~4. 0~.

û-2
. i., .

1
t
011
/1

3746
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOR DEVELOPMENT D~ NKWERRE/ISU

LOCAL GOVE:RNMENT AREA OF IMO STATE

,·.

E
BY

U
EQ
GEORGE OKECHUKWU OJI

TH
REG. NO. IPA/PSA/86/07
O
r-Pr_o_g-ra--m-.r_n_e_d_e_P_e-ti-le_s_S_u_b-ve.ntions ]
LI
/.\RRIVEE
~.S::_-·
.~J
IB

. '~nreglstré sous lo no
,,·1 a•9 .
· .-=-· lflAAS~-- ·
-B

A THESIS

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFII.MENT OF THE REQUIREMF:NT

IA
R

FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF SCIENCE.DEGREE IN POLICY STUDIES

ES

AND ADMINISTRATION
D

DEPARTMa~T OF POLITICAL SCIE:I!CE

O
C

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR, CALABAR.

(MARCH, 1~91)
 il

D E C L A R A T I O N

We declare that this thesis on CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOR

. DEVELOPMENT IN NKWERRE/ISU LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF IMO STATE

is an original work wri tten by George Okechukwu Oji and was

carried under our supervision. We have examined and found

the research work adequate and acceptable for the award of

degree of master of science.

