Theories of Poverty and Rural Finance Policy in Nigeria

Oluyombo, Onabanjo ONAFOWOKAN PhD

Department of Accounting
School of Management and Social Sciences
Pan Atlantic University Lagos, Nigeria
+2348034925479
ooluyombo@pau.edu.ng/oluyomboo@gmail.com

Abstract
This articule uses the combination of five theories of poverty: individual
deficiency, cultural belief, socio-economic, geographical disparity and
developmental to explore rural finance in order to expand the frontiers of
discourse on rural finance policy decision making process in Nigeria. A
single economic policy cannot solve poverty problem but the use of
multiple policies may provide the desired goal if properly implemented. It
is recommended that socially integrated association which recognise clans
and groups in the creation and financing of enterprises can be established to
change the focus of the poor from their cultural poverty to a better future of
generating additional income. Poverty emanating from geographical
disparity requires a direct solution to the affected areas. The establishment
of product processing zone in disadvantaged locations to enhance the
quality delivery of their products and an improvement in their income is an
option to grow the local area and improve the economic development of
locations that lag behind in poverty.

Keywords: Policy, Poverty, Rural finance, Theory.

Introduction
According to National Bureau of Statistics (2016), there are 22.45 million
people who are underemployed or unemployed in Nigeria as at last quarter
of 2015 with 10.4% of unemployment rate. Poverty in rural areas of Nigeria
just like any other developing nations, and especially in sub-Saharan Africa
arises from different sources which could be at the individual, national and
global levels.

The desire to reduce the incidence of poverty across nations is a global

issue because poverty exists in both the developed and developing
economies. The consistent concerns at national and international levels on

Jigawa Journal of Politics 130 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018

the persistent increase in poverty rate in Nigeria seems to defile know
solutions that have been applied successfully in other nations; because
government programmes and policies to alleviate poverty in Nigeria are not
adequate and ill-conceived (Oluyombo, 2013a; Danaan, 2018). Poverty is
multi-dimensional and requires diverse policy issue for its reduction.
However, a clear understanding of causes of poverty at individual, national
and global levels will provide the necessary inputs to policy makers in
Nigeria and other developing nations on how best to tackle poverty
especially in rural areas; where majority lack access to formal financial
service providers (Aina and Oluyombo, 2014).

The rural areas are the largest unserved market for financial inclusion
(Richter, 2011) and as such, there is the need to examine rural economy
where majority lack access to formal financial providers, since financial
inclusion of rural dwellers may unlock the great economic opportunity that
is available in rural areas. Due to the lack of formal financial providers in
rural areas in Nigeria, semi-formal and informal financial providers such as
cooperatives, rotational savings association, self-help groups and money
lenders are major providers of financial services to rural areas. The informal
rural finance providers are the unregistered financial providers that operate
outside the banking sectors because they are mostly unregulated
(Oluyombo, 2013b).

Theoretical Framework
The study uses five theories of poverty to provide causes of poverty as it
relates to rural finance. The study links rural finance and its delivery
channels, poverty, and theories together to determine policies that might
lead to poverty alleviation in Nigeria. This paper is divided into six
sections. The first section is the introduction. The next session provides
conceptual clarification on poverty and rural finance. Rural finance service
delivery channels are considered in section three, while section four
discusses the theories of poverty as it relates to rural finance in Nigeria. The
nexus in theories of poverty and policy direction which examines the
relation between poverty, theories of poverty, rural finance and policy is
discussed in section five and section six concludes the paper.

Poverty and Rural Finance

Poverty is a state where an individual is not able to cater adequately for his
basic needs of food, clothing and shelter; lacks gainful employment, skills,
assets and self-esteem (Englama and Bamidele, 1997). Such a person has
limited access to social capital such as education, health, potable water and
good sanitation, and as a result has limited chance of advancing his or her
welfare. Poverty is a situation of low income or low consumption (Obadan,
Jigawa Journal of Politics 131 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018
1997). Although, some people are likely to consume very little but may not
be poor, but the inability to consume due to lack of money makes one poor.
Where disposable income of a person is low and unable to meet basic needs
of consumption, poverty has occurred.

