1

COMMUNITY SELF-HELP PROJECTS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY OF

SELECTED COMMUNITIES IN ADO-ODO/OTA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

BY

OSINUBI, OLUWATOBI O.

O7BG05587

A RESEARCH WORK SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, COLLEGE

OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, COVENANT UNIVERSITY, OTA. IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BACHELORS DEGREE (B.SC.) IN

SOCIOLOGY

JUNE, 2011

2

CERTIFICATION

It is certified that this research was carried out and successfully completed by Osinubi,

Oluwatobi O., with matriculation number 07BG05587 for the degree of Bachelor of Science

(B.Sc.) in Sociology and submitted to the Department of Sociology, School of Human Resource

Development, College of Development Studies, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State.

…………………...... …………………......

Project Supervisor Signature & Date

Dr. T.C. Iruonagbe

………………..….... …………………......

Head of Department Signature & Date

Prof. P.A. Edewor

3

DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to the new breath in my family, Martins; and to all those no longer with

us—friends and relatives of friends. May their souls rest in perfect peace.

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My gratitude first and foremost goes to God; I would not be without Him. To my parents, Dr.

and Mrs. A.A.A. Osinubi for their boundless love; my wonderful siblings, Tosin, Iyanu, and Ore;

my amazing aunts and uncles, Funke Ogunyale, Debo Osinubi, Bisola and Dewole Alegbe; and

my ageless grandmum for their emotional, financial and spiritual support all the way.

My profound appreciation goes to my supervisor, Dr. Charles Tunde Iruonagbe; you are indeed

the best. Your meticulousness and thoroughness has motivated me to the best of my ability. I am

grateful for your assistance on this project and all through my academic stay in this great

institution. I use this medium to also appreciate the entire staff of the Department of Sociology:

Dr. Tayo George, Miss Nike Idowu, Dr. Ahmadu, Dr. Chiazor, Mr. Jegede, Mrs. Foluke Ajayi,

Dr. Mathew Egharevba, Miss Tolu, Dr. Oluremi Abimbola, Dr. Alex Asakitipi, Dr. P.A. Edewor

and Prof. Ogundipe.

I want to specially thank Mrs. Esther Adegboye and Damiloju Karunwi for their assistance in

carrying out this project; as well as Mr. Layiwola, Mr. Phillips, Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Sam, Mr.

Kolade, and Mr. Zaki for making my stay in this citadel of learning a pleasant one. To my course

mates, friends and fans, I love you and wish you the best in all your edeavours.

5

ABSTRACT

This research was carried out to study the relevance of community self-help projects to rural development

in Nigeria with special focus on selected communities in Ado-odo/Ota LGA. It has been observed that

successive governments in Nigeria for too long have neglected the rural communities. There is very little

evidence to suggest that past policies of government made significant impact in terms of accomplishing

improved quality of life for the over 70% of Nigerians that live in the rural communities. The primary aim

was to establish the role of self-help efforts in the development of the rural communities with a view to

create awareness in the rural communities so that they can initiate self-help projects and implement them. A

combination of primary and secondary sources of information was used to elicit the data required for the

study. A total of 200 questionnaires was administered, out of which 183 were found to be valid and

suitable for the study. Data was also gathered from relevant literature reviewed, which included

journals, textbooks, gazettes and other print and electronic materials. Three hypotheses were

formulated and tested to give verifiable answers to the problems and objectives of the research. The

result indicated a significant relationship between community self-help projects and rural

development; between people‘s willingness to participate in self-help efforts and level of rural

development; and between the insensitivity of government to rural communities and effective rural

development efforts. The central point of the findings is that the planning and implementation of self-

help projects stimulated development of the rural communities, despite the odds against rural

development in Nigeria. Since the government is distanced from the rural areas in terms of meeting

the needs of the people, the people had to take the lead in meeting their needs. This study, therefore,

advocated for more involvement of the local communities in projects design, execution, monitoring and

evaluation. The study concludes that the adoption of the ―self-help philosophy‖ will bridge the gap in

economic and social development between urban and rural areas in Nigeria, and consequently

improve the economic and social conditions of the rural inhabitants.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………... i

Certification Page…………………………………………………………………………... ii

Dedication………………………………………………………………………………….. iii

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………. iv

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………. v

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………….. vi-vii

List of Tables….…………………………………………………………………………… viii-ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study…………………………………………………………...... 1-3

1.2 Statement of the Problem………………………………………….......……………. 3-5

1.3 Aim and Objectives of Study ...…………………………………………………….. 5-6

1.4 Research Questions ……………………………………………………………….... 5

1.5 Justification of Study…………………………………………….………………...... 6-7

1.6 Brief Description of Area of Study………………………………………………… 8-9

1.7 Clarification of Concepts ……………………………………...…………………… 9-10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Literature Review………………………………………………………………....... 11

2.1.1 Defining Rural and Determining the Indices Used in Identifying the Rural Areas..... 11-14

2.1.2 The Community as the Locus of Integration for Participation……………………... 14-19

2.1.3 Types of Community……………………...………………...............................…… 20

2.1.4 Community Participation towards Development……………………...…………. 21-30

2.1.5 The Multi-Dimensional Endeavour of Rural Development……………………....... 30-36

7

2.1.6 The Concept of ―Self-Help‖ as It Relates to Rural Development………………….. 37-43

2.1.7 Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Development………….……............ 43-45

2.2 Theoretical Framework……………………………………….......………………... 45

2.2.1 Basic Needs Approach…….……………………...……………................…….. 45-46

2.2.2 Integrated Rural Development Approach……………………...………………........ 46-48

2.3 Hypotheses....................................................................................................... 48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS OF THE STUDY

3.1 Research Design………………………………………............................................. 49

3.2 Study Population………………………………………………………………........ 49

3.3 Sample Size…………………………………………………………….................. 49-50

3.4 Research Procedure…………………………………………………………...... 50-51

3.5 Method of Data Analysis…………………………………………………………… 51

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Presentation of Data……………………………………………………………...... 52-58

4.2 Analyses of Data......................... …………………………………………………. 59-64

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary……………………………………………………………….................... 65-67

5.2 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….................. 67-70

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….................... 71-75

APPENDIX………………………………………………………………........................... 76-78

8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1.1 Distribution of respondents by sex.................................................................... 52

Table 4.1.2 Distribution of respondents by age.................................................................... 53

Table 4.1.3 Distribution of respondents by marital status.................................................... 53

Table 4.1.4 Distribution of respondents by occupation........................................................ 53

Table 4.1.5 Distribution of respondents by religion............................................................. 54

Table 4.1.6 Distribution of respondents by educational qualification................................. 54

Table 4.1.7 Distribution of respondents by community of residence.................................. 54

Table 4.1.8 Distribution of respondents by duration of residence in their respective

communities.......................................................................................................

55

Table 4.1.9 Distribution of respondents by opinion on development in their community

of residence........................................................................................................

55

Table 4.1.10 Distribution of respondents by opinion on the influence of self-help projects

on the development of this community.............................................................

56

Table 4.1.11 Distribution of respondents by opinion on government assistance in the

execution of the community self-help projects..................................................

56

Table 4.1.12 Distribution of respondents by opinion on government intervention in the

development of the community.........................................................................

56

Table 4.1.13 Distribution of respondents by opinion on the effectiveness of the roles played

by social clubs and non-government organizations in the development of their

community.........................................................................................................

57

Table 4.1.14 Distribution of respondents by opinion on people's attitude towards community

development as a problem to rural development..................................................

57

9

Table 4.1.15 Distribution of respondents by opinion on the barriers that hinder the

enhancement of rural development.....................................................................

58

Table 4.1.16 Distribution of respondents by opinion on the effect of self-help projects on

agriculture in their area........................................................................................

58

Table 4.2.1 Cross Tabulation showing relationship between signs of development in the

community, and how self-help projects have influenced the development of the

community..........................................................................................................

59

Table 4.2.2 Chi-Square test showing relationship between community self-help projects

and rural development.......................................................................................

60

Table 4.2.3 Cross Tabulation showing relationship between signs of development in the

community, and how people's attitude towards community development is a

problem to rural development.............................................................................

61

Table 4.2.3 Chi-Square test result showing relationship between people‘s willingness to

participate in self-help efforts and level of rural development................................

62

Table 4.2.5 Cross Tabulation showing relationship between whether government has

offered any assistance in the execution of self-help projects and how this has

brought about development in the community................................................

63

Table 4.2.6 Chi-Square test showing relationship between the insensitivity of

government to rural communities and effective rural development

effort............................................................. ..................................................

64

10

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Historically, African societies, and human societies in general, have sought to improve their lot

through self-help efforts otherwise known as community development activities; as such

community development constitutes a part of the overall development strategy. Even before the

advent of the colonial era, people had at different times in history organized themselves into

groups and had employed combined resources to provide working facilities and bring about

improvement in their respective localities. This has been a common experience particularly at

times of great need, such as during catastrophe situations or emergency. Neighbours, relatives

and friends help each other in times of need. At other times, the whole community comes

together to work on common needs or problems which they may face. For instance, they may

build local roads and bridges, clear farmlands, or form a neighbourhood watch group to defend

against intruders, or even construct some public utility buildings, such as town halls, market

stalls, schools and churches (Akinsorotan and Olujide, 2007).

One of the enduring and flourishing heritages of traditional African societies is their involvement

in community development efforts. It has been an indigenous mechanism and technique

employed by the people to identify their felt needs, choose what they want and take cooperative

action to satisfy their needs. Development is all about change; to bring about significant and

lasting change for the betterment of the well being of people. Development results in the

improvement of the quality of life of members of a society. There are key principles such as

participation at all levels, a holistic view to development and incorporation of social, political,

11

economic and environmental aspects. A holistic view to development refers to the development

of all parts of the society comprising both the urban centres and the rural areas (Bachmann,

2007).

In Nigeria, there is a necessity for the development of rural areas because the gap in economic

and social development between urban and rural areas in Nigeria continues to widen leading to

social crisis and dissatisfaction. Rural development is a strategy designed to improve the

economic and social conditions of a specific group of people—the rural poor. It involves

extending the benefits of the development to the poorest among those who seek a livelihood in

the rural area.

Some past attempts to achieve rural development in Nigeria failed due to the oil boom in the

1970s which gave people the wrong impression that government should cater to all their needs.

This consequently relegated the self-help spirit to the background. However, the present

economic reality in the country has made the people find a lasting solution to the social and

economic problems of their communities, through Community Self-help Projects (Akinsorotan

and Olujide, 2007).

Community self-help projects are very important intervention strategies for social empowerment,

alleviation of poverty, income generation and provision of employment. They act as a catalyst

for social development in the rural areas. Self-help projects in rural areas may consist of

infrastructure projects such as water, sewer and solid waste, community facilities to housing,

essential services such as health care, public safety and education, as well as affordable housing

projects. In cities, these types of projects are typically planned ahead of need, and services are

often provided by a single governmental body. In rural areas, however, services and

12

infrastructure may be provided by a number of different entities, including non-profit

corporations. Thus, the main idea of self-help projects and rural development is that a

community should help itself by providing its felt needs (Okwakpam, 2010).

In many rural towns, lack of critical infrastructure limits other forms of community and

economic development. Poor performance of government in meeting the socioeconomic quests

of citizens has been identified as one of the reasons behind the proliferation of self-help projects.

It is in this regard that the rural community jointly complements or fills the shortcoming of

government efforts in the development of the community. It is the belief, therefore, that through

self-help projects our various communities can develop better.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

It has been observed that in spite of abundant natural, physical and human resources Nigeria is

endowed with, there is still high incidence of poverty in Nigeria especially in the rural areas. A

quick glance at the communities within the Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area will reveal the

neglect of these communities by the government, and the larger society. Some of its problems

include unavailability of motorable roads, poor housing conditions, irregular power supply,

inefficient communication systems, absence of relaxation centres, dearth of job opportunities, as

well as intolerable living conditions.

Only about 30% of the Nigerian population have access to portable water supply. Very few rural

communities are undoubtedly inclusive of this figure. Most of the communities lack or have poor

access to portable water, and are consequently faced with high rate of diseases associated with

water and unhygienic environment. These include skin diseases (basically eczema), malaria,

13

typhoid, and diarrhoea. Other factors are: increased absenteeism from schools; increased

physical burden on the elderly women; and so on.

There are some communities that have water schemes, but do not have access to the water due to

insufficient electric voltage to power the borehole. Even the transformers are overloaded and

could hardly serve the power demands of the community members let alone powering the

boreholes. Consequent to this, many small and medium scale enterprises leave the communities

in search of electric power to support their businesses. Some of the indigenes that own salons,

welding businesses and other small and medium scale enterprises are put out of job. This has

contributed to the increasing unemployment and increased crime rates.

The road network is generally in poor condition with the problem being more with the quality

and maintenance than with the number of roads. For instance, the road that links Lagos-

Abeokuta Expressway to Owode via Ota town very close to the palace of Olota of Ota is in a

very dilapidated state.

