SAU Journal of Management and Social Sciences sau.edu.ng/sjmss/index.

php
(ISSN: 2550-7302), Vol. 6, Special Issue, 2021.

Family Size, Poverty and Social Exclusion: Evidence from Select Communities in
Edo State, Nigeria
Sunday Olufemi Akintelu, PhD
Department of Business Administration
Samuel Adegboyega University, Ogwa, Edo State, Nigeria
princefemi2002@yahoo.com/sakintelu@sau.edu.ng

Abstract
This study is an examination of the impact of family size and poverty on social exclusion
among household members of select communities in Edo State, Nigeria. Primary data
were adopted with the use of structured questionnaire which was administered to 100
household members in selected kingdoms in Edo Central Senatorial District (Esan
communities) of Edo State, Nigeria. These kingdoms are Uromi, Ogwa, Ekpoma,
Ujiogba, Ugbegun, Irrua, Ewu, Egueben, Ebele and Ewosa. The researcher used the
correlation and simple linear regression to analyse the probable relationship among the
variables. Finding shows that family size (FS) and poverty (P) exert a positive
relationship with social exclusion at 0.05 level of significance. The result also revealed a
statistically significant relationship established between poverty and social exclusion.
This implies that the households lack access to basic social amenities. The researcher
recommended that government should provide access to facilities such as stable power
supply, good road, water and affordable houses to make members of the communities
socially inclusive.
Keywords: Family Size, Poverty, Social Exclusion, Rural Community, Household
Members

Introduction
Poverty is anti-catalyst to basic human needs such as clothing, shelter, good diet,
infrastructure and social inclusion. Ajibola, Loto & Enilolobo (2018) see poverty as long-
term deprivation of essential human needs. It is believed that poor people have large
families and are mostly deprived of basic needs. This has contributed to high rate of
population in Nigeria. In spite of the positive effect that population growth exerts on
modern economic growth (Jhingan, 2005). The negative consequences of rapid
population growth falls heavily on the poor because they are the ones who are deprived
of human needs (Tartiyus, Mohammed & Amade, 2015). Nigeria is the most populous
country in Africa with a population of about 200 million people. The population of
Nigeria in 2016 was over 178 million people (Stonawski, Potancokova, Cantele &
Skirbekki, 2016; NBS, 2017; Olowe, 2020). The population of Nigeria surpasses the
population of other West African countries combined. Currently, Nigeria is the 7th most
populous country in the world (Ajayi, Sowemimo, Akpa & Ossai, 2016; Olowe 2020).
Between 1950 –1990, Nigeria was one of the fastest growing countries in the
world with the population of about 37-45 million people (Eli, Mohammed & Amade,
2015). Todaro & Smith (2011) affirmed that too rapid population growth yields negative
economic consequences and thus should be a real concern for developing countries. Of
all the different categories of the potential negative consequences of population growth
13
sau.edu.ng/sjmss/index.php SAU Journal of Management and Social Sciences
(ISSN: 2550-7302), Vol. 6, Special Issue, 2021.

for economic development, the negative consequences of rapid population growth have
drastic effect on the poor because evidence has shown that the correlation between
measures of poverty and population growth at the household level is strong and
compelling (Sinding, 2009). If this singular factor can be taken care of, population
growth rate will have minimal impact on economic growth, education, health, food,
environment, international migration amongst others.
Kolawole, Omobitan & Yaqub (2015) indicated that income inequality is critical
to poverty reduction. Income inequality matters greatly as it may hinder and slowdown
overall economic growth (Ravallion, 2012; Marrero & Rodrigwez, 2013; Mohamed &
Mohamed, 2018). A situation of high and rising inequality in the presence of increasing
growth can only result into little or no reduction in the level of poverty (Addison &
Cornia, 2001). Kim (2014) ascertained that poverty will fall by 10 percent by 2030, from
17.7 percent in 2010, if all the growth recorded by countries continued at the same rate as
recorded over the last 2 decades with income distribution remaining unchanged. Thus
increased income inequality can dampen the impact of growth in reducing poverty, such
that inequality is not just a problem in itself. Nigeria is among the top five countries in
term of number of poor countries in the world (Kolawole et al 2015). Although,
successful Nigerian governments in a bid to improve the standard of living have
introduced several socio-economic programmes with a view to reducing poverty level
and inequality between the rich and poor (Kolawole et al 2015). Many economists have
examined the trend of growth and poverty in Nigeria and have also established a wide
inequality gap and poverty rate among Nigerians (Dauda, 2004; Aigbokhan, 2008;
Kolawole & Omobitan, 2014). While increase in family size tends to increase poverty,
large family size and the resultant poverty tend to cause social exclusion. Poverty creates
lack of access to social-economic goods, freedom and participation. To this end, there is a
strong nexus between family size, poverty and social exclusion, as large family size
causes social exclusion.
Despite these studies, there is dearth of evidence on population growth, poverty
and social exclusion nexus using quantitative method at the micro economic level. In
particular, the relationship between family size, poverty and social exclusion has not been
investigated at the microeconomic level. This study, therefore, examined the effect of
family size and poverty on social exclusion amongst household members of some rural
communities in Nigeria with a view to proffering relevant policy recommendations that
would assist the government in reducing poverty and inequality in Nigeria.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study were to:
1. Examine the link between family size, poverty and social exclusion.
2. Investigate the effects of family size and poverty on social exclusion.

Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested:
1. There is no significant link between family size, poverty and social exclusion.
2. Family size and poverty do not cause social exclusion.

14
SAU Journal of Management and Social Sciences sau.edu.ng/sjmss/index.php
(ISSN: 2550-7302), Vol. 6, Special Issue, 2021.

Conceptual Clarification of Poverty and Social Exclusion

Poverty generally means lack of necessities such as basic food, shelter, medical care,
electricity, good water among others. Poverty is often measured in economic terms where
billions of people live on less than a dollar per day. This shows that individuals’ income
is critical to their well-being. While poverty centred on the inability to obtain adequate
food and other basic necessities, the focus of poverty is extended beyond material,
physical, emotional and social deprivations. Material deprivations may involve more than
lack of private resources such that having money or substantial income does not
determine access to private needs (Health, education water, etc.) if the facilities are not in
existence.
The term ‘social exclusion’ is so multidimensional that it can be defined in many
different ways. From time immemorial, different contexts have seen social exclusion
differently reflecting different institutional and historical contexts. Murard (2002)
stipulates that the concept was given by the French state in the late 1980s. Beall (2002)
views social exclusion in the neo-liberal approach and concluded that social exclusion
has an unfortunate inevitable side effect of global economic realignment. Exclusion is a
form of discrimination where group boundaries hinder individual freedom to participate
in social exchange. Exclusion are categorised as hindrances from livelihood (Land,
employment and credit market), public goods, political decision making, social security,
decent housing and community services, basic human freedom of mobility and thought.
Exclusion from livelihood: Labour market; Regular employment; Credit market.
Common factors of social exclusion are ethnicity, religion, gender, age, education and
skills.

Review of Related Empirical Studies

One way at examining national development is to ascertain how nations fare well in
education, health, poverty and drive against inequality. Researchers have examined
several studies on poverty, population, inequality and development of nations with
diverse opinions at different stages (Ogbeide & Agu, 2015; Davis, & Sanchez-Martinez,
2015). Often, the state of social, economic and political exclusion leading to either
passive or active exclusion, which, ultimately, leads to deprivation of certain inalienable
rights can also lead to poverty. As a consequence, being actively poor may be looked at
from the point of external forces propelling the cause of poverty. For instance, an
educated individual ordinarily should have access to certain inalienable rights that
include: right to be gainfully employed, right to adopt his knowledge skill in areas that
can uplift his living standards and more compared to a semi-educated or illiterate
individual. In other words, if an individual who is actively inclined to benefit from this
societal function is denied, this is bound to lead to poverty. An active person may also be
denied certain political, social or economic rights owing to the act of the state.
Conversely, actively poor person may also be an actively, but passively poor. This may
occur when such an individual is active, but deliberately denied him/herself from
accessing opportunity. However, a passively poor person does not have the wherewithal
to gain some economic, social or political access owing to his status. Such individual
already decreases therein his chances at gaining access to opportunities whenever they
are available and may not be able to live above his status. Most developing and emerging
nations like Nigeria are constantly on the radar at achieving these aspirations in spite of
uncoordinated and guarded data for optimal forecasting.
15
sau.edu.ng/sjmss/index.php SAU Journal of Management and Social Sciences
(ISSN: 2550-7302), Vol. 6, Special Issue, 2021.

