POOR STANDARD OF
LIVING IN NIGERIA
Government, the
world over is seriously worried and concerned about the increase in the global poor
standard of living rate most especially in the developing countries. This is
because the sole aim of any rational government is to maximize the welfare of
its people. Nigeria been one the global community is not left out in the issue
of poor standard of living hence the three (3) tiers of government of Nigeria
keep making concerted effort towards alleviation of poor standard of living in
Nigeria.
Poor standard of
living is a multi – dimensional and highly complex phenomenon. Therefore, any
attempt or struggle for its alleviation requires a through understanding of its
characteristics and the manifestation of its underlying causes. For a long
period now, economists have been preoccupied with the distribution of wealth
and the improvement of individual well-being. However, since the 1980s, all
these issues have taken central position due to their importance, especially in
the face of persistent poor standard of living across the global economy
(Abdullahi, 2008).
As an old phenomenon, poor standard of
living has always assumed different forms. Indeed, it is generally inconvenient
to be poor. Consequently, the need to tackle the problem and had led to many
governments across the globe to apply all kinds of solutions unfortunately, all
these solutions have tended to fail to lower the rate of poor standard of
living especially in the Less Developed Countries (LDCs). At global level for
instance, the approach to poor standard of living had also varied overtime. At
one time, the objective was to move people above the “poor standard of living
line”, i.e. to provide the minimum subsistence to people who would not have had
even that base minimum. The present period is however geared towards the goal
of inadequacy in some developed countries (Gusau and Abdullahi, 1995), while
that of alleviating absolute poor standard of living is still the goal in most
LDCs.
In Nigeria today poor standard of
living seems to have assumed a monstrous dimension hence has taken central
position in almost every household. This has created serious cause of concern
for all and sundry. Thus, the recognition that poor standard of living is bad
and so could be alleviated is a general view. However, what differs is the
approach towards its minimization. Over the year some countries have used the
market system, others use government guarantee while still others used a
combination of these social and political organization to actualize this
objectives.
POOR STANDARD OF LIVING ISSUES IN NIGERIA
Poor standard of
living has been defined differently; Balogun (1999) define poor standard of
living is absolute sense, as a situation where a population or a section of the
population is able to meet only its base subsistence essentials to maintain
minimum standard of living. This definition requires that a yardstick be set
which can be used to assess living standard so as to determine who is poor and
who is not. This led to emergence of the concept of poor standard of living
line base on the level of per – capita income or consumption to individuals or
households within a region or country. This is usually defined as the cut – off
living standard level below which a person is classified as poor.
The World
Development Report (1990) used a lower poor standard of living line of $370
income (in 1985 purchasing power parity dollar) per – capita as a cut off for
absolute poor standard of living. People whose consumption levels fall below
that level are considered poor and those below US$275 as very poor. Englama and
Bamidele (1997) cited in Balogun (1999) summarized the definition of poor
standard of living in both absolute and relative terms as a “state when an
individual is not able to cater adequately for his/her basic needs of food,
clothing and shelter meet social and economic obligations; lack gainful
employment, skills, assets and self – esteem; and has limited access to social
and economic infrastructures and sanitation, and as a result has limited chance
of advancing his/her welfare to the limit of his/her capabilities.
Oludunni (1999)
define poor standard of living in terms of insufficient income for securing the
basic necessities of life such as food, potable water, clothing and shelter.
She also said that poor standard of living may be viewed in terms of the
consequences such as deficient provision of goods and services, deprivation and
lack of right such as it affects the girl – child due to male child preference,
insufficient capability as well as social and economic exclusion mechanisms.
Poor standard of
living may be absolute, relative, chronic, transient, mass or localized.
Absolute poor standard of living is lack of physical minimum requirement for a
person or household’s existence. On the other hand relative poor standard of
living refers to a situation where a person or households is/are with provision
of goods and services which is lower than that of other person(s) or group.
Consequently, poor standard of living is defined simply as a condition in which
an individual does not have enough food to eat; poor drinking water;
sanitation; nutrition, shelter; high infant mortality rate; low life
expectancy, energy, low consumption, educational opportunities; lack of productive
participation in decision making process either as it affects the individuals
or; in national arena be it management or political (Sabo and Igwo, 2007).
