Content uploaded by Noah Akhimien
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Noah Akhimien on Oct 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
An overview of rural and community development in Nigeria.
Akhimien, N. G.; Adamolekun M.O.; and Isiwele A. J.
Full name: Akhimien, Noah Gethsemane.
Department of Architecture, Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Nigeria.
E-mail: akhimien.noah@aauekpoma.edu.ng, damoskonsult@yahoo.com, isijoe51@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
The aim of the study was to examine rural and community development in Nigeria with
emphasis housing policies, and strategies employed to bring about rural development in
Nigeria. The study assess the impacts of institutions, agencies and efforts made by both
domestic and foreign international organizations. The institutions, agencies and non-
governmental organizations are programmed to bring about grassroots development.
Therefore, clarification of terminology like development, rural community, and
sustainability was conducted, this formed the philology basis of the analysis. Findings has
shown that efforts made by the Nigerian government through several strategies like the
nation’s development plans did not bring about desired development. However,
international organizations strategies lead to little or no any meaningful improvement in
the living conditions of the rural dwellers and rural infrastructure. It was also found out
that a number of issues such as corruption, wickedness and mismanagement, sentimental
planning from above rather than basic-productive approach; the quest for self-
embellishment, greed and pursuance selfish interest has brought about failure of the rural
developmental efforts. The researcher’s primary source or method of data collection was
based on Analytic studies using descriptive method of data analysis to evaluate the draw
backs of rural community development. The paper therefore concludes that for the
desired development and growth to a realized and sustained, the government based
development process must be reversed to rural-based and bottom-up approach,
government must continue to create an environment that is conducive for rural
development to thrive, the corruption mentality that has bedeviled government
representatives and other stake holders must change in Nigeria in order to eliminate
corruption and mismanagement of resources. Therefore, for the realization and
sustenance of rural development these measures should be established and implemented.
Keywords: Community, Development, Government, Rural.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Rural development is a means of bringing about enduring changes in the structure of
the rural sector in a manner that productivity and output are increased, the technology and
techniques of production are radically revolutionized with enhanced standard of living
(Izeogu, 1987; Nkorn, 2000). The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA, 1972)
defined rural development as “The outcome of a series of qualitative and quantitative
changes occurring among rural population”. It is a process “by which a set of technical,
social, cultural and institutional measures are implemented, for the inhabitants of rural
areas with the aim of improving socio- economic conditions of rural populace (ECA
1972). From the foregoing therefore, rural development constitutes a development effort
to raise the level of awareness and living conditions of rural dwellers. Thus rural
development encompasses radical improvement in social relationship governing land
tenure, access to land, technology, labour, physical infrastructures, access to services and
political organization of society.
The central objectives of rural development revolve around the productivity, welfare
and quality of life of the rural dwellers (Todaro and Smith, 2009). Nigeria gained
independence in 1960 from the British colonial government. Ever since then, rural or
community development has been declared a priority by the successive governments, be
it civilian or military. Today, rural communities face an array of challenges. Resource-
based economies are vulnerable to the impacts of commodity prices, technological
changes, land value dynamics, and other market influences. Some communities whose
economies are contracting are experiencing unemployment, poverty, population loss, the
aging of their workforces, and increasing demands for social services with fewer dollars
to pay for them. The extent of the deplorable housing situation of the poor in Nigeria has
been documented in previous studies (Olotuah, 2005a, Adegbehingbe 2011). This is
characterized by substandard and structurally unsound houses often located in insanitary
environments. The poor quality of housing inhabited by the poor is a consequence of high
level of shortages, in quantitative terms of housing to accommodate them and the lack of
the resources to pay for quality housing available. In this regard, several organizations,
institutions and agencies have been set up to undertake and monitor the complicated
process of nation-building, development and integration. This post colonial orientation is
a deviation from the erstwhile colonial arrangement whereby development efforts in all
spheres were concentrated in the urban areas to the neglect of rural areas. Hence, projects
such as the construction of roads, bridges, schools, railway lines, air trip, ports and
marketing boards, among others, were all aimed at opening the rural areas as a link for
the easy exploitation of export raw materials.
2
However, the declared objectives and policy statements of various governments in
Nigeria have been mere rhetoric and smoke-screens intended not only to diffuse
criticisms but to hide what the whole thing has been i.e. a systematic exploitation and
dehumanization of the rural dwellers. In spite of this criticism, there is no doubt that the
Nigerian government and its leaders have not only recognized the fact of the important
roles which the rural sector plays in the generation of national wealth but also that over
70% of Nigerians live in rural areas. It is to be noted that Nigeria is not alone in the
recognition of these facts. Leaders of the developing countries in Africa have also come
to accept the development of rural areas as a sine qua non for national development.
In Nigeria, over the years the stated objectives and strategies of rural and community
development have been pronounced by policy makers and those concerned with the issue
of development. But there still exists enormous gap between policy formulation and
implementation and the reality of the level of the development of the rural populace. For
example, several approaches in terms of rural development planning and execution have
been adopted. Some of these are the creation of states, local government areas,
mobilization of people for local participation in planning and implementation of
community development projects in order to create new centres of development, and thus
stem the drift from rural to urban areas. A look at the National Development plans of
Nigeria from 1975-1985 and other rural development programmes like Operation Feed
the Nation (OFN), Green Revolution, River Basin Development Authorities, Agricultural
Development Projects and many others have emphasized the need to tackle the problem
of rural under-development. On the part of government therefore there is the realization
that there is need to bring the neglected rural areas into the mainstream of national
development. The thrust of this paper therefore is to examine the pattern of rural and
community development in Nigeria, especially in those areas which have the greatest
impact on the lives of rural dwellers, and to establish that the pattern of development of
the rural areas was not meant to improve the lives of the rural dwellers. On the contrary,
this process has been geared towards their exploitation and impoverishment despite their
enormous contribution to national wealth and the fact that over 70% of Nigerians live in
the country-side. It is further argued that the bane of Nigeria’s development process is the
neo-colonial, dependent economic system operating in the country. This system breeds
mass poverty and deprivation, social unrest, and political instability.
3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
An increasing number of rural communities are looking for development approaches
beyond the conventional dispersed land use patterns that make it difficult for them to
meet their fiscal, social, public health, and environmental goals. They are using a range of
strategies to pursue economic opportunities while maintaining the rural character that
resident’s value. The concept of development is very difficult to define because it is value
loaded. It is often equated with economic growth or economic development. The two
concepts are often used interchangeably, but they do not mean the same thing.