Studies by Adebayo (2018) & Ajibola, Loto & Enilolobo (2018) have identified
that despite the abundant potentials of Nigeria fondly called the giant of Africa, the
country is cited as the castle of poverty in the world (Brookings, 2019). It was established
that the country overtook India in extreme poverty, putting 87 million members of the
Nigerian population in chronic poverty, living below $1.90 per day and representing
more than 70 percent of the entire population (Bello & Toyebi, 2009; Mustapha, 2014;
Okhiria & Obadeyi, 2015; Taiwo & Agwu, 2016; Eghareva, Iruonagbe, Azuh & Chiazor,
2016; Ajibola, Loto & Enilolobo, 2018; Adebayo, 2018; Omoniyi, 2018). Olowe (2020)
carried out a study on how to feed 800 million Nigerians in 2100 using content reviews
and assessment of documents. His study established a rapid growing population in
Nigeria and providing sufficient food for the survival of Nigeria’s collective inhabitants
is a serious task. He affirmed that the cause of poverty, hunger and food insecurity in
Nigeria is failure to heavily invest in the development of Nigeria’s agricultural sector.

Theoretical Framework
Classical and Neoclassical Theory of Poverty
Davis and Sanchez-Martinez (2015) belong to the above school of thought and he is
famous for his stance of poverty. In fact, he propounded the self-inflicting poverty theory
where he described the situational effects of poverty on individuals. Accordingly, the
classical theory of poverty considered individuals responsible for their own misfortune to
become poor whether as a result of lowness of wages or largeness of family. In other
words, every individual is assumed to possess the capability to earn an income required
to meet his/her needs. The concept implies that deficiencies may continue over time, if
income level is low to meet human needs. However, Neo-classical theory sees poverty
beyond individual control. The theory stipulates that poverty occurs when individuals
lack social and private assets. This also includes lack of credit facilities, barriers to
education, poor health among others. This study therefore adopted the classical and
neoclassical stance on poverty owing to its peculiar nature in the context of Nigeria
where most of the features are present.

Methodology
The study examines the effect of family size and poverty on social exclusion amongst
household members of some select communities in Edo State. Data were retrieved from
the population of 100 household members in Edo central senatorial district, Edo State
through the use of structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to elicit
information from the respondents of the selected 100 households. Cohen, Manion &
Morrison (2000) established that the minimum sample size to get any kind of meaningful
result is 100. Sample sizes of 100 respondents were used for the analysis using multistage
sampling technique. The researcher purposively selected 4 out of the 5 Local
Governments in Edo Central Senatorial District. Further, the researcher randomly picked
out 10 Kingdoms. These 10 Kingdoms were selected using simple random sampling,
after which 10 households were randomly selected in each kingdom to make up 100
households.

16
SAU Journal of Management and Social Sciences sau.edu.ng/sjmss/index.php
(ISSN: 2550-7302), Vol. 6, Special Issue, 2021.

The analysis of the results obtained from the survey was done using inferential
statistics. The inferential statistics involves correlation and linear regression statistic
calculated from the responses generated from the questionnaire in order to examine the
summary statistics of family size, poverty and social exclusion in Nigeria. Given that
family size and poverty influence social exclusion, the analysis examined the extent to
which family size and poverty affect social exclusion. The result of the regression
analysis was used to test the relevant hypothesis at the 0.05 conventional level of
significance.

