ABSTRACT
Gender
and perception of poverty in Surulere Local Government Area of Lagos State is
the focus of this study. The main objectives of the study were to examine the
way men and women perceive poverty and to understand the gender-based
differences in the perception of poverty and to explore the effects of poverty
coping strategies with/without taking into account the gender-based differences
in perceptions of poverty and to assess
the impact of intra household inequalities on household welfare and to
examine factors influencing poverty among gender. A Feminist theory was
employed to further embellish the research work. Focus Group Discussion was
conducted on thirty respondents that comprise of men and women residing in
Surulere Local Government Area of Lagos. This research work checked if there
are similarities and differences in the way men and women perceive poverty. The findings indicate that there is indeed a
relationship between gender and perception of poverty in Surulere Local
Government Area of Lagos State. After relevant discussion on the topic, it was
discovered that there are similarities and differences in the way men and women
perceive poverty. It was also found that men and women employ different poverty
coping strategies. It was also found that impact of intra-household
inequalities on household welfare is very high and a balance between men and
women in the house-hold welfare is glamour for by the respondents. It was also
discovered that there is indeed a relationship between the perception of
factors responsible for poverty by men and women in Surulere Local Government.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Title page
Certification
Dedication
Acknowledgement
Abstract
Table of content
CHAPTER
ONE
1.0 Background to the study
1.1 Statement of the Problem
1.2 Research Questions
1.3 Objective of study
1.4 Significance of Study
1.5 Scope and Delimitation of the Study
1.6 Definition of Terms
CHAPTER
TWO
LITERATURE
REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.0 Introduction
2.1 literature Review
2.2 Theoretical Orientation
2.3 Conceptual Framework
2.4 Hypotheses/Proposition
CHAPTER
THREE
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
3.1 The Study Population
3.2 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure
3.3 Research Instrument and Data
Collection Methods
3.4 Data Analysis Methods.
3.5 Field Experience
CHAPTER
FOUR
DATA
ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Socio-Demographic Characteristic of
Respondents
4.2 Result
4.3 Discussion of Findings
CHAPTER
FIVE
SUMMARY,
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.0 Summary
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendation
5.3 References
5.4 Appendix
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
It
is evident based on the previous research carried out on gender and poverty
that there is no definition but definitions of gender and poverty. It can also
be deduced that a lot of research has been carried out on gender and poverty
but little has been done on gender and perception of poverty especially from
gender perspective.
The
interest in analysing the phenomenon of poverty from a gender perspective is
rooted in the international women’s movement and it is based on the need to
recognize that poverty affects men and women in a different way. It is possible
to identify the gender factors that increase or decrease the probability of
individuals experiencing poverty, and how the characteristics of poverty are
different for men and women.
Moreover,
a gender perspective enhances the conceptualization of poverty because it goes
beyond a descriptive analysis to look at the causes of poverty. It approaches
poverty as a process, thereby giving it a more dynamic perspective. In
addition, a gender perspective contributes to the design of policies allowing
measures to be directed at the severest poverty and the most vulnerable
populations and these populations are women.
Notable
advances have been made in the theoretical development of both concepts over
the last few decades. In the case of poverty, although the most frequent
definition refers to the lack of income, different approaches have emerged as
regards its conceptualization and measurement.
Altimir(2000).
poverty is a “situational syndrome in which the associated factors include Under
consumption, malnutrition, precarious living conditions, low educational
levels, poor sanitary conditions, an unstable position in the productive
apparatus, feelings of discouragement and anomaly, little participation in the
mechanisms of social integration and perhaps adherence to a particular scale of
values which differs to some extent from that of the rest of society” (Altimir,
2000).
Poverty is associated with the
undermining of a range of key human attributes, including health. The poor are
exposed to greater personal and environmental health risks, are less well
nourished, have less information and are less able to access health care; they
thus have a higher risk of illness and disability. Conversely, illness can
reduce household savings, lower learning ability, reduce productivity, and lead
to a diminished quality of life, thereby perpetuating or even increasing
poverty.
Poverty is often defined in
absolute terms of low income less than US$2 a day, for example. But in reality,
the consequences of poverty exist on a relative scale. The poorest of the poor,
around the world, have the worst health. Within countries, the evidence shows
that in general the lower an individual’s socioeconomic position the worse
their health. There is a social gradient in health that runs from top to bottom
of the socioeconomic spectrum. This is a global phenomenon, seen in low, middle
and high income countries.
