Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources

Sikiru Ajijola; Bolarin Titus Omonona; Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources

Sikiru Ajijola, Bolarin Titus Omonona, Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi

Published in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 11, Issue 3)

Received: 14 March 2022 Accepted: 26 April 2022 Published: 8 June 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study assessed Non-Inclusive Growth among rural households in Nigeria. Secondary data from General Household Survey (GHS) of 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 were used. The GHS is a panel data consisting of 5,000 Households) of which 3,347 rural households were used. Data were obtained on socio-economic characteristics, living condition characteristics and geopolitical zones. Poverty gaps were estimated and matched to the economic growth rate to categorise households into non-inclusive growth. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) and Probit model. The mean age of the rural households were 41.8±9.4, 43.7±9.4, and 46.9±9.4 years, while the mean household sizes were 8.0±2.0, 7.3±3.1 and 7.5±1.8 for 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 respectively. Majority were male, 65.0%, 65.4% and 65.5%, while 64.3%, 63.1% and 63.4% were married in 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016, respectively. households with no formal education (45.3%) was higher in 2012/2013 than in 2010/2011 (43.3%) and 2015/2016 (40.2%). The non-inclusive growth was higher without access to health facilities, access to energy, access to potable water and employment in periods 2010–2013, 2013–2016 and 2010–2016. The Probit results show that age of rural households, household size, education, access to health facilities, access to energy, access to potable water, access to credit, North East zone, North West zone, South South zone and South West zone influenced non-inclusive growth among rural households. Therefore, access to facilities and equitable share of resources should be paramount in the rural areas in order to reduce the poverty status of the people vis a vis reduced non-inclusiveness of growth.

Published in	Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 11, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13
Page(s)	110-120
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Non–inclusive Growth, Rural Households, Economic Growth, Poverty, Nigeria

