CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The number one goal of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) is to “End poverty in all its forms
everywhere” this buttress the obvious awareness of the burgeoning poverty level in our
contemporary world be it urban or rural. Rural-urban migration, urbanization and consequential
population growth has facilitated growth of urban slum, squatter settlement which is
complementary and interrelated to urban poverty.

There is no objective definition of poverty and no objective way of measuring how many people
are poor. The numbers differ profusely according to different plausible definitions (Stein et al.,
1995). The definitions of poverty vary widely among international agencies and countries, the
most commonly used working definition for international poverty comparisons, and the poverty
line is per capita expenditures of US $1 per person per day (adjusted for differences in
purchasing power) (World Bank, 1990). While for some it is defined as US $2 per person per
day, others calculate minimum caloric requirement as the poverty line.

The World Bank defines poverty as pronounced deprivation in well-being (WDR, 2001). The
1990 World Development Report describes poverty as encompassing not only material
deprivation (i.e. low income) but also low achievements in education and health. Aigbokhan
(2000) defines poverty as the inability to achieve a certain minimal standard of living. The
problems of poverty, neglect and social exclusion are most pronounced at the local community
level where these communities ought to be encouraged to participate in and bring their own
agendas to bear on governance and development (Nwaka, 2008). The development of a country
or community is measured with statistical indexes, such as income per capita, life expectancy,
rate and level of literacy, etc.

Urban poverty has been a low priority area on research and development agenda of Nigerian
government. For over three decades, these have been dominated by rural development and rural
poverty. As Osinubi (2013) has noted, the renewed interest in urban issue has been due to the
widespread idea that urbanization is spreading up. At the end of the year 2000, about half of the
world’s population lives in urban area, in 1975, it was only 28 percent. In 1970, developing
countries level of urbanization was 25 percent, in 1994, it has increased to 37 percent and it has
been projected to increase to 57 percent in 2025 (UNO, 2001). This rapid growth does not
necessarily imply economic growth whilst, a growing number of people requires housing,
employment and standard living condition in the urban areas.

Urban poverty may be measured in terms of absolute, relative poverty dollar per. Absolute
poverty describes a situation in which people barely exist largely because their incomes fall
below a level necessary to satisfy the necessities of life. It is much easier to recognize and
describe people in absolute poverty and a look at any of Nigeria’s urban centres will give an
indication of how widespread it is. Relative poverty, on the other hand, is a situation in which
individuals are not poor in absolute terms but have much less than others by way of income,
property and other resources. Townsend (1962) describes relative poverty rather aptly when he
argued that “individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when
they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in the activities and have the living
conditions and amenities which are customary or at least, widely encouraged or approved in
societies to which they belong. Their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the
average individual or family that they. Whereas, Dollar per day sets poverty at US$2 a day or
less and extreme poverty at US$1.25 (NBS, 2010).

A World Bank survey (2010) reports that the depth and severity of extreme poverty increased
more than sevenfold in the urban Nigeria compared with a two-fold increase in the rural areas.
From the above evidences, the problem of urban poverty in Nigeria is certainly becoming more
serious and alarming as compared to the rural poverty. The problem has been due to recent high
population growth rate and rural-urban migration, which has made quality of life in urban center
slums worse than could be found in many typically rural settings as many urban services have
been over stretched beyond capacity. Other factors to which the increase in urban poverty in
recent times can be attributed include, among others: the inner urban decay caused by poor
maintenance of and lack of investment in public facilities; low per capita income;
overpopulation, especially of the active group; unemployment; inflation/high cost of living; and
the low level of education of some of the urban dwellers.

In Yenagoa, Bayelsa State; this situation is not different from what is obtainable in other parts of
the country; apart from urban population explosion, which subject the installed infrastructural
facilities under pressure, there are impoverishing conditions such as limited access to
employment, inadequate and insecure housing and services, violent and unhealthy environments,
little or no social protection mechanism, limited access to adequate health care and educational
opportunities. In the light of the above, it has become necessary to study the conditions under
which the urban poor live in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State in order to provide necessary information
which will help the city and state administrators to develop more positive policies and action
plans towards the poor.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The number of extremely poor people continues to rise in Sub-Saharan Africa, while falling
rapidly in all other regions. Nigeria remain a country with high levels of poverty (World Bank,
2018). The last official estimate of poverty from Nigeria’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS)
2009 and 2010 was 46% based on the international poverty line of $1.90 per person per day. The
World Bank says a person can be said to be living in extreme poverty, if they live below the
poverty line of $1.90 which translates to N693.5 per day (Punch, 2019). In 2017, an estimated
49.1 percent of Nigeria’s population lived below that poverty line. A new report by The World
Poverty Clock (2018) shows that Nigeria has the largest extreme poverty in population with 86.9
million Nigerians now living in extreme poverty which has overtaken India at 71.5 million as the
country with the most extreme poor people in the world. India has a population seven times
larger than Nigeria’s. This population represents nearly 50% of Nigeria estimated 180 million
population (World Poverty Clock, 2018).