Poverty according to business
dictionary poverty can be defined as a Condition
where people's basic needs
for food,
clothing, and shelter are
not being met.
And the concept of gender, as a
theoretical and methodological approach to the cultural construction of sexual
differences that alludes the inequalities between the female and male sexes and
to the way the two aspects relate to each other, has become an increasingly
important category of analysis.
Gender refers to the personal
sexual identity of an individual, regardless of the person's biological and outward
sex. How people define masculinity and femininity can vary based on the
individual's background and surrounding culture. Differing societal
expectations in different cultures establish the behavioral, psychological and
physical attributes that are associated one gender or another.
Gender
is defined by FAO as ‘the relations between men and women, both perceptual and
material. Gender is not determined biologically, as a result of sexual
characteristics of either women or men, but is constructed socially. It is a
central organizing principle of societies, and often governs the processes of
production and reproduction, consumption and distribution’ (FAO, 2002). Despite
this definition, gender is often misunderstood as being the promotion of women
only. However, as we see from the FAO definition, gender issues focus on women
and on the relationship between men and women, their roles, access to and
control over resources, division of labour, interests and needs. Gender
relations affect household security, family well-being, planning, production
and many other aspects of life (Bravo-Baumann, 2003).
Much has been written about gender and
about poverty. It is arguable, however, that the relationships between the two
have not been adequately understood. Nor are they being reflected in policy
prescriptions. At one level, the relationship between gender disadvantage and
poverty appears to be quite straightforward, as in the tendency to equate
women, or female-headed households, with the "vulnerable" or the
poor. Alternatively, "investing" in female education is seen as an
efficient means of reducing poverty and enhancing growth. While these arguments
may have some empirical validity, although to varying degrees in different
contexts, the gender analysis of poverty also needs to unravel how gender
differentiates the social mechanisms leading to poverty. This is an important
question, which has received relatively little attention in recent policy
debates. Another important part of the story is to understand how these limited
views of the relationships between gender and poverty are being shaped by the
emerging poverty models and (neoliberal) policy prescriptions for poverty
alleviation—the emphasis on (female) primary education as the route out of
poverty being one example, and the residualist "safety nets" for
women and other "vulnerable" groups being another.
Whether measured by income/consumption or the broader array of
entitlements/capabilities indicators, the incidence of poverty among women
appears to be on the increase, according to many increasing family
break-up, low productivity, a deteriorating environment, the economic recession
of the 1980s (including economic crisis and structural adjustment policies in
the developing countries), the market transition in the former socialist
countries, and “welfare reform” in the United States. The adverse effects of
these factors on women are in turn exacerbated by intra-household inequalities
which leave women unprepared for and especially vulnerable to socio-economic downturns,
changes in marital status, or natural disasters. WID/GAD researchers. The main
factors behind this trend are population growth, the emigration of men, increasing family break-up, low productivity, a
deteriorating environment, the economic recession of the 1980s (including
economic crisis and structural adjustment policies in the developing
countries), the market transition in the former socialist countries, and
“welfare reform” in the United States. The adverse effects of these factors on
women are in turn exacerbated by intra-household inequalities which leave women
unprepared for and especially vulnerable to socio-economic downturns, changes
in marital status, or natural disasters.
The perception is growing around the globe that poverty is
becoming increasingly feminized, that is, that an increasing proportion of the
world’s poor are female. A 1992 UN report found that “the number of rural women
living in poverty in the developing countries has increased by almost 50% over
the past 20 years to an awesome 565 million, 374 million of them in Asia, and
129 million in Sub-Saharan Africa. While poverty among rural men has increased
over the last 20 years by 30%, among women it has increased by 48%” (Power,
2000, p. 5). The feminization of poverty was a key concern of the women’s
caucus of the World Summit on Social Development. According to the Platform for
Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in September
1995, “More than one billion people in the world today, the great majority of
whom are women, live in unacceptable conditions of poverty, mostly in the
developing countries” (United Nations, 1996, p. 37). Buvinic (2000) has
written: “Women now account for a growing percentage of the world’s poor.” And
a publication of the United Nations Development Programme states: “70% of the
world’s poor are women (Buvinic 2000).
