International Journal of Social and Policy Issues Vol. 6, No.

1 & 2

THE CHALLENGES OF RURAL TRANSFORMATION:

MBOHO, K. SUNDAY
JOSHUA, 1. EZEKIEL

ABSTRACT
Rural development in Nigeria has witnessed so many programme changes. During the colonial
period, the British colonizers were primarily concerned with how to get raw materials needed for
running their industries back at home and in return provide markets for same. Thus, rural
development was not their priority. Instead emphasis was placed on agricultural research and
extension services. It was the realization of this that post-colonial period witnessed a more
purposeful approach toward rural development on the part of the post-colonial leaders. Even
then, they initiated so many programmes that seem not to have solved the problem of rural
poverty and underdevelopment with particular reference to Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria. The
problems of development in Akwa Ibom are viewed against two policy objectives that of
concentration of facilities and economic activities in designated urban areas to achieve a high
economic aggregate and that of de-concentration of are to achieve even development of all parts
of the state. Against a background of failure of concentration policy to achieve a high economic
aggregate and that of de-concentration to achieve balanced development of all parts of the state,
a liberal concentration policy is proposed.

MBOHO, K. SUNDAY is a Lecturer, School of Business Management, Akwa Ibom State

INTRODUCTION
Rural transformation is involved with the development of rural communities. Rural
communities refer to local social system, communities of blood (Kinship) and of mind
(friendship) who live in reasonable proximity (Tonnies 1951). It assumes economic and
sociological dimensions. Economically, its dwellers are poor and the area is underdeveloped
whereas, sociologically, they are mostly uneducated (Olatunbosun. 1975). Rural community is
also traced to other dimensions as ethnic, racial, spatial. And occupational (Stacey, 1969).
Rural transformation is contrary to urban development. It is concerned in practical terms
with the development of the dwellers as well as the area. It can be defined simply as a process of
developing, utilizing national and human resources, technologies. institutions, organizations,
government policies and programmes to encourage and speed up economic growth in the rural