E
NAME SIGNATURE

U
--i_::_.~j
~~~-:+--
EQ
1. DR. C.O. BASSEY
ACTING HEAD, Di::PT.
OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
(Cl-ITEF SUPERVISOR)
p
TH .- .
1\
·f/-_LJ .../._JM_.r[ ,ol-< (;,U!,, 2
1 1
\ (.-, . î Li , ,
IO
QUALIFICATIONS~--~~~-----~---~~-~------~
L
IB

PROF. E,M, ABASIEKONG~!:.~~;;f:Jt,::>-

-B

PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY
( SUPERVISOR)

- p". j) , __(!.e_M\ ~lsJ.E.)--------. -

IA

QUALIFICATIONS
R
ES
D
O
C
 .. • 1

iii

DEDICATION

E
U
EQ
TH
This work is dedicated ta Chibuzo and Ezinwanne,
IO
who endured grievous deprivations ta enable me graduate;
(. ,,
L

and ta Late Professor Patrick Ollawa for various scholarly .

.f
IB

inspirations.
-B
IA
R
ES
D
O
C
J
r
1

·1 iv
f 1

l
1
AŒNOWLEDGEMENT .
'
1· 1

'.
1,
ff 1

r.·
My sincer-2, special thanks go to my Chief Supervisor,
1

Dr. c.o. Bassey whos~ dedication, love and advice throughout

·1 this research were most in~~luable •. My other ~upervisors,

1
,,
f,
Professer E.M. Abasiekong and Dr. Chibuzo Ogbuagu deserve
! special thanks. They showed sympathetic understanding to
l my plight, and considering thei~ specialty, this research

E
benefi ted immensely from their weal th of experiences. I am

U
EQ
very grateful. Only the Lord, in his providence will
·,
.l recompense.
1\• TH
J
My iridebtedness also go to Dr. c.o. -Ejimo.for, of the
IO
Depar·tment of Public Administration and Local Governm~t,
L

at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka; who, while on

IB
-B

Sabbatical at the Insti tute of Public Policy and

i1.. Adminlstration helped in the design_ and choice of question~

IA

in the questionnaire used in this study. Mr. Clifford

R

1 1

Nwagu,1 who was a research Fellow at the Ipsti·tute of P1,.1blic

ES

Poliqi· and Administration, ,,.Uni vèrsi ty of Calabar was most

D
O

helpful in this regard too.

C

May I also extend my profound gratitude to my friends

who helped immensely in various forms in the course of this

work, èspecially the useful discussions we held in.respect

\
of this\ research. I wish specially to thank Dr. Charlie

Soludo of the department of Economies and Mr. Richard Otuokere·

'
\.
\

't
r
l
 V

of the Department of Agricultural extension, both of the

University of Nigeria, Nsukka. I thank them more for the

books and journal publications which they made available to

me and the services of the computer centre of the University

of Nigeria which th_ey secured for me. I am. very grate_ful.

I am greatly indebted to my parents, ancl other members

E
of my family. When this programme draggeà beyond where it

U
was supposed to·stqp, I coul_d not have_survived the rigour

EQ
if not for the continued encouragement .and financial support.

I will always remember your sacrifices.

TH
O
I was able to pursue an indepth study and arialysis of
LI

the issues in..jolved in)~'his. line of enquipy because of the

IB

.. ·,· -~~

research grant awarded· to· .me by the •Council for the Development
-B

of Economie and Social Research in Afric:a 1 (CODESRIA). r am

IA

particularly appreciative of this grant.

R

Lastly, but very impor·tantly 1 · I wish to ex.press my profound

ES

gratitude and praise to .my Lord, wh0 met all 1~y needs according
D

to his riches in glory;

O
C

OJI, G.o.o.
 ' ~
'1
' t
'

vi

and policy preferences~ However, past etforts at decentralisation

have not been effective. Ya:i:-ious reasons. were identi:fied. It ·.

1 :.
was suggested, therefore, .that the legal instruments establishing

the decentralised struc::tures must clearly state the procedures for

1

participatiop and roles of and relationship of officials at various

levels of administration.

The methodology of this research used questionnaire in

elici ting information whic.h was subjected to various. ~tatistical

E
U
techniques to facilitate verifiable deductions. The implication

EQ
of the findings is that policies and strategies àimed at
TH
authentic rural development and realisation of human potentials

are likely .to achieve their objectives if the citizen;=; participate

IO

in the qeneratipg of ideas, formulation and assessment of options

L
IB

and mak~ng choice of means to put the options into effect. The
-B

data revealed that the government has not sincerely ipstituted

IA

measures to enable rural peoples to take part in decision-making

R

for development purposes. It was also noted that the rural

ES

people are not really passive citizens, but are already imbued
D

with the necessary variables like organisational involvement,

O

media exposure and a high <legree of community satisfaction and

C

an appreciable level of interest in local affairs. These

variables were identified as the necessary pre-requisites for

effective mobilisation.

The study recommended the use of local organisations as

the most effective instrument of mobilisation for development.

It is preferred to the use of councillors or representatives;

 1
l

and the use of the meoia-radio, te],evision and newspaper "'7 in

· mobilisation is considered less effective than local organisations.

The hypothesis that personality variables petter explains

participatory orientations was found to·be significant at 0 • .05

level of significance. It was however observed.that certain

'
personality characteristics (such-as sex) are more related to

certain participatory activities than others. Also some variables

E
such as the citizens level interest in communal affairs and sense

U
of persona! efficacy more explains participatory orientations

EQ
of rural people than the demographic variables. Thi~ questions
TH
the i~herent assumption in strategies which are administered
O
without regard ta .the recipients role-situations and socialisation
LI

patterns. It also shows the need to clearly study development

IB

activities and identify which variables need be ernphasized_-

-B

In summary, it was noted that three conditions must be

IA

fulfilled for rural participation to be effective. These are:

R

· (a) a positive orientation to it.by the political leadership

ES

and political system thr.ough effective and functional

,,,
D

devolution of decision-making units to smaller local levels.

O
C

(b) the existence of formal and instituticmalfsed ..prec$res

of integrating local organisations into the planning,,

process, and

(c) the ability and willingness of the people themselves to

participa te·..
 1 '
.r~. ,, '

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Title Page •••••~•••••••,~••••••••••••e••••••• i

Declaration •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ii
' '

Dedication ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iiii

Acknowledgemmt •• • _••••••••••••••••••••••••• li. iv
V
Abstract •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Table of Contents•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• viii
List of Tables-~~···••••••••••••••••••••••••• X

E
List of Figures••••••••••••••••••••••,••••••• Xi

U
CHAPTER ONEI INTRODUCTION 1
························

EQ
1.2 Statement of the Problem ••••••••• 9,
1.3 TH
Purpose of the study •••••••••••••' 13
1.4 Significance of the Study •••••••• ,14
O
1 .. 5 Definition of terms ............... , 15
LI

1.6 Literature Review •••••••••••••••• 19

IB

1.7 Theoretical Framework •••••••••••• 46

-B

1.8 Statement of Hypothesis •••••••••• 57

1.9 Methodology •••••••••••••••••••••• 58
IA

1.10 Research design•••••••••••••••••• 60

R

Ref·erences to Chapt,er one ............. . 64

ES

1, CHAPTER TWO: COMPARATIVE A~YSIS ·oF CITIZEN·

PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT: SOME
D

LESSONS FOR NIGERIA••••••••••••••••••• 70

O

f'
C

Participation in Programme
2.1
development and Implementation .... 72
2.2 Deêentralisation, Participation
and Rural Development: Issues and
procedures ••••••••• '!" • • • • ~ • • • • • • . • • • 77
2.3 References to Chapter two ••••••••• 87

·,.
·r
 . ·,1

•I
1

'I\
i.
1
li ix
\1.

li
1
·1
·.1, CHAPTER THREE: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOR DEVELOP-
··! MENT IN NKWERRE/ISU LOCAL GOVERNMENT ·
AREA: A PRELIMINARY SURVEY •••••••••••• 89

3.1 The State of the art•••••••••••••• 89

3.2 Conditions for Participation •• ,... 92

3o3· Assertions about Participation•••• 99

References to Chapter three •••••••••••• 104

E
CHAPTER FOUR; DATA ANALYSIS: RESULTS AND POLICY

U
IMPLICATIONS••••••••••••••••••••••••••• . 105

EQ
4.1 J::stimating validity and
Reliability of the Scales ••••••••• 105
TH
4.2 Test of Hypotheses •••••••••••••••• 108
O
References to Chapter four ••••••••••••• 117
LI
IB

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND POLICY

-B

RECOMJl.1ENDATI0NS •••••••••••••••• •.,,. ••••• · 1$8

References to chapter five 128

··~·-········
IA

BIBLIOGRAPHY: •••••••••••••••••••••• ·•• •. 129

R
ES

APPENDIX: ••.......•••••..............•.
.,.··
138
D
O
C
 ,1·
1 1 f.
Il:
.,
1'!

LIST OF TABLES

TABLES PAGE

3.1 Classification of Project Sponsorship ... . ... 90

3.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respond.ents 93

E
3.3 Assertions about Participation ••• ..... 101.

U
EQ
4.1 Correlation Matrix .". ... .... . .... ··~ 112

TH
Sex-Role distinctions in Participation:

. ..
O
Mean and standard deviations •••• ••••• 116
LI
IB
-B
IA
R
ES

i
D

1
O

1
f
C

-:.:,.
1
 '•:! '

LIST OF FIGURES xi

PAGE

1.,1 Functional Components of Rural

Development ... ... ... ... ••• . .. 29

'1.2 Dim~nsions of Participation ......... 44

E
1.3 Map of Nk~~re/Isu Local Gover~ent ('.rea •• 58(a)

U
EQ
1.4 Self-Help Community Development projects
TH
in Nkwerre/Isu Local Goverrunent A.rea,

1988/89 ... .-. ... ... ... .. •' 60

L IO
IB

.i
'
-B
IA
R
ES
D

1
O

r
C

'
!'i·
''l'-
r,.
:• :: i ; ..
~: 1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

"No econondc: theory of èeonomic develop-

ment is adequate if it ignores the .
calculating abilities, the entreprenew;al · ·
tendencies or the range of ind.ividual 1
variation fcund among traditional farmers""'

'. ' '.

The ineffectiveness of rural development P91icies in developing

countries to palliate problemfll such as deçlini'19 agricultural

I.l:
1

'!

E
'' productivity, · rural :to urban migration, unemployment,.. hi,gh

U
I'
y

EQ
marginal propensity to import foreign manufactured goods,

~· accumulating foreign debtfll ~ unfav~abie balance of ~ayments,

TH
1·
~ have engaged the attention of governments in many of :the third
IO

r. world nations. For instance, in the 1960 1 s, a period.

t~'
L
IB

I'
referred to as the development dec~de, it was thought that
f' '
-B

!. p~centage increases i~ a c9untry•s gross domestic product

l invariably constitutes development_. The .idea wa\5 that n~t

IA

increases'in grosa national product (GNP) will, foll,owing 1:1\e

R

!,.
~r
ES

1
multiplier effects of government efforts and the tricki~own

1 th!:M)ry, enhance the quality .of\ife of the rural peoples~ This

D

1
i'..'
O

';1
conception was found to be at· variance with:regard to the
C

con<U.tions of the economies of many developing ~ations. 2 In the

.,
\,\'Ords of Patrick Ollawa, "after more than a decade of experimen-

tation with this str~tegy, none of the African States conc~ed

. 3
call, be ~aid to have achieved evem a mo~cum of balanced g~owth"•.

Wh~t:was rea,lly achieved w~s uneven "growth without deve:J_opment."

!··,·.:
·J
!
 2·

JlS a result, redefinitions of the term •development• have

been made to bring into focu~ the rudiments and tipllifications

·I
of a_development strat~ which will be in ·consonance with the

nature and ctiaracter of deveJoping economies and· which will btf

"relat:.ed to the structural capabil!ties of the _count.."i i;-i 'l::!-.ich

1 t wa, to op~ate" briQging ~nto play the •nu.~~orical_ fc,,rces and
. 4
processes that have shaped the socio-ec~nomic structure.''

E
Contemporareou~ly, the,are seem to be greater incli.naµon

U
EQ
to· the people-centred basic needs approach to development.
• 1

Simply stated, this approach emphasizes the extent to whfch

TH
· the basic needs of man are anet in society. From this v:t~wpoiQt,
O
calls for greater participatio~, as a basic human· need, have
LI

increased. A communique from t'fle Third World Forum in Karachi

IB
-B

(197S) is typical: "The re~i' focus should be on the sati~facUon

of basic human needs and on a meaningful partièi~~tion of the

IA

masses in. the shaping of economic and social ch~ge; tl:\e :

R
ES

policies of self-reliance should be encouraged, with the:

emphasis-on a self-copfident,,.~d creat,tve use of local

D

. 5
O

resources; ·inanpqwer, teèhnology and knowledge"• The Int'ernattonal

C

Labour.Organisation (ILO) in its publicati~n entitled 1 Me~ting

the Basic Needs' (1977) typified the alternative develCl>pm~t

strategy sch~l when it pqinteçl out tw elements pf the basic

ne~ approach. 'lbese-are certain.m.i,nimum requirements fot: food,

Shel teri, Clothing, as wel.l as essential service like pul:>lic:

goods which comprises safe drinking water, sanitation, public

 ' 1··t. •~ 1 l, ... ' 1 .

~?iflSport, oealtp çd ~iiUQ.nal faci1it1es. I_n conti~llation,

the,ILO nQtes thçlt ~a b~i.c.~eeds ~ o+iented policy imp~ies the

parti.cipatio~ of the pec,,ple i~ makipg the decisio~ whicn afft;iet

' 6 ' ..
_.. thea through ~rganis~tiqns, of thei.t:' Qwn c:~oic;:e•" . To Rqbert .Dahl,

it means decentralizing power and authority to_local levels to

discover viable smaller units. within which citizens ·can from time

~· to time formuiate. and express their desires, consUlt with

fl
,.f,, officials, and in .some cas~s participat~ even mo;e fully in

E
~
7

U
' decisions.

EQ
In pursuelnce of ttds. n~ approach to. dev~lc:;>pment, ~ral
development is fay<:>µred. TH
This is b.ecause m'1ch of public:policy
deals wit;n the iJ1Stit1,11,:ie>~ of p.r;ogramme~ t,hat wi,11 be of greates_t
IO

·benefi t · to the greate~,1: numb~, and a great~ percentage ·

L
IB

of the popul~ce reside in 1:he ruri!ll are~s! '11\e Ttiird Nation4

-B

Development flan, 1975~0, in .r;~alizatiqn of the sali~cÎ_ of

i:;ural d.~velopment to natiol)al development gave priori ty, :in the·
IA

'1
R

a:J,location of resource~, to tho~e programmes éll1d proJects whicJl

ES

will. ~rectly benefi t t,he, nirql pc;,p~lation,. For inst~

1, a
D

rural d~velopment policy was ···enunc:iated in the do~ent with its

O

mairf ob~e.<::il,Vef!i ". t.o incr~a'?e .,,rur~l pr9d'l,lcµvj,.ty and inc:o"'e,

C

div~rsifY rura~ economy ·!Uld generally enhance the quality of

~; . . 8
',
C .life of:rural ~easo"
' . 1
'
1'. Um:1ortl,.ll'lat~ly, tqe ~al pc:;,or, wt)q const;ltute the vast
r
.

1
maj~rit~ of the pop~lation a~g ~hould consti'tyte the target
~· . !· .

group of,the rural cieve],opment policies, h~ve had little

'.}
:, 1
,.
. . particip~tion in the gevelopment effofts. They are usually
1 ":·..
,;:
 ,. • -, ~ 1 } , ':d. ',:,i, 't
•il ,,:, . :· ,'
'
,·' :. 1-'
:·
''.• t,
< ,;' '. ·.... ·f .,, '!:, ',
I;
1,
! ·'
,1

excluded fr~ taking p~t in the initiation, designing and

. '

implementatiçn of mo~~ rural. developm~~ progranunes. 'nle

overall effect ~s t;:hB:1: most of the .rµral pop\1latj,.9n resç,rt to

passive acquisence "whiç:h causes ë;lS much harm ·to the;? programmes
9
as open resistance."
The African Regional Conference on the Integrated ~pproach

to Rural Development which met at Moshi, Tanzania in 1969,

• • 1

E
among others, stipulated that any development strategy ,hould

U
have as a primary objecti'.ve the mobi11za1;ion of.hu;man ~d

EQ
material resources in the ,rural ar.easo .Ollawa. in his _d~fini tion

saw rural development ais "any clear an!i consciously -appJi~

TH
O
strategy designed to restructure tjle econQmy in order to·
LI

satisfy the mat~rial needs and to prornot~ individual collective

IB

. ' 10
incentives to participate in the proces~of qevelopmenti-"
-B

Julius Nyerere in bis contribution def!ne4 rural deve:J..ofment

IA

simply as ''Participation of a people in a mutuai learni,g

R

experience involving themselves, their loca* resources,· exte.i;nal

ES

. 11 ·
change agent~ and outside re~ources. 11 The ab9ve viewpoints
D

.r"'

stress the fact that participation is a basic h\Dllan need for

O
C

developme,it and must be i~luded as a critical consider~tion

in any deyelopment strat~.
:
~n addition, there is wide support, espec:ially among
f
.international organisations, for popular participation of the
.r!'. ' ;,

l citizeriry of any society in public affairs that affect their

,•,'.. 1ives., For instance, in 1975.1 tlle 24th Ses~ion of the United
ô('f
;
Nations Economie and Social Council (UNESCO), recornmended 1;ha1:
'
1· g9vernments sho~dl
1
l'
1
1·
i
1
(,
 ,.
. '.! . ,._;·,.,. ., .... ,,:·,·,.r:r:>·
. ,.1
'.i')' ':'.-'..-: ; 'f,':\i ~J,;
',.

"adopt popul!=t,r participation as a basic

~.. , policy measure in national development
i:;trategy and shoul.d. encourage the widest
active ~ticlp~tion of all individuë4S and
natiol)al ~on-g9v~nment organisations i~
tlle;t dev~oPQent process in ~etUng goals,
formµlating pcfJ,.j,çies a~ impl~~~ng
plans."12
It. i~ to'be noted that prior to this declaration 1 the United

Stat~s Congress, in ber 1~73 Foreign Assistance Act~ stated

tha,t Amerlcan development assistance is to be extended ~o

E
U
programs.that promote the involvement of intended beneficiaries

EQ
in the planning and implementation of development progra~s as
well as in the gains of development. TH
As if· to buttress the centrality of citizen participation
O
LI

in the affairs of a society, a recent study of 36 rural

IB

' . i
development projects in Africa and Latin America demonstrated
-B

. 1

that 49 percent of projects succèss was accounted for by the

1
IA

inv9l vement of the intended benefiè:iaries in the conceptualisa- ·

R

tion, design and irnplementation of proj ect as well as in

ES

·. . !. 13
r:t:;source commi t:ment.
D

The. question_ which need,...to be posed at this junctur~ isz

O

To what exte11t is citizen participation meaningfully rea~ized

C

il) Nigeria's planning experience? Second, what are the

dimensions of the operationalisation of the concept -

participation?'

In his keynote address to ""11tary Goverpors at a Seninar

on integrated rural development in 1986, the President~

)
 ~ ·: J '' .; .' ~ ... : ,,'l ··: ' \ :· , ;