Poverty is a lack of command over basic consumption needs (Ravallion and

Bidani, 1994). It is a situation of inadequate level of consumption, giving
rise to defect in food consumption, inadequate clothing and lack of good
shelter. When people are unable to eat, go to school or have any access to
health care, they can be considered to live in poverty, regardless of their
income (Mawa, 2008). Poverty occurs when a person‟s daily income cannot
buy or meet the costs of basic daily needs such as food, clothing and
accommodation. Poverty is lack of, or insufficient access to economic and
financial means of production and property rights and land ownership;
services such as health, education and water; power and equal rights such as
social, political and gender issues; adequate and sustainable environment
(Ndiaye, 2005). Poverty is not a function of income and/or location alone
but poverty is the inability to have access to health care facility (either free
or paid for), good food (to avoid malnutrition), shelter (that is decent for
human being), clean and good drinkable water and formal education.

Poverty occurs when a person, as a result of his/her meagre and insufficient

income has been denied the power and access to basic needs of food,
clothing and shelter (Oluyombo, 2013a). As a result, the affected person
feels rejected, sad and psychologically depressed because his/her life
aspiration of essential daily needs and comfort are not easily met on a
regular basis. To be poor is therefore linked to absence of material things,
reduction or stagnation in income, not having enough money to buy or own
household durable assets, invest into business and acquire business assets.

Rural finance is the provision of sustainable financial services in rural areas

such that the services support different levels of income of rural dwellers
(Richter, 2011). The providers of rural financial services can be formal,
semi-formal or informal (Oluyombo, 2013b) as practice in Nigeria,
especially in the rural areas but their services should be able to support rural
dwellers‟ income such that they are not technically excluded from
patronising the formal financial providers in these areas because of low
education and financial illiteracy among rural dwellers. Access to finance in
rural areas creates opportunity for rural dwellers to increase their
productivity and income through purchase of goods and services (Henry
and Schimmel, 2011) with possibility of reduction in poverty and
improvement in standard of living. Rural areas are underserved by formal
financial providers with wider gap in financial inclusion because they either
Jigawa Journal of Politics 132 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018
avoid such areas or fail to offer relevant financial services to the rural
people (Richter, 2011; Aina and Oluyombo, 2014).

Banks inability to participate in rural finance lead to lack of access to

financial services by rural dwellers in developing nations (Lohlein and
Wehrheim, 2003; Aina and Oluyombo, 2014) which may hamper economic
improvement of rural dwellers and the possibility of escaping the poverty
trap. Formal financial providers neglect the rural areas because is costly to
operate in such areas with anticipated low profit for the financial institution
(Henry and Schimmel, 2011). The government is therefore expected to
reduce distortion caused by formal financial services providers in rural
finance.

Rural Finance Delivery

Rural finance delivery is the channels through which financial services are
offered to rural dwellers in developing nations, Nigeria inclusive. Three
methods used are individual, group, and combination of group and
individual channels.

The group method in the delivery of rural financial services enables

financial service providers to reach the rural dwellers in groups and not as
individuals. Account is maintained for the group, but not for the individuals
that made up the group. Group members are jointly responsible for the
repayment of the group loan even though a member may not be a loan
beneficiary at a time when the group loan is due. Non-governmental
organisations in Uganda provide rural financial services using mainly group
approach (Nathan, Margaret and Ashie, 2004). This type of delivery method
is the most common among rural financial services providers. For example,
the method is used by Grameen Bank of Bangladesh (Haque and Yamao,
2008; Mawa, 2008), Sinapi Aba Trust in Ghana (Adjei and Arun, 2009;
Adjei, Arun and Hossain, 2009) and Country Women Association of
Nigeria (Falaiye, 2002; Oke, Adeyemo and Agbonlahor, 2007). The group
channel tends to reduces cost of lending because several visits to
individuals home for loan disbursement and collections are reduced to few
visits to group meetings (Morris and Barnes, 2008). Group lending may
limit rural dwellers ability in accessing higher loans more than the group
limit for each member of the group. The possibility of individual borrowing
ability been more than group limit can not be foreclosed. Financial service
providers should consider the feasibility of providing individual loan to
participants who were diligent in repaying their group loans because these
individuals want to “graduate” to larger loans than the groups provide
(Morris and Barnes, 2005). Individual borrowing ability can grow beyond
their group limit.
Jigawa Journal of Politics 133 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018
The individual method is when participants are serve as an individual and
not as a member of a group. Participants do not need to belong to any group
before accessing financial services in rural areas. Oluyombo (2013a) and
(2013b) used rural finance providers that deployed only individual method
in Nigeria. Some rural finance providers use the combination of individual
and group method with the aid of rural banking scheme in addition to
microfinance services. The banking scheme is operated on an individual
basis while the microfinance services operate on group model.
Alternatively, the microfinance services are operated on an individual
method while the banking scheme operates the group method. Studies by
Edgcomb and Garber (1998) in Honduras, Larocque, Kalala and Goboury
(2002) in Burkina Faso and Morris and Barnes (2005) in Uganda used rural
finance programs in operating this method.