317
areas; to providejobs and improve the quality of life towards self sustenance (Ikowat, 1990). In
Nigeria, it is mainly state organized, but it is also contributed to, by concerned individuals,
communities, institutions, private and corporate companies, and international organizations.
Rural development, like the concept of development itself, has a definitional problem due
to its multi-dimensional approach. For one, the definition of what is “rural” is difficult. This is
because, as Singh (1971) observes, the rural sector has to be seen in two basic and interrelated
aspects as a rural society and as a rural economy”. This view of rural development indicates that
the structure and function of the rural society must co-exist with land use tenure system. Thus,
by ruralness it means “area that are predominantly agricultural-cultivation of plants and rearing
of animals-and other social characteristics such as population density, heterogeneity, social
differentiation and mobility”. Rural development is, therefore, the transformation of these rural
characteristics, motivation of rural society, leading to its transition from traditional isolation to
integration into the national economy (World Bank, 1975).
It is in line with the above world Bank view of rural transformation that Adegboye 1972)
defines rural development as the development of the moral people in. such a continuous manner
as to enable them to most effectively and efficiently utilize intellect, technology and other
resources for further development of both themselves and their resources.
From all their perceptions, rural transformation can be seen as a process whereby the
government works in close cooperation with the people to improve the economic, social and
cultural conditions of their communities. This involves a broad base mobilization of the people
so as to enhance their capacity to cope with the daily task of living. Thus, it is the transformation
of the mode of production of the rural areas in manner that uplifts both the forces of production
especially technology and the social relations or production, that is the material and social life of
the majority of the people. Rural development is, therefore, concerned with the reduction of the
inequalities in income and employment access to public goods and services and the alleviation of
poverty. It is on the realization of the above that in Nigeria and elsewhere in the world strategies
have been adopted to carry out rural transformation and one of the major approaches has been
the adoption of agricultural programmes since the rural people are seen to be agricultural base in
occupational practice.
In view of the above analysis, one can perceive that rural transportation is broad based as
it represents a set of policies or goals with appropriate targeting. It must concern the
enhancement of the wellbeing of the rural populace, where 75% of the entire population resides.
It must strive to lead to the production of a surplus of a size and nature that will enable the
fulfillment of general national development. In implementing the rural development policy,
effort is geared towards sustaining the interest of both the rural people and the national
government.
The programme of rural development has been the concern of successive governments in
Nigeria. For this reason, each regime has made its own attempt by devising or adopting one
approach or another in order to implement its development policies. While some of these
programmes were successful, others did not achieve the desired objectives, thus leading to their
inability to eliminate rural poverty and underdevelopment. In looking at rural development in
Akwa Ibom State, therefore, this work intends to examine the germane conceptual clarification
of the concepts of development and its rural transformation variant, objective of rural
development, history of the rural development, rural development programrnes in Nigeria a
historical exposition, factors militating against rural transformation in Akwa Ibom State being
the focus of this work. Aside, the work will make some recommendations.
CONCEPTUAL CLARRFICATION
Development: There is controversy as to what development is. Thus, its practitioners and
scholars have given it divergent meanings and conceptions. Needless to go into these
318
controversies, summarily, it is necessary to see it as a process that involves the progress of
people in the society. Since people live within some forms of social framework consisting of
social, economic and political structure, development involves changes or transformation of their
structures. In essence, development involves human, socioeconomic, cultural and political
development. It is, therefore, a multi-dimensional and comprehensive transformation of the
society (Burkey, 1996).
Generally, development refers to the transformation of economy, society, politics, and
cultures that permits a redirection of science and technology, the self-generating and self-
perpetuating use and development of the people’s potentialities and improvement in the
machinery of administration and productive institutions, to meet the rising demands of society.
Rural Development: The World Bank (1995) defines rural development as “a strategy designed
to improve the economic and social conditions of a specific group of people - the rural poor. It
involves extending the benefits of development to the poorest among those who seek livelihood
in the rural area”.
The overseas development institute saw rural development as “the improvement of living
conditions in rural areas, through the increased productivity of agricultural and related enterprise
and if it is to benefit the lower income earners, the equitable and fair distribution of the wealth as
created, must take into account the need to maintain a balance between individual consumption
and improvement in communal social services”.
THE OBJECTIVES OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
The adoption of a policy of rural transformation by a country in the first instance, is an
admission of the existence of sectoral dualism and of sectoral imbalances and of the need to
remedy the existing imbalances.
Rural development objectives vary depending, inter-alia, upon the factor(s) motivating a
government to embark upon it; the historical period (i.e. colonial or independent) in the life of a
country during which the policy is embarked upon, the sponsor’s influence and the proportion of
this regarded as poor; etc. All in all, a few common objectives often declared in nearly all
instances include: (a) the development and increase of the productivity of the agricultural sector;
(b) the stemming of the tide of migration of youths particularly, from rural to urban area in
search of non-existent jobs by creating rural-based employment opportunities, (c) the
improvement of the wellbeing of rural dwellers via the provision of basic needs infrastructures
such as water; light, shelter, health, educational and communication facilities; (d) the reduction
of poverty and inequality in rural areas via such anti-poverty policies as land reforms, increased
local participation, recognition of women, population control and food security and (e) the
amelioration of regional development imbalance through a policy of locating publicly owned
industries in rural areas and generally integrating the rural areas into the overall national
development, flame areas into the overall national development framework and as the basic units
of national planning.
These general objectives are found with varied degrees of details in different national
rural development policy documents. What is never clearly stated is whether the ultimate aim in
developing the rural area is ever that of turning them eventually into urban centres. In a paper
entitled “Rural Community Development in Africa:
Development Towards What? Which was presented to the 4th World Congress of Rural
sociology held in Town, Poland in 1976, posed this crucial question and in looking through the
development plans of a number of African countries, found that their aim in embarking upon
rural development programmes is not at all that of eventually turning those areas into urban
centres. Even in United States of America, rural development according to the 1972 Rural
Development Act, is ultimately aimed at developing facilities and services in rural areas that will