Most rural communities are in dire need of affordable housing, judging by the large number of

homeless individuals on the streets, under the bridges, and in every nook and corner of the

communities. Majority of those with houses merely have a shelter to roof their heads at night,

and not necessarily a comfort zone that the word ‗house‘ connotes. Very often, it is heard that

buildings collapse, as a result of the cheap and low-quality material used in erecting the

buildings. A lot of lives have been lost to collapsed buildings. This situation ought to be

addressed by community associations as well as the government to set standards for building

construction and housing arrangements. In respect to housing arrangements, buildings generally

are not planned, and are scattered all over. This makes it impossible to identify certain places in

14

the community. Such areas need to be re-arranged, numbered and addressed to allow for easy

identification. From the foregoing, it can be inferred that matters of land and housing are not

quite within the reach of community self-help projects, and eventually requires the intervention

of government.

Providing essential services like health care, education, and public safety in rural areas is

difficult principally due to lack of economic feasibility. Primary facilities or services may be

available in larger communities within a reasonable distance, but localities may only be able to

support smaller scope facilities. For example, most small communities lack a hospital but may be

able to support a small clinic, and students may need to go some distance to attend school. To

finance even these smaller scale projects, rural communities often need to find innovative ways

to leverage financial resources. Chigbo (2001) opined that most of the rural development projects

failed because of faulty goal specification, fraud, and inadequate funding. In the same vein, most

of these projects were either borrowed or merely forced on the people, without due consideration

of the political and cultural norms, which of course resulted in failure (Adagba, 2002). This study

is therefore focused on addressing community self-help projects and rural development in

Nigeria with special focus on selected communities in Ado-odo/Ota LGA.

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The aim of this study is to identify the ways in which community self-help projects can enhance

the development of the rural areas. The following are the objectives of this study:

To know how individuals and groups in the various communities in Ado-Odo/Ota LGA

have participated in rural development programmes and self-help projects in particular.

15

To see what roles community participation by involvement of non-governmental

organisations has played in self-help projects in Ado-Odo/Ota LGA.

To know if the self-help projects have boosted and complemented government

development efforts in the rural communities in Ado-Odo/Ota LGA.

To create awareness in the rural communities so that they can envision and conceive self-

help projects as well as implement them.

To evaluate to what extent self-help projects can positively affect the rural communities

in Ado-Odo/Ota LGA.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study seeks to provide answers to these questions:

Are there ways in which community self-help projects can enhance development of the

rural areas?

How can individuals and groups in the various communities participate in rural

development programmes?

What role has non-governmental organizations played in self-help projects in Ado-

Odo/Ota LGA?

Have the self-help projects in the area boosted and complemented government

development efforts?

In what ways can awareness be created so that the people can initiate and conceive self-

help projects?

16

1.5 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY

Past attempts at national development ended up dividing Nigeria into two distinct socio-

economic dichotomies which are the urban and the rural. The urban-bias approach to

development gave rise to decades of rural neglect because government programmes for rural

development never succeeded. Most communities in Nigeria are poverty stricken. Development

efforts aimed at reducing the poverty level have not included local people at the conception,

implementation and monitoring stages of such programs. The main reason for programme failure

was the non-inclusion of programme or project benefiting communities in the entire programme

planning and execution. This has often resulted in non-sustainability of many development

efforts.

As espoused by Ajayi (2006), ―one of the primary aims within rural communities in the

developing nations is to attain basic amenities such as roads, health centres, school buildings,

good market centres and community facilities‖ (Gardener, 1973; Ajayi, 1995). These amenities

are needed for a better standard of living. Unfortunately, there is little available government

finance, materials and manpower to satisfy the demands of rural dwellers. It is true that persons

to whom people living in these areas entrust their power are responsible for making these social

deficiencies available. In a country where every man thinks for and of himself alone, the rural

people are forced to take initiative with everyone working hand-in-hand to improve living

conditions. They are bound to embark on assisted self-help development project in order to

strengthen their rural development.

The rural areas are at the backwaters of the development channel. People in rural areas are

neglected by the larger society. Resources allocated to them fail to trickle-down. As a way

17

forward, it is important to highlight the role community self-help projects play in the

development of rural areas, in order to encourage more rural dwellers to be more involved in

such projects. The involvement of local people in the conception, execution, monitoring and

evaluation of development projects has become very central to attaining sustainable

development.

A sound rural community development can revolutionize rural life into fast-growing urban

centres (Williams, 1978; Adamolekun, 1991). In an agrarian country like Nigeria, rural

development is of prime importance. There cannot be national development without rural

development. This study is aimed at identifying ways to build the capacity of local people to

realize their potential and, collectively, become more self-confident and self-reliant so that they

can take a lead in developing their own communities.

1.6 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AREA OF STUDY

Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government was created on May 29th

, 1989; out of the defunct Ifo/Ota

Local Government and Ado-Odo/Igbesa administrative areas of Egbado South Local

Government. This most populous local government in Ogun State is located within the tropical

zone, lying between 60° and 47° N of the equator and 20.33° E and 30.18° E of the Greenwich‘s

Meridian. It covers a land area of 1,263 square kilometres with a Terrain of 1,010.4 sq kilometre

plain land and about 252.6 square kilometres bad Terrain comprising of 16% riverine and 4%

hilly regions. The Council is largely within Guinea Savannah cum tropical rain forest

vegetation.

18

The local government has about four hundred nursery/primary schools, and about one hundred

secondary schools, four private universities and two polytechnics. The local government is host

to the second oldest storey building in West Africa—the Vicarage of the St. James Anglican

Church Ota, built in 1840, as well as the Oduduwa shrine at Ado-Odo, that was visited by the

Late Bishop Ajayi Crowder and other missionaries in the 1840s, among other tourist centres. It is

the industrial nerve centre of the State housing over 75% of industries, the more reasons for its

fair share of all kinds of pollutions, disrupted ecology and associated challenges of infrastructure.

1.7 CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS

Development: Development can be defined as the act of improving by expanding or enlarging or

refining. It is a process in which the society passes by degrees to a different stage.

Community: A community constitutes a group of people with similar culture and belief system

who agreed together to be living in accord in order to achieve common goals.

Participation: This is the act of sharing in the activities of a group. Participation in social science

refers to different mechanisms for the public to express opinions—and ideally exert influence—

regarding political, economic, management or other social decisions. It can be said to be the

process by which individuals, groups and organizations are consulted about or have the

opportunity to become actively involved in a project or program of activity.

Community Participation: This involves the community playing participatory role, involving in

developmental programmes for the rural people particularly disadvantages groups. This is

stimulated by their thinking and deliberation which they can effectively influence through non-

governmental organizations (N.G.O.)

19

N.G.O.: Non-governmental organizations are private groups and individuals that are involved in

assisting, supporting and financing developmental programmes and projects to increase and

improve the standard of living of the poor and less privileged in a society. N.G.O. is a term that

has become widely accepted as referring to a legally constituted, non-governmental organization

created by natural or legal persons with no participation or representation of any government.

Self-help: This is the act of helping or improving oneself without relying on anyone else, that is,

the practice of bettering oneself without relying on the assistance of others; an act of redressing

or preventing a wrong by one's own actions rather than through legal proceedings.

Project: A project in business and science is a collaborative enterprise, frequently involving

research or design, that is carefully planned to achieve a particular aim.

Rural: This is a widely used term for various organizations that are not part of government,

particularly those focusing on development, environment and human rights.

Rural Development: Rural development in general is used to denote the actions and initiatives

taken to improve the standard of living in non-urban neighbourhoods, countryside, and remote

villages.

20

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section explores the literature on salient concepts that are of relevance to the study. It

consists of definitions, concepts and terminologies related to the research study; various theories

related to the research study; and the conclusions people and authority in the area of interest have

drawn regarding this research.

2.1.1 DEFINING RURAL AND DETERMINING THE INDICES USED IN

IDENTIFYING THE RURAL AREAS

The word, rural could assume economic, sociological, or racial connotation. This view was

expressed by Ekong (1988). From an economic perspective, it refers to a place in which

economic activity is dominated by agriculture. From a sociological perspective, it refers to a

place where the dominant form of relationship is personal and informal; and from an ethnic

perspective, ‗rural‘ connotes the minority group suffering from some level of subjugation by the

dominant group.

Idode (1989) suggests that ‗rural‘ can be determined using the following variables:

Spatial index: this refers to the percentage of the population living in a given area.

Occupational index: refers to the percentage of the labour force involved in agriculture.

The degree of disaggregation of social services

In an attempt to define rural, it is important to understand the concept of ‗urban‘. An urban

settlement or city can be described as the place where all good things of life prevail. The basic

fact is the assumption that it is in the city that good things can be found, while bad condition of

life is prevalent in the village.

21

According to Palen (2004), urban settlements have been defined on the basis of an urban culture

(a cultural definition), administrative functions (a political definition), the percentage of people

in non-agricultural occupations (an economic definition), and the size of the population (a

demographic definition). In actual practice the various criteria tend to overlap and be

reinforcing.

In terms of cultural criteria, a city is a body of customs and traditions. The city thus is the place,

where relations are ―gesellschaft‖ (larger-scale ―societal‖ or formal role relationships) rather than

―gemeinschaft‖ (more intimate-scale ―community‖ or primary relationships) and forms of social

organization are organic rather than mechanical. In short, the city is large, culturally

heterogeneous, and socially diverse. It is the antithesis of ―folk society‖.

The United Nations has urban data for some 228 countries and accepts each nation's definition of

what it considers rural and urban. Economic activity is used in defining what is urban in 39

countries. In terms of economic criteria, a country has sometimes been described as urban if less

than half its workers are engaged in agriculture. Here ―urban‖ and ―non-agricultural‖ are taken

to be synonymous. Distinctions have also been made between the town as the centre for

processing and service functions and the countryside as the area for producing raw materials.

Politically or administratively, a national government may define its urban areas in terms of

functions. About half the nations for which the United Nations has data use administrative

criteria. The difficulty is that there is no agreement internationally on what the political or

administrative criteria shall be. Often those residing in the capital of a country or a province are

22

designated as urban. In some countries such as Kenya and Thailand, all incorporated places are

urban, regardless of size. In Canada until 1971 all incorporated places were automatically urban.

Finally, some 51 countries use size of population as the criterion in deciding what is urban and

what is not. Demographically, a place is defined as being urban because a certain number of

people live in it, a certain density of people live in it, or both. Measurement and comparison of

rural and urban populations within a country are relatively simple when demographic criteria are

used, although the problem of making comparisons among nations still remains. Only 250

persons are necessary to qualify an area as urban in Denmark, and only 1,000 in Canada, while

10,000 are needed in Greece. According to the definition used by the United States Bureau of

Census for the 2000 census, the urban population of the United States comprises all persons

living in urbanized areas, all person outside of urbanized areas who live in places of 2,500 or

more, and all persons living in unincorporated settlements of fewer than 2,500 persons living in

"urbanized zones" on the fringes of metropolitan areas. By this definition, three-quarters of the

United States population are urban.

According to the Population Reference Bureau, the percentage of the population worldwide

living in urban places varies from 5 percent in Rwanda to 100 percent in Kuwait and Singapore.

In Nigeria, rural areas have been defined as areas with a population less than 5,000 in 1956, less

than 10,000 in 1963 and less than 20,000 today (Igbokwe 2001). Rural refers to areas with low

population density, small size, and relative isolation, where the major economic activity is

largely agricultural production. The areas considered rural are the settlements that have between

100 and 200 households (Mundi 2006).

23

Historically, Rural referred to areas with low population density, small size, and relative

isolation, where the major economic activity was agricultural production, and where the people

were relatively homogenous in their values, attitude and behaviour (Beter et al, 1975). Thus, the

indices for determining a rural settlement can be identified as community size, amenities found

within the community and proportion of male heads of households engaged in farming as

primary occupation. Population density and infrastructure facilities are other indicators, as well

as the socio-cultural characteristics of the population.

Rural refers to areas with low population density, small size, and relative isolation, where the

major economic activity is largely agricultural production. It is defined by Mundi (2006) as a

remote area or place far away from the seat of government and having no verified nor

infrastructural facilities, that is, the countryside and the people living in the villages.

Consequently, the rural areas lack good amenities like good roads, electricity, pipe-borne water

etc. In contrast, all these things are found in abundance in the urban areas, big towns or cities.

2.1.2 THE COMMUNITY AS THE LOCUS OF INTEGRATION FOR

PARTICIPATION

In the view of Musa and Ifatimehin, the social science concept of the community recognizes the

community as the tool for socialization of an individual relying basically on the neighbourhood

as the vertical plane on which democracy can be nurtured. The concept has four (4) principal

approaches.

The Qualitative Approach

This approach recognizes the community as a place to live, but more concerned with how

conducive the environment is for the people in terms of the nature of the area, the type of

people already residing there, the family life, the prevailing opportunities, the climate,

24

where facilities for development are available, the facilities for improvement etc. All

these and more would determine the quality of the community as a habitable locality.

The Ecological Approach

This approach examines the community from the point of view of space and physical

location. Normally people take time to see that the environment is beautiful to their taste

and level of exposure. In the spirit of beautifying their environment, participate in all

activities that will meet their human desires. At the completion of such community

projects which may be either the construction of a community well. Building a school,

they feel a sense of pride, a sense of fulfilment and a sense of pride to have participated in

the process.

The Ethnographical Approach

The peculiar culture and traditional belief of a people in a defined geographical location

is of utmost importance. This approach is concerned with those peculiar beliefs such as

choice of food, indigenous fashion, marriage, burial rites and administrative system.

These numerous factors help to mirror the peculiarity of individual communities within

the larger community and help to provide an enabling environment for mutual tolerance

among ethnic groups.