According
to Haydar (2005: 240) a “significant number of people in the world today live under
conditions of extreme poverty and most of them lack access to basic goods such
as food, water and health care”. In addition, “everyone agrees that the
conditions of the poor are atrocious" (Haydar, 2005: 240). We therefore
urgently need to increase our efforts to reduce poverty. At the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) representatives also recognized that the world
is at a crossroads and that people will have to unite in the fight against
poverty. The adoption of the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable
Development was also a confirmation of the commitment of the people of the
world from both rich and poor countries to the United Nations (UN) Millennium Declaration.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that emerged from the UN Millennium
Declaration were very specific, with clear measurable targets such as reducing
poverty among the more than 1 billion poor people worldwide by 2015 (Human
Development
Report, 2005: 17).
Despite
widespread poverty and the commitment from the vast majority of countries there
is no agreement as to who is supposed to do what and when to achieve the goal
of alleviating poverty. It is generally reasoned that responsibility rests at
one of two levels.
In
a given location the responsibility of extreme poverty is attributed to
domestic conditions such as the institutions, policies, practices and values of
that location. In addition, national governments normally help local
governments to improve the living conditions of people. However, there is also
a view that global institutions and the practices and policies of various
international actors must play a significant role in addressing extreme poverty
(Haydar, 2005: 240).
From
this perspective the fight against poverty requires the promotion of
institutional and policy changes both at the local level and at international
level. It is however difficult to determine which of the domestic or global
institutions are more responsible to lead the fight against poverty.
Nevertheless, I believe that international and multi-national organisations
need to participate and contribute more to poverty projects. For example, aid
donors representing the rich nations need to be increasingly interested in how
poor people in poor countries understand poverty. However, it must be
emphasized that addressing poverty from a global angle does not imply the
rejection of the measurement of the impoverished local circumstances people are
living in such as lack of access to food, clean water and shelter (Bastiaensen,
De Herdt & D’Exelle, 2005).
Indeed,
I want to reiterate that poverty eradication campaigns should be approached
from both a global and domestic perspective. Accordingly, global initiatives
should establish factors that may impact on the well-being of communities,
while governments at the domestic level should assist local communities to
fight against local conditions that may prevent them from securing their basic
necessities. A key question in this regard is what local communities themselves
think contribute to poverty in their communities.
Although
poverty is considered to be a universal problem, it is especially pronounced in
Africa (Human Development Report 2005: 21). Note the 2003 Human Development
Report which reported that 25 of the world’s poorest countries are all in
Africa and that most of these countries are located in Sub-Saharan Africa, with
countries such as Uganda and Ethiopia receiving very low rankings in terms of
human development (Human Development Report 2003: 200).
To
further demonstrate the impact of poverty on the African continent the results
of the Human Development Index (HDI) showed that twelve of the 18 countries
that have registered lower scores on the Human Development Index (HDI) in 2003
than in 1990 are in Sub-Saharan Africa (Human Development Report, 2005: 21).2
Southern Africa recorded the steepest declines with South Africa falling 35
places and Botswana 21places. This decline on the HDI are mostly contributed to
economic stagnation, slow progress in education and the spread of HIV / AIDS
(Human Development Report, 2005: 22). An alternative approach to understand the
impact of poverty is to look at levels of undernourishment. Again high levels
of undernourishment were found in Sub-Saharan Africa, with 24 of the 45
countries in Africa overall indicating that more than 25% of their population
is undernourished (Human Development Report, 2003: 200).
It
is evident that Africa is confronted with a major poverty problem and needs to
increase its efforts to lessen the devastating impact it has on millions of
people. Numerous initiatives have been implemented in recent years, including
those by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and various debt
relief schemes but it is uncertain whether these initiatives will meet the
Millennium Development Goals (Williams, 2005: 532). The British Prime Minister
Tony Blair’s Commission for Africa suggested that three changes were needed if
Africa wants to succeed in the battle against poverty. There must be continued
improvements in governance in Africa, a substantial increase in aid from the
international community and a significant change in the way donors do business
in Africa (Williams, 2005: 532). There are however some studies that have found
that although foreign aid has increased, real per capita growth has not been
present and that increased investment did not enable poor countries to break
the vicious cycle of poverty (Erixon, 2003: 27). For example, aid has not
boosted economic growth in countries such as Kenya and Tanzania (Erixon, 2003:
28). The overwhelming opinion among investors is that political stability and
good governance is needed for any investment to make a significant return.
All
considered, African countries need to build systems of good governance which
are effective and accountable to Africa’s people and simultaneously address
areas of concern such as health, education, agriculture, infrastructure and
corruption.