319
contribute to making these areas desirable places in which to live and make private and business
investments, thereby providing an attractive alternative to further massive expansion of their
already oversized megalopolises.
On the other hand, it was found that the actual objective of rural development in most
African countries tended to be that of agricultural development. Even when the concept of
integrated rural development was introduced in the 1 970s, the paramount aim still remained that
of better agricultural productivity through the packaging of production technologies and the
introduction of an enhanced delivery system. In other words, rural development in Africa has, for
a longtime, been interpreted to be the same thing as agricultural development. One finds that
whenever other form of social development (Feeder roads, co-operative shops, boreholes, clinics,
school, etc) are alluded to in rural development objectives, these are usually in so far as such
developments will enhance agricultural productivity in the short and long runs. The objective of
developing the rural area on its own terms as a part of the society inhabited by fellow tax payers
who aspire to and deserved the good things of life, was never seriously underlined. The curious
aspect of this phenomenon however is that a majority of rural development policy formulators
and implementors originate from rural backgrounds (Ekong Ekong, 1991).
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN NIGERIA: A HISTORICAL
EXPOSITION
Rural development strategies are approaches designed to tackle rural underdevelopment.
The strategies adopted depend on the developer, individuals, groups and institutions which
contribute to community development by assisting in setting up of projects in the communities.
Such projects include: community, schools, roads, squares, markets, hospitals, electricity, pipe-
borne water, small and medium scale enterprise etc. They may also build and donate such
projects to the communities.
As it has been pointed out above, the interest of the colonial administrations in Nigeria
was predominantly how to get raw materials needed for running British industries and in return
to provide markets for some. Development efforts were, therefore, tailored towards the
achievement of this colonial goal. Thus, they were concerned with the development of urban
areas. Indeed, under the indirect rule, their presence in the rural areas was required as they ruled
through the chiefs. The Native Authorities and voluntary Agencies were, therefore, responsible
for rural development. Government attention was directed at the production of export crops and
development of local markets for manufactured goods. To facilitate this policy, they constructed
rail lines and feeder roads from the coastal regions to the hinterland or the export crop production
centers.
In the 1930s and later, in the 1 940s, the British created funds for the development of its
colonies. The emphasis was, however, on agricultural research and extension services. This
somewhat positive step did not go far enough as it was transferred to the local government for
lack of funds. The irony of this was that if the British with all her exploitative tendencies could
not fund rural development how could the local government do that. The implementation of this
policy therefore lacked uniformity and progress as each local council handled it to the best of its
financial and technical ability, the results being uneven development.
In the 1950s, when regions became the centers of governmental affairs agricultural
programmes made progress particularly in the North and in the East where government
supplemental community self-help efforts. In all these, however, the rural areas were neglected
as the urban reaped much of the benefits.
During the First Republic even though Nigeria had her First National Development Plan,
the political situation was such that the politicians were more concerned with how to reap the
benefits of political leadership vacated by the British. Less attention was paid to the issue of rural
development. Even when the military took centre stage in the political realm, with the second
320
development plan of 1970-1974, much of the programme of the reconciliation, reconstruction
and rehabilitation policy of post-war was urban-based. Thus, after this period was discovered
that the war left Nigeria with acute shortage of food. This, therefore, led to the launching of
Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs). The focus of the ADPs was the small-scale farmer
as the centerpiece of incremental food production. This programme adopted the integrated
strategy, which was based on increased food production through the supply of inputs,
infrastructural development like rural roads, small dams, farm services. At the initial stages, the
ADPs recorded some form of successes, but the machinery that were brought in to boost
agricultural production broke down.
The third national development plan of 1975-80 tried to correct the imbalances of the
second plan particularly to Agriculture. Such programmes as the National Accelerated Food
Production Programme (NAFPP), the River Basin Development Authorities and the integrated
Agricultural Development Projects. This period witnessed increased inigation projects, abundant
supply of fertilizers and inputs subsidies and agricultural credit. In fact, states went into direct
production and new farm settlement schemes were experimented. Indeed, to facilitate
agriculture, the controversial land use decree was promulgated transferring ownership of land to
the state and the people holding it in trust for the government. This period also witnessed the
launching of the Operation Feed Nation (OFN) programme.
The Fourth National Development Plan (1981-85), which was initiated by the military,
was launched by the second republic. The credit of this plan was that it tried to consolidate what
was already started and indeed it reduced foreign participation in agriculture, but the oil boom of
the early 1 970s was becoming oil doom and so the Federal government had to withdraw from
several rural development programmes in favour of private participation. Of significance at this
period was the integrated rural development programme which was to be jointly financed by the
state, federal governments and World Bank. The regime of the second republic abandoned the
plan with the dwindling oil prices at the international market, food production was generally
hampered. This led to rural-urban migration because the rural areas were the first to get
strangulated under the austerity measures that were introduced. As oil boom became oil doom,
green revolution failed under the economic crunch and the poorly guided public expenditure of
the government.
The military regime that returned to power after 1983 was preoccupied with offsetting
foreign liabilities and the promotion of self-reliance. In 1986, the Babangida regime introduced
the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) with the creation of the Directorate to take care of
integrated rural development was to take care of unemployment. Also introduced was the mass
transit programme which encouraged private sector participation in the transport industry.
With the attainment of political independence in October 1960, the nation has witnesses
dramatic positive changes in the conceptualization, prioritization and pursuance of development
policies and programmes. These includes the farm settlement schemes, 1 960s. First National
Development Food Production Programme (NAFFP), 1972; Third National Development Plan,
1975-80; Agricultural Credit Guaranteed Scheme Fund (ACGSF), 1977. Land Use Decree, 1978;
Rural Banking scheme (RBS), 1978; War Against Indiscipline (WAI), 1984; Directorate for
foods, roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), 1986, National Directorate of Employment
(NDE) 1986; Directorate for Mass Mobilization, Self-Reliance, Social Justice and Economic
Recovery (NAMSER), 1986; and Better Life for Rural Women Programme, 1987. Others are the
people Bank of Nigeria (PBN), 1987 Community Bank of Nigeria, 1990; First National Rolling
Plan, 1990-92; National Agricultural Land Development Authority (NA-LDA), 1991; Family
Support Programme (FSP) 1996; Family Economic Advancement Programme, (FEAP), 1999
Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP), 1999 and others.