Economic development is an essential component of development, yet it is not the
only one. There are many other aspects of development. According to Rodney (1972:9),
“development” is: “a many-side process. On the one hand at the level of the individuals,
it implies increased skills and capacity, greater freedom, creativity, self-discipline,
responsibility and material well-being”. On the other hand, Todaro (1977:96-98) says
that: Development must therefore be conceived as a multi-dimensional process involving
changes in structure, attitudes and institutions, as well as the acceleration of economic
growth, the reduction of inequality and the eradication of absolute poverty. In essence,
development must represent the entire gamut of changes by which the entire social
system, turned to the diverse basic needs and desires of individuals and social groups
within the system moves away from the conditions of life regarded as materially and
spiritually “better”. This means that development involves the reorganization and
reorientation of the entire economic and social system. This also involves, in addition to
improvement of income and output, radical changes in institutions, social and
administrative structures as well as in popular attitudes, customs and beliefs.
The implication of these two definitions is that “development” goes beyond
economic indicators. It is both a physical process and a state of mind. The institutions or
structures like construction of railways, schools, hospital etc are aspect of development.
The second aspect of development is that the people must change their attitudes for good.
Also, Seers (1969:3) asked certain questions regarding the concept of development
saying that: The questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore, what has
been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been
happening to inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels then beyond
doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned. If one or two of
these problems has been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange
to call the result development even if per capita income doubled. After independence,
majority of countries neglected rural development and concentrated on the development
of urban areas which to them are first point of contact of any nation. It was only in the
wake of outbreaks of famine and various diseases which challenged the living condition
4
of the urban dwellers that governments took up this subject. Until the 1990s, rural
development strategies were focused on the growth of a modern sector through recourse
to fertilizers, improved seedling, irrigation and mechanization (Lacroix, 2011:15).
Therefore, Olisa and Obiukwu (1992: iii) said that this remarkable shift from the
trend of the post-World War II decades, especially the 1960s (the decolonization decade),
during which economic theories and aid programmes focused on growth resulting from
national economic development plans and the multiplier effects of massive capital
investment. They observed further that it was tacitly assumed that once the national
economy developed (featuring such indices as industrialization, modernized agriculture,
and modern infrastructure) rural economy would automatically develop. Asian
Development Bank (2014) asserted that rural development has become one of the major
aims of various assistance/intervention programmes of both individual developing
countries and multilateral institutions/donors.
Over the past five decades, Nigeria has never been short of programmes and
reforms aimed at alleviating the failing rural economy, livelihood, insecurity and other
specific policies associated with poverty alleviation and rural community sustainable
development. The Document of Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) at 50 (2010:618)
illustrated that, majority of these programmes developed complications over the years.
Since Nigeria gained her political independence in 1960, there has been a great impetus
attached to the rural community development as a factor that advances the overall
developmental process. According to Ibietan and Oghator (2013:308), the pattern of
development in Nigeria creates social problems of hunger, mass unemployment and
social inequalities. Another factor is the idea of conceiving development planning as a
“big push strategy” which attempts to do everything in one plan. Usman (2004:11)
explained that political office holders in Nigeria are always drawn from the wealthy
business classes, schools and universities, professional groups, government
administration, religious and traditional conglomerations of authority.
Elites in Nigeria enter into politics to amass wealth without shame (Wilmot, 1994
in Uba, 2012:64). For the Nigerian political elite, politics involves not the conciliation of
competing demands arising from an examination of the various alternatives entailed by
the extraction of resources which can be used to satisfy elite demands and to buy support
(Dudley, 1982 in Adelakun, 2013). Uba (2012:78) citing Nnoli (1980) supported elite
model that rural development evolves from the crying need of the rural population for
social welfare services, the unwillingness of the ruling class to provide these amenities,
the exploitation of the ruling class of the competition among communities for those social
artifacts which are deemed to reflect social progress, and the exploitation by the ruling
class of the tendency by Nigerians to invest more time, energy and resources in those
5
tasks approved by their community than in those sanctioned by the national collectivity
through the State. Socio-economic development of the developing countries of the world
outside ‘Development Administration’. It is this reality as highlighted by Alege (2005:55)
that has made the government at different times to set up various programmes and
specialized credit institutions in an attempt to transform and develop rural areas in all its
ramifications and thereby moving rural dwellers from abject poverty and squalor to
economic and social prosperity. He added that some of those programmes and credit
institutions are yet on-going, some are moribund and others have gone with the regimes
that initiated them. Ibietan and Oghator (2013:308) noted that successive governments
have indicated desire to transform the country, be it in terms of provision of
infrastructure, human capacity development and even in the realm of social political
development. In this wise, Nigeria has experimented with several development plans
from pre-independence era till date, yet the needed transformation has continued to elude
its citizenry in spite of the robust plans. There was also Vision 2010 and Nigeria 20:2020,
and the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS).
According to Sam (2014:6), there have been attempts by successive regimes in
Nigeria at poverty reduction and rural development; the approaches have usually been
determined by the interpretation given to rural development by the different regimes or
interventionists. In addition, Tenuche and Ogwo (2005:126) enumerated other various
programmes aimed at developing the rural areas. These include the Agricultural
Development Programmes and River Basin Development Authorities, Operation Feed the
Nation and the Green Revolution, rural electrification schemes, rural banking schemes,
urban and rural water supply schemes, credit schemes to small scale holders through
various specialized institutions, transport schemes, health schemes, Universal Primary
Education scheme, and low cost housing scheme. These policies show the zeal of
different governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which has led to the
proliferation of development agencies. Despite the numerous rural development policies
introduced at different times by successive governments coupled with the huge financial
and material resources employed, little or nothing is felt at the rural level as each policy
has often died with the government that initiated it before it starts to yield dividends for
the rural dwellers. Okhankhuele and Opafunso (2013:186-187) claimed that several
methods to remove rural urban development gap have been carried out in Nigeria with
little success, therefore the rural areas still remain highly underdeveloped in comparison
with the urban areas. They believed that numerous studies have been carried out on the
causes and consequences of rural-urban migration and also related the consequences of
rural-urban migration on the urban centers to serious problems such as overpopulation,
insufficient physical and social infrastructural amenities. There are variety of rural
6
development models and programmes devoid of desired achievements as a result of
emphasis on agricultural development.