The roots of the special poverty problems of
African women are to be found not in globalization but in restricted property
rights, weak governance and frequency of civil conflict--themselves
interrelated. The economic vulnerability of poor African women flows mostly
from their weakly defined property rights to major productive assets, such as
land or cattle, in the many countries where a combination of custom and laws
restrict their ability to own and manage land. Perversely, restrictions on
women's rights to land coexist with the reality that women are the main
cultivators undertaking about 80 percent of the work in food storage and
transportation, 90 percent of the work of hoeing and weeding, and 60 percent of
the work in harvesting and marketing. (International Food Policy Research
Institute 2000).
The
‘feminization of poverty’ is a feature of much of the developing world, with
females accounting for half of the world’s population but 70 percent of the
poor (Moghadam, 2005).
Major causal factors of poverty among women in Sub-Saharan Africa—mainly rural
women in the countries of the tropical belt. 3 Of course, there are significant
differences in the condition of different groups of women in the various countries.
However, they share a common predicament, rooted in the interaction of three
major factors: weak governance, traditional restrictions on women property
rights, and violent civil conflict. Although each of these factors has been
present at one time or another elsewhere, it is only in Sub-Saharan Africa that
all three have been present in contemporary times--as shown among others by
Collier, 2007, Cornwall, 2005, and Gordon, (2005).
The
incidence of poverty in Nigeria has been on the increase since 1980. The
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2007) revealed that the incidence of
poverty increased sharply both between 1980 and 1985 (from 28.1 percent to
46.3percent) and between 1992 and 1996 (from 42.7 percent to 65.6 percent)
though there were declines between 1985 and 1992 (from 46.3 percent to 42.7
percent) and between 1996 and 2004 (from 65.6 percent to 54.4 percent).
The
28.1 percent figure for 1980 translated to 17.7 million poor persons whereas
there were34.7 million poor persons in 1985. Despite the drop in poverty level
in 1992, the population in poverty was 39.2 million, while by 1996, the number
of poor persons in the country had increased sharply to 67.1 million. However,
while the poverty incidence rate reduced from 65.6percent in 1996 to 54.4
percent in 2004, the number of poor people increased significantly from about
67 million people to about 70 million people. This large-scale poverty has led
to great deterioration in human conditions.
The reasons for
the worsening poverty situation between 1980 and 1985 were multiple According
to World Bank (2000). Some of these include:
·
The
falling oil revenue arising from sharp decreases in the international price of
oil coupled with decreased production—oil revenue crashed from US$26 billion in
1980to US$6 billion in 1986;
·
The
Nigerian government seeing these declines as temporary and continuing to borrow
externally against the expectations of a return of higher oil prices, resulting
in debt overhang; and
·
The slow,
even negative, growth in the economy, especially in agriculture, which resulted
from government policies that induced adverse relative price changes,
encouraged imports, including food, thereby stifling nonoil production.
In
Nigeria today, most people subsist on a mere N150 (slightly more than $1) a
day, hence the tag: a potentially rich country with a poor population. A large
proportion of Nigerians lack adequate health care, shelter and remunerative
jobs. Nigerian women are the most affected being marginalized in decision
making process, employment, economic opportunities and access to credit. Most
of them suffer from illiteracy, high maternal mortality, low income and poverty
(CBN/World Bank, 2000).
Statistics
on poverty in Nigeria indicate that 70 per cent of poor Nigerians are women. Indeed
more than a half of rural women live below the nationally defined poverty line,
lacking access to basic education, decent nutrition, adequate health and social
services. Nigerian women, like their counterparts in developing countries
perform complex multiple roles as mothers, workers and managers of households,
taking care of their husbands, children and members of their extended families.
They perform the majority of the work in food processing and dominate the rural
and urban informal sector activities. Yet less than 20 percent of women own
their own farm lands, fewer than 10 percent have access to agricultural inputs
and less than 5 percent have access to agricultural credits to enhance their
productivity and incomes (Chinsman, 2005). Women in the towns are engaged
predominantly in the informal sector, in commerce and distributive trade.