Theories of Poverty in Nigeria Rural Finance

Theories of poverty in rural finance explain the causes of poverty, and
widen understanding on the processes and effect of poverty in rural areas.
These theories include the individual deficiency, cultural belief, socio-
economic, geographical disparity, and structural or developmental theory;
these theories are examined below to draw out their importance in rural
finance.

Cultural Belief Theory

The cultural belief theory or culture of poverty suggests that poverty is
socially generated and generational in nature (Jordan, 2004). That poverty is
transferred from one generation to another because of belief and values
which are held by individuals (Oluyombo, 2016), while the people who
hold on to such unnecessary cultural belief become poor. Individuals may
not be responsible for poverty but others follow an individual pattern
because they choose to abide by their social belief and values. Cultures that
support a „full time house wife‟ believe that a woman should not work but
she should take care of her husband and children. Cultures like this are
“socially generated and perpetuated” (Bradshaw, 2006: 7) with different
version until it is stopped. Lewis (1966) cited in Bradshaw (2006: 7) state
that “once the culture of poverty has come into existence, it tends to
perpetuate itself. By the time slum children are six or seven they usually
absorb the basic attitudes and values of their subculture. Thereafter, they are
psychologically unprepared to take full advantage of changing conditions or
improving opportunities that may develop in their lifetime”. This leads to
perpetuation of harmful practices from one generation to another (Danaan,
2018).

Jigawa Journal of Politics 134 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018

Perhaps this is the reason why the poor live and grow up in a particular
community and die within the same cultural belief in poverty. Culture of
poverty is a syndrome among people who grow up in some situation within
a particular culture (Jordan, 2004). This is common in locations with cash
economy, low wages, under employment and high rate of unemployment
where residents are of low skills (Jordan, 2004; Bradshaw, 2006). Three of
the four criteria namely cash economy, under employment and high rate of
unemployment dominate rural areas of Nigeria. Culture of poverty is a
pattern of life that operates in a community due to its acceptance by people.
It is an attitude that makes people inferior, marginalised and helpless
(Danaan, 2018). Hence there is high illiteracy level, insurgencies, political
unrest, high rate of crime, and other social vices, unemployment,
community clashes and border violence in Nigeria. The attitude of „what
will be will be‟ among many Nigerians falls within this theory. Economic
well-being and welfare services are at lowest ebb because of wrong cultural
adoptions, and assumptions that runs contrary to modern day realities such
as female genital mutilation and use of local herbs in Nigeria.

Unaccountability of community and public funds is the order of the day in

Nigeria (Danaan, 2018) without iota of guilt by the perpetrator. Nigeria is a
country where truth, hard work and decent moral value systems seems not
to matter, but corrupt practices are laudable and publicly celebrated. The
poor people are beclouded with their poverty level to celebrate those
plunging the national wealth for personal gratification. There is low level of
financial inclusion in rural areas (Aina and Oluyombo, 2014) while
“politicians and government officials tend to be selfish, greedy and corrupt,
enriching themselves by looting from the common wealth of the country”
(Danaan, 2018:24). This has become the norm in many government
agencies and organisation among different cadre of staff. Transparent
policies that spell out in clear term that it is an offence to appropriate
national wealth for personal usage either in cash or in kind is required to
conquer poverty trace to cultural believes.

