Therefore, a major concern to governments, ultimately institutions and policy makers In different countries is to identify appropriate strategy for poverty alleviation especially In the rural areas. INTRODUCTION The rural areas however present problems that are a contradictory paradox of Its natural resource endowment. As noted by Clansman (1998), rural communities are seriously marginality in terms of most basic elements of development. In addition, the inhabitants tend to live at the margin of existence and opportunities.
Most rural communities lack potable water, electricity, health care, educational and recreational facilities and motorboat roads. They experience high population growth rates; high infant and maternal mortality, low life expectancy and a peasant population that lacks modern equipment that can guarantee sustainable exploitation of the natural resources on which they live. In line with the recent finding that poverty Is a rural phenomenon (World Bank, 1990; Fields, 2000; World Bank, 2001 ), available statistics on the Incidence of poverty In Nigeria have shown that, while urban poverty rate Increased progressively from 3 percent In 1980 to 25. Percent in 1996, that of rural areas Increased from 6. 5 percent in 1980 to 31. Percent in 1996 (see Table 1). Beyond the fact that rural poverty rate was higher than that of urban rate throughout the period of 1980 and 1996, the range of urban poverty rate between 1980 and 1996 was 22. 2 percent as against 25. 1 percent for the rural poverty rate during the same period. Again, this confirms that rural poor are the worst hit by poverty in Nigeria. To date, rural underdevelopment situation in Nigeria remains a paradox, at least from two perspectives.
Firstly, rural underdevelopment In Nigeria is a paradox because the poverty level appears as a contradiction considering the country’s immense wealth. Secondly, rural underdevelopment situation has worsened despite the huge human and material resources that have been devoted to poverty reduction by successive governments in Nigeria with no substantial success achieved from continued to capture the attention of both national governments and international development agencies for several decades.
First, many of the developing countries for which secondary data is sought as a basis for indicators have non-existent, incomplete or unreliable data for several of the relevant series. Second, there has been a widely acknowledged miss-match between some of the economic series which are widely available (such as per capita income) and the concepts for which data is sought (such as development, welfare and poverty for example). Third, some of the concepts for which data are sought are inherently non- quantitative in nature so that it has been necessary to find alternative approaches for the identification of rigorous indicators.
The publication of Sunset’ major series on the quantitative aspects of the economic growth of nations (1956, 1971, 1979, 1982, (1963), the Meaning of Development (1969) and What are we Trying to Measure (1972) deed to a rethinking of development indicators away from reliance on growth in per capita income alone: The questions to ask about a country’s development are therefore: What has been happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to inequality? If all of these three have become less severe, then beyond doubt this has been a period of development for the country concerned……
If one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result ‘development’, even if per capita income has soared. Seers, 1972: 24) Seers questioned the basic issue of whether growth in the average level of per capita incomes would be an adequate measure of development if development was defined in terms of the satisfaction of basic needs (for greater detail refer to Hicks and Street, 1979; ILL, 1976, 1977; Stewart, 1985; Street, 1980, 1984).
The west attained a place of recognition in the world in the late 18th and early 19th century when the era of philosophizing was replaced by scientific explorations and findings and the expanse of knowledge grew largely. The Western world in question refers to the like of Europe, America and the rest that are referred to as developed societies. A more theoretical and scholarly explanation for what was described as transformation is obtainable in the works of W. W. Rows, he presented five stages of development which the western countries went through and for any society to be developed they must go through similar stages in the same order.
This is not the only explanation for the development of the west but one of the foremost. Modernization Theory An evolutionary theory of development, the theory of WWW Roosts, was based on Classical Evolutionary Theory (Comet et al) and Functionalist Theory (Parsons). Functionalist theory stated that societies tend towards harmony, stability, equilibrium and the status quo. Any behavior Jeopardizing these conditions will be considered anti-social and therefore punishable, etc.
Post Second World War a new world order was being established with the growth of the Superpowers, the spread of Communism and the decentralization of much of Africa and Asia. Thus new nation- states were in a search for a model of development. To this end, The United States establishment encouraged influential economists, historians and social scientist to development and political stability and “SOCIAL ORDER”, in order to prevent / discourage the rise of ultra-nationalistic and protectionism sympathies in newly independent countries. The main result of this was Modernization Theory!
Rows theory is evolutionist. It sees socio- economic change as unfolding through a fixed set of stages. It is also nonlinear. That is, all countries must pass by the same route, in the same order. There can be no ‘leaps’, short cuts, choices, or alternative routes to development. It is internationalist. That is, all crucial dimensions determining development are internally generated within a specific society. (This rules out, of course, dependency theory). The basic idea is that society should (and has) evolve through a “natural” set of stages from a traditional society to that of a complex industrial one.