Results and Discussion

Correlation Analysis
Table 1 explains the correlation results between family size (FS), poverty (P) and social
exclusion. The output of correlation showed a clear evidence of statistically significant
relationship between family size (FS) and social exclusion as indicated in the pro-value
of 0.000. This is statistically significant judging by the chosen 0.05 percent level of
significance. Hence, we conclude that the null hypothesis of no significant relationship
between family size (FS) and social exclusion is rejected. Thus, there is positive co-
movement between family size and social exclusion as shown by the positive sign of the
coefficient of family size. Similarly, a statistically significant relationship is established
between poverty and social exclusion. Thus, rising poverty levels tend to induce social
exclusion. From table 1, the pro-value of 0.002 falls within the rejection region of the
study. Thus, the null hypothesis of no significant relationship is rejected. Similarly,
looking at the individual effect of the series, the table shows that a positive and
significant relationship is established between family size (FS) and poverty (p) at the pro-
value of 0.006. Sinding (2009) also established an interrelationship between population
and poverty that indicates that, improvement in population accelerates improvement in
standard of living among household members.
On the whole, it is established that a positive and significant relationship exists
between family size (FS), poverty and social exclusion. This result corroborates that of
Ajibola et al. (2018) that countries with high rate of poverty tend to be deprived from
essential human needs. However, the degree of responsiveness quite calls for concern as
it is inversely related. By implication, there is a need for urgent attention in these areas in
order to attain and achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in which the
country is a signatory.

Table 1: Result of the Correlation on Family Size, Poverty and Social Exclusion
Correlations
SE FS Poverty
Spearman’s rho SE Correlation coefficient 1.000 .197 .310
Sig. (2-tailed 100 .000 .002
N 100 100
FS Correlation coefficient .197 1.000 .275
Sig. (2-tailed .000 . .006
N 100 100 100

17
sau.edu.ng/sjmss/index.php SAU Journal of Management and Social Sciences
(ISSN: 2550-7302), Vol. 6, Special Issue, 2021.

Poverty Correlation coefficient .310 .275 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed .002 .006 .
N 100 100 100
Source: Extracted from SPSS 20 output

Linear Regression Analysis

The result of the linear regression (Table 2) shows that the coefficient of determination
R2 which measures the degree of responsiveness of the dependent variable to changes in
the independent variables is given as R2 = 0.169. This means that family size and poverty
are able to explain 16.9 percent of the total change in social exclusion. Hence, there is a
clear evidence of significant relationship between family size (FS) and social exclusion.
This is as shown by the pro-value of 0.002, which falls within the rejection region. Thus,
the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative is accepted. By implication, family size
is a considerable factor in determining social exclusion. Increase in family size causes
social exclusion since large family size would imply competition for the scarce household
resources. This will inevitably lead to deprivation and thus, social exclusion. Similarly,
poverty (P) is positively and significantly related to social exclusion a 0.03percent, which
is within the rejection region of 0.05 percent level of significance. This result buttresses
the earlier results of (Kolawole & Omobitan, 2014; Tartiyus et al 2015; Ajibola et al
2018) that increase poverty will inevitably translate to social exclusion against the
backdrop that poverty implies lack of access to basic social need and infrastructure,
which implies social exclusion.

Table 2: Result of the Linear Regression on Family Size, Poverty and Social
Exclusion
Coefficientsa
Unstandardised Coefficients Standardised Dependent
Coefficients Variables
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 5.732 .387 14.798 .000
FS .282 .088 .307 3.214 .002
Poverty .227 105 .207 2.167 .033
a. Dependent Variable: SE
Source: extracted from SPSS 20 output

Model Summaryb
Change Statistics
Model R R Adjusted Std. R F Df1 Df2 Sig. F
Square R Error of Square Change Change Durbin-
Square the Change Watson
Estimate
1 .411a .169 .152 .97685 .169 9.850 2 97 .000 .925
a. Predictors: (Constant), Poverty, Fs
b. Dependent Variable: SE
Source: extracted from SPSS 20 output
18
SAU Journal of Management and Social Sciences sau.edu.ng/sjmss/index.php
(ISSN: 2550-7302), Vol. 6, Special Issue, 2021.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The study was carried out to examine the relationship between family size, poverty and
social exclusion in select communities in Edo state, Nigeria. From the two hypotheses
specified and the findings of the study, it is evident that a significant relationship exists
between family size, poverty and social exclusion. Specifically, increase in poverty was
found to increase social exclusion since poverty causes deprivation and lack of access to
basic amenities. Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were
advanced:
1. Since the study found out that majority of the community members are deprived of
access to social amenities, government should provide the right environment and
facilities such as stable power supply, good road, water and affordable houses that
will make household to be socially inclusive.
2. Government needs to also provide massive social investment, create jobs and
provide right environment for entrepreneurship.