The Sociological Approach

This approach conceptualizes the community as a social system, it thus places

attendant interest on the social relation standard of the community and how it fits

into the larger social system. There are five characteristics of this approach.

o Focuses on social interaction.

o Studies the interdependence of the social units.

25

o Identification of activities responsible for the continued existence of the

community.

o Define the geographical spread and boundaries of the communities.

o Studies resistance capacity and techniques from both internal and external

forces.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 2009 provides a pragmatic

concept of a rural community as the locus where all members of a group of people, having some

form of collective claim over a territory and recognizing some form of collective governance,

can be given the opportunity to influence decisions in matters of public choice that affect their

livelihood. That is, the locus where participatory democracy is a concrete possibility. Edoho

(2004) shares this same view of a community as ―a group of people who share the same

commonality of purpose in a defined geographical boundary‖. A community is a group of

people who live in the same area, interact and share certain things in common including values

and beliefs.

According to Anyanwu (1981), ―A Community is a group of people who communicate and

reside in the same geographical area. Such a group of people may be a village, a family, tribe but

the people must have common basic conditions of life‖. A Community is also defined as a

number of families residing in a relatively small area within which they have developed a more

or less complete socio-cultural definition added with a collective identification by means of

which they solve problems arising from living in the same area.

In line with the above definitions, Machaver and Page (cited by Anyanwu, 1999) attempted to

define Community from a populist and social group angle, stating that, ―Community may be just

26

a few hundreds, in others, some thousands of people may be living and working in a village, clan

or neighbourhood having a special sense of belonging. A community embraces an area of social

living marked somewhat by social coherence. Its bases are locality and community sentiment.‖

Warburton (1998) suggested that the notion of ‗community‘ relates to two dimensions of

‗people‘ and ‗place‘. It emphasizes the relationships among people and between people and the

place or locality in which people live (Worpole and Greenhalgh, 1996).

A number of contemporary observers have pointed to the power of community in people‘s lives.

Among them are M. Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled, and Sam Keen, best-selling

author on personal development and spirituality. Both authors find that in the modern world, it is

through community with other people that individuals find their highest personal growth. A true

community is not the same as a ―group,‖ which can be any collection of people, no matter how

loose.

Community involves deep acceptance of one another, complete inclusiveness, and the self-

awareness to have a realistic understanding of the circumstances in which the community finds

itself. By offering each member the safety of knowing that they are accepted for whom they are,

such communities bring forth the best each person has to offer, because they know their gifts of

time, talent and ideas will be accepted with respect. In return, community members are

motivated to give what they have to enable the whole community to prosper.

Anyanwu (1999) identifies the characteristics of a community as:

Shared Territory: A Community must exist in a territorial area that conveniently

accommodates its members in order to develop their ways of life.

27

Shared Beliefs: For a community to exist in unity, its people must adhere to common

idea, objectives, attitudes and values.

Common Culture: Every community has its defined custom and tradition; appreciated

and jealously guided and protected by its members. Such customs and traditions are

transferred from one generation to the other within the community.

It is important to state that a recurring issue in classical sociology is the separation of traditional

from modern, which led to the development of dualisms such as society and natural, sacred and

profane, authentic and artificial community (gemeinschaft and gesellschaft), irrational or non-

rational and rational, expressive and instrumental, as well as the pattern variables of Talcott

Parsons. A large part of traditional sociological theory is concerned with the distinction between

the two models of social life that can be roughly identified as rural and urban. Communities

vary substantially in the degree to which their members feel connected and share a common

identity. Ferdinard Tönnies gave an explicit classification of two communities which he

called the Gemeinschaft and the Gesselschaft. Tönnies argues that there was a gradual, yet

distinct, shift in human social relations from Gemeinschaft (the German word for community,

which Tönnies alters to mean community in the sense of simpler societies)

to Gesellschaft. The

evolution of Gemeinschaft into Gesellschaft can also be expressed as a shift from organic to

mechanical formations. Tönnies refers to Gemeinschaft as being ‗organic‘ because he sees it as a

quasi-utopian state of nature, where social unity is based on customs, folkways and deep felt

sentiments for fellow Gemeinschaft members; Tönnies writes, ―everything real is organic‖

(Tönnies, 2002, 101). Gemeinschaft are relationships built along natural will and large primary

groups.

28

In contrast, Gesellschaft is referred to as ‗mechanical‘ because Tönnies sees it as being artificial

fictions operating under logic and rationality that reduce the living to the dead (Tönnies, 2002,

36). A fundamental part of this change was the gradual intensification of individuals‘

specialization and division of labour. Tönnies paints a bleak picture of Gesellschaft where people

live in a society in which they are dominated by artificial constructions such as credit and debt as

well as reduced to mere commodities. Gesellschaft is marked by people existing together en

masse without any deep ―human‖ bonds, and relationships are based on rational will.

Émile Durkheim, like Tönnies, drew a distinction between mechanical and organic forms of

society. For Durkheim, however, the difference is inverted. Simpler societies were labelled

―mechanical,‖ not because they were seen as artificial, but because Durkheim saw in them an

―analogy with the cohesion that links together the elements of raw materials…‖ (Durkheim,

1997, 84). Individuals form a unity in these simpler societies, and are alike. The very term

―simpler societies‖ points to Durkheim‘s reasoning: organic beings are complex. Thus,

contemporary society was labelled ―organic.‖

Organic societies for Durkheim, just as Gesellschaft for Tönnies, are defined by their high degree

of division of labour. Durkheim likens the division of labour to the division of organs in an

animal; ―Each part of the animal, once it has become an organ, has its own sphere of action, in

which in moves independently…‖ (Durkheim, 1997) yet operates together in order to form the

whole complex structure. At its most basic, the difference between mechanical and organic

societies is a question of similarity between individuals: ―The more primitive societies are, the

more resemblances there are between the individuals…. By contrast, among civilized people two

individuals can be distinguished from one another at a first glance…‖ (Durkheim, 1997).

29

2.1.3 TYPES OF COMMUNITY

The dichotomy of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, as coined originally by Tönnies, has

profoundly shaped the use of the concept of ―community‖ in the social sciences (Tönnies 2002,

1897). The term ―community,‖ when used alone and not qualified, still tends to suggest close-

knit if not primary groups with rich emotional ties. It also conjures up geography and bounded

space, local connectedness and physical proximity. As such, the concept of community often

stands in an awkward position in the study of contemporary, differentiated, and individualist

societies. Communities may thus be roughly categorized into the following:

Geographic Community: This ranges from local neighbourhood, suburb, village, town,

city or even the planet as a whole.

Community of Culture: This ranges from local clique, sub culture, ethnic groups,

religions multicultural or pluralistic civilization or global communities culture of today.

Community based on identity: Group of people with Community identity other than

location, members often interact regularly e.g.

o Professional Community: These are groups of people with same or related

occupations e.g. Health professionals consisting of nurses, doctors, pharmacists

etc.

o Virtual Community: Group of people primary or initially communicating or

interacting with each other by means of information technologies e.g. Internet.

30

2.1.4 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT

Participation is a development strategy that has been tested and adopted as a useful tool that

would assist a group of people not only to identify priority needs, but also to partake in the

planning, implementation and evaluation of community projects that are expected to improve the

lives of such communities.

In principle, it means that any development project meant for a community must elicit the

cooperation and absolute involvement of the stakeholders. The idea implies that the success of a

community project no matter how sincere, rely completely on the degree of involvement of its

people. It is a fundamental process of exchanging thought and also a method of communicating

ideas and feelings. It is a means of expressing freedom of the choice of living and being

responsible.

―Participation‖ and its companion concepts ―sustainability‖ and ―empowerment‖ are at the centre

of contemporary development discourse (Michener, 1998). Freire argues that ―development can

only be achieved when humans are ‗beings for themselves‘, when they possess their own

decision-making powers, free of oppressive and dehumanizing circumstances; it is the ‗struggle

to be more fully human‘‖ (Freire, 1972). For Chambers (1997), participation is where ―the

positivist, reductionist, mechanistic, standardized-package, top-down models and development

blueprints are rejected, and in which multiple, local, and individual realities are recognized,

accepted, enhanced and celebrated‖.

According to Raymond (1974) ―Participation relates to the identification of needs, the exposure

of defects in the system and the mobilization of new resources‖. Further researches confirm that

participation goes far beyond simple interaction between council officials and the beneficiaries

31

of their initiatives. It involves positively engaging the people and their leaders in making

contributions on projects that would be relevant to the development of their communities.

In the light of the unequal distribution of power, poverty and social status prevailing in rural

communities, there is need for the villagers to unite for the purpose of bringing about

development (Pearse and Stiefel, 1994). According to Uphoff (1985), participation assures

equality of access to facilities while the World Bank (1995) argues that it fosters individual and

community empowerment, management and organizational skills within the community. In the

view of Igbokwe and Enwere (2001), participation draws marginalized people closer to the

planning process, thereby enabling them to have more control over their own lives. Besides

participation enables local people to snare, enhance and analyze their knowledge of social

conditions, to plan and act.

Brinkerhoff and Goldsmith (2001) defined Participation as a process which stakeholders shape

and share control over development initiatives. Important elements of participation are the

process character as opposed to one – off participatory events; stakeholder (including all societal

actors) and the understanding of a form of joint policy-making.

The four standard elements of participation can thus be identified as:

Rights

Structures

Legitimacy

Capacity

32

Two basic forms of participation have been identified—the formal and informal participation.

Formal participation refers to activities in formally organized groups. It consists of taking part as

a member, attendant, contributor, committee member or officers of a named group. Membership

of these groups is by choice and not compulsory and at least one face to face meeting is called

for‖. Formal participation being the activities of formal groups thus requires holding of formal

meetings and ensuring that members abide strictly to the rules and regulation of the group or

organization the interactive session is open only to members.

Activities in informal participation do not require formulated procedures that would coordinate

group behaviours, there are no elected leaders, leaders emerge based on the situation on ground,

and there are no formal meetings, however members may come together at regular intervals and

activities carried out might not undergo any planning. Ojobo (2006) stated that, informal social

participation is used to describe non-organized or informal but recognized groups. Thus, when

people make social contacts or take part in activities in their neighbourhoods, friendship groups

or family get-together, they are said to have engaged in informal social participation.

Community participation can be loosely defined as the involvement of people in a community in

projects to solve their own problems. People cannot be forced to ‗participate‘ in projects which

affect their lives but should be given the opportunity where possible. This is held to be a basic

human right and a fundamental principle of democracy. Community participation is especially

important in emergency sanitation programmes where people may be unaccustomed to their

surroundings and new sanitation facilities.

Community participation refers to the ability and opportunities for community members to

participate directly in decision-making activities that steer the development of the community

33

(Gueye, 1999). Community participation means community involvement which facilitates

mobilization of community resources in the form of contributions by individuals, families or

community in the thinking, planning, deciding, implementing and evaluation of their

development projects (health, agriculture, economic, education, housing etc). The advantages are

promotion of self-reliance, reduction of costs, improvement of community members‘ skills and

sense of responsibility as well as accessibility, acceptability and utilization of services.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization Report (1991), community participation

should be viewed as an active process in which people take initiative and actions that is

stimulated by their own thinking and deliberations and which they can effectively influence.

Participation is therefore more than an instrument of implementing government projects.

Community participation is therefore a developmental approach which recognizes the need to

involve segments of the rural population in the design and implementation of policies concerning

their well-being.

Paul (1987) as cited by Igbokwe and Ajala (1995) noted that community participation was an

active process whereby beneficiaries influence the direction and execution of development

projects rather than being mere recipients of project benefits. Igbokwe and Ajala (1995)

remarked that community participation ensured the social acceptability of the project and

propensity to participate. World Bank (1995) defines participation as ―a voluntary process by

which people, including the disadvantaged in income, gender, ethnicity or education, influence

or control the decisions that affect them‖. Thus, participation is a multi-dimensional dynamic

process that takes varying forms, including decision making, planning, programming, control,

implementation and evaluation (Paul, 1987).

34

Reid, 2000 identifies the following as characteristics of a participating community:

First, in participating communities, many people are involved in the community's

activities. Business is not simply run by an elite leadership, but it is the work of everyone.

Second, participating communities are open to involvement by all groups, and

responsibilities are divided up so that the special talents and interests of contributing

organizations are engaged. Power and responsibility are decentralized. Participating

communities have many centres of activity, and community action engages the natural

enthusiasm and talents of citizens.

Third, participating communities conduct their business openly and publicize it widely.

Citizens are well informed about the community's work and about their opportunities for

personal involvement in meaningful roles.

Fourth, in participating communities, there is no such thing as a bad idea. All ideas are

treated with respect and welcomed as a source of inspirations with potential value for the

entire community. Participating communities encourage citizens to offer their best for the

common good.

Fifth, participating communities make no distinctions among various groups and types of

personalities who offer themselves to community involvement. All persons are actively

welcomed, regardless of colour, age, race, prior community involvement, level of

education, occupation, personal reputation, handicap, religion, or any other factor.

Furthermore, participating communities do not sit by passively, waiting for a diverse

group of citizens to present themselves. They realize that past discrimination and other

factors can stop people from stepping forward, and they actively reach out to all citizens

to encourage their participation.