321
FACTORS MILITATING AGAISNT RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN AKWA IBOM
STATE AND NIGERIA AS A WHOLE
Causes of the failure of rural transformation progranimes in Nigeria are various. These
causes are here segmented into two broad groups, namely: our mode or system of production,
and the causes relating to policy sources, design and implementation. Firstly, let us reiterate what
we mean by mode or system of production. By mode of production, we do not refer to the state
of technique or an arrangement or settings or equipment in production, rather, we refer to the
way in which the means of production are owned, managed, and the pattern which the
distribution of income takes (Marx, 1867).
Akpakpan, (1994) expresses the system of production, as “the way in which a society
organizes the production and distribution of the goods and services it needs”. The mode of
production, then, according to Akpakpan (Ibid), “depends critically on the ownership and control
of the mean of production, that is. the economic resources, available to the society, and the way
the means of production are sued, that is the way they are allocated. Thus mode of production is
defined by the decisions the society has somehow taken about resources ownership and resource
allocation.
Practically, today there are 3 outstanding systems of productions in the world. These are
the socialist systems or socialism, the capitalist system or capitalism and the mixed economy
system. This socialist system is a socio-economic system in which “most of the means of
production are owned and controlled by the state, and the location of the means of production is
guided by a central plan of activities drawn up by the government on behalf as a whole”
(Akpakpan, 1999).
This means that the bulk of a country’s “Forces of production land, transport, natural
resources, chief industries, etc are owned and controlled by the state in the interest, and for the
welfare of the entire citizenry. The capitalist system, on the contrary is one in which “most of the
means of production are owned and controlled by private individual and groups of private
individuals, that is corporate bodies; and the allocation of the means of production... is guided by
self-interested, more precisely, by the prospects of making profits” (Akpakpan, 1999). This
means that production forces and production are for sale; presumably, for the highest bidders,
and the paramount motive of any business enterprise, in this system, is a maximize profit.
Capitalism, therefore, is much of the survival of the fittest. The mixed system is one in which
some of the property means of production are owned and managed by private individuals while
parts is owned and managed by the state for the people-a hybrid of the socialist and the capitalist
system.
It is worthy to note that there is no economy in the world that is core socialist or core
capitalist, not even China or America (Akpakpan, 1999). All are mixed economics, only with
variations degree of bias or inclination towards either socialism or capitalism.
Some factors for the poor performance and sometimes failure of focus on Akwa Ibom
State agricultural and rural development policies and programmes in Nigeria have been
identified problems which point to the urgent need for a new order in rural development
programme planning and implementation in Akwa Ibom State. These include:
Lack of a Well-developed Culture and Political Ideology: Generally, the implementation of
rural development policies in developing countries has been very problematic due to lack of a
well-developed culture and political ideology. The case of China is quite distinctive, because
China’s rural development approach embraces a well-developed political culture and a
communist ideology which emphasize equally the basic necessities of life as food, shelter,
clothing and health, among others. Political and policy instability have resulted in frequent
policy discontinuities and inconsistent implementation, which in turn have led to poor outcomes.