'.' '.' ,·. •, ~'
':' •.

~\
\<

f;.
6

General I~r~im Babangida.Stated1

"Our past exp~ience hàve clearly demonstrated 1

that no s.elf-sustaining development can take

place in Nigeria without.the masses of.our · 1

people being effectively me>bilized, genuinely

Jlcl9tivated and ...properly organized for productive
activity.~'>the context of freedom, orderly'
prog.r;ess cmct ;social justice".
The presid~ts• admonition restates the çoncerns e)Cpressed

by many scholars, gov~E:!l'lts ~-organisations over .the faiiure

E
in achievi~g an adequately ~\lthentic rurai development in th.e

U
wny +n

EQ
·society.. This may acco~n,t fo;r 1.987, General Babangida

instituted the Directorat~ of Social Mopilization (MAMSER).

TH
The objectives of tp~ Dir~toJ;:at~ ar~, ~ong ~thers, to.
O
"g~erally awaken the rights and obligr;1µons c;,f a citizen to·
LI
IB

the nation; enao~age the peopl~ to take part actively and

-B

fre~ly in discuss;Lons and decisions aff~ting tneir gen~al

welfare; anq, promote new ~et~· of ~ttit~des and cultqr~ for

IA

the !3,ttainme,i:t of the goal, !=ll'l4 objectiv~s <>f the ~igerian.

R

14
ES

. at e" •
·st

The functio'1,s of. the ni~~torate incl1,1de sensitizing the

D
O

... '1.
.[ populace to develop,nent issues and facilitating the development
C

•\

of a new development-c;>fierit~·consciousness in the Nig~ian

'I society in wbich majority .of the c1tiz.enry will see it ~s
1. their natio~al responsibility while acting in their rur~l

contexts. It is also hoped that th~ ~fect of such action~

1 .

will facilit~te the cognitive development of the m~sses end

imbue.in them an orien~atio~ which will enhance participation

for the purpose of achievlng 9vera~l national objectives.
 !.

Non~theless, the recqgnition of the need for mobil~zation o~'

,-.
the inasses to par~iç:ipate,in the public affa4,rs of their society

is c:>nly one side of the coin~ The other side is the need to

identify and deline~te the pre-condition~ a~d pre-r~sites for

participation and development. This is impo~tant because

mqbilization for P!!L'ticipation focuses on changes that re-

orientate the bepaviour and value systems of the people,- ~

E
Nwosu suggests, "whoever wishes to win over the masses must know

U
15

EQ
the key that will open the door to their hearts."
!.
:rt is in thi~ perspective that this study seeks to.test the
TH
!
extent to which personality yariables like sex, age, educational
O
'.
1
level,.org~sational·involvement can adequately explain partici-
LI
IB

patory orientations of pu-al dwellers_. Specifically, ,what is .

-B

the degree of effectiyeness of gov~rrunent~ decentralisation·

·.'1 ,,
·1
-measures towards e.,ihancing participation at the grass roots?
IA

. .
What.is the nature and dimensions of existing participatory
R

. .
1.
ES

programmes in Nigeria? What policy lessons are relevan~ to

Ntgeria fran a comparative .onâlysis of citizen participa~on

D
O

in rural development? What useful reco~endations are

C

l,
nec:essary as to how citi~en participation may be best advanced

in rural developme,nt administration? What are the policy options?

· . In trying to prov!de a.,sw.;;rs to these questions and other

incidental ones_, it is hoped that this study would highli9ht

the need for citizen participation for rural development and

socio-e-~cncmic advanc~ent of the society.

The study is dividê!d irito five chapters. Chapter one deals

·with .intro4u,ction, 11,:erature review, clarifica~on of ~oncepts,

 ·,, :. 1·: ,, . _.;/ L,1:·y) !'_ .r.,:· il.: ..
' 1 ':!:.'.i::· .'"·:';.· '.,., '.: ''..
. . • .. l .
i ..
i

8 • ' 1

theoretical framework, staternent of the problern and method of i

'i

res~arch. In this chapt;er,. considerable attention is given to

the clarification of çoncepts with a view to.eval~atin~ the

theoretièal significarice and scientific

.
~dequacy' of t~e.concepts
I·.
u~ed in the study. Also, the theoretical framework critically
reviews various
.
perspeçtives, rnodels an(4 ~heories whi~q' seem t;o
'

(\. dominate in the participatory literature. The main ç,bjeetive

E
is to .delineate functional analytical f~!ilJlleworks necessary f.qr

U
EQ
an ~dequate explication of 8 general thepry of citizen1
't participation in rural development; while the review of literature
TH
.:t: seeks to highlight thç principal concepts that hav~ evolved in
.r.
O

t
the literature ~o far. '
LI

f In chapter twa, a brief comparaUve overview is undertaken.

IB
-B

inorder to show the experience of other count+ies, ~tl'ler than

' 1.
Nigeria, in the implemt;mtation of participatory
. programme~. ·
.1; . '
IA

For the sake of emphas~s, the aim is to identify the sort of

R
ES

t, rnethods f;mlployed by other nations in achieving meaningful

'
and, tunctional participatDJY · development. It is ass~ed that
D

'
O

such a brief overview wouid have important lessons for Nigei;ia

C

as_it attempts to grapple with the task of enhancing parti,ci-

patory development in the country. In chapter-th~ee, a

t .·,, det_ailed em.uneration of t~e methodology showing the research

1 ·,
des~gn anq procedure,for the orQanisatton of datais made;
~ '

l'
r (
V
while chapter four conc~ntr~te~ on the analysis of data and the

discussion of resul~s. Finally, the fifth chapt~ deals

wi th th~ summ~ of findings, policy recommendations and

'\. conclusions.
,.
l
'r.

,.,' .
 ...,.. ''·1·
'

' 1
1
·.· . ;:r1'<:c:F
. l··
''
'

1.2· STATEMENT OF .THE PROBLEM

There is increasing conce.rn that existing approaches to

development ~e not yielding the desired results. In fact, some

development practitioners· and academic 1:}:leorists are of. ~he view

that the existing develo~e?l,t strategy 1~· itself contributing

ta the further underdeve~opment of the more marg:f.nal sectors of

the economies of deyeloping countries. 'rtQ.s state of· a~fairs

E
instigated the search for an alternative development strategy.

U
EQ
One line of ·criticism which has becorne quite strong_in the

recent development literature is that progr~es and projects

TH
and its metnods of administration are too top - 49wn !3f1d need
O
to be more bottom-up. In f~ct, some argue that ~eal 'develoP-
LI

ment, by definition, must involve the target groUl!J> in the

IB

.· . ,. conduct of their own aff airs. The call for participation h~

-B

COlfte from a broad spectrum of those concerned with developinent

IA

and for a varlety of rej:lsons. The- proponents have adv~ate4 .

R

greater citizen ipvo]vement because they bèlieve that :f.f

ES

people are allowed to t~e a.more active role in solving thej,.r

D

·"" • ,, ' 1
' 1
O

own proble'l\s and meeting their own needs, they will acquire
C

the power that was previously acquired by gover~ents by

default. They value participation. because it redistrib4tes-·

·power mo~e democr~tically. A new group of development

' adm.i:.nistration ·experts baye advocatect participation as

Ï,·
i. essential to the susteµ.nability of projects. · The main
t'~
1
,- · obstacle to participation, however, is the difficulty of

implementing it in practice. It is easier said than done.

 .'1:,' '1!_1
• 'I . I'. ,,; t · •. . ' r I, ,
,·.·;
'.· ,.·; >. -.·j: !,·'.
.
l·'
'
l
1

10

1
1
Hence, the problem do~s not subsist in the justifications, but
1,
1.,
.,< in the • how• • 1
' .

The iptegrated approach to rural development, which is "a

highly structural and systematic: exerc:ise il\ whi1:h all c:_omponents

i~ the system of devel9pme11,t can be und~stood as important

,',.
and appreciated for the pa,t.which they play individually and
/. - • '!" •

· 16
E collectively~, · was cons;dered the most effective means for·
fî

E
t: achieving rural transformation. Uri:fort~ately, this realization

U
~-. was glaringly absent in Nig_erià' ~ planning exper~ence until : ·.

EQ
{!
\
recently. Earlier ~lans_ were mostly urban biasedmits. priorities
i
1
1
l
TH
and allocations such tha:t inspite of the fact that development
1

'
O
1 b
1 planning in Nigeria dates back to 1946 1 the Third National
' ,.[' 1
LI

1 l' Development Plan, ~975~0 was the first attempt to bring rural
IB

'l 1
develqpment within the framework.of tn~ ~ational development
-B

tI'·
·1
t· planning. ·
IA

!>
! The document states that tne plan aims at "specifically
R

17 .
prolf!oting the development of the rural areas;" · and_its main
ES

1 li·'
i
'
.f opjectives wer, "to increase.,rural productivity and ·1ncome,
. ,,.
D

r diversify rur~l ec:onomy .and generally enhance th~ quality of

O

i
!, ' · · 18
C

.
life of rural areas." This shift in E$1phasis towardfi'rural
'i,
1
1 dev~loprnent was justified by the fact that mo~e than 75 per

·r t cent of the population live in the rural areas. It thus

t·
assumes that focusing of develoPf!lent Qn rurai society ~s
:;
1
necessary to ensure ~aximum benefit to greater puniber of the
people. ·.

,-
1

L
l
f·.
 ',. f' •• ,,: '

·,1

·;

This episodiai attitude. towards divers~ficatiqn of theecg~o~y

,'
l'
have been criticised, It was noted this attitude was ~ns~;gatec;l

by declining agricul b,u;al producti

.
vi ty, increasing
. . impç,rt
. bill,
.
and
'
unfavourable
' . .
·•
bal~ce
·.
of
.
trade
' ~.
and ·~ ··,payments,
'.. : ·,
occasion~
:.
by.

the decrea~ing yields fro~ the sale of oil proceeds and exacerbated

by high marginal prop~f;i:J.ty to import. As the e~tral Bank

.. /. .. ,
•,' . . '

a?UlUal report~ indicated, th~ relative contribution of the agri-_

• ;,\ j t

·. '! ; cultµral sector to th~ gross domestic prod~ct (GDP) _has persistent1y·

E
•,

U
C,.eclined; resulting in increasing impo~ts q_f Food itemf/1• F9r

EQ
' 1
1 ,•

instance, in 1970 1 Food·imports relative to total imports-was

' t'.
1 f TH
1 !' NS7.694 million o~t of total imports of H752.580 million
1 ~
1 l
; i· (7.67 percent). By 1977, this has risen to H136.4201!'1llion
O
. i' i,·". . . 19
LI

out of totë;tl imports of H7.093.694 million. "In 1978 1 Food

t·
IB

1
imports was H1 1 020c7, H1 1 105.09 million in 1979 and Ht,091,0
-B

20
million in 1980"• This pitiable Food trend simply sh9ws
IA

that government efforts have not been effective. As have been.

R

observed, Food-production .assumed an area of high prio~ity in

ES

the 70's, and inspite of the pillions· of Naira spent on some

,,. ~.; . ' .
D

agricultural developrnent programmes (like OFN, River Basin

l
O

Development Authority~ Green Revolution, etc.>, less than

C

.
commensurable results were attained, Food importa continue<;I and
authentic rural developm_erit stiil remains a mirage.

What this implies is that the problems wi th the attainment

of authentic rural devèloprnent vis-a-vis agricultural developrnent

does not subsist in justifying the rationale for rµral

development as contained in the past efforts, but in t~e

'I,
l

f·
 ,,
.,,
. ...
..
.,, '
1
·1
1
i
1
'

. 1.

1
. t
.~ 12

identification of the variables that must exi.st and a ~ecogn!tio~· ·

. '
~f the contextual co~straints at implementation of the~e progr~es.
_It has been riQhtly observ~. _that past efforts rel_egated

the irnperative need to 1cnow the d1aracteristics _and beh9-viou,r

. patterns of the rural ,:iocieties in which these programmes were

tàrgeted. Th~ n~ture of the characteristic~ of the rural society

and knowledge of the values, cultural traits and modes of

E
production wère not given due attention. More often, projects

U
EQ
designed for the rural peasants deals irsufficiently wi t_h thé
rural agrarian base and asswnes that th~ programmes could be
TH
carried out almost exclusively through the government agents wîth-
,·
O
: out ac~ive local ipvolvement. This has often resulted in
LI

:r project failu.r~, because rather than mobilise the intenqed

IB

target.groups, the programmes often stimµlate the partici-

-B

pation of tne wrong groups or individuals ~ that is, either

IA

21
the local el_ites or the relatively wel+-to-do. ·
R

The problem; considering Nigeria's dilenma is to identify

ES

and examine what other variables

.,.., that may explain this failure - .
D

'
O

prone syndrome of development policies; especially to

C

identify what functional methods may be applied to effectively

mobilise the target groups in development efforts. It is the

examination of this that forms the principal focus of this study.

Rural development, however defined, cannot neglect the

human angle which is recognised as the rnost essential element,

with its primary concern being "the participation by the peop~e

! th~selves in efforts to improve their level ·of living with

,.
r"
i'
!.
I,'
(,
/:
[!
 'r't° .'., ·.~~:. ',' { {';::: ~;, .. . ;! .
' .:
',
',~ ·~ t ?: ','
'!

i
.i

.13
· ·. · 22
as much reliance
.
as,
.
ppssil;>ie
. . ''.
011 their '
own initiative... It is

in this p~speçtiv~ that this research seek~ to identify the

level and dimensions of citizen participation in the study area •

. y,
Th1.E! ~1:U9Y i.s a_l~o a..rguei:; that the problem w1 th past

pr~gr~es which accounts for the failure - prone syndrone is ·

tne apsence of effeçtive participation of the intended

r· · benefici~ies in plan concepti~n, initiation, ~mplement~tion lind

E
evé;iluation. It further ë',lrgues that the political will pr the

U
det~ination of the polity to develop the rural açeas is

EQ
still bereft of policies that allow for.genui~e ~obilisation and

participation of the rural people.

TH
O

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

LI

,,
IB

f +n o+der to fully· examine the relationship between citizen

-B

_. p~ticipation a~d devele>pnent, the study seeks to;

(i) ideptify the form of rural participation for

IA

development already eJd.sting i~ NJcwer~e/Isu local

R
ES

government areaof Imo State of Nigeria~

;·

ascertain the mc,st···effective methods which may be

D

(ii)
O

·applied to effectively mobilise the target groups in

C

development efforts;

Ciii) assess the possibility of achieving more effective rural

i1·
'· participation in planning and impiementation of rural

development progranunes; and to verify the conditions

·id
under which it could work. on a self-sustaining basis;

(ivl to see how far variables such as age, E;ex, socie>-

economic status 1 educ~tional ievel and organisational

 '14

involvement are crucial factors in enhancing citizen participa~

$"

~ tion for development.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The significance of this study, therefore, lies in its efforts

to contribute to the debat~ and bett_er unqerstanding of the

factors which make for ~fective rnopilisatiqn of the rural

E
populace to participate in development programmes in their areas.

U
As in~cated earlier, the amount of resources expended in p"Qrsuit

EQ
qf auth~ntic rural development are a~lo~s enough to give

justification to this study •

TH
O
. MuGh of existing literature on participatory prograirunes are
LI

based on the experiences of other nations. Although these

IB

studies provide ·some reference points to the analysis. of parti-

-B

cipation in development planning in some societies, they do not

IA

provide sufficient ernpirical support to geperalise on the virtues

R

or otherwise of participation for development. Hence, the need

ES

to relate peculiar issues in d~velopment to particular social

D

contexts.
O
C

In addition, it has been observed that many of the available

case studies either focus on the success or failuré of the

progranunes they have witnessed. In eithe+ case, the rep9rting

·[ of various aspects of the projects will be selective and will

be focused on the particµlar perspectives or hypotheses of the

author. This requires that more research should be conducted

at different rural communities with diverse social and

economic characteristics, varying 11patio-temporal dimensions,

so as to improve the feasibility of involving these rural

 . ", i,,,,,,.
' '
·.,:

" 15

pèasants in deve.l9pin,9 _their socio-ecc:>nomic.. cop1::exts. 1

In ,the

. light of this as_seFtj.on? ..w~ study is ~ignificapt •. This is

anchored on the ~ssumpt+on that man's sc:>cial environm~t to a

large extent determin,es his value orientations anq behaviour. ~is

study will elucidate.. c;,n this. and show ho~ these attribut~ have

helped to det_erm~ne. tpe nature of and participatory orientations

_of the citizens pf Nkw~.i;-e/Isu ~ocal Governmeni; Area o~ Imo

E
state of Nige~ia~

U
. I't is hoped that t~is researcp will bf! invaluabl4;! for future

EQ
ef.forts at enhancing loèal involvE;!fflent ..~n problem-solvi~g· and
TH
policy making in the area \,Jnder study ~d possibly in many ·
'
(·
O
·:· Nigerian societies.
LI
IB

1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS -

-B

'.') The terms which are often used in this work are rural
IA

development, mobilisation, motivation, ~fficiency and effective-

j .
R

• 1,'

l- 11ess·criteria, participatio11 and·decentralisation. It:is,

i;
ES

,, the.refore, necessary to clarify these terms particularly as

l ,·'
D

, ..) they ~e used in this work;·'

O
C

RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
1 f-
i

The World Bank Sector paper on Rural Development (1975)

defines rural development as a strategy to improve tlie,~ocio-

economic life of a specific groµp of ~eople - the rura~ poor.

· It suggests that rural C,evelopment ,shou;d thus encompa~s

r.
improvement in producti~ty, increase in èmployment and higher

incom~s as well as a minimum acceptable levels of food,

' !

l ~:~ .
 ,_··,·· ..) , ; ·,, •1 ••.•
. l : ·-:·,: •

• ~ 1

?,

. l~
~ t
16

shelter, edue::aUon and hea,lth for the cit:J,.zenry. It is for th:J,.s

reason thç1t the definition of ~al d~velopm_ent as offer~ by

.i
t,. Lowdeµdlk and Lµto~ is adapted in this study. They aptly state

that:
"Rural development is a continuous process
of planned social, political and economic
changes i~ rural and urban social st:,t'uc-
tures and organisations which·provides for
.. adequàte incentives, production possibilities, -
î.'
'' and services to he:J.p rw;al people achieve ·

E
~;

higher levels of living, knowledge and

U
skills. Rural development helps to modify

EQ
( ·their physical,and social environmeqts
! and maintain sustained progress towards:
desired gc;,als ~hich the rural· poc;>r help : TH
establish and implement over t~e"~23--
O
MOTIVATION:
LI