References

[1]	Adeoti, A. I. (2014): Trend and Determinants of Multidimensional Poverty in Rural Nigeria. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics. 6 (5). 220-231.
[2]	Adepoju, A. O. and Adejare K. A. (2013): Food Insecurity status of rural households during the post planting season in Nigeria. Paper presented at the 4^th International conference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists. September 22-25, Hammamet, Tunisia.
[3]	Aderounmu, B., D. Azuh, O. Onanuga, Ogundipe O., B. Ebenezer and A. Azuh (2021): Poverty drivers and Nigeria’s development: Implications for policy intervention, Cogent Arts & Humanities, 8: 1, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2021.1927495.
[4]	Akinlade R. J., S. A. Yusuf, B. T. Omonona, and A. S. Oyekale (2011): Poverty Alleviation Programme and Pro-poor Growth in Rural Nigeria: Case of Fadama II Project. World Rural Observations. 3 (1). 27-33.
[5]	Amoo E. O. (2018.) Introduction to special edition on Covenant University’s perspectives on Nigeria demography and achievement of SDGs-2030. African Population Studies, 32, 1, 3993-3396.
[6]	Anyanwu J. C. (2013), “The correlates of poverty in Nigeria and policy implications”, African Journal of Economic and Sustainable Development, 2, (1), 23–52.
[7]	Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2013): Framework of Inclusive Growth. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific. Asian Development Bank Report, 2013.
[8]	Ayantoye K., S. A Yusuf, B. T. Omonona and J. O. Amao (2011): Food security dynamics and its correlates among rural households in South western Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development. 4 (1). 43-55.
[9]	Balogun O. L. (2011): Determinants of Poverty among Rural Households in South Western States, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural science, Research and Technology. 1 (2): 99-104.
[10]	Fosu A. K. (2017). Growth, inequality, and poverty reduction in developing countries: Recent global evidence. Research in Economics, 71 (2), 306–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2016.05.005
[11]	Kakwani, N. and E. M. Pernia (2000): what is Pro-Poor Growth. Asian Development Review, 16, (1), 1-22.
[12]	McKinley, T. (2010): ‘Inclusive Growth Criteria and Indicators: An Inclusive Growth Index for Diagnosis of Country Progress’, ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series, No. 14. Mandaluyong City, Philippines, Asian Development Bank.
[13]	Mendoza R. U. and Mahurkar P. (2012): Snapshort of Non-Inclusive Growth: Evidence from OECD (2014): All on Board Making Inclusive Growth Happen. OECD Secretariat, and Ford Foundation, the OECD Inclusive Growth Initiative. Paris.
[14]	OECD (2014): All on Board Making Inclusive Growth Happen. OECD Secretariat, and Ford Foundation, the OECD Inclusive Growth Initiative. Paris.
[15]	Ogujiuba K. and S. K. Alehile (2011): Inclusive Growth in Nigeria: Policy Issues and Options for Poverty Reduction. International Journal of Social and Economic Research, 1 (1) Pp. 71-82.
[16]	Ogundipe, A. A., Ogunniyi, A., Olagunju, K.,& Asaleye, A. J. (2019). Poverty and income inequality in rural agrarian household of southwestern Nigeria: The gender perspective. The Open Agriculture Journal, 13 (1), 51–57.
[17]	Oluseye I. C. and A. A. Gabriel (2017): Determinants of Inclusive Growth in Nigeria: An ARDL Approach. American Journal of Economics. 7 (3). 97-109. DOI: 10.5923/j.economics.20170703.01.
[18]	Omobowale A. O. (2014): Livelihood, Agro ecological Zones and Poverty in Rural Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 6 (2). Pp 103-113. doi.org/10.5539.jas.v6n2p103.
[19]	Omonona, B. T. (2009): Quantitative Analysis of Rural Poverty in Nigeria. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 1-9.
[20]	Omotola A. M, Okoruwa V. (2016): Inclusive Growth pattern in Rural Southwestern Nigeria: Opportunities and Challenges. 5th International Conference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[21]	Population Reference Bureau [PRB], 2021. World population data.
[22]	Ramos A., R. Ranieri and J. Lammes (2013): Mapping Inclusive Growth. International Policy Centre on Inclusive Growth Working Paper No. 105, March.
[23]	Rauniyar G. and Kanbur, R, (2010): 'Inclusive Growth and Inclusive Development: A Review and Synthesis of Asian Development Bank Literature', ADB Working Paper Series, 2009.
[24]	Verdier-Chouchane A. and Karagueuzian C. (2016): Concept and measure of inclusive health across countries, Working Paper Series N° 239, African Development Bank, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sikiru Ajijola, Bolarin Titus Omonona, Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi. (2022). Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 11(3), 110-120. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sikiru Ajijola; Bolarin Titus Omonona; Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi. Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources. Agric. For. Fish. 2022, 11(3), 110-120. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sikiru Ajijola, Bolarin Titus Omonona, Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi. Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources. Agric For Fish. 2022;11(3):110-120. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13,
  author = {Sikiru Ajijola and Bolarin Titus Omonona and Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi},
  title = {Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources},
  journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
  volume = {11},
  number = {3},
  pages = {110-120},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20221103.13},
  abstract = {This study assessed Non-Inclusive Growth among rural households in Nigeria. Secondary data from General Household Survey (GHS) of 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 were used. The GHS is a panel data consisting of 5,000 Households) of which 3,347 rural households were used. Data were obtained on socio-economic characteristics, living condition characteristics and geopolitical zones. Poverty gaps were estimated and matched to the economic growth rate to categorise households into non-inclusive growth. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) and Probit model. The mean age of the rural households were 41.8±9.4, 43.7±9.4, and 46.9±9.4 years, while the mean household sizes were 8.0±2.0, 7.3±3.1 and 7.5±1.8 for 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 respectively. Majority were male, 65.0%, 65.4% and 65.5%, while 64.3%, 63.1% and 63.4% were married in 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016, respectively. households with no formal education (45.3%) was higher in 2012/2013 than in 2010/2011 (43.3%) and 2015/2016 (40.2%). The non-inclusive growth was higher without access to health facilities, access to energy, access to potable water and employment in periods 2010–2013, 2013–2016 and 2010–2016. The Probit results show that age of rural households, household size, education, access to health facilities, access to energy, access to potable water, access to credit, North East zone, North West zone, South South zone and South West zone influenced non-inclusive growth among rural households. Therefore, access to facilities and equitable share of resources should be paramount in the rural areas in order to reduce the poverty status of the people vis a vis reduced non-inclusiveness of growth.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources
AU - Sikiru Ajijola
AU - Bolarin Titus Omonona
AU - Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi
Y1 - 2022/06/08
PY - 2022
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13
DO - 10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13
T2 - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JF - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
JO - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
SP - 110
EP - 120
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2328-5648
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13
AB - This study assessed Non-Inclusive Growth among rural households in Nigeria. Secondary data from General Household Survey (GHS) of 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 were used. The GHS is a panel data consisting of 5,000 Households) of which 3,347 rural households were used. Data were obtained on socio-economic characteristics, living condition characteristics and geopolitical zones. Poverty gaps were estimated and matched to the economic growth rate to categorise households into non-inclusive growth. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) and Probit model. The mean age of the rural households were 41.8±9.4, 43.7±9.4, and 46.9±9.4 years, while the mean household sizes were 8.0±2.0, 7.3±3.1 and 7.5±1.8 for 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 respectively. Majority were male, 65.0%, 65.4% and 65.5%, while 64.3%, 63.1% and 63.4% were married in 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016, respectively. households with no formal education (45.3%) was higher in 2012/2013 than in 2010/2011 (43.3%) and 2015/2016 (40.2%). The non-inclusive growth was higher without access to health facilities, access to energy, access to potable water and employment in periods 2010–2013, 2013–2016 and 2010–2016. The Probit results show that age of rural households, household size, education, access to health facilities, access to energy, access to potable water, access to credit, North East zone, North West zone, South South zone and South West zone influenced non-inclusive growth among rural households. Therefore, access to facilities and equitable share of resources should be paramount in the rural areas in order to reduce the poverty status of the people vis a vis reduced non-inclusiveness of growth.
VL - 11
IS - 3
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sikiru Ajijola

