POOR STANDARD OF LIVING

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.