rr' This concept has been·defined "as~ gener~lisation apply~ng

IB

1 ".

~4
-B

to the entir~ class of drives, 4esires, needs, wishes

. 24
s:µnil~ fofces," · wl1ich ca11 eau.se or j.nduc~ p~pie to ~et· in a
IA

The term motivation is derived from another

R

. ' • • • '' • l •
ES

t ~ •motive' which
1 .
j.~ a consider~tion or einotion thàt excites • 1

to aftion. _According to Be~;l.son aJ1d S.teiner, the term '-motiv_e' ,

D
O

refe~s to " ••• an irmer ~J:ate tha~ energizès, activates,. 9r

C

1
25
move~ and "thich çli;~ts QJ; chann~ls behêlvic;>ur towards 9'-l>~s-"
i1In effect, · therefor.e, to say t)'l~t t'tle citizenry be ,
. \ . . '

motiv;ated t_o pa,rticipi:lte is ~1-.mply ~c;, say that the decision ,

\
1

make+s ,does those things which actuêllly satisfy

. \ ' . ' .
the human '

. ~i.-:Ve~, needs !ind ~ishe~, and ~hich indl.,lCe the citizens to?
act,in the desir~ rn~er.

·,
\
 ' ' 1 ~-"' ~, • ,-..- ··: 1 ~ ,fi , , ~ •
1
1

f
1'

. 17.

MOBILISATION:

For purposes of this study, mobilisation must be seen i.n

terms of involving the ordinary citizens in takipg part actively

and freely in discussions and decisions affecting their general

welfar?• It is the organisation of a group of individ~als for

joint collaborative action. Following Ollawa, mobilisation.

·"includes not only psycholo.gical in.volvement in the political

E
process by the citizens, but also the shifting of traditional

U
bonds and loyalty from primordial-attachrnents to the n~tion

EQ
1

26
state."
TH
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION:
O
This concept defies a.J)y concise definition that ~11
LI

encapsulate adequately its meaning. îet, for purpose~ of clarity,

IB
-B

an attempt at defini tion is desirable. Judy Ro~ener in his ·

1
1

l contribution asserts that an .~dequate dl;:!finition of the concept

IA

(,
must indicate the 11
who,where, what, how and when of partici-
R

r
ES

Pë?tion". To him, the term "citizen" refers to those

individuals 11

1
t who do not occupy sanction9-l' decision making positions','•
27
D
O

. ·Thus~ citizen participation refers to the extent to which

C

-those not in authority take part in de~~mining how 99?ls

and policies are set and how resources are allocated towards
. .
the attainment of these goals.
!
• ~1
There is an obvious distinction between political

participation and participation for development. Contributing

to this analogy, Hayward at~t,es that participation be seen

in a sense of actions aimed at influencing (controllinQ• changing•

 ~ r. ,

18

supporting or sharing i~) policy making and/or executiçn f~om

,, 28
the point of view of P~.icipants. And Montgo~ery ·and Esrnan
notes that èitizen pau;:-Ucipation goes beyond the passive sense

of sharing in governmeqtal beneficiencies, and reach~s the

• 1 '

~tent te whic:h the papticipant.~ are able to e.xert i~,fluencE;

• • ' l 1 '

on the adrninistraFj.ve b.~av:i,our and on th.e output of ·.gov~ent

_ 29
~ctio115.

E
DECENTRALISATION1 , ·

U
EQ
Following Martin Rein~s classifications, decentralisation
1"
can be pol;tical, territorial or administrative.
TH J>olitical.
1

decentralisation focuses on redistributing po11ticaJ,. power and

O

pol,.1è:y~ak1ng authority to local levels. Territorial decentra-

LI

1
IB

lisation is "'1lere government apparatus is brought clQser,to

-B

people for the expres~ion of resident wishes anq preferences;

.. while administrative decenq:-alisation is delegation (!)f

IA

. '

decision-making auth9r1ty to sub-ordinate officials.:

R
ES

D+awing heayily from administrative theo+y, Kart notes

that the reality of decentralisation is rneasured by the
D
O

amo\lllt of author~ty delegated to loçal levels or sub-national

C

•,-·:..•.
·'
î units to irµ.tiate,policy independently, and the willingness

of the.delegating autl'lority to support the decentralised

30
uiµts in those independent decisions.
i
1

1
(·' ·I

i
1
• 1
·,
:1
 " • ~.. r
'.-.i_..,,; .
.:, . /'

1.6 LITERATURE REVIEW

(A) THE THEORY. AND PRACTICE OF PARTICIPATION:

The question of citizen participation has attracted the 1

attention of ~cholars and practitioners alike as they at~empt,

to deal with tpe issue _of fostering greater local involv~ent ï

in deve+opment a<$ninistratio~,. J3ecause the subje_ct-matt~ is

of interest to many different fields, especially_ in the soci.al

E
-sciences, major disciplines have brought to bear on the

U
' .

EQ
concept - particip~tion ~ differing analytical.orientations

which tend to complicate the understanding of the term f9r

TH
· ·· polit~cal relationships in the soci~ty. It is p~rhaps fo~-this
.. • 1
O
- 1 •

reason that Churchman suggests that the term part~cipation is

LI

i .
! ÇÇ)!llplex c:Uld sen~itive, not only for its multidisciplinary,
IB

• 1
-B

inclination but more for the fact th~t it has implicatio~

for the distribution of material and power ·resources acrq~s

IA

fr,, class boundaries with its irmerent·tenden<=î ta arouse con:flicting

R

. 31
ES

expec;tations.

However, it rnay seem, citizen

. .,,.,, participation is a basic
D
O

policy i~su~ in any development strategy, hence it.must

).
C

i,
be·cappl:>le of being d~iµed ~o as to facilitat~ an effective

appralsal of the possibil,ity of its operationaliz~tiQ~.

James CUnningham tdE!ntified

. three essential elements of
. ' ' '

participation as cornmon amateurs, power and decisions. The

'common amateurs' are the non-,elite citizens whose ability

to gain some ç:ontrol res~l ts :f;rom the particip~tton proce.ss·

itself,. 'Power' is control and participation is said to oc~

'
~f
 20

when such control cornes within the reach of the corrunon amateurs

a11d is exerci~ed over decisions that affect several members

of the society. The 1 decisiqns' are "signif~cant and substantive

choices" which directly' affect a number of persons in important

32
ways.

Focusing on these or some of the el ements, a number of

f scholars have attempted to proffer explanations for the concept,

'\

E
participation, but because their assumptions are based on

U
EQ
characteristics of western societies, their definitions largely
''1 fail to meet practical applic~tion in the developing or non-
TH
. western socièties. As Ollawa avers, the term has far wider
O
implications than its conventional meaning and frame of
LI

1 !
reference in western democratic societies. This is because
IB

1 ..:'
'! ''
-B

1
"it not only includes activities of those kinds of behavic;>Ur

that can simply be regarded as falling within the ambit of

IA

the political processes such as voting in elections, joining

R
ES

local lëvel party units, attending political rallies, meetings

and electoral campaigns, etc, ·but also and perhaps more

D

,•'
O

significantly, it embraces all efforts or activities in the

C

(: social and econornic spheres .... considered çentral to

f
i
33
attainrnent and/or implementation of its ideological goals."

This contribution clearly distinguishes between political

,,
1 i ·participation, which generally dominate the literature on

·,' participation, and participation for development.

Contributing to this dichotomy, Cohen ~d Uphoff note that

.· i-
participation will be irrelevant to development if defined only

,,!,
r,
Î "
 .. .. ... .: .... ~·"'··· .... _
-,;:,, ~ :--.:.-·~:., ............ ~ ......·~·... :,

21
-··-·,"
in terms of voting, office holding, expressing support for~

. government by coming out en mass to match in parades or what th_ey

34
termed 11 ceremonial" or "support" participation.

These.attempts at definition of the concept, pa_rticipation,

further highlights two essential elements w.hich are that, first,

. the participatory process is a composite phenornenon

. involving
.

,.. ·the citizens motivations to positively and willingly.participate

E
U
.,.

EQ
committed to ~obilize both the human and material resources in

f the sqciety in response to the challenge and rationale for rural

t. TH
. change and developrnent.

1
O
.
' Having discussed.the essential elements of the definition
LI

-~----_ .·
and on the saliericy-of this in any development approach, ·
IB
-B

another area that engagés the attention èf s.cholars is. on

the extent·to which this conce~t can find empirical referents.

IA

i In the words of Goldsmith, "while particpatory model of develop-

R

ment have obvious moral and theoretica.1 appeal' the ~rguments.

ES

in faveur of more participation rarely proceed further, for

D
O

these are rE;lativèly few·instances where participa.tory

C

:deveiopment has been seriously attempted, and .thÙs scanty

:empirical evidence concerning either its proper role or the

...
· 35
-nieans by which it.can be optimised." Waddimba in a .study
1 ;
,;
! . 'désigned to' review the li terature on participation for

development and to take stock of findings of ~onie empirical

studies carried out by researchers on popular participation

further poiri')ed out that, perhaps, because of the large ( ·

measure of agreanent on the philosophical_or speculative level,

1
f
f
-~---
•
.
 1
·l·

22

not much effort appeared to have been devoted to establishing

-) ...
the relationship between participation and programme performance
36
on the basis of acceptable empirical evidence.

Observing more ~han a decade of experimentation with partici-

1,
patory democracy in Tanzania, Louis Piccard notes that ,;while

decentralisation has brought about a modicrum of deconcentration

of power to the·regions and districts, the admini~trative

E
U
structure bas not been able to establish the mechanisms that ·:;·

EQ
will ensure increased participation at the district and subdis-
..... . , 37 TH
tiL&Ct level. ' He insists that "a major -goal of President • 1

: !.
Nyerere that decentralisation provide rnechanisms for popular
O
1 '
.j '
. . 38 !
LI

participation in the districts remain largely.unachieved." · !

IB

This was also observed by Uma·Lele when she stated that despite
1;
-B

!
i '
the fact that local participation was espoused as.an important 1 •
IA

objective of rural development and where political education

R

in mass participation is a key element of the development

ES

39
strategy, genuine grassroot participation has not evolved.
D

Nevertheless, a recent field study carried out by

O

Development Alternatives incorporated in 1975 shows. that 49

C

percent of the variation

. . .
in ove.rall projeèt success was

explain~ by differences in the degree of sma11· farmer;: . 1,' ;, '

involvement in project conceptualisation, design and· ill}plemen- .

tàtion as well as in resource commibnent. Invol vemènt in

\
• • 1•

dec:ision-making especially during the implementation phase and

the coinmitment of resources by small-farmers were found to be

~
 .....• .. :,c •.• · ....... :-.,_ ..... .,_ ...... :~ ~ ·... .,,-.,•:..),.

1 '\
(
0 23
1
i
particuiarly_highly correlated with overall project success.

In the work under reference, the findings were based on a detailed

1i examination of 36 rural development projects operated in 11
~~....._____ 40
(eleven) AfricetP and Latin Arnerican countries. This is perhaps

one of the significant work that has attemptéd to demonstrate ·

in a syst·ematic. way. the po~sibi1i t:y of empirical evidence

for citizen participation in ·ctevelopment prograrns.· In the

E
S<;lltle vein, a comparative st,1dy of te~ ~ee:.::~ carri~ 0_.;.i: by the

U
EQ
United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF)

and World Health Org~isation (WHO) conclude that-community

TH
participation in.the planning, implementation and management
O
of· ·primary heal th care services was an eesential candi tion for
LI

41
effective functioning of these services.
IB
-B

Furthermore, in its comprehensive evaluation of all the

projects it has funded during its five years of ôperation, the

IA

International American Foundation {IAF) stresses the significance

R

. \t
ES

of citizen participation. Thus, "Only by moving away as much

.P
as possible from the 'father knows best' approach and ~ending
D
O

every effort to involve rural people in articulating their own

C

needs and running their own affairs is there any hope for ...
·"

unleashing the massive htlltlàn energies required to bring about

42
broad-scale rural development."

However, it is necessary to understand what is meant ~y

rural development. To what extent is the prod.uèt of local i

} ,

involvement in policy making for development commensurate with

. the opportunity costs, or inputs expended in pursuit of a

1(
\
1

\ 1
{
 ..
. .
---------- -
•• --: . : ~ . .~ , . . . , •• : .... •• -· . ~ . : _ . : · . . .: . : . . . : : ... 4 -~-~ .. ,::.,1:-

1
.
.
.
'
.

- 'li'"·
1
24
RI' '

'
participatory rural development? '
What is actually expected ·from
·, '

1
' citizen participation and how are these benefits intended to

reach the farget groups?· The answers to these cntestions ·is

'
;Provided in the sections dealing with theories. of development
· :and cost be.nefit analysis.

·(B) THEORIES OF DEVELOPMENT:

. .... '
As with Thomas KUhn's scientific revolution, the theory. of

E
1~ ..

U
development have witnessed marked shifts in perceptions and

EQ
emphases. Earlier paradigms Cexarnple the GNP index) ·were pre-
t;'· (
.
'
'
TH
mised on dysfdnctionai '~ariables which neglected many salient

issuès imperative for an authentic and self~sustaining develoP-

O
i.~-,·
LI

'
ment process. Since these approaches were predicated on wrong
IB

'

assumptions, it failed to adequately delinèate a clear and

rr
-~------
-B

l
..._,....._

consistent ~ystem of interrelated propositions that may further

:
. socio-economic transformations of a developing nation. This
IA

''
;
Î
R

,,
inadequacy.is 1_nore explained i.n·the theoretical framework.
ES

The GNP (gross national- ·product) i.ndex fo_r measuring growth

D

and development wa~ based on the " P~lation theory" which

O

assumes that inequalities and poverty will be.eliminated as

C

the proceeds of national growl:h trickle-down to the masses.

In this view, d~velopment was explained interms of ~ercentage

increases in a country's gross national product. · The strategy

of development thus manifests a predominant concern·with

promoting rapid growth in gross domestic product, through ,

capital intensive industrialization and construction of

large-scale infrastructures. Various neo-classical models

. .
and theories such as those of Arthur Lewis (1954) "Economie

.·,
.!)

'

I ':,
.~

ri
 -.-.. ........ .........
~ ~ ..... ~. .......... ......... ---- ...... ~·~.,.. ...

25
development with unlimited surplus of labour";·Ragnar Nurske

( 1958) theory of balanced growth and so on, were 1.nstrumental to

,,,,
the urban bias in these approaches to deveiopment~ Th~ assuinption
),

t. is that thère exist .abundant labour in the rural areas., but whose

plight will improve as~the multiplier effects· of goverrunent

actions trickle-down. The irrelevance of .this assUmption was

demonstrated when authentic development continued to elude

E
eountries that hav~ implemented this option.

U
Many~I:_~~ars thus advocate for new ways.of expressing

EQ
development goals. Many scholars speak for the use of social
TH
.
indicators which will relate progress to specific development
O
issues. To them 7 development must be measured on the extent to
LI

which it directly provides solutions to the,problems of poverty,

IB

mal:nutrition, unemployment and inequality •. Mahbub UL Haq in

-B

his ,"Crisi·s in .development strategies" {1973) contends that the

IA

,,.' ,new theory must reject th~ thesis that· poverty can be attacked
••• • ' f.
R

indirectly through the growth rates filtering'down to the

ES

" . · masses. In his submission he suggests "we were· taught to take

D

care·of our GNP,· since this would take care of·poverty. Let us
O
C

reverse this and take care of poverty first, since GNP can take

care of itself, for it is only a converiien:t ~ummation, and not

43
a motivation for human efforts."
{)
( '
In the light of these insights and perceptions, a multi-

disciplinary definition erilerged which states that development must

begin by identifying human basic needs; raise the level of

--
living of tbe masses and provide all with the opportunity to

develop thetr potential. It also includes meeting non-material.

 26

needs like the desire for self-determination, self-reliance,

political freedom and· security and par.ticipation fn· making d~isions.

·Making a case for the place of· partici_pation in deve).opme~t,

Nnadozie asserts that development involves the achievement:of sèlf-

fulfilment goals by individuals being able to participate actively

in shaping their affairs, their environment and matters. that affect

their daily life. From this perspective, development is seen· as

E
an attitude of mind, a way of life in which an individual accepts

U
EQ
to a greater degree that he_ is the master of his own fortune· and

can personally participate in the social engineering of his

44
TH
community.
O
Following-from this viewpoint, any serious attempt
, .
to develop
LI

a people wi th regard to the mobilisation of .society' s material

IB
-B

and human resources and even the provision of basit needs should,

· ·-as a matter of pr_iority, involve the people~ . This .view finds

1
IA

support in Macpherson's assertion that:

R

" ••• the most effective means to ensure that

ES

policies reflect the principles éstablished

for development will be to strive consciously
D

for a widening and deepening·of public

knowledge· of policy issues, together with
O

genuine participation in the implernentation

C

of the.programmes which are implE:1'ented."45

Thê-sc::ho.lgJ_~referred to above, seem to agree on the fact

that however it be defined, an appropriate strategy must address

iteself ~o the "What' and '~ow' questions of partic~patory

development. Specifically, the 'What• questions should relate

to the type of activities that need to be.undertaken in ordèr

to œach the intended beneficiaries; the 'How' questions should

f9cus on devisi~g ways for implementing·rUfal development

programmes ..
 •.• , .•• ~,;~t'. ._ ... :-.,.,., .• , ~ ...... .:..·· .. :.•-'· ....... .....:-~-... ~

27

What, then, is rural development7 Does rural development