35

Finally, participating communities operate openly and with an open mind. They are not

controlled by any single organization, group, or philosophy, and their leadership is used

to facilitate discussion of a diversity of viewpoints, rather than to push its own agenda.

Leaders are not ego-driven but focused on operating a high-quality, open decision-

making process.

Reid (2000) observes that there is no one right way to achieve deep community involvement—it

will look different in every community. Yet, there are some common elements to sound

participation that will be found in all communities. The first and most obvious principle of

participation is that many people are involved. The work of the community is not considered to

be the special province of a knowledgeable few, perhaps the same elite leadership who have

always run community affairs, but it is the business of everyone. Participating communities

engage many people in their work.

Participating communities are open to involvement by many groups. They divide up

responsibilities in a way that draws on the special talents and interests of contributing

organizations by assigning responsibility for independent action to these groups. In short, under

the overall umbrella of a representative community board, power and responsibility are

decentralized in a participating community. The result is a community that has many centres of

activity and that is capable of reaching deeply into the natural enthusiasm and talents of its

citizens.

The business of participating communities is open to all and widely-publicized. Citizens are

informed by a variety of means about the community‘s work, and opportunities for citizens to

36

find meaningful roles in contributing to that work. Secrecy, which only leads to suspicion,

distrust, and ultimately to the death of community involvement is strictly avoided.

In participating communities, there is no such thing as a bad idea. All ideas are welcomed and

treated with respect. This not only honours the person whose idea is put forward, but it also sets a

welcoming tone for fresh ideas and inspirations that might otherwise be hidden due to fear of

ridicule. Participating communities establish ways of screening out the best ideas from the

merely ―interesting,‖ but in a way that acknowledges the value of all ideas, no matter what their

source. In doing so, they encourage all their citizens to bring forth their best for the common

good.

In a participating community, no distinctions are drawn among various groups and types of

personalities who offer themselves to community involvement. All persons are actively

welcomed into useful roles, regardless of their colour, age, race, prior community involvement,

level of education, occupation, personal reputation, handicap, language, appearance, religion, or

any other factor. Participating communities know and recognize that, truly, we are all made

equal, that we have an equal right to share in the work and benefits of community enhancement,

as well as in its costs. The entire community is poorer when we fail to do so. Further,

participating communities do not sit by passively, waiting for a diverse group of citizens to

present themselves for involvement. They realize that past discrimination, inexperience, and

individual reluctance can hinder full community involvement, and they actively reach out to all

citizens to invite active contributions to the community‘s business.

As a consequence, participating communities operate so that it is clear to all that they are not

controlled by any one organization, do not represent any one group of people, and are not limited

37

to any one philosophy or way of doing business. Their leadership is used to facilitate discussion

of a diversity of viewpoints, rather than to push its own agenda. Leaders are not ego-driven but

focused on operating a high quality, open decision-making process. In short, they are open—

open in mind, and open in the way they carry out community activities.

The philosophy of ‗community development‘ relates to the concept of ‗locality‘ and people. In

essence it underscores the indispensability of local needs, aspirations and local resource

mobilization within geographically and socially defined spheres (Jimu, 2008). Akpomuvie

(2010), in agreement with Jimu‘s view of community development, posits that community

development includes all strategies, interventions or coordinated activities at the community

level aimed at bringing about social and economic development.

Community development has its basis in the social obligations that individuals have towards

societies that nurture their talents. Participation or self-help spirit is inspired by awareness among

individuals and the communities they belong to and the recognition that individuals become who

they are—agents—through relationship with others (Nyamnjoh, 2002). As much as community

life is constituted by interacting, non-independent and by mutually susceptible human beings

(Barnes, 2001), the notion of community participation draws on independent power of individual

human beings to intervene in the ongoing flow of events in their community to make a

difference, to create and change social order so that collective accomplishments transcend

individual hopes.

Community development is supposed to reflect people‘s actions and attributes of self-

consciousness. Hence, commitment to community development should recognize

interconnectedness between individuals and the societies to which they belong. A Community

38

therefore becomes effective when its people become conscious of their common problems and

are conceptually motivated for a collective bargain while being responsible to formulate common

objectives around these common problems.

According to Obibuaku (1983) cited by Ajayi (2006), community developing is a process by

which the efforts of the people themselves are linked with those of the government to improve

the socioeconomic and cultural conditions of the community; thus enabling them to contribute

more fully to national progress. Community development is a social process by which human

beings can become more competent to live with and gain some control over local conditions and

the changing world (Ajayi, 1995).

Williams (1978) has identified four essential elements in the complex process of community

development: ―(a) it encourages analysis of local problems with a view to improving the level of

living and as much as possible on the initiative of those concerned; (b) it provides technical and

other services in ways which encourage initiative and cooperation; (c) it considers the local

community, the basic unit for planning and development; and (d) it diffuses the decision-making

power by emphasizing the principle that those affected by community change should themselves

select and manage such change.‖

Idode (1989), cited by Akpomuvie (2010), asserted that three major approaches to community

development in Nigeria have been identified – the extension approach, the project approach and

the service approach. The extension approach involves directly teaching the rural people

improved methods and techniques of either farming, health care or how to read and write. The

Ministries of Agriculture and Health use this approach. The project approach to community

development is generally motivated by the government‘s desire to improve the economic

39

conditions in the rural areas. It is, therefore, characterized by the establishment of economic

ventures, such as government farms or rural industries. In the government circles in Nigeria, the

project approach to community development is usually referred to as ―rural development.‖

2.1.5 THE MULTI-DIMENSIONAL ENDEAVOUR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Development as a concept is a self-generating process whereby human potentials and

relationship are optimized for the purpose of satisfying needs within the context of changing

belief and value systems of cultural unit and the large community. This is seen as a strategy

aimed at improving the economics and social life of the society (Anyanwu, 1992) cited by

Ayanwuyi et al. (2007).

Dudley Seer says that the questions to ask about a country‘s development are: What has been

happening to poverty? What has been happening to unemployment? What has been happening to

inequality? If all three of these have declined from high levels, 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, it would be strange to call the result ―development‖ even if per capita income

doubled. It is widely presumed that rural areas are suffering from poverty. If poverty is reduced

or eliminated, we can assert that there is rural development. Thus, if there is inequality in rural

life and this inequality is removed, we have rural development. If there is unemployment and

measures have been taken to reduce or remove it, we have rural development.

Rural development is commonly understood as enabling the benefits of development to reach the

rural poor, a group that includes small-scale farmers, tenants and the landless (Chambers 1983),

as well as the marginally employed and unemployable (Bibangambah 1985). Although the

factors affecting rural development vary over space and time, rural development outcomes

40

reflect conscious and effective redirection of investments, including capital, technology, human

resources and institutions (Singh 1999), among others, in a manner that benefits those who seek

a living in rural areas. Specific rural development outcomes have over time remained enhanced

agricultural production of food and cash crops, improved and easy access to essential social

services such as health, education, transport and safe water, and also the modernization of

traditional rural structures (Arnon 1981; Chambers 1983; Singh 1999).

In the words of Robert Chambers, ―Rural Development is a strategy to enable a specific group of

people, poor rural women and men, to gain for themselves and their children more of what they

want and need. It involves helping the poorest among those who seek a livelihood in the rural

areas to demand and control more of the benefits of rural development. The group includes small

scale farmers, tenants, and the landless.‖ Rural development can be defined as the process of

developing and utilizing natural and human resources, technologies, infrastructural facilities,

institutions and organizations, and government policies and programmes to encourage and speed

up economic growth in rural areas, to provide jobs and to improve the quality of rural life. This

process typically involves changes in popular attitudes, and in many cases even in customs and

beliefs. The process of rural development must represent the entire gamut of change by which a

social system moves away from a state of life perceived as ‗unsatisfactory‘ towards a materially

and spiritually better condition of life.

Ekong (2003) defined rural development as a process of socio-economic change involving the

transformation of the agrarian society so as to reach a common set of development and goals

which are based on the capacity and needs of the rural populace. Lissete (2000) also defines rural

development as a process of structural changes in the increasingly complex economic, social,

41

culture technology and sphere of rural environment. It aims at improving standards of living and

quality of life in equitable, sustainable and efficient way. The idea of rural development is a

process by which a reasonable change of tolerable levels of living can be brought within the

grasp of ordinary man and woman (Adewale, 1990). This means an improvement in the living

standard of rural population. Mabogunje (1980) stated that rural development is concerned with

the improvement of the standard of living of the low income population living in rural areas on a

self-sustaining basis through transforming the socio-economic spatial structures of their

productive activities.

Rural development is a concept for planning and executing changes in the rural areas with the

primary objective of reducing or eradicating poverty. It also involves the transformation of the

rural community into a socially, economically, politically, educationally, orderly and materially

desirable condition with the purpose of improving the quality of life of rural population (Jibowo,

2000). He stated further that rural development is aimed at bringing full and productive

employment along with availability of infra-structural facilities in the rural community, to

change the situation in which many rural people operate only at the subsistence level. Rural

development is thus the outcome of series of quantitative and qualitative changes occurring

among a given rural population and whose converging effects indicate, the standard of living and

favourable changes in the way of life of the people concerned (Ekong, 2003).

The strategy of rural development in most developing countries is undergoing a shift of emphasis

from mere agricultural development to the development and total mobilization of the potential

human and material resources of the area for betterment of living conditions. The aim of rural

development is for the rural population to achieve a more equitable access to the available

42

resources. Cited by Olawepo (1998), Ankar (1979) defined rural development as" strategies,

policies and programmes for the development of rural areas and the promotion of activities

carried out ill such areas with the ultimate aim of making available physical and human

resources and thus promoting higher incomes and better living conditions for the rural

population". This definition sees the rural people as the subject and object of development,

participating in planning, process and not just being beneficiaries.

In the same manner, Akinbode (1986) cited by Olawepo (1998) defined rural development as

"that stage when people in my village and other villages in Nigeria can turn on their taps and get

clean water inside or near their houses, have improved medical facilities, schools, markers,

transportation etc., and participate in decision making that affects their lives, with inner

satisfaction and pride to remain in these rural villages".

On the surface the maxim is that rural communities should be active agents in meeting

developmental needs rather than waiting for the central government and other outside agents to

provide what might be lacking (Mohammed 1989). In many instances NGOs are deemed as

better placed to facilitate the mobilization of communities than the government (Singh 1999).

Okuneye and Idowu (1990), cited by Ayanwuyi et al. (2007), reported that rural development

identifying the needs of rural community assessing its resources and potential as a view towards

formulating strategies which will improve the existing level of productivity and well being of

rural populace. Further by emphasized that whatever the dynamic nature of development

strategies, certain basic fundamental needs of the population must be met, such needs include

health facilities, education facilities, housing communication, transport, infrastructure, storage

43

facilities, extension services and other facilities required for the day to-day activities in the rural

community.

Jimoh (2008) posits that ―community development is not a theory on how to develop rural areas

but a means and outcome of making development possible at the level of a community.‖ It is

observed that the adoption of rural development programme will raise the income of the rural

people who engaged predominantly in agriculture and other non-farm activities such as agro-

based industries (Idachaba, 1983). This will help in the area of equable distribution of wealth and

personal income between the urban dwellers and rural segments of the society. In essence, the

rural people and their communities are the focus of rural development. When this is done it will

eventually reduce the rural-urban migration problems which have gradually made the rural

economy defunct.

It is observed that over 70% of the Nigerian population live in the rural areas and well over 95%

of the people living in the urban centres have rural inhabitants. The scenario of rural life in

developing countries, Nigeria as an example, is typical: Low per capita income low level of

literacy, high infant mortality, poor housing and other infrastructural facilities. The idea of

meeting these ever-growing rural poverty problems brought about the concept of rural

development. In order to improve the well being of rural settlers, an integrated rural development

must work towards achieving the following objectives: Gainful employment for the rural poor to

enable them improve their level of consumption patterns especially in food and nutrition; equal

access to social services and social security like the people in urban centres, increased

mobilization and motivation of the rural communities to achieve wider participation in decision-

44

making relevant to their welfare and renewable and non-renewable resources and the avoidance

of environmental degradation.

Thus, rural development implies both the economic betterment of people as well as greater social

transformation. In order to provide the rural people with better prospect for economic

development, increased participation of people in the rural development programmes,

decentralization of planning, better enforcement of land reforms and greater access to credit are

envisaged. The main aim for rural development is to alleviate rural poverty and ensure improved

quality of life for the rural population especially those below poverty line

Jha and Jha (2008) attempt to provide a holistic view to ―rural development‖ which begins with

the observation that ―the term is of focal interest and widely acclaimed in both developed and

developing countries. There is however no universally acceptable definition, and the term is used

in different ways and in vastly divergent contexts. As a concept, it connotes overall development

of rural areas with a view to improving the quality of life of rural people. In this sense, it is a

comprehensive and multidimensional concept and encompasses the development of agriculture

and allied activities such as village and cottage industries and crafts, socio-economic

infrastructure, community services and facilities, and above all, human resources in rural areas.