References
Ajayi, I. O., Sowemimo, I. O., Akpa, O. M. & Ossai, N. E. (2016). Prevalence of
hypertension and associated factors among residents of Ibadan-North Local
Government Area Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Cardiol, 13, 67-75.
Ajibola, A. A., Loto, M. & Enilolobo, O.S. (2018). Poverty and inequality in Nigeria:
Implications for inclusive growth. Nile Journal of Business and Economics, 9, 30-
51.
Addison, A. & Comia, G. A. (2001). Income Distribution Policies for faster Poverty
Reduction. UNU-WIDER Discussion Paper No. 2001/93 (September).
Aigbokhan, B. E. (2008). Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Nigeria. Economic
Commission for Africa. ACGS/MPAMS Discussion Paper No. 3, UNECA,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Beall, J. (2002). Globalisation and social exclusion in cities: Framing the debate with
lessons from Africa and Asia. Environment and Urbanisation, 14(1), 41-51.
Berg, A., Ostry, J. & Zettelmeyer, J. (2012). What makes growth sustained? Journal of
Development Economics, 98(2), 149-166.
Dauda, R. O. S. (2004). Poverty, inequality and socio-economic development policies in
Nigeria. In O. O. Fakiyesi & S. O. Akano. (Eds.). Issues in Money, Finance and
Economic Management in Nigeria: Essays in Honour of Obasanmi Olakanpo
(pp.11- 23). Lagos. Department of Economics, University of Lagos.
Davis, E. P. & Sanchez-Martinez, M. (2015). Economic theories of poverty: Summary.
New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Eli, H. T., Mohammed, I. D. & Amade, P. (2015). Impact of population growth on
economic growth in Nigeria (1980-2010). Journal of Humanities and Social
Science (IOSR-JHSS), 20 (4), 115-123.
Jhingan, M. L. (2005). The economics of development planning (38th ed.). New Delhi:
Vrinda Publications.
Kim, J. Y. (2014). Nigeria: World Bank–Extreme income inequality, disincentive to
poverty reduction. Retrieved from
http://allafrica.com/stories/201404110500.html

19
sau.edu.ng/sjmss/index.php SAU Journal of Management and Social Sciences
(ISSN: 2550-7302), Vol. 6, Special Issue, 2021.

Kolawole, B. O., Omobitan, O. A. & Yaqub, J. O. (2015). Poverty, inequality and rising
growth in Nigeria: Further empirical evidence. International Journal of
Economics and Finance, 7(2), 51-62.
Kolawole, B. O. & Omobitan, O. A. (2014). Raging poverty and agricultural output in
Nigeria: An empirical investigation. Journal of Economics and Sustainable
Development, 5(6), 63–72.
Marrero, G. A. & Rodrigwez, J. G. (2013). The quality of opportunity and growth.
Journal of Development Economics, 104, 107-122.
Mohamed, B. & Mohamed, K. (2018). Income inequality and economic growth: An
analysis using a panel data. International Journal of Economics and Finance,
10(5), 242-253.
Murard, N. (2002). Guilty victims: Social exclusion in contemporary France. In P.
Chamberlayne., M. Rustin. & T. Wengraf (Eds.). Biography and Social Exclusion
in Europe. Experiences and Life Journeys (pp. 1-21). Bristol: Policy Press.
Ogbeide, E. N. O. & Agu, D.O. (2015). Poverty and inequality in Nigeria: Any
causality. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 5(3), 439-452.
Olowe, V. (2020). Africa 2100: How to feed Nigeria in 2100 with 800 million
inhabitants. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00307-1
Ravallion. (2012). Why don’t we see poverty convergence? The American Economic
Review, 102(1), 504-523.
Sinding, S. W. (2009). Population, poverty and economic development. Philos Trans R
Soc Lond B Biol Sci., 364(1532) 3023-3030.
Stonawski, M., Potancokova, M., Cantele, M. & Skirbekki, V. (2016).The changing
religious composition of Nigeria: Causes and implication of demographic
divergence. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 54(3), 362-386.
Tartiyus, H., Mohammed, D. & Amade, P. (2015). Impact of population growth on
economic growth in Nigeria. IOSR, Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,
20(4), 115-123.
Todaro, M. P. & Smith, C. S. (2011). Economic development (11th ed.). England:
Addison Wesley education, Essex.

20