THE IMPACT OF NATIONAL POVERTY ERADICATION PROGRAMME (NAPEP) ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIA

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The concept of poverty and material deprivation is a critical one in contemporary social discussions. Social Sciences’ literature is replete with attempt by Economists and other Social Scientists to conceptualize the phenomenon. Poverty has economic, social and political ramifications. The poor are materially deprived, socially alienated and politically excommunicated. Basically, Poverty has been conceptualized in the following ways:
a. Lack of access to basic needs/goods and
b. Lack of or impaired access to productive resources.
Poverty as lack of access to basic needs/goods is essentially economic or consumption oriented. Thus the poor are conceived as those individuals or households in a particular society, incapable of purchasing a specified basket of basic goods and services. Basic goods as used here include; food, shelter, water, health care, access to productive resources including education, working skill and tools, political and civil rights to participate in decisions concerning socio-economic conditions (Ajakaiye and Adeyeye 2001 in Gbosi, 2004). It is generally agreed that in conceptualizing poverty, low income or low consumption is its symptom.
The level of poverty in Nigeria since the implementation of SAP in the 1980s has tremendously increased (UNDP Nigeria, 1998; FOS, 1999; World Bank, 1999).
The poverty profile in Nigeria showed that the incidence of poverty increased from 28.1% in 1980 to 43.6% in 1985 but declined to 42.7% in 1992 and rose again to 65.6% in 1996 (FOS 1999). Since 1990 the country has been classified as a poor nation. The UNDP Human Development Indices (HDI) for 2001 ranked Nigeria the 142nd with HDI of 0.40 among the poorest countries.
From 1980-1996, the population of poor Nigerians increased four folds in absolute terms. The percentage of the core poor increased from 62% in 1980 to 93% in 1996 whereas the moderately poor only rose from 28.9% in 1992 to 36.3% in 1996 (FOS, 1999). The analysis of the depth and severity of poverty in Nigeria showed that rural areas were the most affected. Several reasons accounted for the situation viz;
a. the large concentration of the populace in the rural areas,
b. many years of neglect of the rural areas in terms of infrastructural development and lack of information on the way government is being run.
The CBN/World Bank study on poverty Assessment and Alleviation in Nigeria (1999) attested to the fact that the living and environmental conditions of those living in the rural areas have worsened. Urban poverty is also on the increase in the country. This has been attributed to the under provision of facilities and amenities which are already inadequate to match the growing demand of the urban populace as well as the rural-urban movement which has caused serious pressure on the existing infrastructural facilities.
Concern about this problems as well as efforts made to eradicate or at least reduce it cannot be said to be new. While major reductions in poverty level have been made in developed countries, developing countries, Nigeria inclusive, have been battling with poverty, from one poverty alleviation programme to another eradication programme, but all to no avail.
The concern over increasing poverty levels in Nigeria and the need for its eradication as a means of improving the standard of living of the people has led to the conceptualization and implementation of various targeted or non-targeted poverty eradication and alleviation-programmes. Both the Nigerian government and donor agencies have been active in efforts in analyzing and finding solutions to the increase of poverty level. Government programmes and agencies designed to impact on poverty include:
a. The Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (D.F.F.R.I).
b. The National Directorate of Employment (NDE)
c. The establishment of the Peoples Bank of Nigeria in 1989.
d. The Better Life Programme (BLP)
e. The Family Support Programme (FSP)
f. The Agricultural Development Programme (ADP)
g. National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NALDA).
h. The Nomadic and Adult Education Programme established in 1986.
And most recently, with the return of democracy on May 29, 1999 the Federal Government embarked on poverty reduction programme specifically, the government put up the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) in the year 2000 which took off in 2001. It was aimed at eradicating absolute poverty and it consist of four schemes namely;
a. Youth Empowerment Scheme, Rural Infrastructures and Development Scheme
b. Social Welfare Services Scheme
c. Rural Resources Development and
d. Conservation Scheme.
To implement thus programmes, the government placed emphasis on complementation, collaboration and coordination between the various tiers of government on the one hand and between government, Donor/Agencies, non-governmental organizations and local communities on the other. A multi-agency implementation structure with coordination, monitoring and evaluating organ was introduced in order to ensure cost effective delivery target with optimal social benefit. Particularly this programme, NAPEP is being implemented in Nigeria till date. The questions arising from the implementation of NAPEP include:
a. Is poverty eradicating programe appropriate for Nigeria?
b. How has government’s concept of NAPEP affected its success?
c. How has NAPEP’s activities impacted on poverty reduction as a boost to economic development?
In spite of all the laudable efforts at addressing poverty, the problem still persist in Nigeria.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMS
Today, poverty is widely addressed as a global problem. Poverty affects over four billion people. It is important to know that most of the poor people live in the developing worlds of Africa, Asia and Latin America (Gbosi 2004). On the average 45-50 percent of sub-Saharan Africans live below the poverty line. And in Nigeria about 43% of the population was living below the poverty line of N305 a year in 1985 prices, (World Bank, 1996). This figure has been purging upwards to over 60% in recent time.
Poverty is indeed a global problem. To this effect the United Nations declared 1996 the international year of eradication of poverty and 1997-2006 a decade of poverty eradication. In pursuance of this target, government in both developed and developing countries became increasingly aware of the poverty problem and several development efforts to alleviate poverty therefore have been embarked upon world-wide. There is a high incidence of poverty in Nigeria today. Especially, the incidence of poverty is very high among the unemployed, the uneducated women and rural dwellers (Gbosi 2004). In 1980, the poverty level was only 28.1% but by 1996 it had jumped to 66.6%. Having been mindful of the implications to the economy, the government needs to make concerted efforts in order to reduce poverty in the country. This is because a high incidence of poverty is not good for the health of a developing country like Nigeria. A review of the economic history of Nigeria shows that successive governments have expressed concern of the need to alleviate poverty in the country.
Unfortunately, the issues of poverty eradication has proved to be the most difficult challenge facing the less developed Countries ( Nigeria inclusive) where majority of the people live in absolute poverty. However, the government has continued to respond in order to ameliorate the worsening conditions of the poor by shifting public expenditure toward poverty eradication. Different poverty eradication programmes and projects to cushion the effects of poverty have been initiated over the years. This was received with high hopes. Poverty eradication was seen as a means through which the government could revamp the battered economy and rebuild self-esteem in majority of Nigerians. Consequently, on assumption of office in 1999, President Obasanjo indicated that the poverty situation in which over 60% of Nigerians live below the poverty line requires concerted efforts to prevent it from becoming worse. In this vein, the government in addition to previous efforts (aimed at poverty eradication) introduced a number of programmes and measures aimed at tackling poverty. These include:
a. The launching of the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy NEEDS, which has poverty reduction as one of the four primary goals (NEEDS documents, 2004).
b. The Launching of the Universal Basic Education (UBE) programme,
c. The poverty alleviation programme (PAP)
d. The constitution of the Ahmed Joda Panel in 1999 and the
e. Ango Abdullahi Committee in 2000 (Obadan, 2001). The immediate concern of the Panel or Committee was the streamlining and rationalization of existing poverty alleviation institutions and the co-coordination, implementation and monitoring of relevant schemes.
These resulted in the introduction (in early 2001) of the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) in Nigeria. Data has it that over N25billion from 2001 till date have been received by NAPEP for the fight against poverty in Nigeria. Unfortunately poverty level seems to be unresponsive to these windfall of resources addressed for the fight. In spite of this huge resources devoted to NAPEP, deterioration in fiscal discipline, corruption and inconsistent policies which had undermined past efforts still makes poverty eradication in Nigeria a paradox. The rate of unemployment has continued to rise and the poverty situation has exacerbated.
In a reaction to an allegation of mismanagement of funds meant for the war against poverty in Nigeria, by the Nigeria senate, NAPEP said that it has generated funds from other sources and expended N21.725 billion on the programme from 2001 to 2008. The National Coordinator of the programme and Special Assistant to the President Dr. Magnus Kpakol explained that since inception in 2001. The programme has received N11.8 Billion as budgetary allocation, N4billion for procurement of Keke NAPEP, N10billion from State Governments and commercial banks for multi- partnership programme and N8.2 billion from the Millennium Development Goal (MDG). This totals N34billion. However, the NAPEP boss explained that about N21.7billion has been spent so far. (Daily Champion, Wednesday February 18, 2009 pg7). In a motion titled "Dismal Performance of the National Poverty Eradication Programme" Senator Kure observed that poverty have continued to be on the increase with about 70% of the Nation’s population currently living below poverty level. He lamented that since its establishment in 2001, the agency have not efficiently impacted on the lives of Nigerians despite huge resource committed through budgetary allocations and Millennium Development Goal ( MDG) fund.
As a mater of fact, the need arises to take a careful look at the issues of poverty in Nigeria, coming against the background of continuing efforts on the part of the government to address it, if close to N30billon has been gathered for poverty eradication in 8years and these resources are utilized efficiently, there should have been significant improvements in the living standard of the generality of the people and the poverty level should ordinarily be reduced.
However, in order not to pre-empt the outcome of this study, this is aimed at finding out how the activities of NAPEP has impacted negatively or positively on Economic Development and the generality of the lives of Nigerians from 2001 till date.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.
Broadly, the objective of this study is to examine the impact of the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) on the Economic Development of Nigeria. Though this study uses Ohaukwu Local Government Area of Ebonyi State as a case study, the conclusions derived shall be used to generalize on its impact on the whole country. The specific objectives include:
a. To access whether National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) has achieved its objectives of poverty eradication in Nigeria.
b. To identify areas of deficiencies, problems and failures, and proffer some policy recommendations based on the findings of this study.
1.4 HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
H0: National Poverty Eradication Eradication Programme (NAPEP) has not impacted positively on the economic development of Nigeria.
H1: National Poverty Eradication Eradication Programme (NAPEP) has impacted positively on the economic development of Nigeria.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
To the masses this research work intends to publicise the activities and programmes of NAPEP, and how it has affected the well being of Nigerians.
To the Government and Policy-makers, it identifies and reveals the successes and failures, challenges and prospects of NAPEP and affords them the opportunity of designing and implementing a holistic approach, procedures and strategies and better ways of tackling this hydra- headed menace called, poverty.
Also to the students and fellow researchers, it reveals the operations and the impact of NAPEP on the people. While it serves as an addition to the stock of knowledge, it also serves as a basis for further research.
1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study covers the impact of National Poverty Eradication Programmes (NAPEP) on Economic Development in Nigeria; A case study of Ohaukwu Local Government Area of Ebonyi State. The period of study covers from 2001-2009.