As a phenomenon, it is the result of interactions between various physical, technological,

economic, socio-cultural, and institutional factors. As a strategy, it is designed to improve the

economic and social well-being of a specific group of people, the rural poor. As a discipline, it is

multidisciplinary in nature representing an intersection of agricultural, social, behavioural,

engineering, and management sciences.‖

45

As a multifaceted and multidimensional endeavour, rural development means development of

agriculture as well as development of allied activities such as village and cottage industries,

handicrafts, community services and facilities and economic infrastructure. It means

development and utilization of human resources found in rural life. It stands for development and

utilization of natural resources that are available in village life. It encompasses changes in the

outlook of the people. Existing beliefs are either displaced or considerably modified. Even

customs prevailing in society and followed rigorously undergo alteration. There is a sea change

in the spiritual life of the people when there is rural development.

Singh has this to say: ―The process of rural development may be compared with a trend in which

each coach pushes the one ahead of it and is in turn pushed by the one behind, but it takes a

powerful engine o make the whole train move. The secret of success in development lies in

identifying and, if needed, developing a suitable engine to attach to the train. There are no

universally valid guidelines to identify appropriate engines of growth, if at all they exist. It is a

choice which is influenced by time, space and culture.‖

Rural development has no single all-embracing goal. It has a plethora of goals and a multiplicity

of measuring rods to assess it. If per capita real GNP increases, we can reasonably conclude that

there is development. But we have to see whether this increase in GNP percolates to rural areas.

Another measuring rod focuses its attention on expenditure. When there is high expenditure on

civic amenities and facilities, we have development. If schools, hospitals, drainage, roads, parks

etc. are constructed in the villages, then there is real development. All these things contribute to

the well – being and welfare of the rural populace. (Jha and Jha, 2008)

46

2.1.6 THE CONCEPT OF “SELF-HELP” AS IT RELATES TO RURAL

DEVELOPMENT

The service approach to community development identified by Idode (1989) requires the active

involvement and initiative of the rural people. This approach focuses on the provision of social

amenities such as good or motorable roads, maternity centres, electricity, low cost housing

schemes, postal agencies, pipe-borne water, chemists and so on, in the rural areas. The desired

project goals may include developing the human, organizational and management capacity to

solve problems as they arise in order to sustain improvements (Ogbodo, 2002). These are

provided at the initiative of the community itself. The service approach to community

development is known as ―self-help‖ in Nigeria. Self-help programmes are most visible at this

level.

According to Igbozurike (1977), a self help may be viewed as a regional resource mobilization

system in which most of the conceptional initiative and most of the executorial responsibility rest

with the occupants of the region or community concerned. It is a socio-economic developmental

arrangement in which externally generated input of thought, processes, ideas, and materials is

expected to assume secondary status. The commonest approach to this form of development

strategies is usually through community association using direct labour approach, financial

contribution and community disbursement (Olawepo 1997). More often, it is associated with

rural area where participatory development is encouraged. This is because, rather than

development impetus originating from 'top to down' it is a reversal of process, where

development facet is suggested and undertaken by the communities in relation to their felt needs.

In defining the concept of self-help in community development, Anyanwu (1992) asserts that ―it

is the end-product of community development as it helps local people to exploit to their

47

advantage the resources which would otherwise be dormant and thereby perpetuate the ignorance

and poverty of their community‖. The emphasis here is on what the people can do for

themselves, against what the government can do for them.

Development, according to Babalola (2004), comes through self-help and it is not a package of

benefits given to people, but rather a process by which the people of a country progressively

acquire greater mastery over its destiny. Falling from this statement is that development cannot

be trusted upon people; rather, it is the people themselves who will initiate their development

through self-help, once the enabling factors such as public awareness, mobilization,

empowerment and democratic principles are made available.

Thus true development must mean the development of man, the unfolding and realization of his

creative potential, enabling him to improve his material condition of living through the use of

resources available to him. It is a process by which man‘s personality is enhanced. All these

cannot occur without people‘s willing contribution. Self-help exudes a sense of pride and

commitment in the people where the community projects are seen as our project rather than the

government‘s projects. The principle of self-help involves the learning of new techniques, ideas

and technologies. Their adoption, adaptation and usage are the benefits of everyone who

participates in the process of change for the improvement of their lives.

Self-help development according to Udoye (1992), cited by Akpomuvie (2010), should be both

an object (what) and a process (how). As an object, it should be an induced change for the

achievement of community improvement. As a process, it should be a well articulated

programme and effort to assist individuals to acquire attitudes, skills and concepts required for

their democratic participation in the effective solution of as wide a range of community

48

improvement problems as possible, in order of priority determined by their increasing level of

competence.

Self-help is a self-motivated effort of the people of a community to come together to improve

their standard of living by pooling their resources together and with a sense of belonging, tackle

problems afflicting their peaceful co-existence. The principle of self-help is fundamental to the

success of community development. It is the active participation of members of the community

in projects and programmes that enhances the improvement of their lives.

According to the United Nations (1956), it is the process by which the efforts of the people

themselves are united with those of the governmental authorities to improve the economic, social

and cultural conditions of the communities, to integrate these communities in the life of the

nation and enable them to contribute fully to national progress. Community people or villagers

are usually willing to cooperate with one another to satisfy their mutual interest and needs.

Village-project participants, usually include both men and women, representing all interest

groups in the villages/communities such as village leaders, women groups, business groups,

farmers and disadvantaged groups.

Babalola (2004) is of the opinion that the spirit of self-help is as old as man himself. It has been

with us in Nigeria even before the advent of colonial administration. Communities in Nigeria

have always shown the willingness to improve their condition through the organization of

various self-help projects like road construction, bridges, markets, and so on. The traditional self-

help process known as community development programmes started as a form of voluntary

exercise in the past. This was when the community members trooped out voluntarily to

participate in projects that touched on the immediate needs of the entire community despite their

49

limited financial and material resources. Heck (2003) highlights the important elements found in

the practice of community or participatory self-help development projects as opposed to the

traditional development projects:

Process instead of project approach: Conventional projects are usually planned too much

in detail (―pre-cooked‖) over a too short time span to obtain tangible results and spread

effects. Community Self-help projects are more flexible, such that it can be expanded and

replicated in similar areas with minimal outside assistance and recurrent costs.

The target group is predominantly or exclusively formed by the rural disadvantaged

people. However, also non-poor or better-off rural people (local leaders, influentials, etc.)

as well as government and NGO officials are to be actively involved in various project

actions, in particular to improve the delivery of services and facilities to the target group

and to learn from each other.

Education for participation which is given in addition to the classic (teacher-student)

types of training provided in conventional projects to transfer technical know-how. A

major objective of the educational process is awareness creation or conscientization: the

poor will gradually become critically aware of their economic and social conditions, the

causes of their deprivation and dependency syndrome as well as their potentials to change

their plight through joint efforts by clustering into small action groups. Participatory

education attempts to develop capabilities among the beneficiaries to strive for full

participation as well as self-development particularly when the project is over. This

education is non-directive, dialogical (two-way) and built upon indigenous knowledge.

The structuring of the target group by means of group formation and group action. This

entails strengthening of existing groups or organizations and/or the promotion of new,

50

self-created and self-managed ones. The existing groups may be traditional groupings,

farmer associations, cooperatives, women's, youth and village groups and/or trade unions.

The groups and organizations which may later on somehow federate, form the basis for

sustained participation and can be regarded also as a ―receiving system‖ through which

the poorer people can mobilize their own resources and be ―reached‖ effectively by any

development agency.

Resource mobilization by group members which includes pooling of know-how, ideas,

assets, savings and/or labour as well as obtaining services and facilities like training and

credit. This is done in a gradual learning process.

Economic and social activities. Starting with small, low-risk, well-known income-raising

and socio-cultural group activities of any feasible type, the groups will undertake

gradually larger, more complex ones, also on an inter-group basis.

The inclusion of group promoters in or attached to the project staff with the following

two main roles: a) to help develop the economic and other activities of project groups and

facilitate their access to resources and services; b) to help develop adequate participatory

education and training activities for, with and between beneficiaries in order to increase

critical awareness and stimulate meaningful and increasingly independent group actions

(self-reliance). The above roles could best be performed by specific change agents (group

promoters or the like) who work exclusively and directly with the beneficiaries and their

groups to enhance participation. In projects which unfortunately have no arrangements

and/or funds to recruit group promoters, the roles of the latter could be performed in part

by ad-hoc trained technical project staff

51

Promotion of self-reliance and self-development. The relationships between supporting

government, NGO and project staff and the intended beneficiaries is deliberately shaped

in such ways that self-reliance and self-development are encouraged amongst the target

group and dependence on project inputs is gradually reduced. Project staff members

encourage the beneficiary groups to identify themselves problems and seek adequate

solutions and actions. Self-reliant groups are the main indicator for a successful

participatory project.

The development of coordination and cooperation mechanisms which enable the

beneficiaries to participate actively in as many project actions as possible. The latter

include identification of needs and potentials, setting of project objectives, planning and

carrying out of activities as well as monitoring and evaluation. The project avoids thus by

all means to become just only a delivery vehicle.

The above are all important elements in any project design to attain full participation; they are,

however, not all indispensable for certain forms of ―minor‖ or partial participation.

What distinguished past approaches from integrated rural development is that these have often

been pursued independently of one another and their interrelationship has not been grasped.

Also, political bottleneck, high capital intensive nature of the schemes, excessive centralization

of planning and control and lack of rural settlers' participation in decision making, lack of

suitable co-ordinating inter-ministerial institution for implementation render the rural

developments schemes unsuitable as effective problem solving strategies (Ogundele, 2002).

The failure of the past and emphasis placed in rural development by present day government led

to greater attention being paid to integrated rural development programmes with more emphasis

52

on self-help. It is observed that integrated rural development encompasses much more than an

increase in agricultural production and productivity. It includes small town development,

extension of health services, expansion of local trade and commerce, organization of

cooperatives, the provision of credits, improvement on housing and water supply, sanitation,

roads and communication are all within the scope. Hence, it is therefore regarded as a concept

for planning and implementation, providing framework for mobilization of human and material

resources to achieve social and economic integration within the rural communities.

2.1.7 TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UP APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT

Imoh (2002) observed that forty-two years after Nigeria‘s independence, most rural areas in

Nigeria demonstrate characteristics that indicate lack of prosperity. This situation has not

changed much even today. Participatory rural development seeks to improve the social,

economic, political, and capacities of the rural people. Unless rural people are given the

opportunity and means to fully participate in development projects, they will continue to be

excluded from its benefits. However, many governments, non-governmental organizations, and

development agencies have recognized that the top-down approach which is characteristic of the

traditional development strategies has largely failed to reach and actually benefit the rural poor.

A ―top down‖ approach is one where an executive, decision makers, or other person or body

makes a decision. This approach is disseminated under their authority to lower levels in the

hierarchy, who are, to a greater or lesser extent, bound by them. For example, a structure in

which decisions either are approved by a manager, or approved by his authorized representatives

based on the his guidelines, is top-down management.

53

A ―bottom-up‖ approach is one that works from the grassroots – from a large number of people

working together, causing a decision to arise from their joint involvement. A decision by a

number of activists, students, or victims of some incident to take action is a ―bottom-up‖

decision. Positive aspects of top-down approaches include their efficiency and superb overview

of higher levels. Also, external effects can be internalized. On the negative side, if reforms are

perceived to be imposed ‗from above‘, it can be difficult for lower levels to accept them (e.g.

Bresser Pereira, Maravall, and Przeworski 1993). Evidence suggests this to be true regardless of

the content of reforms (e.g. Dubois 2002). A bottom-up approach allows for more

experimentation and a better feeling for what is needed at the bottom. Ojobo‘s idea of

participation is bottom-up where the citizens in the community have access to relevant

information that will assist the people transcend the planning, execution and utilization stage of

the project to having their own spaces and voices in order to promote transparency and

accountability.

Rural development agents should learn to ‗put the last first‘ (Chambers 1983). In theory, the role

of the central government and other outside agents should be to inspire local initiatives that

improve community welfare (Passmore 1972). In practice, top-down planning and

implementation of development projects have to give way to bottom-up or active community

participation to achieve what Neocosmos (1998) termed ‗development through negotiation‘. That

is, community development should be perceived not as a theory of development but a practice of

development that emphasizes emancipation from inappropriate institutions and any debilitating

situations that lead to cosmetic participation. Also, community development should be a

mechanism to draw on the collective power of the members of particular communities –

54

comprising of men and women, the rich and the poor, the able and disabled, etc. – to transform

order in their locality.

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Two theories that establish the framework for effectiveness in the participation of citizens in

development programmes are reviewed and their relevance are examined for the purpose of

achieving improvement in the welfare of the rural dwellers through citizens‘ participation in self-

help projects in Nigeria.

2.2.1 BASIC NEEDS APPROACH

According to Kapur (1982), the objective of development is to ensure that people‘s basic needs

such as food, shelter, health, education, water and transport are met through the active

participation of the people themselves.

In his book, “First things first”, Streeten puts forward the following description of the basic

needs approach.

First, Basic Needs means the provision of people’s minimum requirements for water,

housing, clothing, food and sanitation. Second, Basic Needs may mean allowing people

to define their own wants rather than what is stated by experts or professional bodies.

Third, those who oppose the buyer’s rationality model argue, instead, for government

intervention in education, water and sanitation, and guidance in consumption. Fourth,

basic needs can also refer to the liberty of the people to express themselves through

personal and group participation in planning and implementing projects.