Awoseyila (1999)
defines relative poor standard of living as a condition in which households overtime,
fall short at the resources to maintain their standard of living. Applying the
concept of poor standard of living to Nigeria, Awoseyila (1999) states that
those classified as poor included household below the poor standard of living
line like those lacking access of to basic economic and social services, rural
dwellers with lack of essential infrastructure, the unemployment among others.
Measured in absolute and relative terms, poor standard of living in Nigeria is
generally more severe in rural communities and among vulnerable groups in urban
centres. The incidence differs with household size, gender, educational, age
and occupational distribution of household’s heads.
MEASURES OF POOR STANDARD OF LIVING
Balogun (1999)
identified some measures of poor standard of living to include:
·
Income
Distribution Cluster below the Poor standard of living Line: the line measures the poor below the poor standard of living
line measures the degree of severity of the problem. A cluster around the poor
standard of living line is less severe than a distribution where a large
numbers of people have income (or consumption) far below the poor standard of
living threshold. It is the convention in the literature to limit the threshold
to an upper and lower poor standard of living line of US$370 and $275
respectively, interpreted as poor and very poor.
·
The Head
Count Index: this is defined as the
proportion of the population whose measure of standard of living (consumption)
is less than the poor standard of living line. It simply captures the incidence
of poor standard of living as it is usually insensitive to difference between
individuals in the depth or severity of their poor standard of living.
·
The Poor
standard of living Gap Index: which
is the difference between the poor standard of living line and the mean income
of the poor, expressed as a ratio of the poor standard of living line? While
this measure gives a good indication of the depth of poor standard of living,
it does not capture its severity.
·
Lorenze
Curve: a graph depicting the variance of
the size distribution of income from perfect equality. This is simply a measure
of the level of income (per capita) of the rich and the very poor.
·
Gini
Coefficient: defined as an aggregate
numerical measure of income inequality ranging from zero (perfect equality) to
one (perfect inequality. it is graphically measured by dividing the area
between the perfect equality lines in the Lorenze diagram. The higher the value
of the coefficient the higher the inequality of income distribution and the
lower it is the more equitable the distribution of income. Distribution
Sensitive Measures, these measures go beyond counting poor people, to reflect
the distribution of living standards among the poor. They are usually composite
indices which incorporates or combine some of the simple indices among them
are;
·
The Sen Poor
standard of living Index: which
incorporates the head count index, the poor standard of living gap index and
the Gini coefficient to reflect not only the number of the poor, but also both
the extent of immiserization and the distribution of income among the poor? The
major drawback is that it is most sensitive to improvement in the head count
index, thus, suggesting that the efficient way to reduce poor standard of
living is to help the least needy first and the most needy’ last which is
against the principle of egalitarianism.
·
Foster Greer
Thorbecke Index: which measures the mean
of the individual poor standard of living gaps raised to a power that reflects
the social valuation of different degrees of poor standard of living. Assuming
the society places a greater value on helping the poorest, the measure is
weighted to reflect the extent that individual (or household) income falls
below the poor standard of living line. The greater the weight used for the poorest
in relation to the not so poor, the more sensitive is the measure to severe poor
standard of living.
·
Physical
Quality of Life Index (PQLI): which
uses qualitative measures of social well being rather than income per – capita
to determine the quality of life. This is defined as the average of relative
indices of infant mortality life expectancy and literacy. Its major drawback is
that it says little about income disparity.
·
Augmented
Physical Quality of Life Index: which
is a more inclusive measure than the preceding one. It is an equal – weighted
index of social progress which measures the differential levels of human
deprivation and suffering experienced by people living anywhere in the world,
using 10 social indicators. Viz: education, health status, women’s status, the
defence effort economic, demography, political participation, cultural
diversity, and welfare effort (Estes, 1984).
·
The Human
Development Index (HDI): which
measures the relative extent of deprivation in a country compared to the global
standard incorporating both income and non income factors (UNDP, 1990).
Generally, the HDI is a simple average of three relative deprivation indices,
viz: longevity represented by life expectancy, knowledge, a weighted average of
illiteracy rate and mean years of schooling index, and income data. The extent
of deprivation is computed for a country for each of the index in the ith
period defined as the country’s index with regard to the global maximum and
that of the difference between the global maximum and the country’s minimum.