1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Being a programme that has lasted for just nine (9) years, I had difficulties in assessing materials done in this area. Also combining this research work with my classroom work was very demanding.
Financial constraints to a large extent also affected the way this work may have be carried out.
Finally the secondary data used in this work cannot be qualitatively guaranteed by me as they were compiled by different bodies. With regards to the primary data, some respondents may not return their questionnaires while some may be damaged in the process.
1.8 DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS
a. Poverty: It could be defined as a situation where ones income is too low to allow the purchase of goods and service that will satisfy its basic need and when it has no financial resources kept in the form of accumulated or acquired wealth.
b. Poverty Line: It is defined as the money cost of a given person at a given time and place of a reference level of welfare. The people who do not maintain this level is called the poor and those who do are not.
c. Poverty level: It is used to denote those living below the poverty line.
d. Respondents: These are people whom the research questionnaires were given to for responses.
1.9 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY:
The study is divided into five chapters:
Chapter one, contains introduction which is subdivided into:
I. background of the study
II. statement of the study
III. objective of the study
IV. hypothesis of the study
V. significance of the study
VI. scope of the study
VII. limitations of the study
VIII. definitions of concepts and
IX. Organizations of the study.
Chapter two contains literature review subdivided into theoretical and empirical literature. Chapter three discusses the research methodology, chapter four dwells on data analysis, interpretation of results and chapter five talks about summary of findings, conclusions and policy recommendations.



CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter focuses on the explanation and descriptions of the literature of related authors that are relevant to the research work, it also examines the impact of National Poverty Eradication Programme on Nigeria’s Economic Development.
The problem of poverty in Africa is one that has over the years engaged the attention of the international community, governmental and non- governmental organizations including western and African scholars indeed. The issues of poverty and poverty reduction have been a focus of numerous researchers’ discussion, its debates and implementations of the various programmes. In discussing any issue that relates to poverty, one must cast back his mind to the days of the early scholars who contributed immensely on the topic (poverty and poverty alleviation).
According to Anikpo (1995), poverty is the history process of individuals or groups being forcefully eliminated from control of the decision-making machinery that determines the production and distribution of resources in a society. He further explains that poverty manifest in various forms such as hunger, lack of food, good drinking water, clothes, shelter, good health, poor education and distribution of resources coupled with monopoly of the machinery of decision-making through coercive state apparatus. Men must engage in production if they must survive in the production process, individuals and groups undertake complementary tasks In order to achieve common objectives. Anikpo explains that during production, (however, different people occupy different positions in the organizational structure that emerges) the differences that emerge tend to reflect at the initial stages, objective physiological realities such as age, sex, and size. They create also at this stage differences of non-antagonistic nature not only on the industrial input in the production process, but also in the respective shares acquired from whatever is produced. However, in the course of time owing to increasing differences in the accumulation and appropriation of resources, the positional differences begin to reflect a new set of material reality predicted on who has acquired and controlling more of the dominant instrument and objects used in the production process. The significant aspect of these material or economic differences is that they inevitably acquire social and political dimension, interlining first of all their material holding conferred on their high status which in terms confers power expressed in making decisions that affects the society on economic development.
Aliyu (1998) defines poverty as the condition in which a person is enabled to meat minimum basic requirements of food, health, housing, education and clothing. He estimated that the sum of N3,920 would be required per month by an adult individual in Nigeria and that if a family’s income (the total funds available for expenditure by a household needed for feeding and providing other services) required in the household is below a certain standard value then the family is said to be in a state of poverty.
The attempts made at defining poverty as captured above could be referred to as more outline of the features or characterization of poverty. In buttressing the difficulties encountered in getting at a common and generally accepted definition of poverty, Aboyede (1997) posits that there seems to be a general agreement that poverty is a difficult concept to handle and that it is easily recognized than defined.
Even attempts made to categorize some specific areas at which poverty could be viewed are fought with lack of agreement. For instance, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) guidelines on poverty eradication (2000) stressed that an adequate concept of poverty should include all the most important areas in which people of either gender are deprived as incapacitated in different societies and local context. It should encompass the casual links between the care dimensions of poverty as the central importance of the gender and environmentally sustainable development. It failed to define poverty but listed its core dimension. A definition of poverty should endeavour to include economic, human, political, socio- cultural and protective capabilities.
Poverty can be viewed from permanent or transience dimension. This dimension differentiates poverty based on time or deviation on one hand and distributives as to widespread, individual or concentrated on the other hand.
Aliyu (2003) asserted that several types of poverty may be distinguished depending on such factors as, time or duration (long, short terms or cyclical). Poverty may be widespread throughout a population, but the occurrence itself is limited to direction and distribution (widespread, concentrated individuals). It can also involve relatively permanent insufficiency of means of securing basic needs. The condition may be to describe the average level of life in a large group in concentrated or relatively large groups in an otherwise prosperous society.
Moreso, the concept of poverty is relational, i.e. we cannot talk about poor except in the context of the rich. Poverty and wealth exist in parallel relationships, in which one means nothing without the other. The two categories auger simultaneously in history through the same processes and relationships associated with the production and distribution of material resources in human society.
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:
The essence of the theoretical framework is to review some already propounded theories concerning poverty reduction and economic development. There are many relative theories of poverty as considered below:-
POVERTY AS INEQUALITY: Some scholars argued that some people have less than others. The inequality of five fingers in a human hand is often used as an analogy to define poor and the rich. It could be machineries to interpret the symmetrical arrangement of the human fingers as an analogy to the antagonistic and symmetrical relationship between the poor and the rich.
THE DIVINE THEORY: The theory seems to be a design accredited to God’s nature. That some people are naturally stronger, more talented is an inevitable natural which no one can do anything about. They profess that the poor are suppose to accept their fate with humility while the rich are entitled to their wealth and only help the poor through arms giving and other charitable acts.
CUITURE OF POVERTY: Lewis (1961) the concept, they become apathetic, violent and lack self-country, which rein forces with position. In 1972, Thomas and Anderson explained culture of poverty as pathological trained in capability by which the poor are usably to acquire the values of competitive society.
SUBJECTIVE POVERTY: This refers to whether or not individuals or groups feel they are poor. Subjective poverty is closely related to relative poverty since those who are defined as poor in terms of the standard; the day will probably see and feel them to be poor. People act in terms of the way they perceive and define themselves.
RELATIVE POVERTY: This is measured in terms of judgment by members of a particular society of what is considered a reasonable and acceptable standard of living and style of life according to the corrections of life according to the corrections of the day. The concept of relative poverty also poses problems for the comparison of the poor in the same society over time and between societies. For example; a relative concept of poverty prevents a comparison of the poor in present day England and third world countries in Africa, Asia and South America.
EQUILIBRIUM OF POVERTY: The concept of poverty depicts a situation in which the poverty of a county denies its people the means of improvements.
POVERTY LINE: This is a measure of standard of living, which separates the poor from the rich. Measures, which include, income, expenditure status as well as intangible criteria such as freedom, the right to vote, gender equality etc.
SHAPES AND DIMENSION OF POVERTY: Poverty, inter alia, is related to location, urban, rural, north or south and the level of household. Poverty reflects regional and structural variations across rural and urban areas, gender differentiations and geographical settings. The impact is uniform and varies only in levels. It has indirect and direct effects on people. A direct effect can be seen in the virtual collapse of basic infrastructure like, access to water and sanitation, nutrition, health, and education and services. Perhaps due to poverty complexity, like corrosive effect on humility, many journals, article and books have tacked the issues of poverty from the direct effect angles. Poverty destroys aspiration, hope and happiness. Indirectly, it affects positive relations with subordinates, self-esteem and sense of personal competence. It also destroys ones dispositions to participating in community affairs, inter- personal trust and self-satisfaction.
To understand their concept we may draw homely an example of how the poor do not have enough to eat, being under fed his health may be poor, being physically poor, his working capability is low, which means that he is poor and will not have enough to eat. In brief, a man is poor because he is poor. The concept of poverty is very dear; many scholars see poverty, particularly, which has been a major obstacle impending the development of Nigeria.
Galbraith (1958) classified modern poverty into two categories, namely; case poverty and insular poverty.
CASE POVERTY: Is the kind of poverty seen in every community rural and urban. It manifests in poor family with junks filled yard and dirty children playing in dirty environment. Other signposts peculiar to the individual afflicted by poverty are mental deficiency, bad health, inability to adapt to the discipline of modern economic life, excessive procreation or perhaps combination of several of those handicaps. These conditions hinder those individuals from participation in the general well-being.
INSULAR POVERTY: This kind of poverty manifests itself as an island. In this imaginary inland, everybody is poor. Galbraith (1958) noted that is not easy to explain insular poverty individually in adequacy because the environment in which the people found themselves may have made them poor or have frustrated them.
EMPLOYMENT SITUATION CONSTRAINTS THEORY OF POVERTY:
The profounder of the theory was Liebow (1967). He argued that, the poor are constrained by the fact of their situation, by low income, unemployment and the like, to act the way they do. He further argued that, the poor would readily change their behaviour in response to new set of circumstances if one of the constraints of poverty were removed. He also argued that one is probably more fruitful to think lower class family reacting in various ways to the fact of their position and to relative isolation rather than the imperatives of lower class culture.
The poor people share the values of a society as a whole. The only difference is that they are unable to translate many of theses values into reality and once the constraints of poverty are removed, the poor will have no difficulties adopting mainstream behavioural patterns and seizing available opportunities.
DIMENSIONS OF POVERTY: Given the above definitions, it is appropriate to note that poverty assumes political, social, and economic dimensions. The social dimension of poverty includes lack of access to health care etc. The political dimension of poverty exist where civil right are divided and political power rest in the hands of few people. While the economic dimension of poverty is broader than lack of finance, it includes lack of employment opportunity and even distribution of resources to the factors beyond their control.
The World Bank study of Nigeria’s poverty shows that there are differences between regions in the concentration of poor and the rich in the society. According to the study, poverty varies from the North to the south as earlier mentioned above, with more concentration of the poor in the North, agro–climate zone (World Bank, August 1996). However, generally, people of low-incomes live in the rural agricultural and non-industrial society.
Federal office of statistics (FOS), now Federal Bureau of Statistics (FBS) in 1998 emphaiszed the level of poverty by the aggregate low quality of life of Nigerians as follows:-
1 Only 40% of the population has access to good and potable drinking water
2 About 85% of Nigeria’s population live in the rural areas
3 Most Nigerians consume less than one third of the minimum requirement of protein and vitamins
4 Above 75% of Nigerians have no access to primary health care
5 Most people in Nigeria especially rural people have families without jobs
6 The Gross National Product (GNP) per capital for Nigeria by 1996 was only 260 compared to 390 for Ghana and 400 for Zambia and also for Indonesia.
Poor household differs from non-poor in several ways: non-poor households spend four times as many as poor household spent. While the poor spent proportionately more of their expenditure on food, the non-poor spend 316 to 415 times as much for food. However, the incidence of poverty is higher in larger households and poor households have an average of three children while non-poor ones have fever than two. Among the poor, lack of education is an overwhelming characteristic, about three quarters of those with secondary education are included was among extreme poor. Employment status is another indicator of poverty reduced substantially. The percentage of extreme poor among agriculturalist reduced from 28% in 1992 to 16.4% in 1998 while for service works’ families, it is increased from 4% to 10.7% (Federal Office of Statistics, 1998).