In a nutshell, intervention policies more often than not are urban bias, leaving the
rural poor to continue in their hardship which Bertolini, Montanari and Peragine (2008:7)
identified as the main social and economic problems in rural areas. These are in form of
Demographic - low birth rate, negative natural increase, higher mortality rate
depopulation, especially due to out-migration by the young people caused by lack of
employment, low population density; Labour market: low educational status, higher rates
of unemployment and long-term unemployment; Spatial dimension of poverty as being
exacerbated by a poor and deteriorating infrastructure; Significant fragmentation of
land’s ownership. Rural welfare being constrained by low levels of income, driven by
low wages in rural areas, high unemployment, and low levels of agricultural productivity.
Access to basic services (water, sanitary, health and so on) is very limited in rural areas.
There are great disparities in regional development due to a number of factors including
history, culture, natural endowment and politics. In the same way, Alege (2005:61) noted
that Nigeria has never been bereft of good policies and programmes, the major problem
has been poor implementation. Nigeria can be described as a nation that has no specific,
well formulated, clear regional development policy or framework (The Document of
Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) at 50, 2010:663).
Nigerians have since independence experienced numerous rural community
development programmes initiated by successive civilian and military governments
beginning with the National Development plans which have not yielded desired results.
Omale (2005:148,149) pointed out that rather than being a process of evolution from one
stage of strategy to another stage and thus a process of building on past programmes and
experience, it has been a process of total change from one strategy to another. He
highlighted further that the strategies have been rather numerous and …not too many
successes have been recorded. Despite the whole plans and the development programmes
and policies, there are still poverty of socio-economic development and welfare of the
people. The most important thing to observe from the foregoing is the fact that despite
numerous rural development programmes adopted in Nigeria from independence to date,
the rural areas’ situation remains sorry and pitiable.
The effect of this is the concomitant phenomenon of rural-urban migration that has
manifested in ‘urban challenges’, characterized by an increase in pressure on socio-
economic infrastructure including access to clean and portable water, adequate
healthcare, access to basic education, proper sewage and waste disposal systems, amongst
others (The Document of Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN)at 50, 2010:663).
Overpopulation also places undue stress on basic life-sustaining resources, which
7
ultimately results in diminishing wellbeing and quality of life. It has also created new
challenges such as climate change, depletion in resources, food insecurity, social and
spatial inequalities, economic instability, urban sprawl and unplanned pre-urbanisation in
the 21st Century.
Following these developments, Ogwu (2005:202) posited that the local
governments in Nigeria are expected to constitute the grassroots organ that should
stimulate and mobilize the rural communities for an integrated development to solve the
problems of poverty; unemployment, ignorance, and inequality. The reverse is the case in
Nigeria as pictured by Arizona-Ogwu (2007:2) thus: Local government areas are
supposed to be the engines of national development. A quiet rural community grows into
a bustling city, and the local leader makes this possible. Sustainable development is a
vital aspect which is not created by planning alone, however, deliberate programme
management and monitoring of the conditions that will bring about sustainability is
essential during programme implementation. When applied to rural development,
“sustainability” is not limited only to continued existence of programmes long after their
existence; it also means that sustainable rural development can be defined both as a
process and as a policy goal. As a process, it defines a movement and a desire for
development efforts and programmed to take cognizance of ecological factors by
ensuring ecosystem balance. It is a call that development should both destabilize the
environment by over drawing a nature introducing pollutants into the ecosystem or
disrupting or terminating other forms of life (the non-human species) so that our planet
can be made safe and habitable even as we appropriate the bounties of nature for human
ends. Sustainable rural development calls for the introduction of environment friendly
technologies, habits, production systems and environmental impact assessment (EIA) of
human activities so as to avoid activities that may have adverse effects on the
environment as well as the human and non-human species. As a policy goal in
sustainable rural development addresses the creation, promotion and co-ordination of
awareness, enabling conditions and concrete action towards rural development. It
describes the initiative of government. Policy makers, environmental protection groups,
industrial executives and the international community involving many people and
organizations of different categories, social classes and interest at various levels in
becoming knowledgeable skilled pursuers of sustainable rural development and to
transmit such knowledge, skills and strategies to target individuals and groups
(Olugbenga, 2002, p.65).
As a policy goal, sustainable rural development is a key-phrase that matches
globalization and the information technology revolution in importance. It views
investment in the environment as a way of harmonizing rural society and the natural
8
environment on a long term basis. Sustainable rural development requires these at the
grassroots levels with an eye for rural peculiarities (World Bank, 2001, p.1) The
challenges of rural communities in Nigeria include lack of basic infrastructures, poor
access to roads, poor educational facilities, lack of portable water, low per capita income,
high unemployment and inadequate power supply. Esema (2010) as cited in Bassey
(2011), affirmed that rural communities are usually characterized by poor health, lack of
basic nutrition, inadequate housing, are socially discriminated against and have no
channels through which to voice their concerns. Rural development is part of general
development that embraces a large segment of those in great need in the rural sector.
Hunter (1964) considers rural development as the starting point of development.
Ogidefa (2010) sees rural development as creating and widening opportunities for rural
people to realize their full potential through education and share in decisions and actions
which affect their lives. He further asserted that rural development involves efforts to
increase rural output and create employment opportunities and root out fundamental
cases of poverty, diseases and ignorance. On a general note, development is seen as a
process by which man increases or maximizes his control and use of the material
resources with which nature has endowed him and his environment. However, the federal
government took a giant step towards reconstruction and opening up more feeder roads in
the country through establishment of the following programmes to compliment the efforts
of federal and state governments:- Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructures
(DFRRI), Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), Agriculture Development Programme (ADP),
Accelerated Development Areas (ADA), Federal Road Maintenance Agency (FERMA)
etc. The government should not only sponsor projects, but equally make available grants
and technical experts to supervise rural development projects. Okwor (2004:3) stated that
cooperative societies, religious organizations, age grades, town unions, political societies
should sponsor and supervise rural development activities. He also stated that informal
groups of association, such as social clubs, woman’s association, scouts, and guides
associations should be involved. Ugwueze (2004:4) stated that government should not
sponsor rural development alone, he pointed out that rural dwellers for whom the
programmes are designed for must take part in the planning, execution and assessment of
such programmes. So, both the rural dwellers and the government should be involved in
supervision and sponsorship of developmental projects. In Isi-Uzo Local Government, it
was a joint effort of the government and the local people.