In the view of Pitt (1976), Basic Needs framework is an approach through which the indigenous

people make use of the resources they have to fashion complex things that help to improve their

general welfare. Ekejiuba (1983) adds that Basic Needs Approach stresses ―total local

55

community mobilization and popular participation in identifying, defining, promoting, executing

projects as well as in defining values and needs that are dictated by the existential conditions of

the target group‖.

This approach gives momentum to localizing the rural development planning process so as to

meet the exact requirements of the rural dwellers in Ado-Odo/Ota LGA and create more

effective feedback mechanisms through a process of mutual adaptation and innovation. Through

this process of ―development from within‖, the rural people will become the beneficiaries of

development. They will also be given a greater degree of control over the direction of change

which is a pre-requisite for self-reliance.

This theory adequately describes the situation of the communities within Ado-Odo/Ota LGA,

and rural Nigerian societies in general. There are few motorable roads, and most of the rural

areas are without good drinking water and health facilities. Most of the occupants are involved in

low-paying jobs and unrewarding activities, the literacy level is low, and a large percentage of

the population live below poverty line. Thus, development programmes should be turned towards

involving the rural people in identifying, executing and maintaining development projects that

will satisfy their basic needs, instead of ―planning from the top and delivering to the bottom‖.

2.2.2 INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH

Integrated rural development has been defined as ―a consciously formulated systematic multi-

sectoral programme to attain the integration of the people in the mainstream of income groups in

country‖ (Olatunbosun, 1976). In the same vein, Floyd (1972) has referred to it as ‗systems

approach‘ to solving rural development problems. Mabogunje (1980) stated that rural

development is concerned with the improvement of the standard of living of the low income

56

population living in rural areas on a self-sustaining basis through transforming the socio-

economic spatial structures of their productive activities.

One of the fundamental problems confronting most of the Third World countries is how to

spread the fruits of socio-economic growth and development which are usually concentrated in

few cities to the bulk of the population which is rural. In Nigeria, more recent policy for regional

planning is taking shape around the concept of integrated development. Recognized as perhaps

the bedrock of regional development policy, the strategy is aimed at bridging the gap between

urban and rural sectors. This will help in the area of equable distribution of wealth and personal

income between the urban dwellers and rural segments of the society.

It is observed that over 70% of the Nigerian population live in the rural areas and well over 95%

of the people living in the urban centres have rural inhabitants. The scenario of rural life in

Nigeria, communities in Ado-Odo/Ota LGA as an example, is typical: low per capita income,

low level of literacy, high infant mortality, poor housing and other infrastructural facilities. The

idea of meeting these ever-growing rural poverty problems brought about the concept of

integrated Rural Development. In order to improve the well being of rural settlers, an integrated

rural development must work towards achieving the following objectives: gainful employment

for members of communities in the LGA to enable them improve their level of consumption

patterns especially in food and nutrition; equal access to social services and social security like

the people in urban centres; increased mobilization and motivation of the rural communities to

achieve wider participation in decision-making relevant to their welfare; environmental

sanitation; expansion of local trade and commerce; extension of health services; organization of

57

cooperatives; the provision of credits to small and medium enterprises (SMEs); and improvement

on housing, water supply, roads and communication.

Since rural development is complex process involving environmental, economic, social,

technical and spatial inter-relationships; an approach to it must involve a package approach

providing all the necessary inputs, which is in no small measure lacking in the communities of

Igbesa, Agbara, Iju and Iyesi.

2.3 HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses stated in the alternative form are presented below:

Hypothesis One

There is a significant relationship between community self-help projects and rural development.

Hypothesis Two

There is a significant relationship between people‘s willingness to participate in self-help efforts

and level of rural development.

Hypothesis Three

There is a significant relationship between the insensitivity of government to rural communities

and effective rural development efforts.

58

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS OF THE STUDY

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

The descriptive research design was used to gather the opinions of people through the use of

questionnaires. Other components used in the research design include the population, sample

size, sampling procedures, sample frame, sources of data, research instruments, reliability and

validity tests, and the data presentation techniques.

3.2 STUDY POPULATION

Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government has an estimated population of 527,242 people (Male 262,523

& Female 265,719) (2006 Census) with about four hundred and fifty (450) towns, villages and

settlements. The Local Government is peopled mainly by the Aworis (the original owners of the

land), Eguns and Yewas (Egbados) and other sub-ethnic groups like Egba settlers in Iju, Atan,

Ijoko and Sango-Otta. Expatriates and other ethnics groups have equally found the entity a

congenial place for settlement. Apart from Ota, Ado-Odo, Igbesa and Agbara, other major towns

are Iju-Ota, Owode, Ilogbo, Iyesi, Ijako, Ajibode, Abule Iroko and a host of others. Using the

simple random sampling technique, the communities of Iju-Ota, Igbesa, Iyesi and Agbara were

selected. This is to ensure that all the communities within Ado-Odo LGA had equal opportunity

of being selected, as they all constitute the population of study.

3.3 SAMPLE SIZE

Following the random selection of 4 communities within the Local Government, data was

collected from a convenience sample of 200 respondents, out of which 183 questionnaires were

retrieved. The choice of sampling technique is premised on the fact that community self-help

59

projects require the participation of all members of the community. This implies that every adult

within the selected communities qualifies as a respondent in this study.

3.4 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

The instrument used for data collection was the questionnaire titled ―Relevance of Community

Self-help Projects on Rural Development Questionnaire‖. The questionnaire contained structured

items designed to measure the relationship between the dependent (rural development) and

independent (Community Self-help Projects) variables; and comprised both open and fixed

choice questions to allow the respondents to extensively express their view. Data collected was

based on awareness of self-help projects, level of participation, and problems encountered, in

addition to socio-economic characteristics.

3.5 RESEARCH PROCEDURE

The questionnaire was self-administered using interview schedules and purposive sampling

technique. On one hand, since the people in Ado-Odo/Ota LGA speak Yoruba (a traditional

language), and majority are illiterates, the interview schedule was adopted to enable the

researcher communicate with the respondents effectively. Purposive sampling technique on the

other hand, enabled the researcher to focus specifically on residents of the selected communities

of Ado-Odo/Ota LGA, and exclude those who do not suit the purpose of study. The instrument

was subjected to thorough screening in order to determine its validity. Yoruba is the major

language of its inhabitants. Bearing in mind that rural areas such as the communities of Ado-

Odo/Ota LGA have a large proportion of its population uneducated, the questionnaire was self-

administered. This was used in obtaining information from residents who do not speak English.

This also helped to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of concepts, and to create room for

60

possible clarification where necessary. The in-depth interview was also employed since it is a

qualitative method that focuses on the rural settlement.

3.5 METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS

The data generated through the use of questionnaires were analysed with the aid of the statistical

program for Social Sciences (SPSS). Simple percentages, frequency counts, ranking and

qualitative methods of data analysis were used as methods of data presentation. Chi-square test

was used to determine the relationship between the variables—Community Self-help Projects;

and rural development.

61

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter presents the results of the research work in relation to the issues examined, so as to

verify the claim that community self-help projects can enhance the development of rural areas. A

total of 200 questionnaires were administered for the study. However, 183 were found to be valid

and suitable for the study. The data presentation and interpretation is divided into two broad

sections.

Presentation of data

Analysis of data

4.1 PRESENTATION OF DATA

The socio-demographic characteristics of respondents are presented in the following tables.

Table 4.1.1 Distribution of respondents by sex

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Male 117 63.9

Female 66 36.1

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The above table indicates that 62.3% of the respondents were males while 37.7% were females.

This is a reflection of the observation of the researcher that the males were more co-operative

and willing to respond to the issues in the questionnaires.

62

Table 4.1.2 Distribution of respondents by age

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Below 30 139 76.0

31-45 42 23.0

Above 61 2 1.1

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

From the study, 76% of the respondents were below the age of 30, 23% were between the ages of

31-45, and 1.1% of the respondents were above the age of 6.1. The reason for this is that

respondents below the age of 30 years are more inclined to engage in community development

activities because of their youthful vigour.

Table 4.1.3 Distribution of respondents by marital status

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Single 145 79.2

Married 38 20.8

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The table above shows that 79.2% of the respondents were single, while20.8% were married.

The reason for the high rate of single respondents is because most of the respondents are

below the age of 30, and are yet to settle down in marriage.

Table 4.1.4 Distribution of respondents by occupation

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Business 28 15.3

Self-Employed 100 54.6

Others 55 30.1

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

Table 4.1.4 above reveals that 15.3% of the respondents were into business activities, 54.6%

were self-employed, and 30.1% made a living via other means.

63

Table 4.1.5 Distribution of respondents by religion

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Christianity 108 59.0

Islam 75 41.0

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 59.0% were Christians, and 41.0 were Muslims.

Table 4.1.6 Distribution of respondents by educational qualification

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Secondary 101 55.2

Tertiary 80 43.7

No Formal Education 2 1.1

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 55.2% of the respondents are educated up to the secondary level, 43.7%

are educated up to the tertiary level, and 1.1% of the respondents have no formal education.

Table 4.1.7 Distribution of respondents by community of residence

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Agbara 42 23.0

Iyesi 46 25.1

Iju-Ota 47 25.7

Igbesa 48 26.2

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

From table 4.1.7, the study indicated that 23.0% of the respondents reside in Agbara, 25.1%

reside in Iyesi, 25.7% reside in Iju-Ota, and 26.2% reside in Igbesa. This shows that the study is

a relatively balanced mix of respondents in the communities studied.

64

Table 4.1.8 Distribution of respondents by duration of residence in their respective

communities

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

6 months 11 6.0

1 year 75 41.0

2 years 18 9.8

3 years and above 79 43.2

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 6.0% of the respondents have lived in their community for a duration of

6 months, 41.0% have been resident for a year, 9.8% have been resident for 2 years, and 43.2%

have been resident for more than 3 years.

Table 4.1.9 Distribution of respondents by opinion on development in their community

of residence

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 122 66.7

No 61 33.3

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 66.7% of the respondents attested to the fact that there was a sign of

development in their communities, while 33.3% refuted that fact. This highlights the positive

changes in the communities of the respondents.

65

Table 4.1.10 Distribution of respondents by opinion on the influence of self-help projects

on the development of this community

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 90 49.2

No 93 50.8

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study from table 4.1.10 indicated that 49.2% of the respondents attested to the fact that

self-help projects influenced the development of this community, while 50.8% refuted that fact.

Table 4.1.11 Distribution of respondents by opinion on government assistance in the

execution of the community self-help projects

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 15 8.2

No 168 91.8

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 8.2% of the respondents attested to the fact that government offered

assistance in the execution of the self-help projects in their community, while 91.8% refuted that

fact.

Table 4.1.12 Distribution of respondents by opinion on government intervention in the

development of the community

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 17 9.3

No 166 90.7

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 9.3% of the respondents attested to the fact that government

intervention brought about development in their community, while 90.7% refuted that fact.

66

Table 4.1.13 Distribution of respondents by opinion on the effectiveness of the roles played

by social clubs and non-government organizations in the development of their

community

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 124 67.8

No 59 32.2

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study as indicated in table 4.1.13 shows that 67.8% of the respondents attested to the fact

that social clubs and non-government organizations play effective roles in the development of their

community, while 32.2% refuted that fact.

Table 4.1.14 Distribution of respondents by opinion on people's attitude towards community

development as a problem to rural development

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 93 50.8

No 90 49.2

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 50.8% of the respondents attested to the fact that people's attitude

towards community development is a problem to rural development, while 49.2% refuted that fact.

67

Table 4.1.15 Distribution of respondents by opinion on the barriers that hinder the

enhancement of rural development

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Religion 24 13.1

Economy 116 63.4

Political 2 1.1

Cultural 21 11.5

Others 20 10.9

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 13.1% of the respondents opined that the barrier hindering the

enhancement of rural development, 63.4% were of the opinion that it was economy, 1.1% were

of the opinion that it was political, 11.5% were of the opinion that it was cultural, 10.9% had

other opinions.

Table 4.1.16 Distribution of respondents by opinion on the effect of self-help projects on

agriculture in their area

Responses Frequency Percent (%)

Yes 126 68.9

No 57 31.1

Total 183 100.0

Source: Field survey, 2011.

The study indicated that 68.9% of the respondents attested to the fact that self-help projects have

an effect on agriculture in their area, while 31.1% refuted that fact.

68

4.2 ANALYSES OF DATA

Hypothesis One: There is a significant relationship between community self-help projects

and rural development.

Table 4.2.1: Cross Tabulation showing relationship between signs of development in the

community, and how self-help projects have influenced the development of the community.

Have self-help

projects

influenced the

development of

this community?

Total

Yes No

Is there any

sign of

development

in your

community?

Yes

Count 74 48 122

Expected Count 60.0 62.0 122.0

% within Sign of Development in

Your Community

60.7% 39.3% 100.0%

% within Self-help Projects Influenced

the Development of this Community

82.2% 51.6% 66.7%

% of Total 40.4% 26.2% 66.7%

No

Count 16 45 61

Expected Count 30.0 31.0 61.0

% within Sign of Development in

Your Community

26.2% 73.8% 100.0%

% within Self-help Projects Influenced

the Development of this Community

17.8% 48.4% 33.3%

% of Total 8.7% 24.6% 33.3%

Total

Count 90 93 183

Expected Count 90.0 93.0 183.0

% within Sign of Development in

Your Community

49.2% 50.8% 100.0%

% within Self-help Projects Influenced

the Development of this Community

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 49.2% 50.8% 100.0%

69

Table 4.2.2: Chi-Square test showing relationship between community self-help projects and

rural development.