Globalization and World Trade Order (WTO) liberalization policy have contributed to the growth and increase of poverty rate in Nigeria. This was noted as a modern way of colonialism worsening the poverty situation of the third world countries. Some individuals have suggested that Nigeria should boycott the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) agreement because the treaty leads to dumping of foreign goods in the country. It also leads to the closure of our local goods industries. Others argued that the quality of Nigeria’s goods would not complete effectively in the global market (Vanguard 5, 2002, and Guardian April 2, 2002). The nation’s oil and import dependent nature leads to unemployment and increment in the poverty level of the people.
Discrimination, race and poverty are closely related. They affect people’s ability to secure employment and earn a living.
Report shows that HIV/AIDS also contribute to the poverty prevalence of many Africa countries. For instance the United Nations HIV/AIDS Report (1999) shows that Nigeria had 5.8% HIV prevalence rate and ranked Fourth Worst Affected country in 1999 based on the number of HIV infections. This is because most of the going ladies in Nigeria were forced by the economic condition to engage in prostitution, just to earn a living.
Furthermore, most of the existing industrial capacity in the country stands still as factories operate at about 40% to 50% of their production capacities. The consequences are that essential materials needed become scarce, increases in the price of good and services and mass retrenchment of workers becomes glaring.
Most eligible Nigerians are tax avoiders, evaders and defaulters. As such funds accruing from taxations are inadequate to cushion the effect of poverty in Nigeria. Also, mismanagement from politicians and top government functionaries discourages taxpayers from performing their civic responsibilities and increases the poverty level. This mismanagement includes illegal and frequent transfer of money abroad, over-invoicing of imports, family allocation of resource, embezzlement, inflation of contracts etc.
DEVELOPMENT: In the ordinary parlance development means growth change or planned growth, such as social, political and economic development or in a hyphenated word socio-political economic development.
Riggs (1976) defined development as a process of increasing autonomy (discretion) of the social system, made possible using levels of diffraction. Tinbergan (1958) in his discretion on the design of development suggested that the development policy should include the following:
1 The creation of the general condition of development
2 Awareness of development potentialities and advantages
3 Basic government instrument
4 Measure to facilitate and stimulate private activity
5 Development of policy under varying circumstances
Before now, the concept of development has been as a measure of per capital income growth. Now growth could be sectoral or even peripheral. In a wider sense, development should consist of higher production, better distribution and greater social justice. The basic purpose of development should be to harness and mobilize human development. It could be achieved through helping the poor, the marginalized and the Nigerian population by providing them with enhanced opportunities and access to resources for their productive self employment, income generation and better life while strengthening the asset base and livelihood of the economically challenged population. By implication, we build the target communities into active and economically self sufficient units.
Ayodele (1996) conceives development as a continuous process of generating and allocating resources and economic satisfaction effectively.
Finally, in applying this approach in the evaluation of the role of national poverty eradication programme (NAPEP) on economic development, this study looks at the programmes of the agencies over the years and their impact on the socio-political and economic development of our country, Nigeria, using Ohaukwu Local government area as a case study. It is our view that careful study of the role of (NAPEP) will help us ascertain whether the programme has been fruitful or a waste of our scarce resources.
2.2 NAPEP’s REVEW
NAPEP Today is one of the officially published Journals that feature out the functions of NAPEP from the National level. Poverty amidst plenty is the world’s greatest challenge and it is expected to be fought with passion. Poverty is said to manifests when the following occur:
1 Inadequate access to employment opportunities
2 Inadequate physical assets such as Land and Capital
3 Minimal access by the underprivileged to credit, even on a small scale
4 Low endowment of human capital, natural resources and technological know-how
Available data on Nigeria Poverty profile shows that the incidence of poverty rose from 28.1% in 1980 to 46.3% in 1985, but dropped slightly to 42.7% in 1992 it rose persistently to 65.6% in 1996. Based on her low Gross National Product (GNP) per capita, Nigeria has since 1990 been classified as a poor nation. Hence, the need for the government to tackle the poverty issue headlong. In 1999, the federal Government Observed that poverty was on the increase in Nigeria despite the large number of ongoing efforts and programmes to fight poverty.
Although past regimes in Nigeria has attempted to tackle poverty through the creation of institutions and agencies such as Nigeria Agricultural Cooperative Bank (NACB), Peoples Bank, Family Economic Advancement Prgrammes (FEAP), River Basin Authorities, Operation Feed the Nation, Rural Banking, Universal Basic Education (UBE), Directorate of food, Roads, and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), National Directorate of Employment (NDE) etc.
GOVERNMENT IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING CHALLENGES:
1 Poor coordination of activities
2 Dwindling resoles flow
3 Failure to build in sustainability mechanisms
4 Lack of complimentary efforts from beneficiaries
5 Poor coordination leading to low accountability and avoidable disharmonization of policies
6 Lack of well articulated policy for poverty eradication
7 Lack of sustainability of programmes and projects
8 Absence of achievable target setting etc
Following a review of the problems, the federal Government established the need to:
I. Streamline and rationalise the functions of core poverty alleviation institutions and agencies
II. Reduce their overlapping functions
III. Ensure effective performance
IV. Improve coordination of poverty eradication activities and improve collaboration with State Governments, Local Governments, and International Donor Agencies.
The aforementioned, therefore, provided the grounds for the establishment of the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) by the federal government in January 2001, representing a commitment by government to tackle the poverty issue in the Nigeria.
FUNCTIONS OF NAPEP
1. To coordinate all poverty eradication efforts in the federation
2. To monitor all poverty eradication activities of the federal government
3. To maintain a comprehensive and detailed databank on all activities aimed at carry out an assessment of all efforts meant to eradicate poverty in Nigeria and suggest the necessary reviews and policies required to enhance effectiveness.
4. To directly intervene in key sectors of critical needs periodically by implementing scaled key priority projects.
NAPEP maintains four (4) Departments as follows:
i. Administration and Supplies
ii. Monitoring and Evaluation
iii. Research and Programme Development
iv. Finance and Accounts
NAPEP realized that as the agency of the federal Government for coordinating and monitoring all poverty eradication activities nation wide, it could no longer involve itself strictly with intervention activities but would need to become the repository of all knowledge and strategies for fighting poverty in the country. Therefore, in the spirit of Mr. President’s reforms, NAPEP reformed itself. In the words of the National Coordinator, NAPEP became “smarter and “more nimble”, NAPEP’s role of coordination and monitoring was therefore put at the center of its activities. This enabled it to utilize its human and financial resources to document more comprehensive, measure their impact, identify gaps and recommend more proactive and intelligent agency to support socio- economic development to the masses. The activities of NAPEP are run through four departments, vis:
RESEARCH MONITORING AND EVALUATION (RM & E) DEPARTMENT
Formally called the Monitoring & Management Information Systems (MMIS) department, the RM & E is responsible for data collection on poverty eradication programmes of all Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies, NGOs and the private sector. Under the reforms, its scope of operations has been expanded and deepened to include the following;
1 Monitoring and Evaluation of aspects of our development policy strategy, NEEDS and nudges as they relate to poverty to ensure compliance with policy direction and identify areas of triplication.
2 Monitor and evaluate collaborations between government agencies, development agencies, NGOS and the private sector in poverty eradication activities.
3 Conduct continuous education and impact assessment of NAPEP’S catalytic intervention programmes.
4 Build a comprehensive databank of poverty related activities programmes and infrastructure in the country.
5 Provide the National Poverty Eradication Council (NAPEC) and NAPEP’s Management with regular reports on all poverty related activities, programmes and initiatives.
A database of all government agencies, poverty eradication programmes and infrastructure facilities across the country was established. NAPEP’S Management Information System capability is acknowledged as one of the best among several government agencies by a survey carried out by consultants commissioned by the UNDP.
The RM & E Department also provide NAPEP headquarters with comprehensive IT support. It has set up an organization wide local area Network (LAN) and Internet connectivity for all offices in the headquarters. They’re intuitive and have increased organizational efficiency and staff motivation as staff are more informed and share information more efficiently to further its monitoring and coordinating function. NAPEP is collaborating with the World Bank to train its staff in a new method for enhancing Community Driven Development (CDD) using Participation Monitoring and Evaluation (PME). The PME processing to involve communities in their development process by giving them a voice and empowering them to assess social services provided to them and to participate in their improvement. NAPEP is the first government agency in Nigeria to implement a PME exercise. The first PME was conducted on NAPEP’S farmers in Jos, Plateau State. The PME exercise would be conducted on other NAPEP programmers as well as poverty eradication programmers of other government agencies, development agencies, NGOs and also provide both quantitative and qualitative data with which to measure individual and community satisfaction with the economic development activities, identify gaps and possible remedies for filling them.
2.3 EMPIRICAL LITERATURE
The focus of this section is to examine different empirical literatures written on the relationship between Poverty Eradication Programmes (NAPEP) on the Economic Development of Nigeria. It is more appropriate to define poverty and development in such a way as to enable a proper understanding of the concept (Poverty Eradication). This research therefore, shall agree with the definition of Repink (1994) which stated that poverty could be expressed as the inability to satisfy basic needs of human life due to lack of income or poverty or lack of opportunity to generate income or poverty and lack of means to change it.
In this context, poverty reduction or alleviation means the creation of general condition, which allows man to live in dignity.
On the concept of development, according to Anyebe (2001), development is used to refer to the total transformation of a system. Development implies a progression from a lower and often undesirable state to a preferred one. Similarly, he further viewed development in terms of attacking widespread of absolute poverty, reducing inequalities achieved within the context of growing economy. Poverty eradication in Nigeria consist of series of purposive acts and measures designed nationally or internationally at the other levels to address the poverty which is centered on the provision of basic needs by the government. It focuses on the basic requirements for permanent reduction of poverty through the provision of basic needs such as health services, education, water supply, food nutrition requirements and housing inter alia.
However, it was later realized that poverty reduction is best addressed based on the peculiarities of the situation under consideration. For instance, some schools of thought felt that poverty from many developing countries is a structural impediment to growth leading to low growth rates and lack of resources for the people. Emphasis in such cases should therefore be removing the impeding structural bottlenecks to growth and embark on strategies that benefit the poor.
The Federal Government in January, 2001 established National poverty eradication programmes (NAPEP) as a continent to tackle the issues of poverty in the country.
These programmes were the NAPEP’S programmes in Ohaukwu Local Government Area. These programmes are not published but recorded in a documentary.