The rural dwellers have sponsored so many developmental projects example,
Nkwo Neke market project. Agricultural Development programme was established in
some states of federation by federal government with the assistance of the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) for integrated rural development to all
9
parts of the country. According to Ministry of Agriculture (2004:6) the progermme made
a great achievement in the areas of fertilizer, they recorded 67.5 metric tons in first
quarter, also there was improvement in seeds/planting materials like tomatoes, coco-yam,
groundnuts, rice etc. the report further stated that there was a lot of achievements in areas
of livestock, poultry and Agro-chemicals. Contributing further on achievement of Enugu
State Development Programme (ENDP) Asadu, (2004:46) stated that large quantities of
improved maize seeds for planting were available at the state Agricultural Development
Programme, adding that these measures would increase food production in the state. He
stated further that the state government has procured 8000 Metric tons of fertilizer for
distribution to farmers this farming season at subsidized prices.
Nigeria is vast, it stretches over 800 miles of land from Atlantic Ocean in the south to
Sahara desert in the North, and about 650 miles in the East to West direction. Nkemjika
(2003:3) stated that before the civil war in 1967, Nigeria had a road network of 65,400
miles out of which 9,800 miles were tarred.
He further stated that these roads were tarred without survey; they were
characterized with narrow bridges, sharp bends, and tall hills and so on. The creation of
state in Nigeria widened the network of roads in the country. Between 1970 to 1980 there
was a tremendous in road development in Nigeria, roads were surveyed before tarring,
there was less slaps, wider and straight roads. These new roads cut across major towns
giving room for township expansion. Through the adult education programmes the rural
dwellers develop skills and knowledge and improved in agricultural production though
the use of improved seed and animal varieties. The Universal free primary education
contributed a lot in reducing illiteracy, many children from poor parental background
benefited from the programme. Many teachers were trained and given automatic
employment, thereby reducing unemployment in the country. Equally, many schools
were built and equipment provided.
Also introduction of the Universal Basic Education in 2000, which is compulsory
free Primary education to junior secondary school level, is another bold step of reducing
illiteracy in the country. Since the inception of the programme, many classroom blocks
have been constructed in different parts of the country and many educational materials
supplied to many schools. The Government of Enugu State has renovated more than 150
primary and secondary schools, distributed seater desks to schools. Equally, the
introduction of school meal plus programme is another breakthrough, in which the state
in conjunction with international donor agencies like Department for International
Development (DFID) and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
(UNICEF) are sponsoring the programme. Mgbo, (2004:45) stated that the school meal
plus programme is a holistic education programme designed by the Enugu state
10
government to improve the nutrient deficiencies in school children aged 2-6 in all the
public primary schools; by providing them with one balanced meal at school daily. She
further stated that the children are also to be provided with vitamin supplements,
immunized against the eight child killer diseases, deworm and malaria preventive drugs
administered on them by qualifed health workers. The programme was flaged off in 2004
by Governor Chimaroke. A total twenty selected primary schools in three Local
Government Areas of Isi-Uzo, Aniri and Uzo Uwani are pilot schools. Though the
programme is relatively young, it has recorded encouraging increase in pupils’
enrolment. Now almost the whole local governments in Enugu state are benefiting from
the programme. This programme is worthy of emulation that the Federal Government has
decided to borrow a leaf from Enugu state.
The minister of education announced the introduction of the programme in the
country. At tertiary level, many structures have been completed and work is going on at
permanent site of Enugu State University of Science and Technology at Agbani, dumped
for 28 years ago. Equally Nigerian law school branch was established in Enugu, and
millions of naira was spent on the project. So, illiteracy posed a great problem to
successful planning and implementation of government programmes in the country. The
literate ones are more easily mobilized than their illiterate counter pants. The illiterate
ones are ignorant of the merits of governments’ development efforts. Government should
lay more emphasis on education because it is the biggest industry in any nation. One of
the monumental achievements of the president Obasanjo’s administration was the
privatization of the communication sector, a development that saw the grating of licenses
to operators of the Global Satellite Mobile (GSM) telecommunication.
The telephone lines have increase from about 450,000 lines before in 1999 to a
high as more than twelve million lines in less than five years. This has turned Nigeria into
Global village. Millions of unemployed youths have been gainfully employed through the
operations of the telecommunication companies, thereby reducing and hardship in the
country. Adeboye (2005:3) stated that government determined to take
telecommunications to its citizens residing at the rural areas; the Federal government has
imported equipment worth of N74 billion to boast its rural telephone project. The essence
of this project is to extend telephone to local government headquarters in the federations.
Even the two Chinese firms involved in the project have also provided their N24 billion
concessionary loan for it and have commenced work in some local government. Isi-Uzo
Local Government is going to benefit from the project. Modern communication media
play an important role in the development of rural Africa. The importance of press, radio
and television was recognized in 1980 by the inter-governmental conference or
conference or communication policies in Africa, which agreed that communication
11
should be seen within a global approach to development, particularly in matters of
education, services and technology. So, there is the need to communicate to rural people
to provide the people with maximum information about any introduction of economic and
social change. The objectives of these efforts would depend upon the proper functioning
of a purposeful and effective communication structure. By their nature, mass media can
circumvent the rural problem of illiteracy, scattered population, and scarcity of
transportation facilities and shortage of skilled manpower. Equally Obidike (2004:17)
identified the following strategies for rural development.
The mobilization approach - The mobilization approach emphasized on the
popular participation of the people in the rural development process. It de-emphasizes the
role of government. The government guides the people while the people play dominant
role in the formulation and implementation of the policies. So the role of government is
limited to advisory role and mobilization process. This type of development can be
described as development from below and it is common among the socialist countries
like china, Cuba and Tanzania during Nyerere regime. Directive Approach-The directive
approach is a situation where an outside body or association or government comes to a
community, identify the problems of the community and solve those problems. This
approach requires minimum participation of the community itself. Here it is the
government or agencies that shoulder the responsibility of promoting rural development
because the government enjoys the monopoly of the resources of the country. This
technocratic approach of rural development is practiced or common in capitalist
countries. Non-Directive Community Approach – the community themselves will
identify their problems without any assistance from any outside body and solve. It
involves the pulling of their human resources together to transform their economic
improvement. It is a government of self-effort, self-improvement, and it is based on
pressing needs of a particular community. For example, women, Age grades, and Youth
associations etc. formed and these associations execute the programmes. Agricultural
extension – the Agricultural extension is what the third world countries have used to
achieve rural development. It is very important in third world countries because of
income, foreign exchange earnings and employment. No country can achieve economic
development without agriculture and that is the reason we call it backward and forward
linkage. It is designed to educate the rural people to engage in agricultural to improve
their productivity and incomes. It entails the diffusion and dissemination of knowledge of
modern agricultural practices to farmers.