322
Lack of the Participatory Appraoch: One of the commonest and unique problems with all the
agencies responsible for rural development in the state is the lack of involvement
of people or rural masses in decision-making process, initiatives of the programmes. As a
result development programmes, initiatives are not successful because no much awareness have
been created about the people. The rural communities, which most at times consist of informal
sector, are not deeply involved in the implementation of programmes. They are mere
beneficiaries and their participatory zeal in the execution and maintenance of these projects
become very poor. This explains the poor attitudes of the rural populace to most of these
progrmames.
Gross Mismanagement of Human and Material Reources: Gross mismanagement of human
and material resources is one great bane on the execution of agricultural progranmies and rural
development. All experience mismanagement of funds given to them. For instance, the managers
charged with the effective utilization of funds meant to execute these vital projects hardly carry
them out. Instead they regard these agencies and programmes as outlets established by
government to enrich themselves. All these to a great extent affect the performance of these
programmes. Most of the programmes are not targeted at the poor, they are merely masqueraded
as pro-poor programmes, but deliberately designed to further enrich the rich and the powerful.
Severe budgetary management and governance problems have afflicted the programme
culminating in uncompleted facilities, broken do and abandoned projects. Lack of accountability
and transparency has made the programme to serve more as a conduit pipe for siphoning national
resources.
The Management Positions of these Agencies: The management positions of these agencies
are also polarized apart from the polarization of the programmes themselves. Instead of affairs of
these organizations, party loyalists are placed on top positions. Some of these organizations have
shifted from one ministry to another rendering their control in consistent causing of a lot of
bureaucratic delays in the execution of projects.
Inadequate Funding: In most case, the release of funds meant as budget for execution has
always been difficult. The concomitance of this twin problem is that deadliness and targets are
hardly met, programmes/projects dragon from year to year and are sometimes overtaken by
events or are left uncompleted.
Lack of Continuity: There is lack of continuity, that is, what is started by one political regime is
discarded immediately that regime is out of place. In fact, on the personnel side, experienced
experts are often thrown out and a new team is usually assembled, comprising mostly political
faithful with little regard to their suitability. These and other problems have been the bane of
rural development before and since the need of colonial era.
Instability and Uncertainty: This characterized the Nigerian political landscape. This has
hardly guaranteed consistency in the implementation of policies and execution of programmes
including those meant for rural development, since independence, Nigeria has been ruled by
more than 11 heads of state. The most unfortunate dimension is that each new regime, lacks
political will and, sometimes, the moral courage to carry policies through. Thus, apart from
absence of focus, economic policy formulation and implementation have been marred by several
years of inconsistency. Economic policies vary widely from year to year based on the spur of the
moment.
Policy Sources: Nigeria’s crises of poverty alleviation partly stems from the fact that some
poverty alleviation agenda and progrmmes successive Nigerian government have been adopting
and have been designed and determined for, and not by them: for instance, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have, for sometime, remained Nigeria’s economic
advisers and lenders. They have been offering some loans and packages of programmes to

