CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

A review of the literature in government efforts in poverty alleviation in Nigeria

reveals a mixed record of success. Which numerous programs have been initiated, that’s
impact on reducing poverty has been limited and some cases, the poverty situation has
worsened despite significant resource allocation. The literature highlights issues with
programs design, implementation and sustainability, often attribution failures to factors
like corruption, lack of proper targeting and insufficient citizen involvement.

1.1 Background of the Study

The fight against poverty has remained central to development planning in Nigeria.
Poverty is a universal problem with grave human, social, and economic consequences. It
is multidimensional—manifesting in inadequate income, food insecurity, poor health,
limited access to education, lack of shelter, and social exclusion. In Nigeria, poverty is
particularly severe in rural communities where infrastructure is weak, economic
opportunities are scarce, and public services are poorly delivered.

Successive Nigerian governments have launched numerous poverty alleviation initiatives

since the 1970s, including the Green Revolution; Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural
Infrastructure (DFRRI); Better Life for Rural Women; Directorate of Employment (NDE);
Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP); National Poverty Eradication Programme
(NAPEP); National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS);
Social Investment Programmes (SIPs); and various state and local empowerment schemes.
Despite these efforts, poverty indicators remain high.

Mangu Local Government Area (LGA) in Plateau State exemplifies the national situation.
Predominantly agrarian, the area faces challenges of low farm productivity, seasonal

1
income fluctuations, youth unemployment, insecurity, and inadequate access to finance.
Understanding how government poverty alleviation interventions function in this local
context is essential for improving policy outcomes.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Although several poverty alleviation programmes have been implemented in Nigeria and
extended to communities within Mangu LGA, the incidence of poverty remains high.
Reports of fund diversion, politicization of beneficiary selection, inadequate public
awareness, and weak monitoring have raised doubts about the effectiveness of these
programmes. If these challenges persist, government interventions may continue to fail in
reaching the intended poor.

This study therefore investigates the extent to which government poverty alleviation
strategies have impacted the people of Mangu LGA and identifies the constraints limiting
their success.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to assess the role of government in poverty alleviation
in Mangu LGA.

The specific objectives are to:

1. Identify government poverty alleviation responsibilities and programmes known to

residents of Mangu LGA.

2. Examine the problems confronting the implementation of poverty alleviation

programmes in Mangu LGA.

3. Assess the perceived successes (or otherwise) of poverty alleviation programmes in the
area.

2
4. Recommend measures to improve the effectiveness of poverty alleviation interventions.

1.4 Research Hypothesis

H₀: There is no significant relationship between government poverty alleviation strategies

and poverty reduction in Mangu LGA.

H₁: There is a significant relationship between government poverty alleviation strategies

and poverty reduction in Mangu LGA.

1.5 Research Questions

1. What are the core responsibilities of government in alleviating poverty in Mangu LGA?

2. What major problems confront poverty alleviation programmes in the area?

3. To what extent have these programmes benefited the poor?

4. What measures can make these programmes more effective?

1.6 Significance of the Study

The study will benefit policy makers, local government administrators, NGOs, donor
agencies, and researchers. Findings will guide the design and implementation of
people-centered poverty reduction strategies and provide a reference material for future
academic work.

1.7 Scope of the Study

Geographically, the study covers selected districts within Mangu LGA of Plateau State.
Conceptually, it focuses on government responsibilities, implementation challenges,
programme outcomes, and improvement strategies for poverty alleviation.

3
1.8 Limitations of the Study

Limitations encountered included difficulty accessing official records, time and financial
constraints, and varying willingness of respondents to release information. Despite these
limitations, efforts were made to ensure data reliability.

1.9 Definition of Terms

Poverty: A condition in which people lack the resources to meet basic needs such as food,
shelter, healthcare, and education.

Poverty Alleviation: Government or community efforts aimed at reducing the severity or

incidence of poverty.

Empowerment: The process of equipping individuals with skills, resources, and

opportunities to improve their livelihoods.

Local Government Area (LGA): The third tier of government structure in Nigeria
responsible for grassroots administration.