I. YOUTH EMPOWERMENT SCHEME (YES)
Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES) basically aims at economic empowerment of youths including male and female, it consists of Capacity Acquisition Programmes (CAP), Mandatory Attachment Programme (MAP) and Credit Delivery Programme (CDP).
a. CAPACITY ACQUISITION PROGRAMMES (CAP)
This programme is designed to enable participants, not withstanding their different levels of formal education, acquire skills, vocational capabilities and performance enhancing attributes on their chosen areas of engagement. These programmes include training apprenticeship, investment inducement seminars. The concept of CAP is to recruit, retrain, and redeploy the creative capacity of youths so that they can play more productive and self fulfilling roles in the emerging economic dispensation government, take responsibility for the upkeep of participant while in training. In Ohaukwu L.G.A. between 2002 to 2003, one hundred and ninety one (191) participants were trained with a monthy allowance of three thousand five hundred naira (N3,500). The same for the trainers, the participant were also settled with relevant tools and machineries to continue in their various chosen trades / vocations.

b. MANDATORY ATTACHMENT PROGRAMME (MAP)
The Mandatory Attachment Programme (MAP) is an intervention initiative under the Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES) designed to attach graduates who have completed their mandatory National Youth Service and yet to secure full time employment. Even after having undergone NAPEP’s Capacity building/ training courses to organizations to provide them with the job training and expose them to skills in their fields of specialization, Federal Government through NAPEP pay the gradates the sum of ten thousand naira (10,000) only monthly. This payment only lasted between 2002 to 2003 in Ohaukwu Local Government Area and twenty one (21) graduates participated.
II. FARMERS EMPOWERMENT PROGRAMME – 2005
This programme is specifically targeted at groups in involving women and youths. It is designed to improve the lives and well being of farmers by creating opportunities for them to have access to Loans, farmlands and other faming implements. NAPEP also partners with ADP (Agricultural Development Project) to provide technical knowledge to the farmers. The programme is also aimed at accelerating the attainment of the MDGs (Millemiun Development Goals) In Ohaukwu Local Government Area, especially Izhia Land, nineteen different farmers cooperative societies were selected and three million, nine hundred and sixty thousand naira (N 3,960,000) only was shared amongst them, to go into different kings of farming like pottering, Piggering, Rabbitting etc.
III. MULTI – PARTNER MULTI FINANCE (MPMF SCHEME)
Under this scheme NAPEP partners with States, Local Governments, Commercial Banks, Micro Finance Institutions and others make available large pool of funds for lending to the poor. In this way, NAPEP is stimulating grass roots activities and mass participation in the economic development process through savings and access to funds for the poor people across the country. In Ohaukwu Local Government Area, from 2008-2009, about, thirty (30) Individuals (Women/ Youths) have benefited in form of soft loans, which are usually channeled through a Micro Finance Banks.
IV. PROMISE KEEPER PROGRAMME (PKP)
The Promise Keeper Programme (PKP) is a NAPEP Micro credit based intervention scheme undertaken in close collaboration with faith based Organizations (FBOS). It is aimed at assisting the poor to access a larger pool of funds for economic empowerment in line with the National Economic Empowerment and development strategy (NEEDS) of the federal Government. PKP enables poor members of religious bodies like churches to access micro credit from the pool of funds so created, to undertake viable economic activities. Under this programme, NAPEP Provides matching funds (MF) for a certain sum set aside by FBO's for economic advancement of indigent members in their respective fields. In Ohaukwu Local Government Area, five (5) Churches benefited with the sum of five hundred thousand naira (500,000) only for each church in October, 2006. They are expected to pay back after two (2) years.
V. VILLAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOLUTION (VEDS)
Village Economic Development Solutions or Village Solution is a Local Community-driven Development Programme where villages are guided in their community economic development efforts that involve modernizing their villages and promoting income generating activities through village solutions. Villages are encouraged to see community development and poverty eradication as a joint responsibility to which every member of the village is a stakeholder and can be an active participant into a cruelly bottom- up approach to Communities development where villages organize themselves into community development groups, with the government providing technical expertise and an enabling environment. The goals of the enabling environment, the goal of the scheme is Economic transformation and modernization, through human and physical development to raise village income, outputs and employment levels with the aim to eliminate extreme poverty and reduce its intergenerational transfer, including Curbing rural-urban migration, develop local skills, identifying and harnessing, existing resources in the village for sustainable rural development.
How it works: Community/Village identifies an economic project as an anchor activity or validates a cooperatives’ application to start an anchor economic project in the community. In Ohuaukwu Local Government Area, Five villages benefited from the programme viz:
a. vizigbedu village — Oshiariji Cooperative Society
b. Ejilewe Village — Trinity Cooperative Society
c. Omuatanu Village — Umuezeokaha Multipurpose Cooperative Society
d. Obinwanne Effium — Multipurpose Cooperative Society.
VI. CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFER (CCT)
Conditional cash transfer (CCT) otherwise known as COPE "in Care of the People” was developed by NAPEP and targeted at individuals or households who have children of school age to enable them take care of their needs in school and also utilize base public health facilities, poor female headed households, poor aged headed households, physically challenged persons and households, headed by special groups (victims of Vesicle Vagina Festula (VVF), and People living with HIV and AIDS (PLWHAS).
COPE’S FORMULA FOR FUNDS DISBURSEMENT
COPE = BIG + PRAI
Where BIG = Basic income Guarantee and
PRAI = Poverty Reduction Acceleration Investments.
The BIG is monthly guaranteed income given to the heads of participating households. The amount received by each household will depend on the number of qualified children in the households:-
NO OF CHILDREN AMOUNT OF BIG
One Child N 1,500
2-3 Children N 3,00
4 Children and above N 5,000.
The PRAI is a guaranteed investment grant given to the head of the households towards the end of the programme to start a business of his or her own or invest in a profitable business ventures that will yield sufficient income to sustain the households after the completion of twelve months (12) of receiving the basic income guarantied (BIG). The PRAI represents a compulsory saving component of the programme with a monthly savings of N7,000. Participating heads of households will receive a total of N84,000 as investment funds.
In Ohaukwu Local Government Area, the following villages were selected Five (5) households from each village as beneficiaries.
1. IZHIA - Amovu, Umugbo, Amike
2. NGBO - Ndiagu - Elega, Otuokpeyi, Adabum-ebenyi, Ndiagu Alake
3. Effium - Ibenda, Agugwu and Onueror.
The programme started May, 2008 and ended in May, 2009.
Conditional cash transfer programme in Ohaukwu Local Government Area gulped N7,200,000 for the (BIG) Basic income Guarantee, while N4,200,000 is been spent on PRAI (poverty Reduction Acceleration Investment).
2.4 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Successive government came up with various eradication programmes. About twenty four poverty eradication initiatives and programmes to combat the dreaded monster of poverty and unemployment have been set up by federal government from 1970 to date. Prominent among them was National Accelerated Food Production Programmes (NAEFPP) introduced by the general Gowon’s administration in 1973 because of the shortages of food stuff, after the civil war. The objective of this programme was to ensure self-sufficiency and self-reliance in food production by the agricultural sector.
Another, notable programme was the Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) introduced in March 1976. The obasanjo’s regime with a view to accelerating agricultural production embarked on removing possible constraints to increased food production and the provision of infrastructure and other inputs. The programme was accompanied by three other complementary institutions or project designed to make it function effectively. These institutions or projects include the Nigeria Agricultural and Cooperative Bank (NACB), Agriculture Development Project (ADP) in each of the States of the Federation and River Basin Development Authority (RBDA). ADP however, was a World Bank assisted project.
During the second republic in early 1980”s the administration of Alhaji Shehu Shagari dropped the operation feed the nation (OFN) and substituted it with three complementary institutions of the former programmes. The new name gradually disappeared into oblivion with the second coming of the military administration in 1983.
The Military administration of Ibrahim Babangida in 1985 created National Directorate of employment (NDE) Comprising of the following programmes:
i. Small scale Industries
ii. Graduate Employment
iii. Special Public work vocational skills development.
iv. Agriculture
The same administration also established the Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) in 1986 to Improve the quality of life and standard of living of the majority of people in rural areas, by substantially improving the quality value and nutrition’s balance of the people’s intake and improving rural housing, health conditions and creating greater opportunities for employment and human development which have direct bearing on National Development.
The wife of General Babangida, Mrs. Maryam Babangida introduced also the Better Life Programme. Better Life Progamme was aimed at improving the lives of rural women. The programme has the following aims among others:
i. To raise the social consciousness of women about their rights as well as their social, political and economic responsibilities
ii. Encourage institutionalized recreations, mobilize specific objectives including leadership role in all spheres of life.
iii. Educate women on simple hygiene and the importance of childcare and to improve and enrich family lives. At the federal level, the first lady Mrs. Babangida, headed on the other hand and sought to improve the social and economic well being of the family came up with eight focus programme as follows:
a. Women development
b. Agriculture
c. Child welfare and youth development
d. Shelter
e. Distribution and income generation
f. Disability
This programme was supposed to serve as a model for other African Countries in their efforts to addressing the problems of poverty; the same administration in 1994 established the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF).
Furthermore, in turns of positive achievement, virtually the programmes made modest contributions to the alleviation of poverty to some extent. The defunct People’s Bank granted loans without collaterals to beneficiaries, which commercial banks would not dare.
Likewise, the National Directorate of Employment (NDE) had provided beneficiaries with vocational training skills backed with loans by way of giving equipment and tools for various technical works and to traders.
Family economic advancement programme was able to empower people especially women at both rural and urban communities through capacity building by way of macro-credit loans.
Development cannot be achieved unless people are in charge of their development process. In acceptance of full responsibility by communities in partnership with government agencies for their own development is central to any poverty alleviation programme and its sustainability have cited. Development programmes as poverty reduction efforts of government implemented in Nigeria, among others include:

1. Rural Electrification schemes
2. Rural Banking Schemes
3. Agricultural Development Programmes and River Basin Development
4. Urban and rural water scheme
5. Credit schemes to small scale holders through specialized institutions
6. Transport scheme
7. Health Scheme Such as sanitary scheme, immunizations scheme etc
8. Operation Feed the Nation
9. Universal Primary Education scheme
10. Low cost Housing Scheme etc
These programmes provided very crucial service to the people and some of the programmes were quite successful in achieving their objectives while some are still being implemented. However, these programmes were in conception designed not only for poverty eradication but also as development programmes.






CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter is aimed at discussing the methods involved in carrying out this empirical study. These include, study location, estimation procedure and sources of data.
3.1 STUDY LOCATION
Ebonyi State is one of the States created in Nigeria in 1996 by the late Nigerian head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha. Ohaukwu local government area is one of the old thirteen local government areas in the State and is very close to the capital territory, Abakaliaki. The local government system became a third tier of government with the main essence of serving as an agent of rural and economic empowerment and development. Economic development and poverty eradication are interwoven. No meaningful development occurs in the terrain swollen with hungry people whose primary business remains how to fill their empty bellies. Any study conducted on how to eradicate this malaise using any organized programme based in these rural areas is worth our while studying. Against this background, the motivation of this work is gathered.
3.2 POPULATION OF THE STUDY:
Ohaukwu local government area has an estimated population of one hundred and ninety five thousand, five hundred and fifty five (195,555) people (NPC, 2009) with a sample size of one hundred people—male and female. This sample size cuts across the social strata of the local government, varying only in age, marital status, educational qualification, employment status e.t.c. A total number of a hundred (100) questionnaires were designed and issued to the respondents in Ohaukwu local government area. Those that were randomly selected to respond to the questionnaires will represent the entire population of the local government area and the country in macrocosm. Though a hundred questionnaires were issued out, ninety nine (99) were returned while one was lost in transit.
3.3 ESTIMATION PROCEDURES:
Tables, percentages, and Chi-Square were used for easy presentation and analysis of data. The formula employed for the calculation of the chi-square results is presented as follows: X2 = ∑(O-E2)/E
X2 = denotes chi-square symbol
∑ = summation
O = observed frequency
E = expected frequency
ρ = Significance level, 0.05
v = degrees of freedom, 3
The above formula was used to run the chi-square analysis and to evaluate the working hypothesis.
DECISION RULE: Reject the null hypothesis (H0) if calculated chi-square X2c is greater than the tabulated chi-square X2t, given the chosen significant level and degrees of freedom, otherwise accept the null hypothesis.
3.4 SOURCES OF DATA:
Basically, the data used in this work are primary data collected through the use of questionnaires and a few secondary data from related publications, bulletins, journals, and other reliable government agencies.













CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
The chapter is aimed at the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of results collected from the various respondents through the use of questionnaires administered in Ohaukwu local government area of Ebonyi State. These questionnaires as collected and processed are presented by the researcher, and the test of hypothesis conducted.
As earlier noted, out of the hundred (100) questionnaires issued, ninety nine (99) was returned but one (1) lost in transit. Tabulated below is the presentation and analysis of responses from the duly completed and returned questionnaires.
Table 4.1a; Sex distribution of respondents
Variables FREQUENCY Percentage %
Male 65 66
Female 34 34
Total 99 100

The table above shows that, out of the ninety nine (99) questionnaires returned, sixty five (65) respondents are males representing sixty six percent (66%) while females stood at thirty four (34) representing thirty four percent (34%) of the entire population. This concludes that there are more males in this local government than females.