In
Nigeria, poverty is concentrated among unemployed youths, small farm households
headed by informal sector workers, women and elderly persons without social
safety nets. Poverty is a state of deprivation and is manifested in illiteracy,
lack of access to water, poor housing and declining purchasing power. Poverty
has deepened in Nigeria since the 80s and many Nigerians, especially women, are
worse off today than they were in the 60s.theincidence,, depth and severity of
poverty have tasked to the limit the ability of the extended family to serve as
a safety net to the extent that poverty reduction strategies in the country are
synonymous with economic growth and development strategies. Hence poverty
reduction is one of the most urgent tasks facing the government. The critical
challenge is, first, to have a clear understanding of the specific causes of,
in this case female poverty, at the micro level, and to develop appropriate
strategies to reduce and in the long term eradicate poverty.
According
to Ilori (2001), a total of N 1.675 billion has been disbursed as loans to
cooperative groups. Despite this huge allocation to FEAP, it has not produced
the needed relief. This is probably due to the hijacking of the program by
unintended beneficiaries who are not poor but are able to comply with the
guidelines for the award of the credit. In addition, one can conclude that the
program (FEAP) was not conceived on any rigorous analysis of poverty in
Nigeria.
The
chronically poor has been described by World Bank (2009) as one that do not
have access to adequate shelter (manifested in poor houses and overcrowding),
have only one or two pairs of clothing worn at all times, do extensive physical
work either in the farm or in other occupations and the children in poor
households cannot afford school uniforms and fees and/or transportation costs
to and from school. Therefore, they resort to doing menial jobs like collection
and sale of firewood, hawking of ready to eat food and load carrying in the
markets and other public places.
However,
poverty, which has become pronounced and widespread in Nigeria, was not so
until after the end of the oil boom era which started with the collapse of oil
prices in the international market in the early 1980s. The emergence of oil in
the Nigerian economy in the 1970s made the agricultural sector, which hitherto
was the mainstay of the economy, to be neglected. This was attributed to the
shift in the terms of trade together with the heavy spending in unviable
investments, designed to raise the economy’s productive capacity and human
capital.
Consequently,
farm resources (most especially labor) migrated to the urban areas to supply
the much-needed labor in construction works at a wage higher than what was
obtainable on the farms. Hence, agricultural production fell considerably
making Nigeria (an almost food self-sufficient nation) to become a net importer
of food. Oil also turned Nigeria to a mono-export product economy. In addition,
when oil prices fell (leading to a fall in revenue and per capital income), the
government increased borrowing abroad to sustain its pre-oil shock expenditure pattern
instead of cutting them. As a result, foreign debt accumulated which led to the
short fall in social sector expenditure and consequently, a fall in social
services, making the welfare system to fall apart.
Though
the military government of 1983 introduced across the board budgetary cuts and administrative
restrictions on import and foreign exchange transactions, the welfare status of
the people only increased marginally. This is because of their failure to
address the economy’s structural weakness of low productivity in the
agricultural sector, uncompetitive manufacturing sector, significant trade
distortions, and cumbersome regulatory framework. In 1986, a further collapse
in oil prices to US$14 per barrel made the government adopt the Structural
Adjustment Program (SAP) supported by the World Bank and International Monetary
Fund. This program was coupled with exchange rate and trade policy reforms
aimed at revitalizing the non oil economy especially agriculture with
stabilization policies designed to restore price stability and balance of
payment equilibrium. This policy change brought mixed feelings. The farmers and
agro-allied industries gained from the rise in the prices of food and cash
crops and so were other industries competing with imported goods. However,
other industries depending on Imported raw materials suffered (World Bank).
Furthermore, it was claimed by World Bank that the adjustment brought about a
decrease in poverty with 1.3 million people moving out of poverty and mean per
capita household expenditure rose by 34 percent between1985 and 1992.Since 1992,
the country witnessed the expansion of fiscal deficit, mismanagement of public resources
and half-hearted implementation of structural reforms leading to economic
crises. But the new government in 1994, instead of tackling the causes of the
mounting economic crises, attempted to suppress its symptoms by centralizing
all foreign exchange transactions, maintaining an increasingly over-valued
official exchange rate, setting up of committee to nation foreign exchange to
the private sector, and placing a ceiling on interest rates significantly below
the prevailing inflation levels made poverty to be on the rise again.
The
consequent drastic fall in human welfare conditions made the federal government
in 1994to launch a poverty assessment in partnership with the World Bank,
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the Overseas Development
Administration (ODA) now Department for International Development (DFID). The
results of the poverty assessment led to the development of a strategy for
poverty relief by setting up a Poverty Alleviation Program Development
Committee (PAPDC). A draft national strategy called Community Action Program for
Poverty Alleviation (CAPPA) was formulated. By 1997, the Family Economic
Advancement Program (FEAP) was started with Decree No. 11 of August to reduce
poverty in Nigeria. The FEAP was established to stimulate economic activities
by providing loans directly to Nigerians as the capital required to set and run
cottage industries. The design and manufacturing of appropriate plants,
machinery, and equipment of the industries are to be sourced locally.