Socio-economic Theory
The theory suggests that people have opportunities without limit with
enough resources for better income and well-being (Bradshaw, 2006). The
theory linked the source of poverty to social discrimination, and economic
and political distortions. These deficiencies either lead to poverty or
increases in poverty which in most cases are not within the power of an
individual. Individual with personal will to succeed without negative
cultural belief remain poor (Oluyombo, 2016) because of the adverse effect
of political, social and economic conditions under which they operate.
These may be peculiar to a region or section of a nation or affects a country
Jigawa Journal of Politics 135 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018
as a whole. People tend to be poor when the political condition is not stable
or unfavourable (e.g. Nigeria), while social discrimination may be ethical or
tribal such as reduction or a stop in social service such as electricity, water
and health care. Economic distortion can be a global phenomenon or
national problem such as low wage, unemployment, increase in inflation
and exchange rate fluctuation. All these are regarded as potential causes of
poverty in socio-economic theory.

Social issues that emanates from bad political and economic situation that
limit ability to generate wealth (Danaan, 2018) form part of this theory. The
effect is poverty for individuals but not that individuals are responsible for
their poverty as postulated in individual deficiency theory. People are poor
not because they do not work hard, or have wrong attitude, but because the
political, social and economic conditions they operate are not favourable,
but arranged to directly made more people poor. This is possible in Nigeria
where only very highly placed few dictate the political and economic
landscape. This impunity is a major distortion to Nigeria political system
among other vices like god-fatherism which aggravate poverty in the nation
such that rural dwellers tend to be permanently immerse in poverty. The
economic distortion in Nigeria are man-made due to several economic
policy somersault in the interest of few, led to relocation of some notable
multinational corporation from Nigeria to neighbouring countries e.g.
Dunlop which raises the unemployment rate with the negative side effect as
increase in poverty level.

The theory also extends to lack of proper education system in developing

nations for the poor because of lack of adequately trained teachers, low
funding per student, decay in educational infrastructures and facilities and
the use of outdated teaching materials. According to Chubb and Moe (1996)
and Jordan (2004), the poor people achieve less because of the failure of the
educational system which made them to enrol few children in higher
education. Although, it‟s said that „the rich also cry‟. but in Nigeria, it‟s
only the rich without political and economic affiliation to the ruling
governments that may cry for few weeks while the poor cry all year long
because the political, economic and social systems are not configured with
the poor in mind, but the rich always link themselves to the government of
the day.

Policies that seem to be with good intention in Nigeria are poorly executed
while some dies before they are implemented. The overhead cost of
entrenching some anti-poverty programmes and policies out weight the
anticipated benefits hence they are stopped mid-way which jettisons the
hope of the poor. The bureaucratic nature of government system in Nigeria
Jigawa Journal of Politics 136 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018
with high cost of governance is a threat to poverty alleviation in Nigeria. A
genuine desire is required by Nigerian economy and political managers to
consider with passion the need of the masses who are vulnerable to poverty
not because they are lazy, uneducated or exhibit bad attitude, but they are
technically knock-out from accessing the sovereign national wealth of
Nigeria by the political system in place, the economic policy in the interest
of few and lack of adequate and quality social policy. People are poor and
fall behind not because they are not committed but because of the kind of
social, political and economic structure in place (Danaan, 2018). Situation
where social amenities are not made available in rural areas except where
elites live in area would not alleviate poverty because facilities will be
provided not on need assessment but on „this‟ or „that‟ person needs it there.

Individual Deficiency Theory

The theory states that individuals who are poor are responsible for creating
their poverty problem and failures but not the society (Asen, 2002;
Bradshaw, 2006). The theory suggests that people are poor because they are
lazy, not skilful and easily give up because they choose not to try hard
enough. Individual life styles such as heavy smoking, drinking and
gambling are contributing factors to causes of poverty.

The theory argues that those who are poor ought not to be poor if they had
work harder and had taken proper decision in their endeavours (Oluyombo,
2016). The poor thus have option to be rich if they decide to salvage the
situation and tackle problems that made them poor. Individuals who are
poor can be rich and succeed in life if they decided to work harder, be more
skilful, motivate themselves and be persistent (Asen, 2002). Another
argument of this theory is that lack of genetic qualities and low mental
capacity such as intelligence in individuals which may not be easily
reversed also lead to poverty (Bradshaw, 2006). This implies that
individuals with intelligence problem which may be in-born may be poor
and are therefore responsible for their economic condition. The lack of in-
born intelligence is beyond the capability of the individual since such a
person is not aware of such deficiency until may be later in life or never at
all.