Table 4.1b; Age distribution of respondents
NOTE: Invalid = 2
Variables (years) FREQUENCY Percentage %
Below 18 years 5 5
18-40 years 69 71
41-60 years 20 21
Above 60 years 3 3
Total 97 100

The result presented above shows that seventy one percent (71%) and twenty one percent (21%) of the respondents are within this age limit; 18-40 years and 41-60 years respectively and the minimal number of people who represented the entire people of Ohaukwu LGA fell within those above 60 years and below 18 years with 3% and 5% respectively.
Table 4.1c; Marital Status of respondents
Variables FREQUENCY Percentage %
Single 47 47.5
Married 52 52.5
Divorced 0 0
Widowed 0 0
Total 99 100

The above table reveals that the majority of the respondents are married persons—the percentage stood at fifty two and half percent (52.5%) while the singles stood at fourty seven (47%). Funnily enough, in this field survey, there are no divorced or widowed persons randomly selected as a respondent from this local government.
Table 4.1d; Educational Qualification of respondents
NOTE: Invalid = 2
Variables FREQUENCY Percentage %
Primary 1 1
Post Primary 26 27
NCE/Diploma 27 28
Degree and Above 38 39
Adult Education 4 4s
No formal Education 1 1
Total 97 100

It can be deduced from the table above that thirty nine percent (39%) of the respondents have degrees and post degrees, twenty eight percent (28%) are NCE/Diploma holders, twenty seven percent (27%) are post primary certificate holders. Adult education, primary and no formal education stood at 4%, 1%, and 1% respectively, giving a conclusion that degree and post degree holders still represent a small percentage of the entire population represented by the respondents.
Table 4.1e; Employment status of respondents
NOTE: Invalid = 12
Variables FREQUENCY Percentage %
Employed 58 67
Unemployed 29 33
Total 87 100

The above table shows that sixty seven percent (67%) of the respondents are employed while thirty three percent (33%) remain unemployed. Thus, majority of the population are employed, though the unemployment level is still high.
Table 4.1f; Awareness status of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)
NOTE: Invalid =1
Variables FREQUENCY Percentage %
Yes 78 80
No 20 20
Total 98 100

The table above shows that about seventy eight percent (78%) of the respondents are aware of NAPEP and her programmes while twenty percent (20%) are unaware of NAPEP and her programmes.
Table 4.1g; Existence status of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)
Variables Frequency Percentage %
Yes 9 9
No 90 91
Total 99 100

It can be concluded from the table above that 91% of the populations of Ohaukwu people disagree to the existence of NAPEP and its programmes in the council while a little number representing 9% speak in the affirmative about the existence of NAPEP and her programmes in the council








Table 4.1h; Implementation status of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)

Variables Frequency Percentage
Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES) 13 6
Capacity Acquisition Programme (CAP) 3 1
Community Enlightenment and Sensitization Scheme (COMESS) 42 20
Social Welfare Service Scheme (SOWESS) 12 6
Rural Infrastructural Development Scheme (RIDS) 11 5
Mandatory Attachment Programme (MAP) 0 0
Multipartner Micro-finance (MP-MF) Scheme 3 1
Village Economic Development Solution (VEDS) 4 2
Capacity Widening Activity (CWA) 6 3
Conditional cash Transfer (CCT) 1 1
Farmers Empowerment Programme (FEP) 22 11
General Micro Credit 5 2
Keke NAPEP Implementation 1 1
Rehabilitation of Vesico Vagina Fistula Patients 16 8
PARTNERSHIPS;
Multi-Partner Matching Funds (MP-MF) 3 1
Promise Keeper Programme (PKP) 5 2
Give Back Programme 1 1
Collaborations on Micro Credit Delivery 8 4
Establishment of Resource Centers 12 6
The NAPEP/Glomobile Collaboration 2 1
COLLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES (IDAs);
Establishment of Community Development Centers 15 7
Community Based Poverty Reduction Project 24 12
Total 209 100
The results from the table above show that Community Enlightenment and Sensitization Scheme (COMESS) is the most implemented scheme amongst the litany of NAPEP’s programme in the. It recorded the highest percent of twenty percent (20%) followed by Community Based Poverty Reduction Projects which gathered twelve percent (12%) and Farmers Empowerment Programme FEP, standing at seven percent (11%).
Table 4.1i; Has NAPEP helped in improving the standard of living of people in your local government?
NOTE: Invalid = 9
Variables FREQUENCY Percentage %
Yes 58 64
No 32 36
Total 90 100

The above result shows that NAPEP has helped in improving the standard of living of the people. Sixty four percent (64%) of the respondents concur to this fact while thirty six disagree (36%).
Table 4.1j; Beneficiaries of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)
NOTE: Invalid = 3
Variables Frequency Percentage %
Yes 20 21
No 76 79
Total 96 100
It can also be concluded from the table above that seventy nine percent (79%) of the populace have not benefited from the activities of NAPEP in the council.

Table 4.1k; Programmes of NAPEP beneficiaries benefited from
Variables Frequency Percentage %
Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES) 4 5
Capacity Acquisition Programme (CAP) 3 4
Community Enlightenment and Sensitization Scheme (COMESS) 3 4
Social Welfare Service Scheme (SOWESS) 8 10
Rural Infrastructural Development Scheme (RIDS) 5 6
Mandatory Attachment Programme (MAP) 0 0
Multipartner Micro-finance (MP-MF) Scheme 2 2
Village Economic Development Solution (VEDS) 4 5
Capacity Widening Activity (CWA) 1 1
Conditional cash Transfer (CCT) 1 1
Farmers Empowerment Programme (FEP) 4 5
General Micro Credit 3 4
Keke NAPEP Implementation 1 1
Rehabilitation of Vesico Vagina Fistula Patients 1 1
PARTNERSHIPS
Multi-Partner Matching Funds (MP-MF) 3 4
Promise Keeper Programme (PKP) 3 4
Give Back Programme 1 1
Collaborations on Micro Credit Delivery 9 11
Establishment of Resource Centers 5 6
The NAPEP/Glomobile Collaboration 2 2
COLLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES (IDAs)
Establishment of Community Development Centers 9 11
Community Based Poverty Reduction Project 11 13
Total 83 100

The table above, goes ahead to specify that only Community Based Poverty Reduction Projects recorded the highest but discouraging percentage (13%) of beneficiaries.
Table 4.1l; Satisfaction status of the activities of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)
NOTE: Invalid = 9
Variables FREQUENCY Percentage %
Yes 27 30
No 63 70
Total 90 100

The table shows that about seventy percent (70%) of populace are dissatisfied with the activities of NAPEP.
Table 4.1m; does NAPEP boost economic development?
NOTE: Invalid = 8
Variables
FREQUENCY Percentage %
Yes 65 71
No 26 29
Total 91 100

Seventy one percent (71%) of the populace as shown in the above table agree that NAPEP boosts economic development
Table 4.1n; NAPEP encounters problems in terms of projects execution
NOTE: Invalid =12.
Variables
FREQUENCY Percentage %
Yes 51 59
No 36 41
Total 87 100
The table above shows that fifty nine percent (59%) of the respondents—the majority—believe that NAPEP encounters problems in the course of project execution in the council while fourty one percent (42%) disagree.
Table 4.1o; what is your general assessment on the activities of NAPEP on economic development?
NOTE: Invalid = 3.
Variables FREQUENCY Percentage % Degrees
Excellent 8 8.3 30
Good 27 28.1 101
Fairly good 33 34.4 124
Poor 28 29.2 105
Total 96 100 360


On the general assessment of the activities of NAPEP on economic development, thirty four percent (34%) of the populace agree that she has performed fairly good leaving twenty nine percent (29.2%) insisting that it has been poor.