323
Nigeria to aid to fasten the pace of alleviating poverty, and of development generally.
Oftentimes, these programmes throw Nigerians to quandary rather than pulling it out of its
economic decadence. It was from these sources that Nigeria got the SAP, which promoted
currency devaluation, wage freeze, trade liberalization and nationalization of tariffs among its
core elements, as poverty alleviation cum development policies (Ekpo, 1991).
Policy Design: By policy design, we mean an arrangement of a plan of action intended for a
particular purpose. This calls for identifying a problem and all its intricacies. But oftentimes,
anti-poverty policy designs, in Nigeria, are made without the policy designer identifying the
poor, knowing their environment and hearing from them, thus, such policy design and regard
Archibong (1997) observes that because of poor design and implementation, anti-poverty
programme have too title, or no success in Nigeria.
Inappropriate project design reflecting lack of involvement of beneficiaries in the
formulation and implementation. Consequently, beneficiaries were not motivated to identify
themselves with the successful implementation of the projects. Lack of re-evaluation mechanism
to enable adaptation to emerging environmental changes. Some of these issues may relate not
only to the natural environmental, such as climate, but also the macro-economic situation in the
world.
Policy Implementation: This means putting in motion the arrangement of a plan of action
intended for a particular purpose. Implementation of rural development policies in the state and
even Nigeria as a whole lacks consistency. Archibong (1997) argues that only “very little can be
found in the whole range of public policies over the years that indicate consistency and
sustainability in dealing with rural development in the country”. The inconsistency and
unsustainability in implementing rural transformation programmes in Nigeria is not unconnected
with selfish desires of the managers and co-ordinators of these programmes. This is Ekong
(1997) tugged “Benefit Capture” a scenario where benefits that should have accrued to the end-
user or the beneficiary of designed projects are captured away (by the managers and co-
ordinator) every stage of the projects development, such that the people or group for which
benefits were meant see little or nothing of such benefits. Archibong (1997), in this regard,
submitted that ‘beneficiaries of rural development measures in Nigeria are often not the poor,
because such measures are not usually tailored for the poor”.
In the overall, these challenges are enormous that they have hindered the effective
development of the rural areas. Whether it is the lack of funds, poor leadership, low stuff morale,
political and frequent changes or poor mobilization, coordination, monitoring, supervision and
evaluation of progrmames, there is the need to adopt a more purposeful approach to the
development of the rural areas.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Rural development is a necessity; with the bulk of resources in the rural areas, it can
contribute significantly to the national economy. The strategy must, therefore, be carefully
articulated., there is no one own but an integrated approach makes room for sustainability. If the
rural dwellers are called in and are made to understand that the project belong to them, it may
lead to a proper handling and absolute care. This would prolong the life span of many projects
cited in the rural areas. Sensitization turns their mins for development and incited them to
cooperation.
Rural dwellers are poor people and must be assisted in order for them to develop. Credit
facilities are therefore, a necessity for capital formation. Credit and material support is better as
cash donation may overwhelm the already poor people who may never have handled such a huge
amount of money, Family cooperatives handle credit facilities well and show greater
comimitment These cooperatives do well if well trained on management, but it is still imperative