The individual deficiency theory of poverty holds that only individuals are
responsible for their poverty. Their arguments are simplistic and lack
empirical veracity and backing because it is not in all cases that individuals
can be responsible for their poverty and problems without consideration of
other factors such as social, political and economic conditions surrounding
their daily life. The willingness of individuals not to be poor may produce
inner drive and passion to enhance better economic condition (Harayama,
Jigawa Journal of Politics 137 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018
2008) which may be refers to as happiness. It is the individuals‟ choice in
maximising personal well-being through investment and other decisions
that determine the type of action to be taken. Individuals are therefore
responsible for the outcome of their decision whether it leads to poverty or
not.

Geographical Disparity Theory

According to this theory, source of poverty can be traced to the location
where people reside (Oluyombo, 2016) and also into different strata such as
rural poverty, third world poverty and urban poverty. This theory builds on
the previous three theories discussed earlier. Bradshaw (2006) found that
people lack resources for higher income, well-being and better standard of
living in certain areas because of where they live. Individual could do better
in life but they are constraint to the type of poverty in their location. Such
person must overcome the poverty in their geographical location to become
better in life. The theory reveals that economies and locations with better
infrastructural facilities attract more investment than other areas that are
less developed or unattractive. As a result of rural-urban migration, “rural
areas are often the last stop of technologies, and low wages and competitive
pricing dominate production” (Bradshaw, 2006: 12). The application of the
theory implies that poverty exists less in cities – compared to rural settlents
– because there is more likelihood of investment in people‟s lives there;
those who don‟t attract this seem somehow to have to move back to rural
areas.

Structural or Developmental Theory

The theory holds that poverty can be traced to interdependency in the world
because of the structure of the global economy that allows for economic
transactions among countries without restriction and this favours certain
nations more than the others (Jordan, 2004). This theory is linked with
economic development and different arguments such as dependency;
marginalisation and globalisation have been used to explain the structural or
developmental causes of poverty.

The dependency theory argues that the colonial powers and the first world
nations (US and Europe) should be blamed for the poverty in the third
world (Jordan, 2004). Colonialism impedes the development of under
developed countries which lead to disparity in the economy development of
first world nations and the third world countries like Ghana and Nigeria.
The marginalisation theory asserts that marginalisation and human
deprivation are the vital elements for the existence of poverty (Oluyombo,
2016).

Jigawa Journal of Politics 138 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018

Globalisation theory traces the source of poverty to economic rule that is
applicable in any country due to globalisation. Globalisation is caused by
multinational or transnational corporation (TNC) established in different
countries and region to be closer to their customers, suppliers and producer
(Jallow, 2009). This leads to foreign direct investment by the TNC because
of technology transfer process that is deployed to less developed countries.
The consequence is the national and regional integration among countries
because of close link in the globalisation process. Jallow (2009:3) argues
that globalisation affects everybody because it is widely spread while TNC
plays a critical role in the process and the “poor people are often excluded
from the opportunities that the market presents because they do not own
productive assets”. The theory contends that the flow of benefits of
globalization through the TNC to the host community is not adequate and
so lead to poverty in such countries. An example of such country in Sub-
Saharan Africa is Nigeria.

Nexus in Policy and Theories of Poverty

The use of the five theories of poverty reveals that one theory is not enough
to explain causes of poverty in rural finance. The five theories examine
causes of poverty from different perspective which are very fundamental to
our understanding of rural finance and how policies should be issued to
reduce poverty at different levels. The theories also widen our
understanding of poverty, and also overlap because poverty is multi-
dimensional. Moreover, some theories are more consistent with fact than
others, while the theories vary in their breadth of coverage of poverty.

Whatever channels that is used to provide rural finance can be situated

within the confine of theories of poverty. The interrelated effect of the
above theories of poverty in rural finance and for policies directions is
conceptualised into a model (figure 1). The theories of poverty affect
individuals, nations and the world. In clear term, the individual deficiency
theory and cultural belief theory relate to individuals directly, while the
socio-economic theory and geographical disparity theory relate to nations
and individuals, while the developmental theory affects the world.
However, without individuals, there will be no nation, without nations there
will be no world, and the world is a place for nations and individuals.