4.2 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
Using the data extracted from the tables above to test the validity of the working hypothesis, we present thus:
Table 4.1p
Variables Yes No Rows
Table4.1i 58 32 90
Table 4.1j 20 76 96
Table 4.1m 65 26 91
Table 4.1n 51 36 87
Total 194 170 364

Comparing the tabulated chi-square contingency table and the calculated chi-square to determine the goodness of the fit, we compute as follows:
X2 = ∑(0-E2)/E, given 5% significant level.
Degrees of freedom = (C-1)(R-1) where
C = Column
R = Row
ρ = significance level = 0.05
v = the degrees of freedom = (2-1) (4-1)
= (1) (3)
Therefore, degrees of freedom v = 3
To calculate the values of the expected frequencies, we state the formula below: We use the data generated from the table above to form a two by four matrix and use the matrix model stated below for finding the adjunct of the matrix where a1-n are expected frequencies of a1 to an. And tables 4.1i, 4.1j, 4.1m, 4.1n are observed frequencies respectively.
a11 a12
a21 a22
a31 a32
a41 a42
Where a = RT X CT
N
RT = Row Total
CT = Column Total
N = Grand total
a11 = 90 x 194 = 17460 = 50
364 364

a12 = 90 x 170 = 15300 = 42
364 364

a21 = 96 x 194 = 18624 = 51.2
364 364

a22 = 96 x 170 = 16320 = 44.8
364 364

a31 = 91 x 194 = 17654 = 48.5
364 364

a32 = 91 x 170 = 15470 = 42.5
364 364
a41 = 87 x 194 = 16878 = 46.4
364 364

a42 = 87 x 170 = 14790 = 40.6
364 364

Table 4.1q, Computation of the chi-square value
Observed frequency (O) Expected frequency (E) (O-E) (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E
58 50 8 64 1.28
32 42 10 100 2.38
20 51.2 -31.2 973.44 19.01
76 44.8 31.2 973.44 21.73
65 48.5 16.5 272.25 5.61
26 42.5 -16.5 272.25 6.41
51 46.4 4.6 21.16 0.46
36 40.6 -4.6 21.16 0.52
Total ∑(O-E2)/E = 57.4

v = 3, ρ = 0.05, X2c = 57.4, X2t = 7.81,
4.3 EVALUATION OF WORKING HYPOTHESIS
The researcher uses chi-square to evaluate the hypothesis that National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) has no impact on economic development. From table 4.1q above, we reject the null hypothesis, since calculated chi-square X2c = 57.4 is greater than tabulated chi-square X2t = 7.81. Therefore we accept the alternative hypothesis, stating that National Poverty Eradication Programme NAPEP has significant impact on economic development of Nigeria.
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATION
There are divergent views about the impact of National Poverty Eradication Programme NAPEP and other poverty eradication programmes on the economic development of Nigeria. As usual, in all scholarly issues based on facts and figures, it’s rare to find a concept that generates total acceptability. If such acceptability is unchallenged, it is just a matter of time—this is the beauty of research.
On the issue of NAPEP, and its impact on the economic development of Nigeria, some are of the view that there has been no significant impact that these programmes have had on the economic development of Nigeria—the negative school. While some argue that NAPEP and other poverty eradication programmes have impacted significantly on the economic development of Nigeria, though not without hurdles. This is classified as the positive school.
5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In the course of the research, these problems were identified as problems that militated against the success of previous programmes on poverty eradication, and unfortunately enough, these same problems are currently challenging the perfect implementation of NAPEP in Ohaukwu local government area of Ebonyi State used as a case study to proxy the Nigerian economy. These challenges include:
- Insincerity on the part of contractors
- Inadequate sensitization: Most rural dwellers are not even aware of existing NAPEP programmes: Poor relationship with the communities and poor awareness resulting in poor participation by the rural dwellers. In some cases, NAPEP facilitators are unable to comprehensively define the project.
- The exact and core poor are most times skipped.
- Poor coordination
- Implementation: These programmes are most perfectly implemented on radios, when it comes to real implementation, it is poorly executed and records partiality in project execution.
- False propaganda about the implementation of the programme: The political class hijacks the programmes and the funds meant for it, then go on air and propagate how successful the programme has been. And because of poor supervision and monitoring, the falsehood is undiscovered until the whole programmes collapse.
- Nepotism, corruption, poor fund management, embezzlement of funds by those in charge of project implementation. In most cases, discrimination arises, and funds for the programme are disbursed to close pals and relatives under the guise of project execution.
- Funding: Over reliance on funding from foreign partners have done all poverty eradication programmes — NAPEP inclusive, more harm than good. Funding from abroad should be seen as a supplement and not a complement. Most of these programmes were grounded because the foreign donors never cooperated as used to before.
- The counterpart-funding-nature of the programmes creates in itself, inherent tendencies of failure. This is because, in a situation where the communities or individuals are unable to pay their counterpart funds, the programme will be under-funded and may not be executed. Even when parties involved cooperate financially, the financing may be inadequate, as a result of poor project design.
- Few persons who are able to pay their individual counterpart funds, mobilize themselves, and divert the programmes for their personal and selfish interests.
- Resources are disbursed using the wrong channels.
- Selfishness and antagonistic minds by some facilitators
- Inadequate and untrained personnel resulting to improper guidance.
- Improper evaluation of past programmes
- Inadequate supervision of projects
- Inadequate and poor infrastructure
- The programme empowered the rich while the poor got poorer
- Outward looking development plans
- Lack of goodwill from the rural people whom these programmes are meant to benefit — bad cooperation from the communities, for instance, some communities refused providing lands for citing of projects and also activities of vandals and miscreants among them.
- Inaccessible roads to the hinterlands.
- Crude agricultural practices.
- Inadequate raw materials.
- unmotivated NAPEP staffs — permanent or adhoc, through non or late payments of staff salaries and emoluments
- Personal ideologies and clash of motives: Individual facilitators have different motives from that of the policy designers resulting to a clash which adversely affects the overall outcome of the programme.
- Rift among NAPEP officials which endanger the success of the whole programme.
- Language barrier posed by illiteracy dominant in the rural areas.
- political instability and discontinuity of programmes
- Over-politicizing of NAPEP programmes.
- Lack of political will by both the government and project executors
- Little or no efforts shown by the government in prosecuting those who sabotaged its previous programme.
Notwithstanding the above enumerated problems challenging the success of poverty eradication programmes — NAPEP inclusive, NAPEP still recorded success through the implementation of these various programmes:
Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES)
Capacity Acquisition Programme (CAP)
Community Enlightenment and Sensitization Scheme (COMESS)
Social Welfare Service Scheme (SOWESS)
Rural Infrastructural Development Scheme (RIDS)
Multipartner Micro-finance (MP-MF) Scheme
Village Economic Development Solution (VEDS)
Capacity Widening Activity (CWA)
Conditional cash Transfer (CCT)
Farmers Empowerment Programme (FEP)
General Micro Credit
Keke NAPEP Implementation
Rehabilitation of Vesico Vagina Fistula Patients
On Partnerships, the following programmes were implemented:
Multi-Partner Matching Funds (MP-MF)
Promise Keeper Programme (PKP)
Give Back Programme
Collaborations on Micro Credit Delivery
Establishment of Resource Centers
The NAPEP/Glomobile Collaboration
On collaboration with International Development Agencies (IDAs), the under listed programmes were implemented:
Establishment of Community Development Centers and
Community Based Poverty Reduction Projects.
It was also gathered from the research that the Mandatory Attachment Programme (MAP) has received no attention in the form of implementation in this local government area.
5.2 CONCLUSION
After evaluating the working hypothesis from the raw data gathered through questionnaires, we conclude as follows:
a. While the awareness level of NAPEP and her programmes are quite okay, the implementation level remains very minimal.

b. NAPEP has helped in improving the standard of living of Nigerians in the rural areas.
c. Just very few persons are beneficiaries from the activities of NAPEP.
d. A lot of people are dissatisfied with the manner and way NAPEP conducts her poverty eradication programmes.
e. A lot of people believe that the operations of NAPEP could boost economic development in Nigeria.
f. From my rating structure, 34% believe that the general assessment of the activities of NAPEP on economic development is fairly good; twenty nine percent (29%) believe that it has been generally poor; twenty eight percent (28%) believe that it has been generally good; and finally, the remaining eight percent (8%) believe that it has been generally excellent.
g. NAPEP, just like previous poverty eradication programmes in Nigeria, has encountered a lot of avoidable problems in the course of policy designing and implementation. This is to show that these problems are not inherent. These problems could be avoided if the recommendations proffered by the researcher are adhered judiciously to.
h. Notwithstanding the problems encountered by previous poverty eradication programmes in Nigeria, and problems currently battling with the perfect implementation of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP), the latter still has impacted significantly on the economic development of Nigeria.
i. Consequently, this work gives credence to the empirical evidence of the positive school—those who agree that NAPEP has significant impact on the economic development of Nigeria.
5.3 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
These recommendations have been proposed as measures if taken could ensure the effectiveness of National Poverty Eradication Programme NAPEP, and other poverty eradication programmes to be designed in the future. It is sub-classified into the roles these under listed actors would play to ensure a perfect implementation of NAPEP and other poverty reduction programmes:
THE GOVERNMENT:
- Adequate funding: If possible, all funds ear-marked for any programme should be made complete before embarking on such programmes, this is aimed at reducing the rate of abandoned programmes on the bases of inadequate funding.
- Good governance which will create reliability and cooperation from all parties involved.
- Political stability and continuity of programmes.
- Improved infrastructure.
- The government should adopt punitive measures and show its willingness and readiness to punish those specialized in the act of sabotaging governments’ efforts at addressing the problems of poverty in the country. These will serve as deterrents to intending sabotages.
- Inward looking development programmes — Grassroots participation: Most of these development plans are plans that were designed, and tested in foreign countries. That these development plans were successful in such countries are not adequate reasons and evidence that it would succeed in Nigeria. The economic situations prevalent in such countries are typically different from ours, the terrain, differs, and everything concerning such countries. Even when there are historical similarities between Nigeria and such countries—these are simply not adequate reasons. Admittedly, such plans can serve as a guide but must be properly studied. The government should look-in when designing programmes, not just poverty eradication programmes. Extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Federal government and her agencies, the State government and her agencies, the local government and her agencies, and the communities most especially. The act of designing programmes meant for rural dwellers in Abuja or outside (without inputs from the communities) and bringing in Facilitators from outside the communities, in my own opinion does not augur well for rural-based development programmes. Exclusion of the communities in policy drafting and making, and the execution process gives the communities the notion that these programmes were just foisted on them, not minding that the programmes are meant for their benefits. But including all stakeholders, the communities inclusive, in all the processes (though, must be properly supervised by facilitators from the programme designers), would give them the notion that these programmes are truly theirs and the needed cooperation would be secured.
PROJECT PLANNERS AND FACILITATORS:
- Proper evaluation of past programmes and why it either succeeded or failed could aid in ensuring the success of subsequent programmes.
- Proper management of such funds as contained in the programme plan.
- Disbursing resources through the right channels as planned
- Sincerity in project execution
- Uniformity in project execution.
- Proper supervision of projects to enhance its perfect execution—because this is not effective, few opportune individuals use the programme to enrich themselves at the expense of the core poor whom these programmmes are designed for.
- Orientation and enlightenment: Project personnel should be well educated and equipped with the necessary materials needed to achieve the desired results in project execution. By these the project would be properly defined and understood by these personnel.
- The masses that these programmes are designed for should be properly oriented with the functionality and benefits of the programme.
- Project executors and facilitators should possess qualities of truthfulness, honesty, trustworthiness in project execution.
- Good human relations among project facilitators.
- Adopting efficient and effective means of communication and awareness—most communities do not have access to electronic and print media and even when available cannot be utilized optimally for their benefits, because they are uneducated. Therefore, other means of communication, like enlightening them in their local languages and the use of local announcers could do some magic.
THE COMMUNITY
- The community should take the ownership of these programmes and provide a conducive environment for its execution in the interest of all.