Based on the development of the I-J and the USA, it suggests that the main key to development is Economic growth. Through investment in industry (incorporated external investment), the economy can change from subsistence to an industrialized one. A key feature (and possibly a contentious one) of Roost’s work is that alongside economic development, there needs also be a cultural change, from ascription to a meritocracy requiring countries to leave behind many other cultural beliefs and values. This evolutionary theory is based on the “development” of Europe and the USA.
It suggests that there are a set 5 stages that societies pass through on the road to development. It is possible also to put all countries into one of these categories. Roosts identified five stages of economic growth. Stage 1: Traditional Society – The economy is dominated by subsistence activity. Output is consumed by producers; it is not traded. Trade is barter where goods are exchanged directly for other goods. Agriculture is the most important industry. Production is labor intensive using only limited quantities of capital.
Technology is limited, and resource allocation is determined very much by traditional methods of production. Stage 2: Transitional Stage (Preconditions for Takeoff Increased specialization generates surpluses for trading. There is an emergence of a transport infrastructure to support trade. Entrepreneurs emerge as incomes, savings and investment grow. External trade also occurs concentrating on primary products. A strong central government encourages private enterprise. Stage 3: Take Off Stage Industrialization increases with workers switching from the agricultural sector to the manufacturing sector.
Growth is concentrated in a few regions of the country and within one or two manufacturing industries. The level of investment reaches over 10% of GNP. People save money. The economic transitions are accompanied by the evolution of new political and social institutions that support industrialization. The growth is self-sustaining as investment leads to increasing incomes in turn generating more savings to finance further investment. He gave particular years when countries got to this stage, in year 1800 and 1820, Britain and America got to this stage.
Stage 4: Drive to Maturity The economy is diversifying into new areas. Technological innovation is providing a diverse range of investment opportunities. The economy is producing a wide range of goods and services and there is less reliance on imports. Arbitration increases. Technology is used more widely. In his work Britain got to this stage in 1840 and The economy is geared towards mass consumption, and the level of economic activity is very high. Technology is extensively used but its expansion slows. The service sector becomes increasingly dominant. Arbitration is complete. Now, multinationals emerge.
Income for large numbers of persons transcends basic food, shelter and clothing. Increased interest in social welfare. This present the analysis of the development of the western world and it is often the basis through which they treat and assess most third world countries. The question in contemporary analysis and discuss is: is it completely possible for other countries to go through these process and without the process is development not attainable? The Japanese experience We must understand the type of development that took place in the Japanese society was highly influenced by the citizens.
During the 2nd World War, America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and this rendered the Japanese society helpless, to this point they were forced to surrender. The story of Japans influence started from here, they closed their economy never connected or transacted business with the outside World and looked inward for their supply and development. They managed their resources within their own context, developed and modernized their traditional and indigenous ways of doing things and getting work done. This implies that inwards approach to development was used by the Japanese society.
They were able to modernize in line with their technology, they never conceived technology breakthrough, innovation and development they weren’t ready or matured for and this really helped the development of the society. Indeed the development that is people oriented and initiated is long and lasting. The Chinese experience Their experience are similar and alike, they also looked inward for transformation. The society recognized the significance of the citizenry to a sustainable development, after the 2nd World War attention shifted from complete production and accumulation to improvement of the living standard of the people and consumption.
On the same platform they maintained their traditional language, developed their crude technology via indigenous knowledge, cherished their culture and taught their citizens the principle of hardwood. Today China stands tall among the the ominous of nation, highly developed, technologically advanced and produces over 70% of the electronics used in Nigeria. Nigeria should learn from the experience of China and Japan, we should understand following the principles of the Western world like we did during the colonial era and we still doing now has not helped and may not profit us.
Our leaders should initiate people oriented developmental programs, we should look inward for development, let us modernize our own indigenous ways of doing things (junk and sob should be processed into Juice) and accomplishing task. Constraints to development in Nigeria In-depth understanding of the rural development over view provided above shows some of the factors responsible for low development in rural sector of the country, it is fortunate to know that despite the fact that 30 to km drive from major cities in factors that are deemed responsible are provided below; 1 .
Over ambitious governmental programs for rural development 2. We lack indigenous oriented drive and zeal for development 3. Lack of committed leadership 4. Kleptomaniac among agents of rural development 5. The believe system among the citizens of Nigeria: there is this general belief that our products are not good enough, it is a wrong mentality to drive rural development.