The agricultural extent ion has come to be broadly conceived as an educational
programme of people on how they can improve their totality of living standard.
Migration, whether at the international or local level be deliberate decision or attempt by
12
the migrant to reap social or economic benefit associated with changing locations. There
are different types of migration. Internal migration is termed as the movement of people
to a new home in a state, country or continent while external migration is the movement
to a new home in a different state, country or continent (Adepoju, 2003; Adamu, 2009;
Agbonlahor and Enilolobo, 2013) The term growth point (GP) means increasing in size
both in number of facilities, building and services provided at an identified centre. Thus,
once a centre has been established there should be an observable change in spatial
structure and pattern. One would assume that the spatio-temporal expansion is
development. It quickly reminds one of the links between growth and development.
Whilst the word growth implies expansion development implies quantitative growth and
the quality of growth introduced to the selected centres. Thus, these terms are commonly
used interchangeably in rural planning (Manyanhaire, Rwafa and Mutangadura, 2011). It
therefore means that development per se cannot be tied to economic advancement only
but a general improvement in the living conditions of the people over time. Development
is also aimed at improving the living conditions of the people through the effective
management of both the human and materials resources. Thus, Gana (1986:2) noted that
“Development concerns the capacity and creative capability of a people to effectively
transform the natural resources of their environment into goods and services through the
imaginative and practical application of their creative talent and productive power”. This
implies that the people must be empowered to be able to meet their basic needs of food,
housing, health, transport, education, employment, reduction in poverty level and
increased per capita income. This is what is lacking in the rural areas of Nigeria and
elsewhere in Africa where about eighty percent of the population live in the rural areas.
A critical examination of the definition of “development” shows that
“development” must necessarily include, the reduction or elimination of poverty,
illiteracy, disease, malnutrition, and joblessness. It is a programme which has the
objective and strategy aimed at transforming the citizens in the rural areas from being the
victims of poverty, ignorance and disease into a contented human begins, able to earn an
income capable of sustaining a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their
families. It also means the ability to provide the basic necessities of life such as food,
jobs, affordable and accessible health care, good roads, water, electricity and education.
According to the United Nations (1976:4): The concept of integrated rural
development implies that it is a composite or comprehensive programme for rural
development in which all relevant sectors such as agriculture, education, housing, health
and employment are conceived as interlinking elements in a system having horizontal as
well as vertical linkage in operational and spatial terms. The scope of the concept of rural
or community development is very wide. It is a multi-dimensional process involving such
13
areas as agriculture, health, education, provision of rural infrastructures, social life,
political and economic issues, commerce and industry, among others, and their
integration with the national economy. Since the scope of the concept is wide it is the
pivot on which a sound national development in all its ramifications can effectively be
achieved. It is, however often assumed by policy makers and development planners that
rural development is synonymous with agriculture. Aziz, (1999) affirms that the concept
of rural development should be viewed as a holistic concept, which recognizes the
complexity and inter-relatedness of the many variables which influence the quality of life
in rural areas. It is a complex process, which involves the interaction of economic, social,
political, cultural, technological and other situational factors.
Hence for the actualization of the concept, these factors have to be integrated with
local government policies and plans with the objectives of improving the quality of life of
the people in the rural sector. Furthermore, according to Mabogunje, (1981), rural
development is concerned with the self-sustaining improvement of rural areas and
implies a broad based re-organization and mobilization of the rural masses so as to
enhance their capacity to cope effectively with the daily task of their lives and with the
changes consequent upon this. In the opinion of Gana, (1996), rural development is
important not only for its impact on rural places and people but also for its contribution to
the overall development of the nation. In the Nigerian experience where the bulk of the
people and land are rural, and where the level of rural output is very low, rural
mobilization provides the quickest and most direct route to national development. This
would require the adoption of appropriate technology for raising rural productivity and
efficient utilization of resources, creation of efficient transport network for rural and
urban areas to ensure easy transportation of agricultural produce for massive food
production and supply of industrial raw materials. Rural development includes generation
of new employment, more equitable access to arable land, equitable distribution of
income, widespread improvement in health, nutrition and housing, creation of incentives
and opportunities. It also involves the ability of the local government to create wider
opportunities for individuals to realize their full potentials through education and sharing
in the decisions and actions which affect their lives.
The word “rural” connotes a place with agricultural orientation; the houses are
farm houses, barns, sheds and other structures of similar purposes. As asserted by Olisa
and Obiukwu (1992) population is the main characteristic that differentiates rural from
urban areas, especially in the developing countries. In this regard, in Nigeria an area with
a population of 20,000 people and below is classified as a rural area. However, this is not
adequate to explain a rural area. Therefore according to Olisa and Obiukwu (1992: 65):
14
The main features of rural areas are depression, degradation and deprivation. Many rural
villages are immersed in poverty so palpable that the people are the embodiment of it. In
most rural area in Nigeria, basic infrastructure where they exist at all, are too inadequate
for meaningful development.
In other words, the rural areas lack virtually all the good things of life like roads,
medical and health facilities, portable water, electricity etc. As pointed out above, these
characteristics are not limited to rural areas alone but are also found in urban areas in
Nigeria and other developing countries. The people engage in subsistence agriculture,
their standard of living is very low, earning only a few thousands of naira annually, they
are poorly served by almost all public amenities and they generally show considerable
resistance to change in any form.
3. AN ASSESSMENT OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN
NIGERIA.
There are both challenges and opportunities associated with building sustainable
cities. The multidimensional impact of megatrends represents a strategic opportunity for
taking an integrated approach to urban planning and a major opportunity for investment
in industrial transformation, improved infrastructure, social development and
environmental management. Sustainable development in growing cities, of poor countries
in particular, implies investment in infrastructure such as roads, water, sewers, electricity
and services such as schools, public transportation and health-care. Leapfrogging invest-
ment in green industrial transformation can generate employment for the “youth bulge”
dividend experienced by those countries.