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 19.284a 1 .000

Continuity Correctionb 17.931 1 .000

Likelihood Ratio 19.894 1 .000

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear Association 19.178 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 183

DECISION RULE: X2 = 19.284, df (c-1, r-1) = 1, n = 183, p = .000 at 0.05 level of significance.

The relationship between community self-help projects and rural development was investigated

using Chi-Square Test. The result from this investigation proved that there is a significant

relationship between community self-help projects and rural development, which further goes to

prove that development of the rural areas can be attained by proper conception, planning and

implement of self-help projects. This is in line with Otite‘s (1994) assertion that ―a big mistake is

to believe that because people are poor and uneducated in the community they cannot be of use

to national development.‖ The members of the rural community are the greatest resource

available for rural development.

70

Hypothesis Two: There is a significant relationship between people’s willingness to

participate in self-help efforts and level of rural development.

Table 4.2.3: Cross Tabulation showing relationship between signs of development in the

community, and how people's attitude towards community development is a problem to rural

development.

Do you think people's

attitude towards

community development

is a problem to rural

development? Total

Yes No

Is there any

sign of

development

in your

community?

Yes

Count 93 29 122

Expected Count 62.0 60.0 122.0

% within Sign of

Development in Your

Community

76.2% 23.8% 100.0%

% within People‘s Attitude

towards Community

Development is a Problem to

Rural Development

100.0% 32.2% 66.7%

% of Total 50.8% 15.8% 66.7%

No

Count 0 61 61

Expected Count 31.0 30.0 61.0

% within Sign of

Development in Your

Community

.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% within People‘s Attitude

towards Community

Development is a Problem to

Rural Development

.0% 67.8% 33.3%

% of Total .0% 33.3% 33.3%

Total

Count 93 90 183

Expected Count 93.0 90.0 183.0

% within Sign of

Development in Your

Community

50.8% 49.2% 100.0%

% within People‘s Attitude

towards Community

Development is a Problem to

Rural Development

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 50.8% 49.2% 100.0%

71

Table 4.2.3: Chi-Square test result showing relationship between people‘s willingness to participate in

self-help efforts and level of rural development.

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 94.550a 1 .000

Continuity Correctionb 91.525 1 .000

Likelihood Ratio 119.828 1 .000

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear Association 94.033 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 183

DECISION RULE: X2 = 94.550, df (c-1, r-1) = 1, n = 183, p = .000 at 0.05 level of significance.

The relationship between people‘s willingness to participate in self-help efforts and level of rural

development was investigated using Chi-Square Test. The result from this investigation proved

that there is a significant relationship between people‘s willingness to participate in self-help

efforts and level of rural development. A large percentage of the respondents claimed to be very

much interested in participating in community development efforts, and are willing to do a lot

more, but for financial handicap. The impact of self-help efforts is evident in the communities of

Igbesa, Agbara, Iju and Iyesi—establishment of community schools, grading of deteriorating

roads, and painting of public buildings, just to mention a few. This is, as the result of the

Chi-Square Test shows, an outcome of the people‘s willingness to participate in self-help efforts.

72

Hypothesis Three: There is a significant relationship between the insensitivity of

government to rural communities and effective rural development efforts.

Table 4.2.5: Cross Tabulation showing relationship between whether government has offered

any assistance in the execution of self-help projects and how this has brought about development

in the community.

Has

government

intervention

brought about

development in

the community?

Total

Yes No

Has

government

offered any

assistance

in the

execution

of the

community

self-help

projects?

Yes

Count 15 0 15

Expected Count 1.4 13.6 15.0

% within Government Offered

Assistance in the Execution of the

Community Self-help projects

100.0% .0% 100.0%

% within Government Intervention

brought about Development in the

Community

88.2% .0% 8.2%

% of Total 8.2% .0% 8.2%

No

Count 2 166 168

Expected Count 15.6 152.4 168.0

% within Government Offered

Assistance in the Execution of the

Community Self-help projects

1.2% 98.8% 100.0%

% within Government Intervention

brought about Development in the

Community

11.8% 100.0% 91.8%

% of Total 1.1% 90.7% 91.8%

Total

Count 17 166 183

Expected Count 17.0 166.0 183.0

% within Government Offered

Assistance in the Execution of the

Community Self-help projects

9.3% 90.7% 100.0%

% within Government Intervention

brought about Development in the

Community

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 9.3% 90.7% 100.0%

73

Table 4.2.6: Chi-Square test showing relationship between the insensitivity of government

to rural communities and effective rural development efforts.

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 159.548a 1 .000

Continuity Correctionb 148.038 1 .000

Likelihood Ratio 91.463 1 .000

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear Association 158.676 1 .000

N of Valid Cases 183

DECISION RULE: X2 = 159.548, df (c-1, r-1) = 1, n = 183, p = .000 at 0.05 level of

significance. The relationship between the insensitivity of government to rural communities and

effective rural development efforts was investigated using Chi-Square test. The result from this

investigation established that there is a significant relationship between the insensitivity of

government to rural communities and effective rural development efforts. Successive

governments in Nigeria for too long have neglected the rural communities. There is very little

evidence to suggest that past policies of government made significant impact in terms of

accomplishing improved quality of life for the over 70% of Nigerians that live in the rural

communities. All of the respondents reported government‘s insensitivity to their plight, and most

of the respondents claimed to have taken the initiative to meeting their needs, hence the

significant relationship between the insensitivity of government to rural communities and

effective rural development efforts.

74

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 SUMMARY

This study assessed the relevance of community self-help projects to rural development, with

particular focus on selected communities in Ado-Odo/Ota LGA. The study had an in-depth view

of the self-help efforts in the communities of Igbesa, Agbara, Iju and Iyesi; which were found

to have brought about development in the communities. The relationship between people‘s

willingness to participate in community self-help projects and rural development was in the

purview of this study, and was found to be significant on examination. The problems being

faced in both the planning and implementation of the self-help projects were also examined.

The study revealed that people in the rural areas are neglected by the larger society, and in effect,

are at the backwaters of the development channel. Successive governments in Nigeria for too

long have neglected the rural communities. There is very little evidence to suggest that past

policies of government made significant impact in terms of accomplishing improved quality of

life for the over 70% of Nigerians that live in the rural communities. Even the few resources

allocated to them fail to trickle-down, and as such, they lack the most basic needs of life such as

water, housing, clothing, food and sanitation. The insensitivity of government and the urban

population have been identified as one of the defining factors that stimulate the rural inhabitants

to embark on self-help projects which may consist of infrastructure projects such as water, sewer

and solid waste, community facilities to house essential services such as health care, public

safety and education, as well as affordable housing projects.

75

Three hypotheses were used for this study. The analysis of the first hypothesis concerning the

relationship between community self-help projects and rural development indicated that there

was a significant relationship between the two variables (X2 = 19.284, df (c-1, r-1) = 1, n = 183,

p = .000 at 0.05 level of significance). The hypothesis was based on the notion that despite

government insensitivity to the welfare of the inhabitants of the communities studied, there have

been remarkable changes and signs of development. The hypothesis was subsequently accepted

because of the results from the analysis of respondents‘ answers. From table 4.1.9, it was evident

that 66.7% of the respondents opined that community self-help projects have aided the

development of the rural community. It became apparent that rural development can be attained

by proper conception, planning and implementation of self-help projects.

The second hypothesis centred on the relationship between people‘s willingness to participate in

self-help efforts and level of rural development, which was also significant as seen in table 4.2.3,

where X2 = 94.550, df (c-1, r-1) = 1, n = 183, p = .000 at 0.05 level of significance. Table 4.1.14

showed that 50.8% of the respondents attested to the fact that people's attitude towards

community development is a problem to rural development, which is a little more than those that

refuted it. Table 4.1.9 indicated that 66.7% of the respondents attested to the fact that there was a

sign of development in their communities. This draws attention to the attitude of the rural

dwellers as instrumental to the development of the rural community.

The last hypothesis is premised on the relationship between the insensitivity of government to

rural communities and effective rural development efforts as indicated in Hypothesis 3, Table

4.2.5, where X2 = 159.548, df (c-1, r-1) = 1, n = 183, p = .000 at 0.05 level of significance. Table

4.1.11 showed that 91.8% of the respondents affirmed that government had not offered any

76

assistance in the execution of the community self-help projects. Table 4.1.12 also showed that

90.7% of the respondents refuted the fact that government intervention brought about

development in their community. The Chi-Square Test showed that there was a significant

relationship between the insensitivity of government to rural communities and effective rural

development efforts. In essence, the rural inhabitants take the lead in developing their

communities themselves as a result of government‘s failure to meet the needs of the community.

FAO (1991) reports that the triple down approach towards community development has failed,

but the bottom-up approach has enhanced rural development positively in the rural communities.

5.2 CONCLUSION

There is still a very high incidence of poverty in Nigeria especially in the rural areas, in spite of

the abundant natural, physical and human resources which Nigeria is endowed with. The

communities within the Ado-Odo Local Government Area are plagued with a myriad of

problems including unavailability of motorable roads, poor housing conditions, irregular power

supply, inefficient communication systems, absence of relaxation centres, dearth of job

opportunities, as well as intolerable living conditions. This is proof of the neglect of these

communities by the government, and the larger society.

On the basis of the foregoing discussions, a conclusion could be reached that self-help is a

relevant strategy for rural development in Nigeria. The data suggest that inhabitants of the rural

communities are willing to get involved in initiating and executing the rural development

projects for which they would be the ultimate beneficiaries. Involvement of the people, therefore,

is a process by which rural people wish to sort out their own priorities and to generate resources

to accomplish them.

77

It is evident from this study that the rural communities are eager and ready to embark on self-

help projects to meet their felt needs irrespective of the amount of government support.

Government could capitalize on this development and concentrate on the provision of basic

economic and social infra-structure while the communities undertake other types of projects that

they think are more relevant to their felt needs and aspirations. Several development activities

carried out in the past and numerous others are in the offing on the principle of community

participation. The results do not signify a breakthrough in the problem of rural development as

they have not found adequate solution to improved and easy access to essential social services

such as health, education, transport and safe water, and also the modernization of traditional rural

structures.

Thus, the willingness of the rural people to improve their condition through the initiation,

organization, implementation, maintenance and evaluation of various self-help projects; coupled

with government insensitivity to their plight; has been demonstrated to be crucial to the

development of the rural communities.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Since findings from this research reveal that community self-help projects are relevant to rural

development, it suggests various strategies which, if adopted would assist significantly in

ensuring that planned projects actually benefit the entire rural people in the communities of Ado-

Odo/Ota LGA.

78

1. Self-help projects need adequate financial backing before it could be successfully implemented.

This is a major problem faced by the community members on the implementation of the projects.

Members of the rural community barely have enough to eat, talk less of financing projects. In the

light of this, the government is admonished to look into the welfare of the rural dwellers and

assistance them financially. Both the government and the community members should work hand-

in-hand to see that projects are initiated, completed and sustained.

2. Problems of illiteracy should be adequately addressed in our communities. This will eradicate

poverty to a great extent since education would help the people to be informed on how to make use

of available resources to produce things that will improve their lives. Literacy should not

only involve training to be able to read and write but should incorporate orientation towards

the awakening of consciousness for effective participation in self-help developmental

projects.

3. Participation of every concerned member of the community should be sought in planning,

designing, execution and completion of viable developmental projects, which will impact

positively on the lives of the members. Every project should be based on the felt need of the

people. There should be adequate, functional and open communication at every stage of the

execution of the identified projects. Open communication should be used at the community

meetings, and everybody should be given a chance to contribute ideas and ideals that will

lead to the initiation and the completion of viable projects. Everybody should be allowed to

share the responsibility of working together. Therefore, planning, execution, monitoring and

evaluation must be jointly carried out.

79

4. Developing the rural areas will enhance the national income as most of the resources are tapped in

the rural areas. Even oil, the major Nigerian product that yields the highest revenue, is derived from

the rural areas. Entrepreneurs should start thinking of establishing their businesses in rural areas,

which will consequently lead to the increase in size, and the expansion of the socio-economic

structures of the communities.

5. Finally, there should be a revival of the agricultural sector, which is a major tool for rural

development, and national development. Community members should not turn their backs on

farming as a source of income and a means of developing the community, because agriculture can

revolutionize the rural areas with government support. A boost in the agricultural sector will attract

large firms and industries to relocate to the rural areas because of proximity to raw materials. This

is the case of Agbara community, which is ‗flooded‘ with industries. The place is gradually

increasing in size, and very much on the way to becoming a quasi-urban settlement.

80

REFERENCES

Adagba O. (2002). Rural development in Nigeria: A critical assessment of the role of agricultural

programmes in rural development in Benue State. Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology,

4(1), pp. 70-77

Adamolekun, A. (1991). Processes and problems of community organization for self-help

reliance. NISER Monograph Series, 1. Ibadan, Oyo, Nigeria: NISER. pp. 1-4.

Adewale, I.A., 1990. Rural development in Nigeria. J. Local Govt. Stud, 41, 31-36.

Aiayi, A.R. (1995). Community self-help projects‘ implementation procedure: A case study of

Ekiti South-West Local Government Area of Ondo State. Agrosearch 1(1), 47-55.