REFERENCES:
A Statistical Analysis of 1996/1997 National Consumer Survey; FOS (1997).
Ahiyo A. (2002), Re-Structuring of Poverty Alleviation Activities of the
Federal of Nigeria; National Poverty Eradication Programme, Abuja.
Anikpo M. (1995), Poverty and Democracy Process: The New Face of Mass
Poverty in Nigeria. Portharcourt University Press.
Anyebe, A. A. (2001): Readings in development at Administration. S. Salam Press,
Zaria.
Augustine Gbosi and Philip C. Omoke (2004), The Nigerian Economy and Current
Problems. Pack Publishers, Abakaliki, Ebonyi state.
Ayodele, A. et al (2003), The Nigerian Economic Concepts and Techniques.
General International Labour Organizations.
Federal Office of Statistics (1996), Socio-Economic profile of Nigeria 1996. FOS
Lagos.
Federal Office of Statistics (1997), Poverty Profile for Nigeria, 1980-1996.
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (1992), with Report
on German Government Development Policy, Bonn.
IMF Financial Statistical Year Book, 1996.
NAPEP Today (2007), National Poverty Eradication Programme, Nigeria.
NAPEP Updates in Ohaukwu LGA, Ebonyi State (2009), Unpublished material.
Naraya, D et al (2000), Voice of the Poor Crying out for Change. World Bank,
New York.
Naraya, D and Pestesan P (2002); Voice of the Poor: from many land. World Bank,
New York.
National Poverty Eradication Council (2000).
Nigeria Poverty Reduction Plan, (2001-2004); A Report of Inter-Ministerial Group
of Officials Coordinated by the Economic Policy Coordinating Committee. Abuja.
National Population Commission; Projected Population Abuja, (1999-2002).
National Poverty Eradication Programme (2001); A Blueprint for the Schemes, Revised Edition.
Obadan Mike (1997); Analytical Framework for Poverty Reduction; Issues of
Economic Growth Verses Other Strategies in Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria, A selected paper for the Annual Conference of Nigerian Economic Society (NES), 1997.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001): Guidelines on
Poverty Reduction Statement, Development Assistance Committee (DAC).



Repink Hans-Peter (1994): Poverty Relief and Social Integration as Task of
International Cooperation; Conceptual Consideration of the Republic of Germany in Sing Joset (Ed) for Democracy and Social Justice, Konrad Adenaurer Foundation for International Cooperation, Germany.
UNB-ECA (1999); Economic Report on Africa: The Challenge of Poverty
Reduction and Sustainable Economic Commissioon for Africa, United Nations Addis Ababa, Ethiopia UNDP, (1990 & 1993). Human Development Reports for 1990 & 1993, Oxford University Press, New York.
UNDP Development Report (2000), New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press for the UNDP.
United Nations Development Report (2001), Nigerian Human Development Report
2000/2001 Millennium edition UNDP Lagos.








APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE’S INTRODUCTORY LETTER
Economics Department
Ebonyi State University
Abakaliki
P.M.B. 053
10th June, 2009.
Dear Respondent,
I am a final year student of the above school, currently conducting a research on this topic; “The Impact of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) on Economic Development” in which your local government has been selected as a case study, as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) degree in Economics.
Attached is a questionnaire humbly seeking for your response on the subject matter. I assure you that the responses given shall be given utmost confidentiality for this research purpose only.
Your objective response to these questions is highly appreciated.
Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.
Yours faithfully,

Ogene Amarachi




PART 1
PERSONAL DATA
Please tick as appropriate and fill in the space provided in the questionnaire.
1. Gender
a. Male
b. Female
2. Age
a. Below 18 years
b. 18-40 years
c. 41-60 years
d. Above 60 years
3. Marital Status
a. Single
b. Married
c. Divorced
d. Widowed
4. Level of Education
a. Primary
b. Post Primary
c. NCE/Diploma
d. Degree and Above
e. Adult Education
f. No formal Education
5. Employment Status
a. Employed
b. Unemployed














PART 2
VIEW OF THE RESPONDENTS ON NAPEP AND OTHER POVERTY REDUCTION PROGRAMMES
Please read each statement carefully. Tick the column you think is appropriate and fill in the blank spaces.
1. Are you aware of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)?
a. Yes
b. No
2. Does National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) exist in your community or local government?
a. Yes
b. No
3. If yes, which of these programmes are being implemented by NAPEP in your local government?
a. Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES)
b. Capacity Acquisition Programme (CAP)
c. Community Enlightenment and Sensitization Scheme
(COMESS)
d. Social Welfare Service Scheme (SOWESS)
e. Rural Infrastructural Development Scheme (RIDS)
f. Mandatory Attachment Programme (MAP)
g. Multipartner Micro-finance (MP-MF) Scheme
h. Village Economic Development Solution (VEDS)
i. Capacity Widening Activity (CWA)
j. Conditional cash Transfer (CCT)
k. Farmers Empowerment Programme (FEP)
l. General Micro Credit
m. Keke NAPEP Implementation
n. Rehabilitation of Vesico Vagina Fistula Patients
PARTNERSHIPS;
o. Multi-Partner Matching Funds (MP-MF)
p. Promise Keeper Programme (PKP)
q. Give Back Programme
r. Collaborations on Micro Credit Delivery
s. Establishment of Resource Centers
t. The NAPEP/Glomobile Collaboration
COLLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES (IDAs);
u. Establishment of Community Development Centers
v. Community Based Poverty Reduction Project
4. Has NAPEP helped in improving the standard of living of people in your local government?
a. Yes
b. No
5. Are you among the beneficiaries of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)?
a. Yes
b. No
6. If yes, which of the programmes have you benefited from?
a. Youth Empowerment Scheme (YES)
b. Capacity Acquisition Programme (CAP)
c. Community Enlightenment and Sensitization Scheme
(COMESS)
d. Social Welfare Service Scheme (SOWESS)
e. Rural Infrastructural Development Scheme (RIDS)
f. Mandatory Attachment Programme (MAP)
g. Multipartner Micro-finance (MP-MF) Scheme
h. Village Economic Development Solution (VEDS)
i. Capacity Widening Activity (CWA)
j. Conditional cash Transfer (CCT)
k. Farmers Empowerment Programme (FEP)
l. General Micro Credit
m. Keke NAPEP Implementation
n. Rehabilitation of Vesico Vagina Fistula Patients
PARTNERSHIPS
o. Multi-Partner Matching Funds (MP-MF)
p. Promise Keeper Programme (PKP)
q. Give Back Programme
r. Collaborations on Micro Credit Delivery
s. Establishment of Resource Centers
t. The NAPEP/Glomobile Collaboration
COLLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES (IDAs)
u. Establishment of Community Development Centers
v. Community Based Poverty Reduction Project
7. Are you satisfied with the activities of National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)?
a. Yes
b. No

8. Does NAPEP boost economic development?
a. Yes
b. No
9. What do you think are the problems faced by the previous programmes on poverty reduction in your local government?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does NAPEP encounter any problem in your local government in terms of projects execution?
a. Yes
b. No
10. If yes, what kind of problems does she encounter?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think are the possible solutions to the problems?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is your general assessment on the activities of NAPEP on economic development?
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. fairly good
d. poor