4
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews conceptual and empirical literature on poverty, poverty

measurement, and government interventions in Nigeria.

2.2 Overview of Poverty in Nigeria

Despite being resource-rich, Nigeria continues to record high poverty levels.

Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) data show large deprivations in health, education,
living standards, and security, especially in rural areas.

2.3 Poverty Trends in Nigeria

Recent NBS (2023) estimates indicate tens of millions of Nigerians experience

multidimensional poverty, with high incidence in the North and rural communities.

2.4 Causes of Poverty in Nigeria

• Unemployment and underemployment.

• Low agricultural productivity and climate shocks.

• Inadequate infrastructure (roads, power, water).

• Weak governance, corruption, and insecurity.

• Low access to credit, education, and healthcare.

2.5 Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Nigeria

Programmes have included NDE, NAPEP, Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT),

Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme (GEEP: TraderMoni,
5
MarketMoni, FarmerMoni), N-Power, National Social Register-based transfers, and
state/local agricultural input subsidy schemes.

2.6 Challenges to Poverty Reduction

• Diversion/misuse of funds.

• Politicization of beneficiary lists.

• Inadequate awareness and information flow.

• Weak monitoring and evaluation systems.

• Insecurity disrupting programme delivery.

2.7 The Way Forward

Effective poverty reduction requires transparency, community participation, gender

inclusion, diversified livelihoods beyond subsistence farming, and strong data systems for
targeting and tracking results.

6
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

A descriptive survey design was adopted to obtain information from residents across
districts in Mangu LGA.

3.2 Population of the Study

The population comprises adult residents (18 years and above) in selected communities
across the ten major districts of Mangu LGA.

3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Technique

A sample of 100 respondents was drawn using stratified random sampling to ensure
coverage of multiple districts, gender groups, and occupational categories.

3.4 Instruments for Data Collection

A structured questionnaire with closed-ended Likert-type items and biodata questions was
administered. Supplementary informal interviews with community leaders provided
additional context.

3.5 Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

Content validity was ensured through expert review by lecturers in the Department of
Accounting. Reliability was established via a pilot test and internal consistency checks.

3.6 Method of Data Collection

Field assistants distributed questionnaires in person. Completed copies were retrieved

immediately or within agreed timeframes to reduce non-response.

7
3.7 Method of Data Analysis

Responses were coded and analyzed using simple percentages for descriptive statistics. A
Chi-square test was used to test the null hypothesis of no relationship between government
poverty alleviation strategies and poverty reduction.

8
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents and interprets the data collected from respondents in Mangu LGA.
Results are organized into biodata, analysis of government responsibilities, challenges to
implementation, perceived successes, and suggested solutions.

4.2 Respondents’ Biodata

Age Group (Years) Frequency Percentage (%)

15–25 25 25
26–35 31 31
36–45 29 29
46 and above 15 15
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Most respondents (60%) were between 26 and 45 years—economically active and able to
provide informed views.

Table 4.2.2: Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 68 68
Female 32 32
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Males constituted 68% of the sample; females 32%.

Table 4.2.3: Occupation

9
 Occupation Frequency Percentage (%)
Students 16 16
Civil Servants 19 19
Businessmen/Women 23 23
Farmers 27 27
Others 15 15
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Farmers and traders/business people make up half the respondents, reflecting the area’s
agrarian and informal economy.

Table 4.2.4: Marital Status

Status Frequency Percentage (%)

Married 44 44
Single 17 17
Separated 23 23
Divorced 16 16
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Married respondents formed the largest share (44%), implying household responsibilities
that influence perceptions of poverty.

Table 4.2.5: District of Respondents

District Frequency Percentage (%)

Mangu 10 10
Kombun 7 7
Kerang 15 15
Ampang West 11 11

10
 Chichi 8 8
Mangun 9 9
Chakfam 7 7
Vwei 9 9
Panyam 11 11
Pushit 13 13
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Respondents were spread across the ten major districts, ensuring broad representation.