Since1997, the federal government has allocated a sizeable chunk of resources
to this program. In1997 and 1998, a sum of N7.6 billion3 loan able fund was
allocated to the program. By 1997, the program’s loan able fund was boosted by
N1.1 billion, bringing the total loan-able find at its disposal to N8.7
billion.
The
country since the inception of democratic government in 1994 has not left out
the effort to
reduce
poverty. An adhoc poverty
reduction program, Poverty Alleviation Program, (PAP) was
implemented
in 2000 basically to provide jobs for the poor unemployed for a time period. However,
this was replaced by the National Poverty Eradication Program (NAPEP) in 2001
to coordinate and monitor all poverty eradication efforts at federal, state,
and local government levels. It also assists the federal government to
formulate poverty reduction policies nationwide, and intervenes in specific
poverty reduction areas to provide social protection through economic empowerment
as may be needed. However, despite all these, poverty has continued to be on the
increase in Nigeria.
Rural
Nigerians principally draw their livelihoods from agriculture. However, many
rural households cannot earn sustainable livelihoods based on their incomes
from agriculture or from many of the other economic activities they pursue.
According
to Omonona (2006), those rural households in the lowest quintile group receive
about 49 percent of their total per capita income from nonfarm employment and
about 51 percent from farm employment (see table below). In specific terms, the
percent of total per capita income, among the poorest quintile, from farm self-employment
is highest (34 percent). This is followed by nonfarm wage employment
(28percent), nonfarm self-employment (21 percent) and farm wage employment (17
percent).
However,
as one moves from the lowest to the highest quintile, nonfarm employment
becomes a more important source of income than the farm employment as the
percent contribution of nonfarm employment increased to 59 percent while those
of farm employment have decreased to 41 percent as we move from the lowest to
the highest quintile. The share of nonfarm wage employment in total per capita
income increased from 28 to 33 percent while that of nonfarm self-employment
increased from 21 percent to 25 percent. As for farm income, the share of total
per capita income from farm wage employment decreased drastically from about 17
percent to about 9 percent. That of farm self-employment decreased marginally
from 34 to 33 percent.
Broad
efforts to enhance the productivity, profitability, and sustained growth of the
rural economy of Nigeria will be necessary to enhance the resilience of
Nigerian agricultural households and to lift them out of poverty, hunger, and
malnutrition. Work under the Agricultural Policy Support Facility (APSF) aims
to ensure that vulnerable rural households benefit from agricultural and rural
development and economic growth. The focus of the research is vulnerable
households that pursue agricultural livelihoods. The sources of vulnerability
such households face includes physical, related to health and nutritional
status, and economic, related to the sustainability and efficacy of the rural
livelihood strategies pursued by household members. The characteristics of
these households, as well as the shocks they face and the resources they can
draw upon, will differ across Nigeria. IFPRI’s Poverty, Health and Nutrition
Division supported the APSF’s objectives by commissioning a review of knowledge
on poverty and rural development in Nigeria. The report aimed not only to help
identify the knowledge base, but also the gaps in information needed to support
evidence-based policymaking.
1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The
poverty experienced by Nigerians is pervasive, multifaceted, and chronic,
affecting the lives
of
a large proportion of the populace. The Nigerian situation presents a paradox
because the country is rich but the people are poor. This has been captioned,
‘poverty in the midst of plenty’ by the World Bank (World Bank 2006).
The
feminization of poverty and the specific impact of poverty on women is the
result of inequalities embedded in norms, traditions and practices that hinder
women’s access to critical resources such as land and credit. These curtail
their inheritance rights and constrain their political participation. The
causes and outcomes of poverty are highly differentiated between women and men,
particularly because of persistent unequal access to, and control over,
productive resources and decision-making processes. Yet, traditional
conceptualizations of poverty consistently neglect to take this into account,
resulting in policies and programmes, which fail to improve the lives of poor
women and men and their families. A focus on gender equality is essential for
adequate analysis of the causes and impacts of poverty and the identification
of effective strategies to eradicate poverty. Central to such a focus is
attention to gender perspectives, including the equitable participation of
women (Aina, 2008).