In cities of middle- and high-income countries, investment in the production and use
of renewable sources of energy, as well as in the renovation of infrastructure, retrofitting
of buildings and improved efficiency in the use of electricity and water, is important. At
the same time, investment in strategies for the reduction of waste production and
improvement of waste collection and recycling systems are needed in most cities across
the world. Inevitably, there will be trade-offs between investments yielding benefits in
the short term, e.g., infrastructure for development, and those with benefits in the long
term, such as environmental protection and disaster risk reduction. Cities’ contribution to
sustainable development can be multiplied if more countries are committed to that goal
and when people are able to produce, consume and govern their behavior in a sustainable
manner. Thus, urban sustainability defined within the framework of a global integrated
approach must include both developed and developing countries. The rural development
initiatives by the government have created a culture of dependence on the part of the
people rather than the people themselves initiating development orientations. While it is
15
the responsibility of government to create the enabling environment for community or
rural development, the attendant corruption, greed and mismanagement associated with
these institutions and agencies have not allowed them to achieve their desired objectives.
In this connection Okpaga (2004) asserted that “Rather than making these institutions
vehicle for rural transformation, they become conduit pipes from where public funds are
siphoned into private pockets”. Added to the above is the fact that the British colonial
administration did not concern itself with planning for the development of the rural areas.
Indeed, development is the very antithesis of colonialism. The few amenities and
infrastructure that were available were concentrated in the few urban towns particularly
in the “European Quarters” or “White Reserved Areas”.
Generally, the demand for labour in rural Nigeria is seasonal and full of
reservations; the country’s poor rural depend mostly on agriculture for food and income.
About 90 per cent of Nigeria’s food is produced by small-scale farmers who cultivate
small plots of land and depend on rainfall rather than irrigation systems. The
disproportions created as a result of these attributes have produced huge disparities in
income level between rural and urban areas, unemployment and underemployment
resulting in unmitigated poverty for majority of rural Nigerians. Farmers, teachers and
government officials with little or no training in relevant skill set rely heavily on families
in urban areas for support and often times take up multiply part-time jobs in all forms of
rural enterprises as a survival strategy. Finally, vital input such as transportation facilities,
electricity, water, business premises and information are lacking in rural economies
because of inadequate government attention. The rural population that constituted over
70% of Nigerians and who produced the bulk of the colonial wealth only felt the impact
of government in the form of tax drives, occasional visits by colonial officials and their
agents and stories fed them by few urban dwellers or those who had been there. Thus,
Onimode (1981:33) observed that: “The rural dwellers who were impoverished by
multiple taxation, broken by colonial police and court repression, and submerged in a
culture of silence’ through illiteracy, were undoubtedly among the most brutally
exploited by the savage colonialism of Britain”. This situation has not radically changed
even after independence from British rule. The exploitative and western-oriented policies
and programmes of the colonial era have continued since independence. One area that the
western-oriented policies and programmes have persisted since 1960 is in the area of
agriculture. Emphasis was placed on the production of cash crops and the importation of
foreign foods to the neglect of local staples. The continued pursuance of this policy with
the resultant neglect of the rural areas and the exploitation of peasant farmers has proved
disaster for the country. The urban-based nature of Nigeria’s development process led to
a gradual deterioration in the quality of life in the rural areas, thus stimulating rural-urban
16
migration on a massive scale, especially when mineral oil over took agriculture as the
mainstay of the national economy. The helpless situation of the rural communities was
accentuated by the exploitative tendencies of the Nigerian Marketing Boards of the
1950s, lack of incentives to farmers, antiquated farming techniques, lack of storage
facilities, poor transportation network etc. fastened the decline in agriculture generally
(Nnadozie, 1986:11). Another area in the Nigerian agricultural policies and programmes
where rural dwellers and farmers are being marginalized is the area of big agricultural
schemes in various parts of the country. The policy pursued by government since mid-
1970s ostensibly to boost agriculture started with Operation Feed the Nation (OFN)
launched in 1976, the Green Revolution in the Second Republic and various budgetary
incentives in large-scale agriculture. Similarity the Agricultural Development Projects
(ADPs) and big irrigation dam schemes were ostensibly to improve rural development.
All these projects which are scattered in different parts of the country and jointly financed
by the World Bank and Nigerian government did not help much in the improvement of
the living standards of the rural populace. Rather it has worsened the plight of peasants
by depriving them of their lands as happened in Bakolori project in Sokoto state. The
beneficiaries of these capital-intensive agricultural programmes and schemes were the big
barons who live in the urban area. The monies they got as loans never went to agriculture
but to other businesses.
The neglect of the peasant farmers has obviously led to faster decline in agricultural
production with attendant negative consequences for rural development (Nnadozie,
1986). It is also disheartening to note that in the area of investment and government
provision of amenities, the urban areas are more favoured than the rural setting.
Diejomaoh (1973:100-103) have shown that over the years: “The beneficiaries of
government expenditure on education, health, water supply, electricity, industries and
road construction are mainly urban dwellers and that less than 30% of total government
development expenditure is designed for the benefit of rural communities”. In spite of the
importance of and potentialities of the rural sector in terms of its workforce, and its
contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), of the estimated private sector
investment amounting to about N1,632 million in the second national development plan
period (1970-1974), only N246 million or 15% was spent in the rural areas. This pattern
is basically the same in the Third and Fourth Development plan periods, 1975-1985
(Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1970-74). The various aids and assistance to Nigeria by
international organizations and institutions like UNO, USAID, DFID, WHO, and others
have not been utilized to the benefit of rural development in Nigeria. This has been due to
rampant corruption and gross mismanagement at all levels of governments in Nigeria.
The net effect of the above analysis is that the rural areas of Nigerians are greatly
17
neglected in various spheres of human endeavour. They lack the basic needs of life, they
are deprived and exploited, and hence rural development in Nigeria has remained a
mirage. An integrated approach to rural development will be based on a holistic view of
its social development, economic development, environmental management at the local,
national and global levels and governance components. It will entail the coordination of
objectives and programmes among different city stakeholders (e.g., citizens, government
and the business sector), as well as the development of linkages between and within
socioeconomic sectors and activities. In economic terms, the integrated approach tries to
improve synergies and efficiencies among activities such as public transportation, energy
consumption, biodiversity and human health. Further, under an integrative approach, city
administrations would integrate investment in various types of infrastructures with the
development of institutional and management capacities and the active participation of all
stakeholders in the process of building sustainable cities. The city of Curitiba in Brazil
has gained worldwide recognition for having successfully developed that kind of
integrated approach to sustainability over the past 40 years.