The above statistics paints a very awry picture of Nigeria. Bayelsa state is a geographical entity
of Nigeria and it is not immune from this ugly scenario of urban poverty. Low oil prices had
caused a significant impact on the economy leading to recession in 2016 from which Nigeria
emerged in 2017. High food inflation remains an issue and it aggravates poverty level since food
comprises almost three-quarters of the consumption budget of low-income household. The
preponderant farmers herdsmen crisis in the north central and some southern parts poses a huge
threat to food security. Household suffered from a high degree of vulnerability over five out of
ten persons experienced movement into and out of poverty especially among the less resilient
groups in the low-income distribution owing to infrequent payment of salaries even employment
opportunities available fails to expand correspondingly to the urban population growth rate,
hence many are either unemployed or underemployed. Todaro & Smith (2007) expressed similar
view in their statement that “one of the major consequences of rapid urbanization process has
been the burgeoning supply of job seekers into both formal and informal sectors of urban
economy”. For the underemployed, there is reduced income while for the unemployed, there is
zero income. Meeting basic human needs such as balanced food, portable water, decent
accommodation, adequate clothing, education of the children and access to health care services
posed an insurmountable challenge. This inability to meet basic needs of life exposes the
affected people to vulnerability, alienation, isolation as well as failure to take part in decision
making.

Notwithstanding these situations, many poor families and households continue to reside in the
urban centers constituting poverty in the urban areas. The question that comes to mind is: how
are these poor households sustained in the face of urban poverty? How do they meet up with
their basic needs such as nutritional requirements, healthcare services, educational need,
accommodation need? In other words, what are their strategies for coping with urban poverty?
Are these coping strategies effective and sustainable for the purposes of meeting development
goals? These are the questions that this research will find answers to.

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study

The main aim of the study is to assess the level of poverty among urban household in Yenagoa
Local Government Area of Bayelsa State.
The specific objective of the study are to:

 Identify the socio-economic characteristics of the respondent in the study area.

 determine the main sources of income among the household head.
 Evaluate the living condition of the respondents.
 Determine the poverty level of the respondents.
 Identify the coping strategies employed by the respondents.
 Recommend optimal coping strategies to minimize urban poverty
 alleviation policies

1.4 Research Questions

In order to realize the above stated objectives, the researcher attempts to answer the underlisted
questions.

1. What are the dimensions of poverty existing in the selected neighbourhoods of Enugu
metropolis?
2. What are the strategies devised by poor households in these selected neighbourhoods for
the purposes of coping with urban poverty?
3. Does the gender of the head of a household determine the household poverty coping
strategies?
4. Are there significant differences in the household poverty coping strategies amongst the
selected neighbourhoods.
5. Is there any of the household poverty coping strategies that can be recommended to
policy makers for purposes of policy making on urban poverty alleviation.

1.5 Hypothesis of the study

H0: There is no significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the

respondent and their poverty level.
1.6 Significance of the Study

The significance of this study lies in its contribution to the continuing search for optimal means
of alleviating poverty given the fact that poverty alleviation is fundamental to actualization of
development goals. The increase in poverty level is an indicator of underdevelopment. It
continues to forestall development of individuals, communities, institutions and Nation as a
whole through deprivation of basic necessities of life. These basic necessities are required by
household members to develop their full potentials and capabilities. The development of these
capabilities forms the primary target of every development activities. Actualizing poverty
reduction in Nigeria will help in attaining other Millennium Development Goals and objectives
which over the years have been forestalled due primarily to poverty. Poverty breeds crises,
violence, and crime. On the face of crime, violence, and crises, no meaningful development is
likely to take place. Poverty reduction engenders happiness, progress, and peaceful co-existence
of peoples of the world.

The product of this study will help in identifying and promoting household coping strategies that
are effective, sustainable, and contributory to poverty alleviation and development. The
strategies so identified, hopefully, can be built into policy for purposes of urban poverty
alleviation.
In addition, the study will sensitize all and sundry on the need to weigh the opportunities open to
them in their localities vis-a-vis urban areas, as this will help to check unnecessary rural to urban
migration. This is significant because rural-urban migration is one of the major causes of urban
poverty.

1.7 Scope of the Study

The study will cover households in three neighbourhoods located in three different communities
within Yenagoa Local Government Area of Bayelsa State. The communities are Agbura, Swali
and Ovom. From these communities, the households are selected who forms the population for
the sample. Members of households that fall within the scope of the study are male and female
household members who are either the head of household or the spouse.

1.8 Limitation of the Study

The limitation of the study is the fact that not every aspect of poverty is covered by the survey.
Urban poverty denotes limited access to basic needs of life and the existing facilities of utilities,
healthcare, education and housing. It is a relative kind of poverty as opposed to absolute poverty.
The study is limited to the access to these basic needs/ facilities and the major coping strategies
adopted by households with respect to meeting the needs.

It is not possible to survey all the poor neighbourhoods in Enugu metropolis. This is because the
research method adopted is more concerned with a representative sample of the population under
study. According to Nwodu (2006) survey research method works on the premise that a given
population is too large for any researcher to realistically observe all the elements in the
population This is more so when it is recalled that the localities that constitute the current Enugu
metropolis are drawn from four different local government areas namely; Enugu North, Enugu
South, Enugu East, and Enugu Central. Prior to this, neighbourhoods that make up Enugu
metropolis were few.

Not all the members of a household are sampled. At least, one respondent is drawn from each
household as it was not possible to interview every member of a household. The veracity of
information given may not be accurate since some respondents did not give full disclosure of the
information asked. This is most so in the area of income earned. Some households may withhold
relevant information because they would not want to disclose their coping strategies that are
unlawful.

The proportion of sample size from each selected neighbourhood of study is worked out based
on 2006 National Population Census Figure although the breakdown of 2006 population is yet to
be released.