4.3 Analysis by Research Objectives

4.3.1 Core Responsibilities of Government in Poverty Alleviation

Provision of Frequency Percentage (%)

Employment
Opportunities
Strongly Agree 82 82
Agree 16 16
Disagree 2 2
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Nearly all respondents viewed job creation as a major government duty in reducing
poverty.

Availability & Frequency Percentage (%)

Accessibility of
Loans/Grants

11
 Strongly Agree 52 52
Agree 44 44
Disagree 3 3
Strongly Disagree 1 1
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Respondents emphasized the need for accessible finance to start small businesses or
improve farms.

Training & Skill Frequency Percentage (%)

Empowerment
Strongly Agree 47 47
Agree 40 40
Disagree 13 13
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Most respondents agreed that government should provide training in skills and handcrafts
to enable self-employment.

12
4.3.2 Problems Confronting Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Mangu LGA

Diversion of Frequency Percentage (%)

Funds/Materials
Strongly Agree 82 82
Agree 17 17
Disagree 1 1
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Lack of Proper Frequency Percentage (%)

Awareness
Strongly Agree 25 25
Agree 12 12
Disagree 37 37
Strongly Disagree 26 26
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Politicization of Frequency Percentage (%)

Beneficiary Selection
Strongly Agree 71 71
Agree 20 20
Disagree 8 8
Strongly Disagree 1 1
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Inadequate Funds & Frequency Percentage (%)

Non-Assessment of

13
 Beneficiaries
Strongly Agree 58 58
Agree 24 24
Disagree 15 15
Strongly Disagree 3 3
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Diversion of resources and politicized selection emerged as the most critical obstacles,
followed by inadequate funding and monitoring gaps.

4.3.3 Perceived Successes of Poverty Alleviation Programmes

Programmes Have Frequency Percentage (%)

Lifted Many Out of
Poverty
Strongly Agree 23 23
Agree 12 12
Disagree 53 53
Strongly Disagree 12 12
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

The Poor Are Frequency Percentage (%)

Primary Beneficiaries

14
 Strongly Agree 8 8
Agree 12 12
Disagree 56 56
Strongly Disagree 24 24
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Funds/Materials Frequency Percentage (%)

Enough to Start
Business
Strongly Agree 36 36
Agree 24 24
Disagree 27 27
Strongly Disagree 13 13
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

NGOs/Individuals Frequency Percentage (%)

Complement Govt
Efforts
Strongly Agree 25 25
Agree 12 12
Disagree 39 39
Strongly Disagree 24 24
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Overall, respondents expressed low confidence that existing programmes substantially

reduce poverty or consistently reach the poorest households.

4.3.4 Measures to Improve Poverty Alleviation Programmes

Create Regulatory Frequency Percentage (%)

15
 Body to Check
Schemes
Strongly Agree 75 75
Agree 20 20
Disagree 3 3
Strongly Disagree 2 2
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Put Strategies in Frequency Percentage (%)

Place to Target the
Poor
Strongly Agree 75 75
Agree 25 25
Disagree 0 0
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Quarterly Assessment Frequency Percentage (%)

of Resource Use
Strongly Agree 71 71
Agree 22 22
Disagree 7 7
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Encourage Frequency Percentage (%)

NGOs/Philanthropists
to Assist
Strongly Agree 62 62
16
 Agree 33 33
Disagree 5 5
Strongly Disagree 0 0
Source: Field Survey, 2021.

Respondents overwhelmingly called for stronger regulation, better targeting of the poor,
periodic reviews of resource utilization, and greater civil society participation.

4.4 Chi-square Analysis

To test the null hypothesis (H₀) that there is no significant relationship between
government poverty alleviation strategies and poverty reduction in Mangu LGA, a
Chi-square test of association was carried out using the categorical response data.

Test Value df Sig. (p)

Pearson 49.511 45 0.490
Chi-square
Likelihood 48.43 45 1.000
Ratio
Linear-by- 0.04 1 0.950
Linear
Association
No. of Valid 64
Cases
Decision: Since p = 0.490 > 0.05 and the calculated Chi-square (49.511) is less than the
critical/table value (61.66 at 45 df), we fail to reject the null hypothesis. Thus, the data do
not provide evidence of a statistically significant relationship between current government
poverty alleviation strategies and actual poverty reduction in Mangu LGA.