At the national level, the integration of the rural and urban sectors is critical. Wider
access to public services and development of linkages with industrial development can
leverage rural sector capacities to exchange resources and information, and engage in
social interaction, with urban areas. Investment in economic and social infrastructure in
rural settlements can be a catalyst for reducing rural-urban migration. Although every
area is characterized by a different configuration of land use, resources and potentials, the
systemic integration of different villages, towns and cities in the context of their
particular specializations and strategic locations can bring sustainable development to
both urban and rural areas.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Rural communities are facing a lot of challenges even with so much potential.
Implementation of policies is paramount for any rural community to enjoy a sustained
development. The focus of the Policy is on developing the rural areas, raising the quality
of life of the rural people, alleviating rural poverty and using rural development to
contribute to laying a solid foundation for national development. To achieve integrated
and even development on a sustainable basis, the strategies enumerated in the Policy will
empower rural dwellers through the development of productive employment, enhancing
their income, ensuring protection of the environment, promoting gender responsiveness
and ensuring adequate care for vulnerable groups. Arising from all the above, this paper
offers a number of recommendations as a way of solving the lingering problems of rural
underdevelopment in Nigeria. Since over 70% of Nigerian population live in the rural
18
areas and produce the greatest wealth of the nation, the rural areas should be accorded
more recognition in terms of budgetary provisions and provision of social and economic
amenities. The production needs of rural dwellers centre around infrastructural facilities,
adequate extension services, and financial credit. Therefore feeder roads are needed to
effectively link and integrate peasants all over the country with the urban centres to
enable them to evacuate their products from the farms. They also need adequate water
supply for drinking and irrigation, especially in the arid parts of the country. Government
should provide the environment to foster rural and community development in Nigeria.
Facilities such as education, health services, electricity supply, edcation, health and
general quality of life are acutely inadequate in the rural areas. There is also need to
adequately train the farmers in the use of new techniques of farming and for them to be
provided with farming equipments like tractors, fertilizers and pest control chemicals at
subsidized prices that those peasants can afford. In this regard, the current practice of
absentee farmers living in the urban areas trading in fertilizers meant for real farmers
should be stopped. Government should endeavour to deal directly with the real farmers in
the rural areas if rural development is to be achieved. The so-called “agricultural credit
guarantee scheme’ under which commercial banks are encouraged to give peasant
farmers loans guaranteed by the federal government through the Central Bank need to be
reviewed. This is because the processes involved, including feasibility studies- required
to secure those loans are beyond the capability of peasant farmers. The fact of the matter
is that agricultural credit facilities in Nigeria have been designed for the big capitalist
farmers. This policy should be reviewed to favour the peasant farmers who live in the
rural areas. The rampant and endemic corruption, greed and mismanagement associated
with institutions for rural development should be ripped in the bud. This requires the
intensification of the crusade against these vices by the government and her agencies like
EFCC (Economic and Financial Crimes Commission) and ICPC (Independent Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences Commission). This requires the change of attitude
by the political leaders to deal with the situation squarely. Therefore, the Nigerian state
should make deliberate efforts to create a virile and credible institutions and structures
that would enhance rural development.
Furthermore, it is advocated that Nigeria should try to break away from the neo-
colonial and dependent nature of the economic and social system. As long as we operate
these social and economic systems of dependence, development in the real sense of the
term will remain a mirage. In the long run what we would witness will be continued
exploitation and domination by western or foreign investors. Rural development in
Nigeria should not be the concern of only Federal, State and local governments. It is
important that individuals, communities, corporate organizations nongovernmental
19
organizations and international organizations and agencies must be deeply involved in the
efforts at eradicating poverty, enhancing rural development and the overall national
development of the country.
There is the need for change of attitudes on the part of the citizenry, particularly
public office holders to embrace the virtues of hard work, commitment, integrity
transparency and accountability in the conduct of government business. It is then, and
only then that rural development in Nigeria will become reality. From the foregoing
analysis it is obvious that rural or community development in Nigeria has not received its
fair share in the scheme of things. The institutions and agencies charged with the
responsibility for rural development and the policies and strategies adopted to meet these
objectives have not lived up to expectation of the rural dwellers in particular and the
nation in general. It has been shown that in spite of the numerous natural resources that
Nigeria is endowed with, majority of the citizens, particularly in the rural areas live
below ‘absolute poverty line’. Therefore there exists mass poverty as a result of the
lopsided and urban-based development process which the governments in Nigeria have
pursued till date. For instance the various World Bank, IMF and other multinational
corporations-sponsored large-scale agricultural projects were not intended to better the lot
of the rural dwellers. These projects and schemes are based on obsolete trickle-down
theory by which the main beneficiaries are supposed to diffuse information and motivate
the small peasant farmers, who would then follow their example. It would be difficult for
Nigeria to attack its poverty unless it stops discriminating against peasant farmers and
rural population.
20
REFERENCES
Adeboye, C. (2005, March, 24) Government imports N14 billion facility to boast rural
telephony; the Guardian. p .3
Adelakun, 2013 Theories and Strtegies of African Rural Development, in Olisa, M.S.O.
&Obiukwu, J.I., Rural Development in Nigeria: Dynamics and Strategies. Awka:
MEKSLINK PUBLISHERS NIG.
Agbonlahor M.U. and Enilolobo O.S. (2013). Rural immigrants agricultural labour
supply and rural nonfam economy in the South western, Nigeria. J. Appl. Agric.
Res. 5(1):1-17
Alege, I. (2005). Financial and Technical Resources Mobilization for Community
Development in Omale, I. & Ebiloma, J. (ed) Principles and Community
Development in Nigeria. Makurdi: ABOKI PUBLISHERS. Pp 53-74.
Asadu, C (2004) 8,000 tones of fertilizer for farmers: service news; Enugu State Public
Service Bulletin, No.2. p.6
Asian Development Bank Institute (ADB) (2014). Rural Development: Household
Perceptions on Rural Development http://www.adbi.org/discussion.paper
Arizona-Ogwu, L.C.(2007). Local Government and The Need for Grass root
Development.
America:NigeriaMattersMagazine.http://www.nigeriansinamerica.com/categories/
Nigeria-Matters
Aziz, S. (1979) Rural Development: Learning from China, London, Macmillan Press
Bassey, A. 2011. Understanding Rural Development: Concepts, Theories and Strategies.