Akinsorotan, A.O. & Olujide, M.G. (2007). Community development associations‘ contributions

in self help projects in Lagos State of Nigeria. Journal of Central European of Agriculture,

7(4), pp. 609-618.

Akpomuvie, O. (2010). Self-help as a strategy for rural development in Nigeria: A bottom-up

approach. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. 2(1), 88-111.

Anyanwu, C.N. (1981). Principles and practice of adult education and community development.

Ibadan, Nigeria: AbiPrints Publishing Ltd.

Anyanwu, C.N. (1992). Community developments. The Nigeria perspective. London, England:

Cabesther Educational Publisher.

Anyanwu, C.N. (1999) Introduction to community development. Ibadan, Nigeria: Gabesther

Educational Publishers.

Ayanwuyi, E., Akinboye, O.A., & Olaniyi, O.A. (2007). Youth participation in rural

development projects in Surulere Local Government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria. The

Social Sciences, 2(3), 312-317.

Arnon, I. (1986). Modernization of agriculture in developing countries: Resources, potentials

and problems. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Babalola, E.T. & Babalola, A.C. (2004). The place of functional communication in self-help

development projects among adults in Osun State, Nigeria (1985-1999). Nordic Journal of

African Studies, 13(3), pp. 319–342.

Bachmann, U. (2007). Approaches in rural development on the move – a field experience in

Nigeria. Rural Development News, 1.

Barnes, B. (2001). The macro/micro problems and the problem of structure and agency. In G.

Ritzer & B. Smart (Eds.), Handbook of Social Theory, London, England: Sage.

Beter, P., Essien, R. & Steiner, K. (1975). Rural sociology and rural social organization. New

York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. p. 279–283.

81

Bibangambah, J.R. (1985). Approaches to the problem of rural poverty in Africa. In F.G. Kiros‘

(Eds.), Challenging Rural Poverty: Experiences in institutional building and popular

participation for rural development in Eastern Africa. Trenton, NJ: African World Press.

Brinkerhoff, D.W. & Goldsmith, A. (2001). Macroeconomic policy, PRSPs, and participation.

Washington DC: World Bank, Social Development Department, Participation Group,

Background Paper, Action Learning Program on Participatory Processes for Poverty

Reduction Strategies.

Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/participation/web/webfiles/macrosynthesis.htm

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the last first, London, England: Longman.

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts?: Putting the First Last. London, England:

Intermediate Technology.

Chigbo M. (2001). Rural development in Nigeria: Recurrent efforts, problems and prospects. In

A.A. Aja & A.C. Emeribe (Eds.), Policy and contending issues in Nigerian national

development strategy. Enugu, Nigeria: John J. Classic Publishers Ltd. pp 161-166

Durkheim, E. (1997). The division of labor in society. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Ekong, E.E. (2003). Rural Sociology: An introduction and analysis of rural Nigeria. Uyo, Akwa

Ibom, Nigeria: Dove Educational Publishers.

Floyd, B. (1972). Planning for rural development in Jamaica: Spatial systems analysis.

Caribbean Quarterly 17(1), 5-13.

Freire, P. (1972). The pedagogy of the oppressed. London, England: Sheed and Ward.

Freire, P. & Smith, M.K. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/etfreir.htm

Gueye, E.F. (1998). Poultry plays an important role in African village life. World Poultry,

14(10), 14-17.

Gueye, E.F. (2003). Gender issues in family poultry production systems in low-income food-

deficit countries. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 18(4), 185-195.

FAO (1991). Community Radio Handbook. Retrieved from www.fao.org/sd/rural.

Idachaba, F.S., (1983). The design of rural development at the grass roots. In Magazine of

Development Outlook, 83: 35.

Idode, J.B. (1989). Rural development and bureaucracy in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Longman.

Igbokwe, E.M. & Ajala, A.A. (1995). Popular Participation in Rural Development in Nigeria. In

E.C. Eboh, C.U. Okoye, & D. Ayichi (Eds.), Rural development in Nigeria: concepts,

processes and prospects. Enugu, Nigeria: Auto-Century Publishing Company Ltd. pp.

241–248.

Igbokwe, E. M. (2001). Integrating rural knowledge systems in agricultural resources and

development. Journal Research 1, 69-71.

82

Igbokwe, E. M. & Enwere, N. J. (2001). Participatory Rural Appraisal in Development

Research. Enugu, Nigeria: New Generation Ventures Ltd. p. 77.

Igbozurike, M. (1977). Selfhelp in the context of strategies for rural development. Paper

presented at the 20th

Conference of the NGA, lfe.

Imoh, A. N., U-James, I. & Nwachukwu, E. O. (2009). Comparative analysis of poverty status of

community participation in rural development projects of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. New

York Science Journal, 2(6).

International Fund for Agricultural. (2002). Community-driven development decision tools for

rural development programmes. Rome, Italy: Author

Jha, U.M. & Jha, N. (2008). Economics of rural development. International Journal of Rural

Studies, 15(1).

Jibowo, A.A. (2000). Rural youth: A vital but untapped human resource. Paper presented at the

AERLS National Rural Youth Workshop. Pp. 17-47.

Jimu, I.M. (2008). Community development: a cross-examination of theory and practice using

experiences in rural Malawi. Africa Development, 33(2), pp. 23–35.

Kapur, K.C. (1982). India – an uncommitted society. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Ltd.

Keen, S. (1994). Hymns to an unknown God: Awakening the spirit in everyday life. New York,

NY: Bantam Books. pp. 221-45.

Lissete, B., 2000. Rural Families program subproject Report. Promoting Rural Youth

Development.

Mabogunje, A.L. (1980). The development process: A spatial perspectives. Hutchinson and Co

Publishers Ltd.

Michener, V. (1998). The participatory approach: contradiction and co-optation in Burkina Faso.

World Development, 26 (12), pp. 2105-18.

Mohammed, O. (1989). Beekeeping in a Gambian village. Community Development Journal,

24(4), 240–246.

Mundi, N. E. (2006). Analysis of poverty alleviation, strategies of rural women in Kogi State,

Nigeria.

Musa, S.D. & Ifatimehin, O.O. (n.d.). Community participation. Victoria Island, Lagos, Nigeria:

National Open University of Nigeria.

Neocosmos, M. (1998). From peoples‘ politics to state politics: Aspects of national liberation in

South Africa. In Olukoshi, A.O. (Eds.), Politics of Opposition in Contemporary Africa.

Uppsala, Sweden: NAI.

83

Nyamnjoh, F.B. (2002). A child is one person‘s only in the womb: Domestication, agency and

subjectivity in the Cameroonian grassfields. In R. Werbner (Eds.), Postcolonial

Subjectivities in Africa. London, England: Zed Books. pp. 111–138.

Ogbodo, P. A. (2002) Mobilization and participation of rural people for community development

in Ngwo Community, Enugu State. B. Agric. Project, Department of Agricultural

Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ojobo, A. (2006) Making poverty in Riverine Communities. A Paper presented at the National

Conference for Riverine Communities in Nigeria. Lokoja, Nigeria.

Okwakpam, I.N. (2010). Analysis of the activities of community development associations in

rural transformation in Emohua Town, Nigeria. International Journal of Rural Studies,

17(1).

Olatunbosun, D. (1971). Western Nigerian farm settlements: An appraisal. Journal of

Developing Areas, 5(1), 417-428.

Olawepo, R.A. (1997). Participatory rural appraisal technique in resettlement planning.

University of llorin.

Olawepo, R.A. (1998). Self-helps in the context of rural, development strategies: An example

from a rural Nigerian environment. Journal of Arts and Social Science, 1(1).

Ogundele, J.A. (2002). Integrated rural development strategies in Nigeria. In O.A. Ibitoye (Eds.),

Rural environment and sustainable development. (pp. 283-287). Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti, Nigeria:

Petoa Educational Publishers.

Otite, O. (1994). Sociology: Theory and applied. Malthouse Press.

Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in urban renewal and rehabilitation: Comments on

theory and practices. Community Development Journal, 16, 105-117

Page, B. (2002). Accumulation by dispossession: Communities and water privatisation in

Cameroon. Paper presented at the PRINWASS First International Conference on the theme

‗Meaningful Interdisciplinarity‘: Challenges and Opportunities for Water Research, School

of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford. 24–25 April.

Passmore, J. (1972). The national policy of community development in Rhodesia. Salisbury,

Rhodesia: University of Rhodesia.

Pearse, A. & Stiefel, M. (1994). Cost and benefits in participation. In D. Western & R. Michael

(Eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community Based Conservation.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Peck, M. S. (1998). The different drum: community making and peace. New York, NY:

Touchstone Books. pp. 59-76.

Pitt, D. (1976). Development from below, anthropologist and development situations. Hague:

Paris Mouton Press Ltd.

84

Raymond, P. (1974). Community ideology: An essay in applied social philosophy. London,

England: Routledge. Boston: Kegan Paul Ltd.

Reid, J.N. (2000). How People Power Brings Substantial Benefits to Communities. Washington,

DC: USDA Rural Development Office, Office of Community Development.

Palen, J.J. (2004). The urban world (7th

ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,

Seers, D. (1969). The meaning of development. International Development Review, 4.

Seers, D (1977). The new meaning of development. International Development Review, 3.

Singh, K. (1999). Rural development: Principle, policies and management, New Delhi, India:

Sage.

Streeten, Burk, Shahid J, Ulltaq, Huks, Nernon, Sterrart & Frances 1981. First Things First:

Meeting Basic Human Needs in Developing Countries. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Streeten, P. (1977). The distinctive features of a basic needs approach to development.

International Development Review 19(3), pp. 8-16.

Tönnies, F. (2002). Community and society: Gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. Mineola, NY: Dover

Publications, Inc.

Uphoff, N. (1985) Fitting projects to people. In M. M. Carnea (Eds.), Putting People First.

Sociological Variables in Rural Development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

pp. 359-395.

Van Heck, B. (2003). Participatory Development: Guidelines on Beneficiary Participation in

Agricultural and Rural Development. Rome, Italy: FAO

Warburton, D. (1998). A passionate dialogue: Community and sustainable development. In D.

Warburton (Eds.), Community and Sustainable Development, London, England: Earthscan

Publishing Ltd.

World Bank (1995). Contributions of People‘s Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water

Supply Project. Research Methodology and Project Description. Washington, DC: Author.

Worpole, K. and Greenhalgh, L. (1996). The freedom of the City, London, England: Demos.

Williams, S.K.T. (1978). Rural development in Nigeria. Ife, Nigeria: University of Ife Press.

Yusuf, M. O. (n.d.). Private sector initiatives and infrastructural development in Nigeria.

85

APPENDIX

COVENANT UNIVERSITY, CANAANLAND

KM 10, IDIROKO ROAD, OTA,

OGUN STATE.

Dear Respondent,

I am a final year student of the department of Sociology, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun state. I

am carrying out a research on ‗Community Self-help Projects and Rural Development: A Study

of Selected Communities in Ado-Odo/Ota Local Government Area. The study is being carried

out to find out the relevance of community self-help projects to rural development. The

information to be gathered is absolutely for the purpose of the research. All the information

provided will be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Thank you for your cooperation,

Osinubi, Oluwatobi O.

SECTION A – DEMOGRAPHIC/SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

1. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )

2. Age: Below 30 years ( ) 31-45 years ( ) 46-60 years ( ) 61 years and above ( )

3. Marital status: Single ( ) Married ( ) Divorced ( ) Separated ( )

4. Occupation: Civil servant ( ) Business ( ) Farming ( ) Self-employed ( ) Others (specify)

____________________

5. Religion: Christianity ( ) Islam ( ) Traditional ( ) Others (specify) _________________

6. Educational Qualification: Primary ( ) Secondary ( ) Tertiary ( ) No formal education ( )

SECTION B – COMMUNITY SELF-HELP AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

7. Which community do you belong to? _____________________________

8. How long have been resident in the community? 6 months ( ) 1 year ( ) 2 years ( ) 3 years and

above ( )

9. Is there any sign of development in your community? Yes ( ) No ( )

10. If yes, what are the major developments?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

11. Have self-help projects influenced the development of this community? Yes ( ) No ( )

12. What are some of the self-help projects being executed in your community?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

86

13. In your own opinion, what are the major problems faced by the community self-help projects?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

SECTION C – INSENSITIVITY OF GOVERNMENT TO RURAL COMMUNITIES AND

RURAL DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

14. Has government offered any assistance in the execution of the community self-help projects?

Yes ( ) No ( )

15. Has government intervention brought about development in the community? Yes ( ) No ( )

16. In what ways have government assisted in the implementation of these projects?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

17. Do social clubs and non-government organizations play effective roles in the development of this

community? Yes ( ) No ( )

18. If yes, what are some of those roles?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

SECTION D – PEOPLE’S WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN SELF-HELP PROJECTS

AND LEVEL OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

19. Do you think people's attitude towards community development is a problem to rural

development? Yes ( ) No ( )

20. What do you think are the barriers that hinder the enhancement of rural development?

Religion ( ) Economy ( ) Political ( ) Cultural ( ) others (specify) ______________________

21. In what ways have community self-help projects contributed to the development of the educational

sector in this community?

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

22. Do you think self-help projects have any effect on agriculture in this area? Yes ( ) No ( )

23. How often do religious bodies and social organizations play prominent role in the

development of the community?

_________________________________________________________________________