imply merely the provision of amenities .that enhance the exploitation

and expropriation of the rural sector to the advantage of the

1
-)
urban sector7 Does it imply measures that foster and strengthen

structural inibalances between the sectors7 Or is it a ·measure ·

and process towards enab°Iing the rural sector to adequately play

\.C
complementary roles with the urban sector and thus enhance

E
societal cohesion, growth and development?

U
In a focus on rural development, Ollawa sees it as "any

EQ
clear and consciously applied strategy designed to restructure
TH
the economy in order to satisfy the material needs and to
O
proniote individual and collective incentives to participate in
LI

46
the process of development." Julius Nyerere was more
IB

philosophical and psychological when he defined ·rur.al dev~lop-

-B

ment_simply as "participation of a people in a mutual !earning

IA

experience involving themselves, their· local resources, 'external

R

47
change agents and.outside resources." Joung·Whang ·in his .
ES

"operational implications" defined integrated rural development

D

as:
O

----
C

"an integrated process of changes in values

and perceptions of rural people, an increase
in dynamism of rural organisations, and
concomitant change in village ec9nomy and
comm:uni:ty structure. It consists of a process
of fundamental change in peoples motivations
and also in their world outlook and perceptions
which should be conduci.ve to organisational
perfonnance and also lead to socio-economic
development of the rural communi ty. "48 ·

· · ·· What these views seem to emphasize is that rural developrnent is

a deliberate effort at finding out the values, perc.eptions and

issues that motivate the rural people, wi th a .v:i..ew to establishing

a function;:il rorrPl ;iHnn between those issues and develo~ent

goals.
 .. -·: ' ... ,~ ~· '-• . .. ~·····
.,;,·.......... ..:. .:. ·... ... .:•. "'""

' .
28

As if to support the above ideas, Uma Lele identified what

ô ( '
she considered three imperative elements of a good rural

development design or programme. She asserts that it must

inv.olvè;

(a) --~-
impmving
....._____
the living standards of the subsistence

popl.Plation involves mobilisation.and allocation of

' '
resources so as to reach a desirable balance over

E
tim~ between the welfare and productive services

U
available to the subsistence rural sector.

EQ
TH
allocated to low incarne regions a°nd classes and that
O
the productive and social services actually reach them.
LI

(c) Making the process self-sustaining requir~s development

IB

of the appropriate skills and implanenting capacity

-B

and the presence of institutions at the local regional

IA

and national levels to ensure the effective use of Î

R

existing resources and to foster the mobilisation of

ES

additional financial and human resources for

D

continued development of the subsistence sector.49

O

JJ
C

However, a systems analysis of the interrelations will

demonstrate the inter-dependence and complementarity of all sectors

of the economy. This implies that an authentic rural deve~.~pment

strategy must be seen within the purview of the general national

objectives, as well as the consideration of the injection of

'
some variables from the international politico-economic relations.

An attempt is made to demonstrate this rela:tions~ip in figure 1.1

 - -- l' g,lJ/tl:, 1 .. l

FUNC'rIONAL. COMl'ONEN'l'S QI,' lN'J'F:Gl{Nl'l::u \{ll!IJ\L m:vt::LOl'Ml':N'I' \

Tl:.:CHNICAL INl_-lUTS AND DHŒCT COMPONI::N'l':3

'

- ·Marketing Arr<'mgemt•nt::; - Nonformal Educc1tion and

- Credit Tiaining ·
~-
·[
.:_;. J::xtension St!rvièes
-Cooperc1tives.
-Financial Ir:isti tutio11::;
- Ldnd He.f'orm ilnd Improvernent
- Hural En,-"rgy :,;ources
- A;-;p.::-0~L inu., 'l'echnology
·· -
14-
- - Rural Industridlization.
'1/l - - - - - - - - - - - - - / - - - , - - - - - . . . _ __ _ _-1- I)'

NATIONAL POLICY AND I J::11 it' LOCAL SUPPORT COMPONEN1'S

ADMINIS'l'RATIVE INrJUTS l/ V ';
------------------· .... ----
-·Political Conunitment -- Local Government Pl an,-

E
ing and Administrative
- Administrative Support RUIV.L- ·

U
_Capaci ty. ·
REGION
- Planning and Programing - Lochl ~olitical Support

EQ
.:.. Agricultural R search and ...
ProcedV)'e's. . 7
Experimentation Capacity
- Budgetary Resources
- Decentralized Adminis-
TH - Nonagricultural Industries.
Heal·th and Social Services
t;rc:1tivé · Structure.
O
- Housing and Shelter
- Coordinative Capacity
LI

- Repair and Maintenance

- National Supporting
Acti vi ties.
IB

Polrdei. _ _ _
- Physic:al Infrastructure
-B

-Internatfonal Economie
and Tracte Policies.
I
- Internatlonal Funding '. /
IA

,-1r1d 'l'pchnlcal A!;sl:-;t,mc.c ·

\~t!, //
R
ES

L 1 PR0GRAf1MA:C INPU1'S f'OR \

D

..,l_ _ _ _ _r,_ï,_.(._,.J_C_·c_;_rM-~-~-~l'_i~-~-·~-~-~--~-'~--~-J-~-A_N_D--------t

J
O
C

Proj ect Implementc:ition Unit

Manageria1 and Technical
Manpower
Management and- Technic.al
'I'raininq.
Coordinatin~ Authority
Monitoring, Control,
and E:valuntion Procedures.
Planning an:! Programing
Capacity.
Procedures for Local Pé1rtici c1tion

1_c
.P
SOURCE: Adapted from Max Lowdermilk and Robert L;ü tos, "Towards

participatory strategy for Int_egrated Rural Development, 11

Rural Sociology 46(4) 1981, p.6B9.

 .. ... ,,.... '·· .. :-~-· .. .
;.. . -·~··'':.•-'- ..... ~ ...........

30 .

The figure shows the four major components of a rural development

--····· strategy. These are;

(i) National policy and administrative inputs;

Cii) technical inputs

( iii) loé:a1· support _comp.onents; and
"
Civ) programmatic inputs for project organisations and

implanentation.

E
,.Figure 1.1 provides a listing of the detail~d- inputs needed for
\

U
planning and implementlng rural development, and .shows the

EQ
interconnectedness of these components. Thei~ functions are not

mutually exclusivee
TH
For instance, one of the progràmrnatic inputs
O
is sufficient decentralisat±on as a procedure for local participa-
LI

tion~ while. the local support component. shows _the need for
IB

. ........___ --
adminisfrat-i-ve_ca~aci ty to execute decentralized functions ..
-B

... '-~
The national policy and adminstrative inputs demonstrates the
IA

necessity for political comm~trnent, _administrative su~port and

R

coordinative capacity from national governments towards local

ES

levels in the execution of participat..ory developrnent.

D

· A major problem is that rnany of ·these inputs are seldom

O

. .
C

ayailable in des.ired state in less developed countries, nor

·are. there effective ways and means ç,f creating. these, essential

inputs for rural development. The national components are bedeviled

·. ·by what has been described as "softness of the s:tates" or the

·.·. _tenets of_ lf.'red Riggs "prismatic society". Thus, a major concern

·. ··.of a devèlopment theory and/or strategy in a developing nation

is to evolve a framework which will provide t:he means

( '
~. ,'

3t

to ·acquire:,these ·essential components. Indeed _as Hobbs ·aptly:

concludes, a p~:trnary role for research in rural, development would

be the identification of sources·of macroeconomic change and

·their social, ·economic and political consequences for· rural areas

50
in general· and in specific locations. ·

(C) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:

Effici and ~~~ectiveness are two concepts whose appli a-

0cy 7

E
'

U
tion in rural development administration has aroused much debate.

EQ
'Efficiency' concerns the ratio of costs to outputs,· that is,
TH
in terms of the amount of timet money and effort required to

accomplish-.a_p_arf:_icular objective, and • effeçtiv"enes~' refers to

O
LI

the degreè t6 which the public goods actu~lly reach the target
IB

groups for the purpose of achieving their intended objectives.

-B

/ Sorne proponents of citizen participation argue that i t

IA

increases the infprmation available to administrators and

R

pia.~ners and therefore results in more ~ffective programmes.· But

ES

because participatory planning requires a cànsid~able amount

D

.of time, rnoney, manpower, specialised knowledgè and organisational

O

capacity, the-opponents contend that· it is a less ~fficient

C

strategy of development.. This later viewpoint seem to be

represented by such scholars as Robert Aleshire. He sees citizen

participation as the antithesis of administrative and

programme efficiencyo As he puts it;

"A theoretically efficient program

administrative model would include a Il
decision-making process involving a few;
 .
32

p·eople as possible to allow decisions. to

be made quidcly.. The cost-benefi t view .
point of analysis would require that costs
are kept as lo'd as possible. If this · \
objective is to be fully satisfied, partici-
pation should be limited.,"5".!. ·
.
On the contrary, some proponents of greater local involvernent

conclude that whereas participation for development may not be

efficient, it is effective, and hence should be àccepted as a

52
nècessary price to pay in the pursuit of basic needs. N.U.

E
·--~----

U
Akpan, in his 'Public Administration in Nigeria' stat~s that

EQ
when defined in tenns of "input-output ratïo,efficiency assumes
. TH . .

the connotation of 'mechanical efficiency' and under,such a

colouration, it cannot be appropriately applied to such human

O
' 53
LI

non-profit making and whose output cannot be quantified." .

IB

In his contribution to the question; Gboyega notes that

-B

efficiency· :,stresses rati.onali ty and thus deals _wi th one ·aspect

IA

.of man•s·nature. How people feel has substantial, though intangible

L
R

consequences, thus needs to be taken into account in judging the

ES

a 54
effectiveness ofLJ.:,ublic programmee
D

,/' Perhaps, f't'esident Kaunda of Zambia better summarizes this

O

dialogue when he states:

C

"We need to remember that efficiency cànnot

be measureq who11Y or even chiefly in terms ( '
o:t.Ôresul ts that can be reduced to quantifiable
terrns.. 'rhe mere fact of decentralisation
and the winning of power by the people to do
things for themselves.and to run their own
affairs produce results in terms of human
dignity and h'œllan self-fulfilment which are
incapable of being expressed in any .statistical
_fq_r:m at all.. Yet they remain things of .
profounâ importance in terms of .the quality
of \ife of our people .. "55
 .. '·····~,. ,·, ... .;.···~ .... ; .... _~.·~:., ...·
, ., ......-·•"'"'" L

33

Following the abo'Ve averment, if we accept participation for

development, with Its tendency of being more expensive·as a price

we have to pay in exchange for the realization of hum~n potentials

in oùr polity, there is still one question ·which _seems u_nanswered.

This bothers on citizen cornpetence to participate.·~To ~hat.extent

J ~re_ the ci tizens, es.pecially rural dwellers, competent to partici-

pate in the intricate decisions on development? Does their·

E
assumed incompetence warrant their exclusion from decision-

U
EQ
making?

Advocates of citizen participation often encounter opposition

TH
based on the assumed incompetence of the.citiz~s in taking certain
O
public decisions.. The opponents arguethat by the complexity
LI

and nature of rural problans, there are many decisions which the
IB
-B

_illiterate peasants are in competent to mé!ke~ Certain decisions,

planning techniques and evaluation measures reqiµ.re.certain

IA

.. specialized knowledge and skills which the rural people ro.ay. not
R
ES

have.

In an effort to debÛnk this 'tyranny of expertise',- Mulder avers

D

. that expertise
L apparently is a strong pre-requisite for paiticip~tion, but the
O

.
C

'
most practical strategy for real participation would be to base

it.on "sufficient expertiseness" .. He notes that workers on

--------------
1ower - organisational levels may lack knowledge about problans

of financing, macro-economic factors influer:icing sales or

leadership. training, but they,do know about problens relating to

their own worko "Thus,.for all workers the.pre-conditions of

participation and decision
motivation and expertness necessary for reallm'aking_ problems
 •• '·" • : ••••, .. ~ .... ~f:-·~ ..... : • • -~."_: ••• ": •• :.... .i .. ··• -~-~ ·<·;..f .• ..

34

as for example, structuring of the work process, design of new

apparatus, structuring of adapted communication processes,

-and other matters important to workèrs and the organisation -

·do exist, namely in the \r.'Ork site, where the work is actually
55
carried out"., In relation to development administration what
->
this means is that issues on participation must relate to the

J context of implementation.

E
In the same vein, eohen and Uphoff argue that although

U
\.C
peasants cannot run an agricul tural research question,.o and that

EQ
,
since participation (or decentralisation) is not anarchy, the
TH
:programme choice will still reflect the policy preferences of the
O
technocrats, but that participation means that peasants wou.}d
LI

take part in the design of agricultural projects at the local

IB

· 51
level where their knowledge in some respects is g~eater.
-B

This may account for why Uma Lele s'!-lggests that "at the very
IA

minimum, they (the peasants) should be informed of the plans

R

designed for their areas ~f they are expected to conscent arid

ES

to co-operate in program implementation. Participation ih

D

planning and implementation of programs can develop the self-

O
C

reliance necessary among rural people for accelerated

58
development."

What these positions stress is the fact that though the

rural peasants may lack the techniques and/or.instruments to

gather 9 collate_ and analyse data on some·rural problems,

they do not for this reason(sf have to be either e;cluded in

planning or seen as incomp~tent to participate in programme

-initiation, planning and impleinentation. As if ·to quttress this

l
 35

point, Jeremy Swift argues that the "rural people know useful

things othe()people do· not, that they are more likely successfully '
to work out a new technology or rural development strategy. that

they themselves have had a hand in devising and.that they have a

good moral claim to participate in det:iding their own experience".

He thus _sugges·ts-that the ''besttt step to takè is " •• ~ to devise

in~titutions to allow rural people ta help_ create thei~ own

E
economic ·development strategi~s and their own new technologies, and

U
to devise national economic. and political policies which will·

EQ
59
make such institutions work.,"
TH
Having agreed on the practical exped~ency of the participation
O
of the masses in development, how is this possible considering
LI

./where the seat of power·is?

IB

· ··(D}" DECENTRALISATION FOR PARTICIPATION.,

-B

With participation considered by many as a critical matter

IA

in any development process, widespread decentralisation of 1

R

governmental powers and functions is advocated in order to· enhance

ES

the ability of the grassroots at mobilizing local htnnan and

D
O

material resources for overall economic development.· P~t simply,

.!J
C

decentralisation means the delegation of power to ~ower levels

of government to facilitate citizen efforts to organize themselves,

formula te and express their desires. or actua11·ze their policy

·'
vpreferences. Crudely put 7 the extent of decentralisation can
-.r
be measured by the level of authori ty the central government

gives up to the subnational units to initiate policy iri the areas

that affect them, and the willingness of the.delegating authority

 ·--------- ·- --- -

·-------
. . - .

36

to support the decentralized units in càrrying out decentralized

functions.

/ Generally, there are two forms of decentralization. These

are: functioi:ial anq areal decentralization. 'Funétional' decentralisa-

tion, refers to the transfer of a"tJthority to specialized

prganiséiti'ons to perform specific tasks_ or act~vities; while

'areal' focuses on de),egation of responsibility ta organisations

E
.wi thin well defined subnational or geographical boundary·.. In his

U
.· · . [/3M). . · ..

EQ
class:j..fication, Rondinelli identified three deg,rees of deèentrali-

zation viz: Deconcentration, Delegation and Devolution.

TH
Deconcentration is where local àgents of a central authority
O
execute programmes on behalf of the central executives. This is
LI

'
the least e'9tens.ive i~rm form of decentralisation because it (
IB
-B

merely inv_olves "shifting of worklo?-d", and "may not involve any

decent~alisation of power, that is, it may not provide the

IA

opportunity to exercise substantial local discretion in dècision-

R

6Cf--.
making".; . pn the other hand, delegation of authority involves
ES

thé tréll1sfer of authority to a body to plan and implement

D

decisions concerning_ specific ·àctivities.. A necessary pre-

O
C

requisite being that the body must have technical or administrative

capacity to carry out such ·functions. Devolut~o~ which is

the most extensive form of decentralisatiôn.requires that

"local government be given autonomy and independence and be

clearly perceived of as a seperate level over which central

· .· authori ties exercise li ttle or no direct control," but in

 .................. "·""· ••. ·.~ •· :, . . -..;. ... •... : .... ••.• ....... •..r-="

---~--- 37

which there are reciprocal and rnutually benefitting and co-

61
ordinate relationships between central and local gove~ents.
4-.J-"''-"'
[J The operationalisation of government decentralisation of power
ill

and authority for rural development finds expression in Nigeria.

as demonstrated, for example, iri its Local Government Refor.ms

of 1976 and 1985. Take for instance in the guidelines for Local

Goverru:nent Reforms of . 1976, the objectives are clearly stated as

. . '

E
follows:

U
EQ
(a) to malce appropriate services and deyelopment- activities

responsive to local wishes and initiates'by developing or

TH
relegating them to local representative bodies;
O

·-------
{M--t~acilitate the exercise of democrati~ self government ·
LI

.
IB

close to the local levels of our society, and to

-B

encourage initiative and leadership potentials,.