17
4.5 Discussion of Major Findings

The descriptive and inferential analyses point to weak linkage between policy intentions
and real outcomes. While respondents recognize that government ought to provide jobs,
loans, and skills training, they perceive implementation as hampered by corruption,
politicization, and inadequate monitoring. Many respondents do not see the poor as the
main beneficiaries of programmes, nor do they believe that the interventions have lifted
large numbers out of poverty.

The strong call for regulatory oversight, improved targeting, and collaboration with NGOs
suggests a trust deficit in government-only delivery models. Strengthening transparency
and community participation is therefore critical.

18
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the study, draws conclusions from the findings, and makes
recommendations for policy and practice aimed at improving poverty alleviation in
Mangu LGA and Nigeria generally.

5.2 Summary of Findings

• Government has core responsibilities in poverty alleviation—job creation, loans/grants

access, and skills training. Respondents overwhelmingly expect action in these areas.
• Major problems hindering poverty alleviation in Mangu LGA include diversion of
funds/materials, politicized beneficiary selection, inadequate awareness, insufficient
monitoring, and inadequate funding.
• Perceived impact of existing programmes is low: most respondents believe the poor are
not the primary beneficiaries and that few have been lifted out of poverty.
• Materials and funds provided are generally viewed as insufficient to start sustainable
enterprises.
• Participation of NGOs and individuals in complementing government efforts is
considered limited.
• Respondents strongly support creation of a regulatory oversight body, better targeting of
the poor, regular assessment of resource use, and encouragement of NGO involvement.

5.3 Conclusion

Alleviating poverty remains a pressing development priority for Mangu LGA and Nigeria
at large. The study’s evidence indicates a persistent gap between government poverty
alleviation policies and their actual impact on the poor. The Chi-square test supports this

19
view: statistically, existing strategies have not translated into measurable poverty
reduction in the study area. Bridging this gap requires reforms that emphasize
transparency, accountability, inclusive targeting, and effective monitoring.

5.4 Recommendations

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are made to strengthen poverty
alleviation efforts in Mangu LGA and beyond:

1. Create / Strengthen a Regulatory and Monitoring Body: Establish an independent

multi-stakeholder committee (including community reps, civil society, and anti-corruption
agencies such as EFCC/ICPC) to oversee all poverty alleviation schemes.

2. Transparent Beneficiary Selection: Use community-based targeting and publicly

displayed beneficiary lists to ensure that the poorest households are reached.

3. Periodic Assessment of Resource Use: Conduct quarterly audits of funds, materials, and
training outcomes; apply sanctions where diversion is detected.

4. Synergy Across Government Levels: Align federal, state, and local programmes to
avoid duplication and ensure flow of information and resources to the grassroots.

5. Address Insecurity: Improve security in farming and market areas; insecurity erodes
livelihoods and undermines poverty programmes.

6. Agricultural Support: Subsidize seeds, fertilizer, and other farm inputs; improve
extension services and rural market access to boost household income.

7. Expand Skills Acquisition Centres: Establish or equip vocational centres in Mangu for
trades (tailoring, carpentry, ICT, agro-processing) tied to start-up grants or toolkits.

8. Strengthen Loan Accessibility: Simplify procedures and reduce collateral requirements

for micro-loans targeted at small farmers, women, and youth entrepreneurs.
20
9. Public Awareness Campaigns: Through the National Orientation Agency (NOA) and
local media, sensitize citizens to available programmes, eligibility, and application
processes.

10. Partnership with NGOs & Philanthropists: Encourage credible NGOs, faith-based
organizations, and philanthropists to co-fund and co-implement poverty reduction
activities under transparent agreements.

11. Data and Feedback Systems: Build a local poverty register, track beneficiaries over
time, and use feedback to improve programme design.

12. Mainstream Gender & Youth Inclusion: Ensure women and youth—who form a large
share of the poor—receive equitable access to support schemes.