Calabar: Kings View Publishing House.
Bertolini, P., Montanari, M. & Peragine, V. (2008). Poverty and Social Exclusion in
Rural Areas Final Report. Bulgaria: European Commission Annex I Country
Studies.
Diejomaoh, V.P. (1973) “Rural Development in Nigeria. Role of fiscal policy” in Rural
Development in Nigeria: Proceedings of the 1972 Annual conference of the
Nigerian Economic Society, Ibadan, Ibadan University Press.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (1970-74). The Second National Development Plan, 1970-
74, Lagos
Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010). Nigeria at 50 Document. Abuja: 1st
OctoberPublishing.
(2010). Planning Reconstructing a Better Nigeria. Abuja: Federal Ministry of
Works.
(2010). The Challenges of Growth. Abuja: National Planning Commission.
21
Gana, J. (1986) “A strategy for Integrated Rural Development in Nigeria”, A paper
presented to the Directorate of Foods, Roads and Rural Infrastructures (DFRRI),
Presidency, Lagos
Gana, J. (1996) “A strategy for Integrated Rural Development in Nigeria”, paper
presented at a National Seminar Organized by the Directorate of Foods, Roads and
Rural Infrastructures, Lagos
Hunter, G. 1964. The New Societies of Tropical Africa. New York: Frederick A. Proager.
Ibietan, J. &Oghator, E. (2013). Trends in Development Planning In Nigeria: 1962 to
2012. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Pennsylvania 15 (4) 297-311
Lacroix, T. (2011). Migration, Rural Development, Poverty and Food Security: A
Comparative Perspective. Oxford: International Migration Institute, University of
Oxford.
Mabogunje, A.L. (1981) The Development Process; A Spatial Perspective, London,
Hutchinson Publishers
Manyanhair IO, Rwafa R, Mutangadura J (2011). A Theoretical Overview of the Growth
Centre Strategy: Perspectives for Reengineering the Concept in Zimbabwe.
Journal of Sustainable
Development in Africa; Volume 13, No.4, pp 1-13.
Mgbo, A (2004) School meal plus latest Enrolment up by 1000; service news, Enugu
State bulletin, No. 1, p.
Ministry of Agriculture (2004) Enugu State Development, 2003/2004 First quarter
Report; Special
Programme for food Security p.6
Nkemjika, J. (2003) The effect of Bad Roads in Community Development in Nigerian;
Unpublished MEDTerm paper, UNN p.3
Nnadozie, O.U. (1986). “Rural Development or Rural Exploitation: A critique of
Development Policies in Nigeria”, A paper presented at the workshop for
chairmen and councilors in Anambora, Benue, Cross-River, Imo and Rivers State,
at the University of Nigeria
Nnoli, O. (1977) Path to Nigerian Development, Codestria
Obidike, B (2004) Rural Development Administration, Unpublished handout, Akwa Ibom
state poly Uyo pp. 16-20
Obiukwu, J.I.(1992). The underlying Factors of Nigerian Rural Conditions, in Olisa,
M.S.O. & Obiukwu, J.I., Rural Development in Nigeria: Dynamics and Strategies.
Awka: MEKSLINK Publishers Nigeria.
22
Ogidefa, I. 2010. Rural Development in Nigeria: Concept, Approaches, Challenges and
Prospects. http://Socyberty.com/issues/rural Development in Nigeria. Retrieved
21/4/2014.
Olisa, M.S.O. and Obiukwu, J.I. (1992), Rural Development in Nigeria: Dynamics and
Strategies, Awka, Mekslink Publishers (Nig)
Onimode, S. (1981) “Imperialism and Nigerian Development” in Nnadi (ed), Path to
Nigerian Development Dakar, Codesvia
Ogwu, S. (2005). Community Development in Nigeria, being a text delivered on the
Opening Ceremony of a Workshop on Community Development in Nigeria
organized by Kogi State University in collaboration with the Local Government
Service Commission Lokoja, at Anyigba on July, 4
Okhankhuele, O.T. & Opafunso, O. Z. (2013). Causes and Consequences of Rural-Urban
Migration Nigeria: A Case Study of Ogun Waterside Local Government Area of
Ogun State, Nigeria. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 16(I)
http://www.bjournal.co.uk/BJASS.aspx
Okpaga, O. (2004), Non-Governmental organizations and Rural Development – An
Assessment of the impact of information Financial Institutions on community
Development in Igede Area of Benue State. A speech delivered at the 10th
Anniversary Dinner Party of Okpawule Wule Social Club of Igede, held at
FIMACO rite club, Oju on 1 Feb. 2004
Okwor, F.O. (2004). Rural development programmes and the roles of communities and
the government. Paper presented at a seminar at Ikem p.3
Omale, I. (2005). Policies and Strategies for Rural Development in Nigeria: From
Colonial Era (1945) to DFFRI Era (Mid 80s to Early 90s) in Omale, I. & Ebiloma,
J. (ed) Principles and Community Development in Nigeria. Makurdi: ABOKI
PUBLISHERS. Pp 143-166
Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe underdeveloped Africa, Darres Salam, Ethipe Press
Sam, I.O. (2014). Achieving Sustainable Poverty Reduction and Rural Development in
Nigeria through Local Economic Development Strategies. American Journal of
Rural Development 2(1), 13-19.
Seers, D. (1969) “Meaning of Development”, A paper presented at the 11th World
Conference of the Society for International Development, New Delhi, India.
Tenuche, M. & Ogwo, B. (2005). Obstacles to Community Development and How to
Combat them in, Omale, I. & Ebiloma, J. (ed) Principles and Community
Development in Nigeria. Makurdi: Aboki Publishers.
23
Todaro, M.P. (1977), Economics for a Developing World, London, Longman Group
Limited
Uba, A.Y. (2012). The Cry of the Rural Poor in Nigeria. Zoo Road-Kano: JENES Press
Ltd.
Ugweze, G (2004). The government position towards rural development; Address
presented during the commissioning of a project at Umualor, p.4.
United Nations (1976), The significance of Rural Housing in Integrated Rural
Development, UN; New York.
Usman, B. (2004). Northern Elites and National Development, being text Presented at the
Inauguration of Arewa Progressive Youths in Arewa House, Kaduna. October, 16
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia(2014). Rural Development. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_development