(c) to mobilise human and material resoùrces through the

IA

involvement of members df the public in their local

R
ES

development;

(d) to proviqe a two-way channel of communication between

D
O

. the·· local cornrnuni tiès and government ( state and Federal).

C

The advantages which accrue to a polity frC!>m transferthg

-:. significant · responsibili ty for development planning and management

.from central to lower levels of administration are many. But

.·1t is important to state that these advantages include the fact

that decentralisation enables policy makers using micro-data .

generated from local level to disaggregate and.tailor development

(
{)
 .. ........ : ...... ·.·.-,-..... _-.
~ ~ . '• -·.......... ·: . .. ~ ·-~·;~. ... -.: '·"'' .

38

plans and programmes to the needs of heterogenous regiqrs and

groups wi thin the country. By assigning go~ernmen~ oÎf.'ïcials

to rural areas, their knowledge of and sensitivity to local

problems increase resulting in better ·exchange of information

with which to fonnulate more realistic and effective plans ~nd

also channel political demands from the local government areas

,/f~o national minis teries.

E
·-To what extent is it empiricaÜy possiple to derive these.

U
EQ
benefits? To what degree is power actualiy devolvecf to loèal

levels to rnake- original plàns independently? And what. is the

TH
commitment of the central authority towards enabling the local
O
government to execute these decentralized functions? Answers
LI

to these questions are important because the degree of

IB

effective participation obviously depends on the level to which

-B

planning is actually decentralized in the society.

IA

Historically, the first attempt at involving_rural Nigerians

R

as integral part of goverrune1t_ dates back to the colonial

ES

,, .

period .. The three regional government namely the governments

D

of the Northern~Eastern and Western regions, were èmpowerect to

O
C

~stablish and structure their local governments·to suit their

administrative and political requirements. Given . this power,

the fonner regional gove~nments exercised enorm~ùs influence

over the.activities of Local Governments in.their aréas of

/ -
authority 7 and for this·reason, local administration differed

in form and content, .depending on the whims arid_caprices of the

- ~ ;---__ - '
regional gove.rnm~t-which "created" them. This-in Rondinelli's
---
 ... , . . . . ;,i;- ... ~-~··· •. -· ..... _ •. ·~:.••'- .... ~-~· ..... -

39

classîfication is deconcentration and with "regard to allowing

for meaningful citizen participation and e~hancement of economic

development 1 the local administrative set up left much to bP ·

desired .. 1162

The 1976 Reforms~ thus àttempted to bri~g about some form

.
of uniformity in local government administration in Nigeria. To

this end, it'gave clear recognition to local governrnent as a

E
distinct level of government with well defined boundaries,

U
functions and provisions for thé mobilisation of hurnan and1 material

EQ
resources.
TH
In the Second Rep~lic (1979-1983), the encroachment of
O
politicians in the running of the affairs of local.gov.ernment
. Ji
LI

infused negative intervening variables which rendered local

IB

resource mobilisation and development ineffective and in-

-B

effectualo Local Government chairmen and council members ~ere

IA

mostly political party loyalistso There was widespread injection

R

of politics and politics of patronage into the local government

ES

system; and rather than highlight resour.ce mobilisation and

D

expansion of rural participation in local .affairs as their

O
C

primary goal, local government activities centred on the ·

orchestration· and praise-singing of the activities of their

mentors at the state level.

These anomalies may have largely occasioned the instituting of

the Dasuki Local Government Review Committee in 1984. The

report of thi s commi ttee and the .t asul tant Federal Government

.
 40

1985 White paper occasioned the introduction of greater autonomy,

· especially in financial matters, to the local governrnent. Other

avenues to engender local participation like the introduction of

.
Developmen\fèntres were made. More sigriificantly, the more ( '
p~posive Dicectorates of Social Mobilisation (MAMSER) and-Food?

Road and· Ru~al Infrastructure, charged with the responsibility of

car.rying development to the grassroots were established.

E
This-demonstration of commitment to rural development

U
'!
measured by the amount of financial outlay and evaluation

EQ
procedures,
.
instituted
.
(which was
. . lacking in other attempts) will;
TH
no douht, develop ·a sense of conunitment and confidence in local
IO
people.,
L
IB

(E) DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION:

-B

By dimensions of participation is meant an analysis and

elaboration of the various forms participation ca~ take, the sets

IA

· ··of individual s who are invol ved: in the participa tory process,
R
ES

and the various features of how that process is occuring. Judy

~>
D

Rosener argues that since issues differ in terms of their

O

complexity, durationj scope and intensity, they generate different

C

kinds of participation, with varying costs in implementation,

and thus argues that to be able to assess the effective'riess of

J)
participation to a programme i,t is necessary to .apt?ly understand
63
how it could have occurred.

Montgomeny and Esman in their typology identified six

dimensions of participation, but I find the framework by Cohen

and Uphoff more comprehensive and elaborate, and more related to

""
 \

.
41
the theme of this study .. · Their framework delïneates five dimen-

sions, .akin to Rosener's 'what,who and .how• q1.Jestions. They

disaggre·gate_ari_d_~_lassify the maze of activities that can be

included under the label participation by discussing the what, who, ·

how, when
. . and where of participation.
.
In the 'What' dimension, they see four areas for participation: in

(1) decision~aking,

E
(2) -implanentation,

U
C3) b enefi ts, and

EQ
·(4). evaluat.:i.on.
TH l

Participation in decision-makin~ is what people mostly refers to

O
·. ·when they think of citizen participation, whereas a~~nistrators
LI

· are
.
likely. to focus on implementation. Participation in
IB

·. · . deçision making and implementation pertains to- the 'inputsi of

-B

rural development projects, providing authority information,·

IA

labour and
0ther res.~~ces, while people' s invoi'vement in bem;,fits '
R

and eva1 uation of development acti vi ty 9-'f' concerns the 'outputs' •

ES

Participation in decision-making relate, to participation

D

in·the generàtion of ideas, formulation and assessment of options

O
C

and making chQi_Ee of means to put the options into e.ffect. The
. . ---
.
initial decisions. begin with the iden~ification of the real needs

of th~-participation context, collection and collation pf vital.

information ~n the_coritèxt,·to prevent misunderstandirigs as to

the nature of the problem and to ascertain the reliability and

effectiveness of choice of strategy for·the ~esolution of the

problems. Participation in on-going decisions occÙr after initial

 . .......... """' ·"·. ,-.,_.. ........... . ..... ...
~

------
--------- .. .. .

---- ..
. 42

decisions have been made, mostly to search for other needs and

priorities. that the project might respond to, as well a,s to

evaluate the project to. see whether to tèrminate or.continue. The

operational decisions relate to the organisations involved in the

substantive activities of the project. ·

. Rural peoplè-can participate in impleinentation asp~ts by way

of resource contribution such as labour, materiàl gooms and

E
l

, information;.they can be members of local voluntary organisations.

U
who administer and·co-ordinate.efforts at the project ~ite •

EQ
. Three kinds of possible benefits are associated with enlistment.

These are material, social and personal benefits.

TH The personal
O
benefits are self-esteem and sense of effic&. cy._ Self-esteem ·
LI

results fro"{)improvemer:,.ts of an individuals social status, and,, '

IB

rela.tes to the enhancement of an individual s ability to influence

-B

authoritative decisions. However, sometimes the latent conse-

IA

quences of programmes are harmful and undesirable. For example,

R

Mulder ( 1971)-ang__ Kolawole ( 1982) posi ts that sometimes popular

ES

participation enabled the more powerfu+ members of the society

D

or organi.s~tion to use their influence more effectively ... Thus,

O

. ..
C

debunking the hypothesis·, that participation of the less powerful

in the preparation and execution of policy leads to a reduction

of power differences. It shows that sometimes participation

provides the elite~ the·opportunity to effectively utilize

64
the!r instruments of oppressione

The 'who' dimension relates to the characteristics of the

participant. According to Rosener, this dimension is very crucial

 .~ -·""-··~ ....... ::~.- ···~· ,,.-.._ •. "t.•-- ··""~ ..... ·~ .... -

"

43

for any understanding of the effectiveness of citizen

participationa This is because various groups are involved, and

each of these groups operate under different organisational~

eèonomic and political constraints; and each group has

different values, expectations and goals. Howevar,· depending

on the setting and the goals of .the project·or programme,

certain characteristics of participants would be m9re

E
'· significant than others. l

U
EQ
TH
O
LI
IB

- ~ -
-B
IA
R
ES
D
O
C

{)
( '
 44
FIGUHE 1.2

DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION

Initial decisions
\1
Decision Making On-going decisions
.!J
Operational .decisions

Resource contribution

~ Administration Co-ordi·nation
WHAT
KIND Implementation

Enlistment
Material

E
Benefits (or harmful ~ Social

U
consequences

EQ
person~l
Evaluation
TH
O
Local Residents Characteristics
LI

Age
Sex
IB

Local Leaders · Family Status

WHO Education
-B

Governmènt Social divisions

Personnel Incqme level
IA
R

Foreign Personnel Length of Residence

ES

Land tenure Statusa

D

.Impetus ..
<. ··
O

Basis of Participation
rncentives
C

Organi~ation:
HOW
Fonn of Participation~ ·. · \
Direct/Indirect

~Time Involved
.
Extent of Participation
Range of activtties.
Empowerment
Effect of Participat:i,.on ~ InteracÙo~s.

SOURCE: John Cohen and Nroman Uphoff, "participation·• s place in

~~ ---
Rural Development: Seeking clari ty through specifici ty",

World Development, Vol.8, 1980: 219 •.

 45

The 'how' dimension concerns the ways in whic~ participation,

is occuring i.e. the mechanics of participation, such as whether

the initiative for participation is engendered from the grassroots

or from the national centre; that is, from the eli tes or. from

the masses. Whether the inducements for participation are

vol.µntary or mandatory; what the channels and structure of

participation are; whether it .occurs cm an iJ'.ldividual or collective

E
basis with fqnnal or informal organisations and whether it is

U
direct pw:ticipation or indirect representation.

EQ
Empowerment refers to the degree of-power which pa+"ti'ci-
TH
pants h,ave in the organisational pattern. That participation
O
can be individual and unorganised is quite clear, but evidence
LI

shows that it will be effective and sustained in the presence

IB

of some organized expression and support; and attention is

-B

·here drawn to the fact that one of the r~search questions of

IA

this research is to find the extent to which organisational

R

involvement is a crucial factor conditioning the amount, kind

ES

and success of participation.,· This analysis of the dimensions

D

of participation shows that a single method of analysing and

O
C

describing participation will be inadequate; it also shows

that the initial incentives or irnpetus for participation may

not clearly explain the form of participation.

1
1
• 1
.'I
1
 46

1. 7 THEORET.ÎCAL FRAMEWORK

The gamut of perspectives, models and theories of development

have, in recent times, witnessed a lot of reconsiderations and

..
redefinitions. It is thus intended to-review and evaluate the set

of ideas and analytical frameworks.in some of these moribund

theories, identifying their inadequacies and defects with a view

to proffering a framework necessary for an explication o~ a

E
systematic theory of citizen participation in development. This

U
orientation,.it is hoped, will serve as a guide in the examina-

EQ
tion of the substantive issues.
TH
The theory of dualism and balanced growth, among Qthers,
O
explain the complementary nature of the activities of the
LI

prominent sectors of an economy. They argue that the economy

IB

of nations are dualistic - the traditional subsi~tence sector

-B

. 1
consisting of agricuïture as the prominent economic;. and the
IA

modern sector with industrialisation as its pre-occupation. The

R

neo-classical .conceptions of development was based on the

ES

assurnption that rapid industr~alization and high econ9mic rates

,,.
D

of growth will provide employment; help bridge the income

O

disparity between th~ sectors and contribute to the develop-

C

ment of the rural sector through the "trickle effect".

A natural consequence of this was the extra-ordinary

growth of urban centres resulting from an accelerated influx

of rural skilled and unskilled workers in search of urban jobs.

This further culminated in a combination of stagnating

agr~~tiltural productivity, growing urban unemployment and massive

 r ..

47

importation leading to the depletion of the country•s foreign

reserves and balance of payments deficit. This cumulative

causation process thus justifies the·need for anew theory of

development.

Other theories worthy of mention is the Rostow's stages of

economic growth, dubbec:f the •sequential theory of development•.

The Rostow•s stages of growt:h are: the traditional society, the

E
preconditions for take-off; the take-off; the drive to maturity;

U
the ~ge of high mass-consumption •. The Rqstow's hypothesis of

EQ
linear stages of growth seems to see growth as being easily·
TH
amenable to a predictable schema, such that devè~oping countries
O
will su.rel y pa:;;::; through the Sdlne stages · a:;; the deve~opèci
LI

countries in their process of development. This is wrong for as

IB

· Meier states; ."to maintain that every economy always follows

-B

the same course of development with a common past and the same
IA

future is to overschematize the complex forces of development,

R

and to give the sequence of stages a generality that is

ES

65
unwarranted"• Alechina in criticizing the stage-theorist notes
;'
,.,.
D

that "different countries have dif:ferent types of development

O

and they apply different methods of development according to

C

their aims, constraints and opportunities and according to their

66
ideologies". 'l'hts is the concept of endogenuous development,

which implies that the nature of development "must be determined

by the country involved, on the basis of its internal possibili-

ties, of the needs perceived and of the efforts its population

. 67
is able to make."
 1-

48

Also, various theories of the keynesian School, especially

'1
the l-J~omar model inclined more to macro-variables like

National income, aggregate investment and consurnption, importa

1

and exports, and neglected the structural inhibitions tc;, the

accumulations of capital and the lags in adjustment between invest-

., ment and creation of productive capacity in developing economies •

·.1
Furthermore, these old theories concerned themselves principally

E
with· trends in the quantifiable aspects of development like incorne

U
distribution, price changes and technological, but are silent

EQ
on the non-quantifiable variables like behavioural and in~titutional
TH
features of·the rural sector especially changes in taste,
O
67
motivations and values. Thus, these theories failed to
LI

address the fundamental issues concerning the structure of a

IB

developing economy.
-B

In the light of the above, it became obvious that one

IA

reason for the failure of development programmes, predicated on

R

those assumptions, to attain authentic development was its

ES

faulty premise. It shows th~t to ~onstruct development theories

D

on the basis of an understanding of the socio-eéonomic

O
C

variables of western developed nations are largely irrelE:vant

to comprehending the kinds of processes occuring in developing

countries. It was this realization that the old explanations

to the inner meanings of development were ineffectiv~, that

the benefits of growth did not actually percolate to the rural

masses, that the misery of the masses heightened and that the
 49

rural poor~ who constitute the greater·nwnber of the population

and are the ultimate goals of development has been excluded from

the benefits of growth that warra~ted the redefinitions and new

perceptions.

The missing imperative in the old theories is the concept of

man and his basic needs. The demand now is to put man and his

needs at the centre of development. Man has basic need: Food,

Shelter, Clothing, health and other services which facilitate

E
U
the realization and development of his inert potentials. It was in

EQ
this purview that efforts were made tore-orient the objeetives

TH
of development to the ultimate goal - Man.

According to UNESCO;
O
LI

"development is seen frorn the point of

·view of man, who is the central
IB

phenomenon in the whole process. As

he becomes aware of his needs, man
-B

determines the ·aims of development on

the basis of these needs and subordi-
nates the factors of development to
IA

the achieveuent of· the aims he has

R

determined."69
ES

Abraham Maslow's hierac:hy of needs is identified as one of'

D

the theoretical formulations in.the social sciences which,

O
C

with som~ success, explains the people-oriented theory of

develop~ent. Maslow identifies five primary needs within the

hierachy. At the lowest level is the physiological needs. These

are fundamental and basic to human existence, thus it is difficult

for any higher need to manifest. At the second level are the