The HDI is defined as one less the average of these indices. This suggests that
the index views achievement relative to the best country in the sample.
·
Dominance
Measures: which permits assessment
of the trend in poor standard of living over time with and without some policy
change, regardless of the poor standard of living line or poor standard of
living measure selected. It is based on a comparison of cumulative income
distributions at two times. According to the World Bank (1993), if the
cumulative distributions of income for the latter date lies nowhere above that
for the former date, then poor standard of living has unambiguously fallen.
This is called the first order dominance condition. If the cumulative
distribution’s across the issue is more complicated. But remains a first order
dominance, if the cross – over is at or above the poor standard of living line.
But if the cross – over comes at an income level below the poor standard of
living line, the question is which distribution has the larger cumulative
frequency. This is called the second order dominance condition. In general
these measures can be calculated using various statistical methods. However,
the World Bank (1993) indicated that a software package known as estimate the
various poor standard of living measures from basic distribution data, which
permits sensitivity tests, for example with respect to the poor standard of
living line and simulations.
CAUSES OF POOR STANDARD OF LIVING IN NIGERIA
That Nigeria is
bedeviled by the menace of poor standard of living is no longer in doubt. Also
not in doubt is the fact that various regimes have tried to curb the problem
using different measures, but all such efforts seems to result into Woeful
failures (Husseinatu, 2008). One is therefore, tempted to ask; what is it that
causes poor standard of living and while has the problem remain protracted and
exclusive in Nigeria? Thus, Abdullahi (1995) identify the following as some of
the specific causes of poor standard of living in Nigeria, they are:
1. Inconsistent government policies
2. Gender discrimination
3. Hoarding
4. Smuggling
5. Black marketing
6. Corruption
7. Fraud
8. Embezzlement
9. Bribery etc.
Poor standard of living Indicators
There are basic
indicators of social welfare which help to track poor standard of living
overtime as well as allow for inter country comparison. Among such are:
Income indicators:
which show the incomes and living standards of the poor or selected subgroups,
such as the urban or rural poor? Other measures for assessing the income
earning opportunities of the poor are:
·
Rural Terms of Trade
defined as the ratio of average rural producer prices to urban wholesale
prices.
·
Earning Capacity of
Informal Sector or non – employed especially of the rural and urban poor.
·
Lower Income Consumer
Price Index.
Social Indicators
are:
·
Share of Social Sector
Public Expenditure in total public spending as well as GDP. The higher it is
relative to others the more the tendency that the poor is being catered for.
·
Net Primary School
Environment, Supplemented by other indicators such as literacy rates,
completion rates, student teacher – ratios, drop out rates, number of students
per school, and public expenditure levels and trends for education.
CHILDREN IN
DEVELOPMENT, CAPTURING DATA ON THEIR HEALTH AND NUTRITIONAL STATUS SUCH AS:
·
Immunization
·
Malnutrition
Women in
development, which measures the status of women in the society because of the
key role they play in the following family well – being. Among such indicators
are:
·
Female/Male Life
Expectancy at Birth ratio
·
Total Fertility Rate
·
Maternal Mortality.
REVIEWED STANDARD OF LIVING IN NIGERIA
Here, eclectic
approach is adopted which involves the use of existing or readily accessible
information as a basis for poor standard of living analysis.
Nigeria is
classified as the twenty poorest countries in the world. The poor standard of
living situation in Nigeria has reached an alarming stage as more than 45% of
the population lives below the poor standard of living line while 67.95 of the
poor are extremely poor (Oladunni, 1999); CBN/World Bank (1999) place Nigeria
with human development index ranking of 137, and 141 out of 175 countries, with
a real GDP per – capita (PPP$) of 1014.00 and 1351.00 in 1996 and 1997
respectively. The ranking even place Nigeria below some African countries such
as; Comoros, Lesotho, Kenya, Cameroon, Ghana, Congo, etc.
In the area of
special distribution, Oladunni (1999) observed that not only the greater proportion
of the poor are in rural areas, poor standard of living has been consistently
rising over the years.