International institutions such as the African Development Bank and the World
Bank have promoted land registration and titling for the poor, partly in order
to provide them with the collateral to qualify for credit, which can then be
invested in income-producing activities. However, most such initiatives have
not adequately considered the customary restrictions on women’s ownership and
control of land, and may have inadvertently perpetuated gender inequality and
aggravated women poverty. (Esfahani, 2006.)
“Affirmative
efforts” are required, both in the enforcement of new legislation and to
address gender-specific disadvantages in effective and concrete ways. Formal
reforms are not sufficient to lessen poverty among African women. It is
important to note that such efforts would not only improve the situation of
poor women, but also have a positive impact on the effectiveness of national
policies. For example, attention to gender differences in property rights can
improve the outcomes of natural resource management policies. In order for
environmental protection to be effective, it is important to identify the
nature of the rights to land, trees, and water held by women and men, and how
these rights are acquired and transmitted between users (Meinzen-Dick, et al,
2000. See also Lastaria-Cornhiel, 2005).
Viewing
from what has been written above, the state and value put upon the feminine
gender, in the past and present is enumerated. However, this research work
tends to evaluate gender and perception of poverty in Surulere local government
especially as a function of women participation and involvement and fill the
lacuna. Though there are lots of research works on gender as a whole, but a
little or no adequate attention is given to the area of poverty from gender
perspective using Surulere local government as a case study. Thus, this
research work is unique
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following research questions will be asked and answers provided will
be thoroughly analyse and subject to discussion:
1.
What do people
perceive as poverty?
2.
What factors
influence poverty among gender?
3.
What are the
coping strategies of gender poverty?
4.
What are the
effects of gender inequality in the household welfare?
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
Specifically, the
study seeks among issues:
1.
To understand the gender-based differences
in the perception of poverty.
2.
To explore the effects of poverty coping
strategies with/without taking into account the gender-based differences in
perceptions of poverty.
3.
To Assess
the impact of intra household inequalities on household welfare
4.
To examine factors influencing poverty
among gender.
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
The
purpose of every research work is to add to already existing knowledge and it
is evident that a lot of research has been carried out on gender and poverty
but nonetheless, this research work will systematically look into gender and
its link with poverty perception in Surulere local government by contributing
useful findings to the holistic problems of women and their counterparts in the
society.
According
to previous research carried out on gender and poverty perception, it has been
asserted that females suffer more in almost all societies of the world
especially Sub-Sahara Africa which is as a result of the fact that societies
are Patrilocal and Patrilineal in Nature.
This
exercise or study aims at contributing to the body of knowledge that exists in
the area of gender and poverty by assessing the attribution of poverty from
gender perspective. The findings of the study will provide information to
policy makers to what the lay person consider as poverty and gender, and that
will help to develop the appropriate policy to solve the issue of poverty and
gender challenges.
The
findings are also expected to serve as a reference material for future
researchers. The findings will also contribute to theories of poverty and
gender.
1.5 SCOPE AND DELMITATION OF STUDY
This
research work aims to examining the relationship between gender and perception
of poverty in Surulere local government of Lagos State, since it is impossible
to cover all gender plights in Nigeria due to constraints of physical energy,
cost, time and analysis of data.
The
scope of this study will be limited to Surulere Local Government. A case study
of Surulere local government of Lagos State only. The study will specifically
focus on men and women poverty. Hence, results may suffer from external
validity. There is the tendency that some respondents will respond in a
socially desirable way will tend to bias result against findings.
1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS
GENDER:
Is the social construction of the expectation, priviledges, behavior and
constraints related or associated with those called or identified as male or
female. John Money (1955), gave the modern academic sense of gender in the
context of social roles of men and women and this was popularized and developed
by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards.
POVERTY:
Is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or
money. According to CBN (2001), the causes of poverty can be grouped broadly
into two: low economic growth and market imperfections.
ABSOLUTE POVERTY OR DESTITUTION:
Refers to the deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food,
water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education.
RELATIVE POVERTY:Is defined
contextually as economic inequality in the location or society in which people
live.
PERCEPTION:
(From the Latin Perceptio, Percipio) is the organization, identification and
interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the
environment. All perception involves signals in the nervous system which in
turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs.
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete project material
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects
FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!
+(234) 0814 780 1594
Login To Comment