21
REFERENCES

African Development Bank (2021). Tracking Africa’s Progress in Achieving Poverty

Reduction Goals. Abidjan: AfDB.

Agba, M. S., & Idu, A. Y. (2021). The Role of Local Government in Rural Development
and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria. Local Governance Journal, 9(1), 22–37.

Akinyele, A. O. (2019). Evaluation of Poverty Alleviation Policies in Nigeria: Challenges

and Prospects. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 11(3), 45–56.

Federal Government of Nigeria (2023). National Social Investment Programmes (NSIP)

Performance Report. Abuja: Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs & Poverty Alleviation.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2022). Nigeria Country Programming

Framework 2022–2026. Rome: FAO.

International Labour Organization (ILO) (2021). Skills for Employment and Productivity
in Africa. Geneva: ILO.

National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2023). Nigeria Multidimensional Poverty Index

(MPI) 2022/23 Report. Abuja: NBS.

National Orientation Agency (NOA) (2022). Community Sensitization Toolkit on

Government Social Programmes. Abuja: NOA Publications.

Okon, E. F., & Musa, L. A. (2020). Community Targeting and Social Protection Delivery
in Rural Nigeria. African Social Policy Review, 5(2), 101–120.

Olatunji, M. O. (2020). Community Participation in Poverty Reduction: The Nigerian

Experience. African Journal of Economic & Sustainable Development, 13(2), 87–101.

22
Plateau State Government (2022). Plateau State Economic Recovery & Growth Strategy
(PSERGS) 2022–2026. Jos: Ministry of Budget and Planning.

Transparency International (2022). Corruption Perceptions Index 2022: Nigeria Country

Data. Berlin: Transparency International.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2023). Human Development Report

2023/24. New York: UNDP.

World Bank (2022). Nigeria Development Update: The Urgency for Business Unusual.
Washington, DC: World Bank.

World Bank (2024). Improving Targeting for Social Safety Nets in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

23
 APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE

Department of Accounting, Gboko Polytechnic, Benue State.

Dear Respondent,

I am a final year student of the Department of Accounting conducting a research titled

"An Assessment of the Role of Government in Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria (A Case
Study of Mangu LGA)." The questionnaire below is for academic purposes only.
Information provided will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Please respond honestly.
Thank you.

Yerse Dangam Danjuma

SECTION A: Bio-Data (Please tick ✓)

1. Age: 15–25 [ ] 26–35 [ ] 36–45 [ ] 46 & above [ ]

2. Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ]

3. Occupation: Student [ ] Civil Servant [ ] Businessman/woman [ ] Farmer [ ]

Handworker [ ] Other [ ]

4. Marital Status: Married [ ] Widowed [ ] Divorced [ ] Separated [ ] Single [ ]

5. District in Mangu LGA: _______________________

SECTION B: Research Items (Tick one option per row)

Key: SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; DA = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree.

1. Core Responsibilities of Government in Poverty Alleviation

1.1 Provision of employment opportunities. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

24
1.2 Availability of loans/grants to citizens. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

1.3 Training/empowerment in skills & handcrafts. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

2. Problems Confronting Poverty Alleviation Schemes in Mangu LGA

2.1 Diversion of funds/materials. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

2.2 Inadequate awareness on schemes. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

2.3 Politicization of beneficiary selection. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

2.4 Inadequate funds & poor monitoring. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

3. Successes of Poverty Alleviation Schemes in Mangu LGA

3.1 Programmes have lifted many citizens out of poverty. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

3.2 The poor are the main beneficiaries. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

3.3 Funds/materials given are enough to start a business. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

3.4 NGOs/Individuals complement government efforts. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

4. Measures to Improve Poverty Alleviation Schemes

4.1 Create a regulatory body to check scheme activities. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

4.2 Target the poor fairly as beneficiaries. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

4.3 Assess utilization of resources periodically. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

4.4 Encourage NGOs/philanthropists to assist government. SA[ ] A[ ] DA[ ] SD[ ]

25