Jigawa Journal of Politics 139 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018

Figure 1: Nexus in Theories of Poverty

Global Level
Developmental theory

Socio-economic
National Level
theory
Geographical theory
disparity theory Individual deficiency
theory Individual
Cultural belief theory
Level

Source: Coined by the Author, 2018

The Individual deficiency and culture of poverty theories recognises

individuals as a change agent in escaping poverty and fulfilment of their
needs. This does not exonerate the government and its agencies from
fulfilling its obligations, but an individual has to determine how to achieve
his/her needs either to remain poor or not. Happiness to the poor is a
function of the level of their standard of living that is met (Bandyopadhyay,
2008). The poor may be happy if there is improvement in his/her living
standard. The standard of living proxy for poverty reduction includes the
physiological needs of food, clothing and shelter which require money for
their fulfilment. However, where food, clothing and shelter are examined in
respect of the quality of house, toilet sanitation and food security,
consumption and nutrition, it falls into the quality of life. The safety needs
of financial security through savings, loans and financial smoothening relate
to standard of living. It includes physical security derived from ownership
of assets such as land and household/enterprise equipment. The attainment
of these proxies requires a certain level of income at individual and
household levels.

Conclusion
The welfare and social policy serve as poverty reduction mechanisms.
These approaches recognise the need to reach and affect individuals with
welfare packages and social services that can make them more comfortable.
Welfare and social policy are more operational in the developed countries
(Asen, 2002; Jordan, 2004). The provision of food for pupils in school helps
Jigawa Journal of Politics 140 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018
to alleviate poverty because it removes a constraint of attendance at school.
This then removes social discrimination, which socio-economic theory
explains as a source of poverty. Welfare may perpetuate poverty if not
properly implemented because the poor may learn the skill of continuous
participation in welfare scheme rather than gainful employment. Socially
integrated association which recognise clans and groups in the creation and
financing of enterprises can be established to change the focus of the poor
from their cultural poverty to a better future of generating additional
income.

Where poverty is socio-economic in nature, the antidote includes economic

policies that are carried out at the governmental level as the controller of the
economy. These policies include higher minimum wage, inflation targeting,
reduction in unemployment and exchange rate stability. A single economic
policy cannot solve poverty problem but the use of multiple policies may
provide the desired goal if properly implemented. The use of higher
minimum wage may lead to general increase in prices of goods and services
as information of higher wage is made public. This may plough more
people into poverty rather than lifting them from their poverty level. The
creation of institution with genuine desire to help the poor to gain better
economic well-being is not out of place however, the practicability is in
doubt because some policies are instituted and implemented without
consideration for the poor. However, this can be achieved at the community
level. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons for community sponsored
microfinance programs among the poor which enable them to help their
members, operating within a network.

Poverty emanating from geographical disparity requires a direct solution to

the affected areas. The creation of industrial area to encourage a drift from
over populated developed area to less develop area is not out of place. This
can be accomplished through the provision of infrastructural facilities and
social amenities that will encourage enterprises and labour to relocate to
new areas. Otherwise the poor in rural areas of Nigeria who may relocate to
the city can become urban poor. The establishment of product processing
zone in disadvantaged locations to enhance the quality delivery of their
products and an improvement in their income is an option to grow the local
area and improve the economic development of locations that lag behind in
poverty.

Jigawa Journal of Politics 141 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018

References
Adjei, J. K. & Arun, T. (2009). Microfinance Programmes and the Poor:
Whom Are They Reaching? Evidence from Ghana, Brooks World
Poverty Institute, Working Paper 72

