcome unto itself.

In a separate viewpoint (Mengisteab 1995; Logan 2002; Fakiyiesi 1999; Oyinlade 2005; Bond 2005) contend that the neo-liberal economic policies constitute poverty, they argue that the policies were centre on market reform neglecting redistributive reform such as access to basic needs(electricity, roads, hospitals, education) resulting to high inflation, unemployment and retrenchment. Similarly, Ezekiel (2006) opined that the neo-colonial influence and the millennium economic policies of liberalization are danger to poverty reduction. Mojubaolu (2000) contend also that it does not serve the interest and liberation of the poor individuals rather serves rich and western bourgeoisie.

In contrast view, Balassa (1984), Hughes (1998), Mbanefo (1985),Odedeji (1987) accuses the state of perpetuating poverty, in their separate studies faulted the magnitude of state intervention in economic activities in poverty reduction prograrmme, they see the state as self serving, inefficient, bureaucratic, wasteful and crowding out available productive resource from more efficient private sector, thus with introduction economic policies, which made state neutral aid poverty reduction programme. However, there are two interrelated strands of analysis to explain our problematique; Firstly, lack of good governance in the management of Millennium Development Goals   funds undermine the policy of poverty reduction. This is because despite implementation of MDGs and erroneous funds spent, there is little or nothing to show in terms of poverty reduction. Thus identifying the missing link between lack good governance in management of resource relating MDGs which impede poverty reduction, which scholars have not explored. Secondly, the State implementation of neo-liberal economic policies impedes the programme of poverty reduction. This is because such policies like privatization, deregulation brings about more hardship which aggravates poverty. Therefore, the study will answer the following research questions:

1. Does lack of good governance in the management of Millennium Development Goals   funds undermine the policy of poverty reduction in Anambra state?
2. Does the State implementation of neo-liberal economic policies impede the progamme of poverty reduction in Anambra state?

1.3 Objective of the Study

The study has broad and specific objectives. The broad objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on poverty reduction in Anambra State.  Specifically, the study is set out:

1. To examine how lack of good governance in the management of Millennium Development Goals funds undermined the policy of poverty reduction in Anambra State.

• To ascertain how the state implementation of neo-liberal economic policies impeded the programme of poverty reduction in the State.

 

 

 

 

1.4 Significance of the Study

This significance of this study is twofold: academic and practical. Academically or theoretically, this study will attempt to fill the gap in existing literature in the area of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on poverty reduction in Anambra State, Nigeria. As the existing works on MDGs and poverty reduction glossed over the management of MDGs funds in Anambra state.  It also tries to unravel the causes and effect of poverty by interrogating the interface between MDGs and poverty reduction in Anambra state, Nigeria. The study will provide the springboard for further establishment of poverty reduction strategies and programmes, as existing poverty reduction programmes have failed to reduce abject poverty amongst the citizenry. It also provides information for further academic research work and encourages more research on the emerging realities and topical issues about Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Anambra state, Nigeria.

The academic or practical significance of the study will be of utmost importance to the managers of the Nigerian state on how best to manage the MDGs funds. It will also be of   benefit to Anambra state government on the best efforts and strategies in reducing abject poverty and prioritize socio-economic developments which have implications for human well being, equally it will be helpful for administrators and policy implementers charged with the responsibility of formulating and or executing poverty reduction programmes. Finally, the study also helps government, other relevant bodies and international organizations to understand the importance of good governance in implementation of poverty reduction programme.

DOWNLOAD (CHAPTER 1-5)