Institute of Agricultural Research and Training (IAR&T), Moor Plantation, Ibadan, Nigeria
Bolarin Titus Omonona

Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi

Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sikiru Ajijola, Bolarin Titus Omonona, Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi. (2022). Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 11(3), 110-120. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sikiru Ajijola; Bolarin Titus Omonona; Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi. Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources. Agric. For. Fish. 2022, 11(3), 110-120. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sikiru Ajijola, Bolarin Titus Omonona, Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi. Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources. Agric For Fish. 2022;11(3):110-120. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13,
  author = {Sikiru Ajijola and Bolarin Titus Omonona and Taiwo Timothy Awoyemi},
  title = {Non-inclusive Growth Among Rural Households in Nigeria: A Micro Level Analysis of Income Growth and Equitable Distribution of Resources},
  journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
  volume = {11},
  number = {3},
  pages = {110-120},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221103.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20221103.13},
  abstract = {This study assessed Non-Inclusive Growth among rural households in Nigeria. Secondary data from General Household Survey (GHS) of 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 were used. The GHS is a panel data consisting of 5,000 Households) of which 3,347 rural households were used. Data were obtained on socio-economic characteristics, living condition characteristics and geopolitical zones. Poverty gaps were estimated and matched to the economic growth rate to categorise households into non-inclusive growth. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Foster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) and Probit model. The mean age of the rural households were 41.8±9.4, 43.7±9.4, and 46.9±9.4 years, while the mean household sizes were 8.0±2.0, 7.3±3.1 and 7.5±1.8 for 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 respectively. Majority were male, 65.0%, 65.4% and 65.5%, while 64.3%, 63.1% and 63.4% were married in 2010/2011, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016, respectively. households with no formal education (45.3%) was higher in 2012/2013 than in 2010/2011 (43.3%) and 2015/2016 (40.2%). The non-inclusive growth was higher without access to health facilities, access to energy, access to potable water and employment in periods 2010–2013, 2013–2016 and 2010–2016. The Probit results show that age of rural households, household size, education, access to health facilities, access to energy, access to potable water, access to credit, North East zone, North West zone, South South zone and South West zone influenced non-inclusive growth among rural households. Therefore, access to facilities and equitable share of resources should be paramount in the rural areas in order to reduce the poverty status of the people vis a vis reduced non-inclusiveness of growth.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download