safety needs which include emotional security, as well as for

 1
i
i
:_·f
. '
50

physical safety. These are learned motives designed to protect

1.
' oneself against the hazards and vagaries of _life while striving

to avoid situations that would thwart the continued gratification

of the physiological needs. The third level are social needs.

These are desires for love and affection, and inclination to

belong to groups. At the foUFth level is the need for esteem

a feeling of personal worth and a craving for others to recognize

it by grqnting status, respect and admiuation. It also involves

E
U
autonuÏlly and independent action, freedom · of enquicy and .

EQ
expression.
TH
-Maslow shows that the problem of human mot:t,vation is

premised on solutions to bqsic needs of man. These needs are

O
LI

instinctive and are in thernselves products of the particular

IB

environments in which man sorjourns. He further contends that

-B

th~ needs are arranged in the h\.llnan psyche as a hierachy;

and because different persons are at different stages of their

IA
R

own hierachy of needs, their motivations appear to be

ES

d.ifferent. What this means to_ the theory of participation in

,,.
D

development is that no strategy towards development can. work

O

from generaltsations decluced from the experi~ces of others.,

C

Further implications of Maslow's contribution with regard

to development studies is that any model for mobilisation must

recommend beyond the provision of amenities like housing,

health centres and food, which are basic physiological needs.

Man need to be assured of the continued availability of these.

goods on a regular basis, including the recognition and integration

of certain socio-psychological variables.

 51

1he highest need on Maslow's hierachy is the desire for

self-actualisation and self-f~lfilment.

. .
Self-actualisation is

defined as one being what he is best fitted for. It is the

tendency for one to become what one is capable of being •. Thus

1
Mulder notes that "for the individual members, feelings of
1.
1 wellbeing and their sense of self-realizatio~ are related to
·: . 70
participation and its consequences". The UNESCO further

E
concurs that it is only when development is oriented towards aims

U
which individuals and groups set for themse]ves can growth

EQ
become development in the full sense of the terms.
TH
Although Maslow's theory has much to offer towards the
O
explication of the variables which determine the mobilisation
LI

or motivation of individuals for participation in development; ·

IB

it could not provide adequate explanations for the significant

-B

.factors which can actas a constraint upon development. John

IA

Kunkel seem to provide the missing link when he avers;

R

•iwhen the individual is given a prominent role

ES

in a theory of economic devel@pment, two

problems must be adequately solved if the
D

theory is to be usefûl in explaining the

predicting change,
O
C

(a) what are the de.tenninants of human

behaviour?

(b) what is the relationship between the

individual and the social context?"71

The implication of this is that a theory that does not relate

man to the power relations in his socio-political environment

is inadequate; nor can any theory explain the process of

' development in a developing nation without relating the analysis
 52

· to "the external-system-environment interaction". This is becaus.e

not only are the mode of development process in the less developed

countries CLD<:•s) detennined and fostered by the pattern of

interaction in the international envirorunmt but also "their

incapacity to meet the generated demands are attributable in large

part to the dependence of the inherited economy on external

72
PI:'essures ar'ld stimuli." In continuation, Ollawa notes that

these external pressures are sometimes aggravated and "_reinforced

E
U
by the cross-cultural and trans-national demonstration effects of

EQ
both the expatriate living standards within these states and
TH
the economic achievements associated with the economy of the
O
more il1dustrialized and developed countries which in turn generate
LI

expectàtions and demands beyond the capabilities of the political.

IB

73
ï system to meet. 11
-B

-1'

This leads us to the dependency theory which seeks to explain

IA

the reasons and ramifications of the dependence of the periphery

R

nations on the centre nations for the acquisition of some of

ES

the factors-of development. In many instances, the content

,·
D

and context of some of these development programmes are pre-

O

detennined to suit the whims and caprices of the donor

C

nations, thus accounting for dysfunctional outcomes and

plan failures. · In his contribution to the analocjy, Alechina

opines, "when the subjective actions of those who make the

decisions coincide with the objective law that are at the

base of the process, the latter is accelerated. If, on the

contrary, their actions and decisions do not take account of

 53

.the imperatives qictated by the objective laws, the process is

74
slÔwed down o.ç stagnates.u. This means that a basic needs

theory must show the political, administrative and institutional

obstacles to fulfilling basic needs and also specify how these

constraints are to be removed. To what extent has external

considerations to the polity tended to digress objective

functions of programmes?

E
Many development economists, planners and administrators

U
largely agree that the inclusion of the concept of man in the

EQ
theory of development would to a great e~tent help to relate
TH
the process to the empirical world of the developing nations.
O
They believe in the capacity of such to generate inputs into
LI

·the planning process which will help reflect the felt-needs

IB

of the intended beneficiaries. Yet, some issues demand

-B

consideration in any theory of participatory development. Does

IA

the model of man in development subsist in the personali ty

1
R

characteristics of the citizens? To what extent is management

ES

a crucial factor? And, how ov~r the years, is the salient

;·
D

,•''
implications of these questions integrated into tiae conce-
O

ptualization, planning and implementation of programmes for

C

development?

In.his "Human side of enterprise" Douglas McGregor attempts

to explain the relationship between motivation and mobilisation

inceiitives from government, administrators or change agents

and the participants. In his theory x, he enumerated the

prescriptive model or the conventi.oral conception with propositions

 t
l,.
i
. 1
. ·1
. '
'

54

that wfll facilitate the harnessing of huaan energy ta organisa-_;·

tional requirements. ï'he set of propositions are:

( 1) Management is responsible for organising the elements of

productive enterprise - money, materials, equipment,

people - in the interest of economic ends.

(2) With respect ta people, this is a process of directing their

efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, modifying

E
their behaviour ta fit the needs of the organisation.

U
( 3) Wi thout thi s active intervention by ·management, people

EQ
will be passive. They must th.erefore be persuaded,

rewarded and controlled.

TH
This conventionar theory has aver
O
the years dictated the approach to planning and dev~lopment,
LI

such that people simply have decisions made by a cult

IB

of experts and handed down to them for compliance. It was

-B

thought that since the masses are ignorant and lack the
IA

requisite knowledge for participation in the planning

R

process that they should be excluded. This assumption tias

ES

been contested by Hart ,.,.who said that human.behaviour in

D

organisational development is nota conseqù~nce·of man's

O
C

inherent nature. Rather, it is a consequence of ttie nattJ.re

of organisations which depend on hierachical struct~e and

positionai power relatianships for obtaining organisational

. 75
objectives,. In continuation, Hart provided the_

justification for maximal citiz~n participation because

"the abilities and conscieaces of. the political elite are

 / i,)'

. '
1
55

tcofrail à reed upon which to rest the ·survival of the entire

. 76
society"~

In realfzation of the inadequacy of.theory x, McGregor

introduced the subject of motivation and rigorously applied

Maslow•s hierachy of needs to his analysis. To him, the physiolo-

gical and safety needs being the lower ones are satisfied first;

and a satisfied need is nota motiv~tor of behaviour. When man's

E
physiologtcal needs are satisfied, and he is no longer afraid

U
of his physical welfare,.other hi9her needs manifest to m?tivate

EQ
his behaviour. The highest of these needs are the self-

fulfilment needs.
TH
Thes_e are ·needs for realizing one' s own
O
potentialities, for continued self-development and for being
LI

creative in the broadest sense of the tenns. The assumptions of

IB

theory X inhibit the attainment of this level of man's need and

-B

has adverse implications for pe~sonality development. This

IA

explains the passivity and resistence of the masses to change.

R

Since management by direction ànd control stultify t~eir

ES

absolute development, man reclines to passive acquisence of

,,,,
D

programmes and-this adversely affects the attainment of

O
C

objective functions.

Thus, the emergence of 'Theory Y' which tends to proffer

a more adequate solution based on functional assumptions about

human nature and human motivation. The set of propositions

for theory Y are:

Ci) Management is responsible for organizing the elernent

of productive enterprise in the interest of economic

ends.

Cii) people are not by nature passive or resistant to

organisational needs. They became so as a result of

 56

experience in organisations.

Hii) The motivation, the potential for development, the capaci ty

for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct

behaviour towards organisational goals are all present

in people. It is a responsibility of management to make

it possible for people to recognise and develop these

human characteristics for themselves.

E
(iv) The essential task for management is to a~range organisa-

U
tionàl conditions and methods of operation so that people

EQ
can achieve their own goals best.by directing their own
TH
efforts toward organisational objectives.

The propositions for theory Y is akin to the mobilisational

O
LI

model by J.P. Nettle in his "Political mobilisation: A Sociological

IB

analysis of methods and concepts"; the tenets of which was

-B

sununarized by Ollawa, (1978). Other notable studies of the

77
IA

mobilisation hypotheses abound. The tenets of the mobilisation

.
R

models implies that government must develop the capacity to

ES

effectively mobilise the-mass7-s for collective action, _and

,..
D

orient their actions towards a defined set of values; support

O

decentralisation measures and generally motivate the masses

C

to rwrticipate in development efforts. The contemporary

theories recommend that participation is not determined by

the personality characteristics of the participants, but ~ore by

the incentives and manipulative persuasion of the change agents,

and positive influences of the exogenous variables.

. 1

57
Î'
Perhaps,, Hart succinctly s~arises the benefits of citizen
1
f participation for the society generally when he contended that;
t
1
\ " .... if all citizens participate in policy
.l decisions, the resultant policy (and the
regime from which it issues} will be more
legitimate in the rninds of the citizens and
most of the problems of compliance to government 78
policy will disappear in a participatory system·."

This frarnework have to a large extent unravelled the inner

meanings, the salient questions to seek answers to and the

E
ramifications, delineating the goals and obstacles toits

U
EQ
operationalization. It reveals that any ~heory of participatory

development must be premised in a multi-disciplinary, multi-

TH
dimensional and multi-relational setting.
O
LI

1.8 STATEMENT OF HYPOTHES~

IB

1. The rural poor are insufficiently involved in the

-B

rural developmènt process because adequate institutional

IA

..
frameworks suitable for their mobilisation are lacking.
R

Local organisations more than the government -

ES

2•
•f
ins.ti tuted organisat,ions
,, will make for more effective
D
O

mobilisation for participation in rural development

C

programmes.

3. The citizens level of interest in local affaira and

the sens~ of community satisfaction better explains

participatory orientations. than personali ty variables.

 58

1.9 METHOIX)LOGY

The data analysed in this stuciy were obtained through a

questiormaire distributed in the study area - Nkwerre/Isu Local

Government Area of Imo State. There are twenty-one ( 21)

autonomous communities in the Local Government Area. These

communities with number of villages comprised in them are listed:

1. Amaokpara 6 12. Unudi 10

E
2. Nkwerre :w 13. Umuwala 9

U
3.·· Owerre-Nkwoji 10 14. Agba.Jah 8

EQ
4. Eziarna-Obaire 14 15. Nkurne 4
s. Isu 27 TH16. Umuozu 4
6. Amucha 14 17. Abba 4
O
7. Isunjaba 30 18. Amurie Omanze 8
LI

s. Okwudor 8 19. Ekwe 6

IB

9. Umuaka 10 20. Atta 5

ta. Amandugba 12 Umundugba
-B

21. 4
11. Amaigbo 36
IA

Figure 1.3 shows the topographical_ position of these

R
ES

conununities in the local government area.

,·
In a preliminary survey, it wàs revealed that th~e are
D
O

presently sixty-four (64) on-going self-help community developrnent

C

projects (as at July 1989). These projects range from health

institutions, civic centres, market projects, Road/Bridges and

Culverts, water scheme~ cotgage industries, electricity, school

and communal scholarship. The sixty-four projects·are spread

out arnong the twenty-one communities (see Figure 1.4). In

.1
addition, there are eighteen state and/or Federal Government
 ~-- Orlu :.: G.A

E
U
EQ
TH
O
LI
N ·-

IB
+-

-B
IA
R
ES

1
D

t
O

'
i. . .

i .M,~P OF f\JKV'JERRE-ISU
C

i L,OCAL GOVT. AREA .

.Retraced Jro,n Co,n,nunity Development Office.

.,, .. . -- ,_
--~: .,.._.(..;_- __ .. - : · -- ~;.c. - ••••

=-----· ______,____ ~- - ........ ~---- -· - -~---- - - ··- . --

- - - --- -~ ·..~. ---~---'- . --·
- ---- . - _--:,;.;:---;~--..:-:;;·.,·· --- . ~~--· -- --
......
 59

sponsored projects in the Local Goverriment Area; .ra~ging from

erosion control scheme, water boreholes, electricity, access

roads, schools, health and industrial concerns.

Agricultural activities are the main economi~ activity,

although primarily at the subsistence level. This is so because

the participating labour force spend much of their time in non-

farm economic activities.which are additional sources of income.

E
Pètty trading activities dominate resulting in the prevalence of

U
tran~it9ry rural dwellers or marginalised individuals who shuttle

EQ
between the city and the village, but who are still resident in

the rural areas.

TH
O
Time and resource constraints were dominant limitations· to
LI

this study. As a result, in the distribution of the research

IB

questionnaire, only the first eleven listed communities were

-B

coveredu The choice of area was.determined by the size and

IA

n~ber of villages in an autonomous conununity and in the

R

distance from my base of operation. The sample universe was

ES

nonetheless considered repres 7ntative. Furthermore, efforts

,...
D

·were made to caver the interest of all classes of people,

O
C

especially those who had no education. For this group of people,

questionnaire was administered like a structured interview-

schedule with the same questions and options.

More than four hundred questionnaires were distributed.

Only .two hundrl!d and ninety-six were returned. However, some

wer:e discarded because of insufficient information or failure

to answer more than hal~ of the questions.

 FIGURE 1.4 60

SELF-HELP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, 1988/89

Humber of on-going projects Expenditure up to date of

on-going projects

E
U
64
r : 21, 7C6,501.00 1 .

EQ
Number of participating autonomous Expenditure fo~ the year, 1981 Sill-'l}'!ARY OF PROJECTS

TH
communi ti es
901,500.00 Health Institutions 14

O
21 Civic Centres 20

LI
Market pro j ects 3
Total value of completed projects
Number of completed projects

IB
Road/Bridges/':ulverts- 5

[_i_1__ Water Scheme 4

-B
/ 3,648,680.00
"\ Cottage Industries 1
Electricity Projects 5

IA
Estirnated cost of on-going proj"ects. Number of newly initiated projects
School projects 12
R
·[.____s_] Communal Farm
ES
49,87~ Projects - NIL
J
Com~unal Scholar-
D

ship. - NIL
O
C

SOURCE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, NKWERRE LoG.A. H'.O STP..TE.

 ù
1.10 RESEARCH DESIGN

Citizen participation is the dependent variable in this

study. A number of studies have shown that elements. of partici-

79
pation or participant citizenship , range from voting, reading

newspapers and listening to radio/television, belonging ta

organisations. These elements have been divided into gladiator

80
roles, transitional and passive roles. Consequently in the

E
construction of the questionnaire the dependent variable was

U
·operationalised using questions 9, 10, 11, 12,; 13, 15, 16, 17, 20,

EQ
· 24. Csee appendix I). These items constitute various ways
TH
in which persans can become informed or invol ved in the mechanics
O
of decision rnaking for development.
LI

The independent variables are personality variables, socio-

IB

economic status, organisational involvement, sense.of community

-B

satisfaction, measures of personal efficacy and media expos"4re.

IA

An index of socio-economic status was designed by combining the

R

variables of educational attainment and income level. This is

ES

in consonant with results by L~dewig

,·
and McCann that edÙcational
,.,.
D

attainrnent and income are positive indicators of one's social

O

and economic ability to influence and central. outcomes affecting

C

81
his circumstance. 'l'hese were also found to be directly and

significantly correlated with one's level of community

satisfaction. Respondents we~e required to indicate the level