324
to strictly guide their projects to bestow adequate entrepreneurial experience. Projects should be
carefully scrutinized to be sure of the foundation before setting up for cooperatives.
From the foregoing, to some extent, Ministry of Rural Development in Akwa Ibom State
have made some impact in rural development. While the government whether at the Federal or
State level had good intentions of establishing them, because of one thing or another, they have
failed to live up to their expectation. For these programmes to succeed, they must be community
based, properly funding of rural development, re-oriented and given the political will to
development; the conceptualization, planning and implementation. This study also identifies our
mode of production as the bane of anti-poverty policy in the country. Hence, until the right of
decisive forces of production is established on the principles of equity and justice, rather than on
the principles of survival of the fittest and the more powerful takes it all”. Without this, national
development would be impossible.
The way forward, therefore, is that government policies toward rural transformation as
the basis of developing the rural areas should be well defined and become more enduring so as to
avoid frequent policy changes. In this regard, neglect, wrong analysis, faulty planning and
ineffective implementation should be avoided.
Furthermore, project prioritization and phasing should be encouraged as a matter of
policy in the face to dwindling economy. One reason for the failure of most rural development
programmes is that the ruralite are not adequately mobilized. In fact, their mobilization and
education into adopting new system, should be done as a deliberate policy. It is also realized that
there are a lot of duplications in the functions performed by rural development experts and
agencies. In a democratic regime, it is expected that, a situation of consistent and stable policy
formulation must be provided so as to provide the enabling political environment for sustainable
rural development.
Accordingly, we recommend the participatory community development approach
(PCDA) as a new rural development paradigm that would facilitate poverty alleviation,
employment generalization, wealth creation and value re-orienting among the rural people. It is
intended to make the rural people the driving force of their own development. The Participatory
Community Development Approach (PCDA) is envisioned as a holistic and participatory rural
development programme that would involve the commitment of all stakeholders and break the
vicious cycle of project abandonment. The Participatory Rural Appraisal method is adopted as
the programme strategy, with emphasis on bottom- top approach with top-dowm support-where
the rural people would freely take part in determining their development needs and priorities.
Based on the participatory rural appraisal report, development activities are introduced
into the beneficiary community in such a way that they would be complementary and supportive
to each other, and therefore, benefit from the synergy so created. The spirit of ownership so
created in the minds of the rural people will ensure the sustainability of the programme, as they
would see the projects as their and not government projects.
This rural development approach is anchored on the state government, the local
government and the civil society. It is not a federal government one-size-fit-all, imposed
programme. The beauty of this approach to rural development is that it recognizes the
peculiarities and uniqueness of the individual communities. It also gives the state and local
governments the autonomy to evolve and execute poverty alleviation projects that will take their
peculiar circumstances into consideration. This way. the two tiers of government will feel
concerned and committed to the programme and work towards its success. We are here
advocating ‘Development federalism” as against unitary structure of development engineering.

325
REFERENCES

Akeredolu Ale, E. O. (1995). Integrated Rural Development in Nigeria: Policy Issues and

Options. Ibadan: Spectrum Book Ltd.

Akakpan, E. B. (1994). The Economy: Toward a New Type of Economics. Delpot Nig). Co. Port

Harcourt.

Akpakpan, E. B. (1999). How to Save the Naira and Nigeria. Port Harcourt: Delpot (Nig). Co.

Archibong, P. E. (1997). Nigeria. Towards a Realistic and Integrate Anti-Poverty Strategy In

Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria, Nigerian Economic Society (NES), Annual Conference.

Ibadan: Pat Mag Press Ltd.

Ekong, E. E. (1988). An introduction to Rural Sociology (1st ed.). Lagos: Jurnak Publishers Ltd.

Ekong, E. E. (2003). Introduction to Rural Sociology (2nd ed.). Dove Educational Publishers,

Uyo. Nigeria.

Ekong, E. E. (1991). Rural Development and the Persistence of Poverty University of Cross

River State. Uyo inaugural Lecture Series No. 1.

Ijere, M. O. (1978). Rural Development in Nigeria: Prob1ern and Prospects. A Paper delivered at

the Training Programme for Planning Officers In Agriculture and Rural Development.

University of Ibadan,

Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology (20(L?). Volume 4, No. 1. Nigeria.

Olatunbosu, D. (1976). The Neglected rural Poor of Nigeria. Ibadan: Oxford University Press.

Owuamalam, B. I. (1 981). Community development in Action (An Eastern Nigeria Experiment,).

Owerri: image and Slogan.

World Bank (1996). Poverty in the Midst of Plenty: The Challenge of (growth with Inclusion.

Washington, D C.

World Bank /FOS (1999). Poverty and welfare in Nigeria. Lagos Federal Office of Statistics.

326
World Bank (1995). Rural Development Sectoral Policy Paper. World Bank Washington D. C.

February.

327