The overall
dependents per 100 gainfully employed persons, in the rural areas, it is 286
dependents per 100 workers, while in the urban centre it is 219 dependents per
100 workers. Labour force age between 15 and 64 years dependent ratio is 259
dependants per 100 workers nationwide. It is 302 and 222 dependents per 100
workers in the rural and urban centres respectively. This means that an average
Nigerian employee bears heavy economic burden of more than 2 non workers.
The implication of
the rise in poor standard of living in Nigeria is that Nigerians are becoming
increasingly impoverished. This is anchored on their lack of basic choice and
opportunities to live long and healthy life and to enjoy a decent standard of
living. In terms of depth and severity, the rural areas were also worse off
than the urban centres. This is because there is dearth of social
infrastructural facilities in the rural areas. In general, the pattern of
development indicates that the urban or modern sector is more favoured with
growth and development incentives than the traditional rural sector.
SOLUTIONS
Efforts at Alleviating Poor standard of living in Nigeria
The concern over poor
standard of living and the need for it alleviation, as a means of improving the
standard of living especially of the rural people led to the establishment of
various institutions and programmes. Poor standard of living alleviation being
a broad spectrum activity therefore covers the following sectors. Agriculture,
health, education, water resources, transport, housing, finance, industry,
employment generation, rural and urban development etc. the institutions and
schemes set up for the reduction of poor standard of living in Nigeria include
National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA), National Primary
Health Care Scheme, National Agency for Mass Literacy, The Peoples Bank,
National Directorate of Employment, Better Life/Family Support Programme, Low
Cost Housing Programme, Federal Urban Mass Transit Agency, Nigerian
Agricultural and Cooperative Bank, Family Economic Advancement Programme,
Petroleum Special Trust Fund, Poor standard of living Eradication Programme
etc.
These
agencies/programmes or schemes were put in place as a means of breaking the
vicious circle of poor standard of living nationally but most especially in the
rural sector. However, these efforts have not yield the desired results of
alleviating poor standard of living in Nigeria since the issue is not only
economic but also social and political. Nevertheless, there is a lot of room
for improvement through economic empowerment for the benefit of all especially
with regard to women and youths.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The review above
indicated that poor standard of living has become an intractable problem in
Nigeria since it is common to both rural and urban areas. Thus, concerted
efforts are needed from individuals, community based and of course the three
(3) tiers of government to fight the evil of poor standard of living to enable
Nigerians have access to the basic needs of life. These include: food, portable
water, good sanitation, clothing, shelter, basic health services and nutrition.
Others are basic education, communication facilities and guaranteed respect for
fundamental human rights as a means of improving the standard of living of the
poor in the nation. Various attempts at its alleviation has been noted to yield
varying degrees of success but still leave a lot of room for improvement.
For the purpose of
alleviating poor standard of living the following recommendations are hereby
made:
1.
Improvement in the quality
of life via enhanced national basic infrastructure, such as roads, electricity,
safe – drinking water and sanitation, communication, transportation etc.
2.
Improvement in the quality
of life of the poor via enhanced national food security.
3.
Attainment of basic
education for all irrespective of location, sex, religion or tribe.
4.
Facilitation of access to
basic health service for all as a means of improving the health status of the
nation.
5.
Improved access to credit
facilities productive resources and employment opportunities for all
irrespective of sex, creed, location or tribe.
6.
Improved access to decent
and affordable shelter for all.
7.
Achievement of a broad
base and diversified economy that can absorb the millions of unemployed and
underemployed citizen.
8.
Enhanced ability of the
poor to participate in decision making via economic and educational
empowerment.
9.
Respect for fundamental
human rights and human dignity.
REFERENCES
Sabo A. M. and O. B
(2007); Introduction to the History and Structure of Nigerian Economy. Maina – Sara Printing and Pub.Co.Ltd Keffi.
Abdullahi h. (2008);
History and Structure of the Nigerian Economy. A Publication of the Department of Economics, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto.
Cookey A. E.
(2008); Other Economies and Ours. Abbot Books Ltd Onitsha.
Anyanwu J. C. et al
(1997) The Structure of the Nigerian Economy (1960 – 1997). Joanee Publishers Onitsha.