Adjei, J., Arun, T. & Hossain, F. (2009). Asset Building and Poverty
Reduction in Ghana: The Case of Microfinance. Savings and
development 3, (XXXIII), pp. 265-291.
Aina, S. and Oluyombo, O. (2014). The Economy of Financial Inclusion in
Nigeria: Theory, Practice and Policy. CIBN Occasional Papers
Series. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. i-32.
Asen, R. (2002). Vision of Poverty: Welfare Policy and Political
Imagination. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Bandyopadhyay, S. (2008). Microfinance in the Improvement of Living
Standard and GNH. Proceedings of Third International Conference
on Gross National Happiness. November 22-28, 2007, pp. 248-270.
Bradshaw, T. K. (2006). Theories of Poverty and Anti-Poverty Programs in
Community Development. RPRC Working Paper No. 06-05, pp. 1-
21.
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1996). Politics, Markets and Equality in
Schools. In M. R Darby (Ed). Reducing Poverty in America:
Views and Approaches. pp. 121-153. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Danaan, V. V. (2018). Analysing Poverty in Nigeria through Theoretical
Lenses. Journal of Sustainable Development. Vol. II, No. 1 pp. 20-
30.
Edgcomb, E. L., & Garber, C. (1998). Practitioner-Led Impact Assessment:
A Test in Honduras. Washington, D. C.: Management System
International.
Englama, A., & Bamidele, A. (1997). Measurement Issues in Poverty
Alleviation in Nigeria. In: Proceedings of Nigerian Economic
Society, Annual Conference. Poverty Alleviation in Nigeria, 141-
156.
Falaiye, C. (2002). Assessing the impact of Microcredit on Rural Nigerian
Women Unpublished dissertation (M.Sc), University of Guelph.
Haque, M. S., & Yamao, M. (2008). Can Microcredit Alleviate Rural
Poverty? A Case Study of Bangladesh. In: Proceedings of World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, December.
Vol. 36, pp. 663-671
Harayama, S. (2008). Study for Living Standard Improvement on GNH
Philosophy. Proceedings of Third International Conference on
Gross National Happiness. November 22-28, 2007, pp. 1-9.
Retrieved from www.gnh-movement.org/papers/hirayama.pdf.

Jigawa Journal of Politics 142 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018

Henry, H., & Schimmel, C. (2011). Cooperatives for People-Centred Rural
Development. International Labour Office Rural Policy Briefs.
Jallow, K. (2009). Nestle as Corporate Citizen: A Critique of its
Commitment to Africa‟ Report. Social Responsibility Journal 54:
512-524

Jordan, G. (2004). The Causes or Poverty Cultural vs. Structural: Can There
Be a Synthesis? Perspective in Public Affairs. Spring, :19-34.
Larocque, P., Kalala, J., & Gaboury, A. (2002). The Impact of Savings and
Credit Cooperatives in Burkina Faso. Ottawa: Developpement
International Desjardins.
Lohlein, D., & Wehrheim, P. (2003). The Role of Credit Cooperatives in
Rural Russia. Gloros Policy Paper, June. :1-20.
Mawa, B. (2008). Impact of Microfinance: Towards Achieving Poverty
Alleviation. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences. 5 (9): 876-882.
Montgomery, H., & Weiss, J. (2005). Great Expectations: Microfinance and
Poverty Reduction in Asia and Latin America. ADB Institute
Research Paper Series. No. 63,:1-30.
Morris, G., & Barnes, C. (2005). An Assessment of the Impact of
Microfinance Services in Uganda Washington, D. C.: National
Academy of Public Administration.
Nathan, F. O., Margaret, B. & Ashie, M. (2004). Microfinance and Poverty
Reduction in Uganda: Achievements and Challenges. Economic
Policy Research Centre, Research Series No.41.
National Bureau of Statistics (2016) Unemployement/under-employment
report Q4 2015.
Ndiaye, F. (2005). Microfinance as a Strategy for Poverty Reduction in
Africa. Paper delivered at Expert Group Meeting on Poverty
Eradication. Bangkok, July 6 – 7.
Obadan, M. I. (1997). Analytical Framework for Poverty Reduction: Issues
of Economic Growth Verses Other Strategies. In: Proceedings of
Nigerian Economic Society, Annual Conference. Poverty Alleviation
in Nigeria. :1-18.
Oke, J. T. O., Adeyemo, R. & Agbonlahor, M. (2007). An Empirical
Analysis of Microcredit Repayment in South Western Nigeria.
Humanity and Social Sciences Journal 2 (1): 63-74
Oluyombo, O. (2013a) Household Assets and Rural Finance in Nigeria.
Applied Economics Journal. 20 (2): 55-74.
Oluyombo, O. (2013b) Impact of Cooperative Societies Savings Scheme in
Rural Finance: Some Evidence from Nigeria. Economic Review –
Journal of Economics and Business, XI, (1),: 77-88.

Jigawa Journal of Politics 143 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018

Oluyombo, O. (2016) Poverty and Rural Finance in Africa: Moving
Theories into Policies. ICAN Refereed Conference Proceedings. :711–
724.
Ravallion, M. & Bidani, B. (1994). How Robust is a Poverty Profile? The
World Bank Economic Review. 8 (1):75-102.
Richter, P. (2011).Empowering Rural Communities through Financial
Inclusion. International Labour Office Rural Policy Briefs

Jigawa Journal of Politics 144 Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018