of education attained. Incarne level was determined by asking

the yearly income of the respondent, choosing from among seven

categories ranging from below 54,0bo.oo to above N2o,ooo.oo.

 62

Organisational involvement index was constructed by asking

whether and how respondents belonged to any local organisation

in his area, leadership position held and extent of meeting/

congress attendanceœ The sense of community satisfaction variable

was operationalized by asking respondents "How satisfied are you

with the quality of life in your community" and whether they

"feel 'at home' in this communi ty". · (iterf!S 21 and 22).

E
The media exposure variables is used to provide an indication

U
of an individuals access to information on the world around him.

EQ
It is believed that the more exposed one becomes to various
TH
sources of information, the more his cognitive ability develops
O
and the more knowledge the individual would have in developing
LI

his effectiveness to control and contribute to development issues.

IB

Thus, the media expqsure of the indi vidual was measur·ed using
-B

questions 12 and 13; while the sense of personal efficacy was

IA

·i
measured with question 25 where the respondent was asked
R

whether there are enough opportunities in h.is area for "people

ES

. like you" to take part in dec:i..sion making for development •

D

A number of questions in the questionnaire was aimed

O
C

at eliciting information concerning peoples feelings and

.attitudes towards the strategy of ~itizen participation and an

evaluation of existing procedures, people were.asked to indicate

what they considered the rnost effective way of mobilizing

people fo+ rural development; whether it makes any difference

whether or not people participate.

 ..... .-.. ~· ... ~.:·······. '.~---·· -,.,...... -............ .

63

Presently, in the study àrea, various projects are taking

place, costing millions and thousands of Naira. aespondents·were

required to indicate which of the projects are taking place in

their areas and method of sponsorship - whether go~errunent

. .
;.sponsored, comrnunity self-help of: Joint- sponsorship. T1'e extent

and dimensions of existing participatory measw:-es·were tested by

requesting if some sort .-of survey or opinion poll was conducted

E
in the community before choice of project ~as made, and if

U
EQ
project is community self-help, whether the deèi~ion to

undertake the project was mere executive discretion·or an

- -:-----.__ - -
TH
executive d:bscre_i;:i_~n or an expression of general will. of the
O
congress.
LI
IB

The answered questionnaire was sent for computer analysis,

-B

measuring the correlat:l,on coefficients and .analysis of variance.

The scales were subjected to reliability tests. The ·group

IA

and total means, standard deviations ànd ,g, ·test levels of

R
ES

significanc~ with.regard to differences between the mea~s were

also.computed. Cross tabulations, chi-square calculations and

D

L
O

test of hypotheses werè made using F - distributions.

C

(
{)

----
 ......... ····· . .-:·······-· ,-·-· ·, ..... ·. ·-·~r

.!J
64

REFERENCES

\Jorman Long, An Introduction to the Sociology of Rural·

Development, Londont .Travistock, 1977, pci35,.

2
Daryl J. Hobbs, "Rural Development: Intentions and
Consequences", Rural Sociology, Vol,.45, No.t, (1980) p.13.

·3
Pattrick E. Ollawa, "On a dynamic Madel for. Rural Pevelopment
in Africa", The Journal of modern African·Studies, Vol.15, :3
(1977). p,.4069 ~

E
U
4 .
P .. E. Ollawa, "Political participation in a developfng

EQ
Society: Theoretical considerations and the Case of Zambia",
Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics. VolaXVI,
No.2y July (1978). pp~t03,106Q TH
5
Kurt Finsterbusch and Warren Van Wicklin III,"
O
- ... The contribution of beneficiary participation to development.
LI

project effectiveness" Public Administration and Development ..

Vo1.7, No.,1, Jan-March~ 1987, p.2.
IB

6
International Labour Organisation, Meeting Basic Needs:
-B

Strategies For Eradicating Mass Poverty and Un~ployment,

Geneva, 1977 ..
IA

. 7 .
Robert Dahl, "The city in the future ·of Democracy".
R

American Political Science Review., Vol.LP, No.4 9 Dec., (1967)

ES

p .. 969 ..

8
Federal Government of Nigeria, National Devel~pme1\t Plari,
D

.. . . . ·· ·
1975-80? Federal Ministry of Information_, (1975), :p.292.
O
C

9
Merille Grindle,, "Anticipating failures: ·The implementation
of Rural·Development PrOgrams" Public Policy, Vol.29-,, No.1,
C1981) p~ 70.

10
P.E. Ollawa, "On ·a dynamic model , ..
•••" Op~cit, p.402.

1
\1,.--Lowâermilk and W.. R. Lai tos, "Towards a· participatory
strategy fo-;--Integrated Rural Developm~nt" Rural Sociology ·
Vola46, No.4. (1981) p.698.
 .•-

65

12
John Cohen and Norman Uphoff, l'Participations place in .
Ru?.""e.1 Dc·wêiopiii€-ï,t; ~~~c-~ir1 J ·c1ctL~.Li:y i:!irough specitici~y",
1

World Development, Vol.8 (1980) po213 .. ·

13 · ·
M. Lowdermilk and WoR .. Laitos, Op.cit p~696.

14
. Directôrate of Social Mobilisation, Mamser -Handbook,
.. · (Abuja 7 Direct.orate of Social Mobilisation) ( 19187), p.2 ..

15
Nnadozie Nwosu, "Strategies for Mass mobilisation and the
implication for Rural Development" Paper presented at the

E
National workshop on rural development and mass mobilisatio~;

U
held at University of Nigeria, Nsukka 10th-12th November,
(1987) p .. 2.

EQ
16
un1ted Nations, African Regional Conference on Integrated
TH
Approach ·to Rural·Development, proceedings of conferencŒ held
_at Moshi, Tanzania in 1969, (1971) p.42.. JJ
O
'
LI

National Development plan 1975-80, (1975)

op .. cit, p.30 ..
IB

18
-B

Ibid, p.292.

19
Abiodun Falusi", "Agricultural Development: Operation
IA

Feed The Nation" in o .. Oyediran (ed .. ) .Survey of Nigerian

R

Affairs, 1976-77 (1981) p~56.

ES

20 .
. Central Bank of Nigeria, Annual Reports and Statement
of Accounts, 1980, pp~88.
D
O

21 .
. See Merille Grindle-, 1981, op.cit; "·
C

A. Kolawole· "The role of grassroots in national ~evelopment:

fessons from the Kwara State of Nigeria'!, Communi ty Development
·Journal Vol.17, No .. 2, (1982).

22
united Nations, op.cit p.2.

23
M. Lowderrnilk and W. Laitors,
op.cit. p.691.

24
H. Koontz, c. O'Daniel and H. Weihrich.
Management {N.Y., McGraw-Hill, 1980) p.632~
 .......~.- .... , ... ,
~ ·-·-···~,..... .......... ,,...".'

66

'5 . . .
·- Berelson and Steiner, Hurnan Behaviour: An Inventorv of
·scientific findings. (N.Y, Harcourt Brace Inc .. 1964).

26
P .. E. Ollawa, "Approaches to the study· of development and
.
underdevelopment: - A critical overview", Mimeograph, (1981). p.13.
{) ( '
27
Judy Rosener, ' 9Cil:izen Participation: Can We measure its
effèctiveness'?" Public Administration Review. Vol.3~, No.5·,
(1978) p .. 458.

· 28 .
Fred M. Hayward, "Political participation and its role in
development: Some Observations drawn from the African Context,"

E
Journal of-Developing Areas, (1973) p.594.

U
EQ
29 ·
.John Montgomery and Milton Esman, "Popular I?articipation
in Development Administration" Journal of comparative administration,
Vol.,3 9 ·Novemb.er, (1971). p .. 35~.... TH
30 . ,'
David K., Hart, uTheories of government related to decentra-
O
lisation and citizen participation", Public Administration Review
LI

Vol.32; O~tober (!9?2) ~.505.

IB

31
Area Churchman, "Issues in resident participation:
-B

Lessons from the Israeli experience", Policy Studies Journal,

Vol:16, Noo2, Winter (1987) p.290.
IA

32 -
. James Cunningham, "Citizen Participation in public affairs"
R

·Public Administration Review, VolaXJO<II, October (1972) pa595.

ES

33
PGE. Ollawa 9 Participatory democracy in Zambia. The Political
ec;onomy of National Developmentll (Britain 9 Arthur .Stoclcwell t tct,
D

1979) p .. 4.4 •
1
O
C

34
. John Cohen and Nurman Uphoff,
Op.cit p.216 ..

35 . . \t
A. Goldsmith, "Popular participation in South Kofea' s New
Community Movement" Rural Developrnent participation Review,
Ithaca: Carnel University Centre for International ?5tudies, Rural
Development Committee publication, III, No.3 (1982) p54. ·

36
.J. Waddimba, Sorne participative aspeé:ts of proqramrnes_to
involve the poor in developmen·tv Geneva·9 No,.7, 1979 ..

37
Louis Piccard, "~ociallsm and the field administratort
Decentralisation in Tanzaniar' Comparative Politics
Vol.12, No~4, July (1980) p.450~
 ....,.. - .. , ...
, ,• - . ···~.. ~- .... .- ........ .....
-

67

39 Uma Lele, The Design

. of Rural Developmentr Lessons from Arca,
fi
(USA, John Hopkinst 1975) .P.162,.

·40
M. Lowdermilk and w. Lai tos, Op.ci t p.692.

4
\iaul Harrison, The Third World Tèmmorrow, 2nd ed. (England,
Peng',lin, 1980) p.228u

42 · ·
J .. Waddimba, Op.cit.

E
U
43
. ~~hbub UL· Haq, "Crises in development strategi~s,"
. ·

EQ
~orld Development, Vol.I, No~7, (1973) p.30.

44 . TH
o.. u.
Nnadozie, "Citizen participation and commurµty
development in ·Nigeria", Niqerian Journal of Public Administration
·· and Local Governmènt, Vol.IV No .. 1, Ma.rch. (1986) ·p .. 41? •
-·-
O
.
LI

45
· Stewart Macpherson, Social pol.icy in the third world,
IB

(Britain~ Wheatsheaf Book, 1982) p.189~

-B

46
P.,E. Ollawaf ''.On a dynamic model (
ue
11
Op.,cit.Pp .. 402 ..
IA

47 ·
M. Lowdermilk and W. Laites,
R

Op .. ci t p~698 ..
ES

48

---
Joung Whang, Managing Rural change
D
O

. 0 .
49 · ·
Uma Lele, op.cit Pœ20 ..
C

50 .
-Daryl«=; Hobbs, op .. ci t 12.12.

51
Robert Aleshire, "Power to the people: An ·assessment of the
Communi ty action and rnodel ci ties experience'' • Public Administration
Review: Oc:t:ot>er, ·!973_

52
Diana Conyers, An introduction to social planning in the
third world 9 (New Yôrk, John -Wiley and Sons, 1982) p .. 134.
 .... " .. -~-·' .... ~-~ •... ,. ~ ; .... ... "':.,... .... - ............ . .
:_ '

68

53
N.U. Akpan, Public Administration in Nigeria.
(Ikeja, Longman Nigeria, 1982).

54 ·
Alex Gboyega, "Community participation and the administration
of Social Services in Western State of Nigeria" in The Adininistration
of Social Services in Ni eria: ·The Challen e to Local Governrnents,
I·fe, UNIFE, 1981 p .. 122,.

55 ·
Quotecl in ·Diana Conye~s, op.cit p.137.

56
Mauk: Mulder, "Power equali.zation. through participation"
Administrative Science Quaterly_, Vol .. 16·, No,. 1, Marc;h ( 1971).

E
p.35, 36 ..

U
57

EQ
John Cohen and Norman Uphoff, op.cit p.217.

58
Uma Lele, opacit p.162. TH
59
Jeremy Swift, "Notes on tradi tional knowleclge~ modern ,
O
knowledge and rural development" Development Journal of the society
LI

for international Development, (1980) 2-3, p.43a

IB

60 .
. Dennis Rondinêlli, "Government decentralisation in
-B

compr1ratJve perspective" Internàtional Review or· Administrative

Sciences,Vol-;-XLVII,_ No.2 9 (1981) p.137.
IA
R

62 ·
ES

Chibuzo Ogbuagu, "Citizen participation: Implications for

resource mobilisation for rural development9.' being paper presentecl
at the Seminar for rural development, University.of Calabar,
D

Calabar, 14th-16th June, 1987~ p .. s.

O
C

63
' Judy B. Rosener, op.cit p.458,.

. Op.cit p.34, and A Ko l awo l e, op .. c i t.

64Mauk·,M.ulder,
·

65
Gerald M. Meier, Leading Issues in Econorrlic Development,
'(4th ed.,) (New York, Oxford University Press, 1984) p •• 93 ...

6
6rraida Alechima, "The contributions of the United Nations
··sy.stem · to· forinulatlng development concepts" in Different theoriew
. and practices of Development, (Paris, UNESCO, 1982) p.,15 ..

{)
( '
 ••*• , , ••.•$Ç ._ ~;-·~.•-,, • ,...,O..:,r•",~".,,,' .:-., .... ··~·.. -.

69

·
67
Ibid ' · p.. 19 ..
'
68 ·
Warren Ilchman and· Ravindra Bhargava ''Balanced thought and
economic ·growth", Economie: Development and Cultural Ch~ge,
VolvXIV No,.4, July (1966)u p.389œ ;

69
Iraida Alechina, Op.cit. p.13.

70 .
MaUk Mulder, Op .. cit. p.31~

71John.K\!nkel, "Values and behaviour in economic developmmt"

Economie Development ·and Cultural Change, Vol.XIII No.3, April

E
(1965) p .. 257 ..

U
EQ
72
P,.E .. Ollawa, "Poli tical participation in a deve~oping ·
dociety, Op~cit, Po174.

73
Ibid.,
TH
O
.7LL
""Iraida Alechina 1 Op.c i t. Po15.,
LI
IB
-B

76
Ibid .. p.612.
IA

77 ·
David L. Rogers, et al, "Voluntary association membership
R

and political participation: An exploration of the mobilisation

ES

hypothesis" Socioloqical Quaterly, 16, ( 1975); anci P.E .. Ollawa,

"Political participation in a developing ..... " Op.,cit .. p,.176,.
D

78 .
David H~rt, op.cit. p .. 613.
O
C

79
Aiex Inkeles, "Participant Citizenship .in six developing
countries ''. American Poli tic al Science Review. Vo1.1:XIII,
December C1969 ..

SORick Van Loon, "Poli tical participation in Canada:\ The

. 1965 élection", Canadian Journal of Poli tical Science, .Vol.III,
No=.3 7 September ( 1970) ..

81
Howard Ladewng and Glen Ca McCann "Community Satisfaction:
Theory and measurement'' R~ral Scndology; Vo~:.45 7 No .. 1 (1980). p.119.
 ,. . . ..... ~' ..... : .... ,... --··~·· ..,._ ..-

70

CHAPTER TWO

COMPARATIVE ANALYSTS or CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT:

SOME LESSONS FOR NIGERIA

There is· demonstrated consensus on the saliency of the

principle of citizen participation in rural development planning.

However, the inces~ant disappointment exper.ienced by many countries

in its pursuit has resulted in mass discontent warranting more

research in to reasons for the failure - prone syndrone. Seldom

E
U
were the rural masses involved in the design and management of

EQ
development programmes, nor were levels of decision-making
TH
adequately decentralized to lower levels to enhance the

collation and integration of 10.'f·W: wishes and aspirations and

O
LI

circumstances into the national policy framework ..

I.C
IB

It is for this.lapse that Goldsmith showed that:fl

-B

"while the participatory model of development

has obvious moral and theoretical appeal,
the arguments in favour of more participation
IA

rarely proceed further, for there are

relatively few instances where participatory
R

development has been seriously attempted and

ES

thus scanty evidence concerning either its

proper role or the means by which it can be
D

optimised.,"1
O

However it may seem, many coun~ries have attempted,

C

impressively too, to operationalize this concept. The literature

and ca~e study reports on these are legion. Preyious research

has attempted to unravel reasons for_ the· lag·in effective

operationalization.· Paul Harrison in his "Third·world Tommorrow"

enumerated empirical atteinpts, approaches and lessons. His

examples range from the Chinese model of primary Health Care, _the
 ~. • • ··~·'<• ... ,.:-.,,... ••.••• ~·-~- .. ~..... . ........ ~ •........

71

· :Barefoot doctors of Bangladesh, Education for development as

__èxponented in Columbia, Phillipines and Indonesia., Rondinelli and

-Ruddle ( 1977), Rondinelli ( 1981) arid Diane Conyers. ( 1974 & 1986)

and many other scholars have contributed immense1y to this analogy ..

The Lilonge projects of Malawi, the 11

Seamau1·undong" of Korea ~nd

the Camilla ITciject in)3angladesh are examples ·of participatory( '

proj_ects that found repeated reference in comparative studies.

E
Trlesë·nations and social contexts approached the strategy

U
from·various standpoints, but as Churchmah in a comparative

EQ
analysis averred-;--.
~
TH
"despite great differences in. the context and
specific details of the programm·es and the
O
resident involvement process, there are simi-
LI

larities in "the genéral Trends; as well as .

in the broad issues that ariseo Variability
IB

exi:3ts within and between countries, but the

phenomenon of resident participation.seems
-B

to hAVP A 0~si~ struct".!!'."~ t~~t is exp~~5s~

in different elaborations and emphasis ~hile
still retaining its essential càre".2
IA
R

Therefore, the whol·e essence of this chapt~ is not only to

.
ES

reveal the constraints under which these programmes were executed,

D

·but also will suggest conditions that must be established to

O

make participatory development effective. More·importantly as

C

Ollawa states, the comparative studies will draw together ,

"the historical and situational experiences of differing

political systems and geographical areas into a coherent

. . 3 .
theoretical framework", and further enhance the evaluatd:.on
. JJ
of the potentials of this strategy and concept for prediction

and explanation.

....
.,.
 ... - . " .,,......... .:.~ ...- .,,... '~~-::. ... ... :.••'- ............. ·~ ... ...
"

"

.Available infor.ination has shown that much of what is to be

discussed lies within the~framework of administ~ative.decentralisa-

tion of m·any nations. are

measures aj,.med at social
These
. .
engineering and mobilization of local involvement_in decision

making. It is in the"discussion of these that we discern the policy

------------ .
implicationiàriâ-lessons to be learnt of participatory _pla~ning for

development. Furthermore, the literature reveals the rjearth of

E
ex~ensive participatory programmes at national levels • . Wh·at

U
EQ
predominates is the study reports of particular measures to

mobilise the citizens towards the attainment of a specific programme

TH
which.may be at regional, local governrnent level or county
O
councils, after which the citizens relapse into their "culture
LI

·.of silence". To .what extent can local involvemeht in development

IB
-B

'programmes be instituted on a self-sustaining basis at a relatively

national level?
IA
R

·2~1 .PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATI.ON:

ES

It has been emphasized that the participation of the rural

D

population in planning and decision making holds the key to

O

{) ., . . (
'
C

authentic rurcll development. It facili tates the achievement of

. "goodness or :fit" between the needs and skills of the rural

dwellers ..

The -ind!_~pensability of this concept have been demonstrated

. ---
. .
by the·plannecs of New Bombay, India, in the choice of design.

In one of the settlements, a "study Action Group" èomprisiT).g of

<P,rchi tects, doc tors, ·Engineer·s, and Social workt!rs fir.st tindertook
 73

an extensive survey of family structure and family budgets of the

residents. This enabled them to identify living patterns that

would influence design, and income levels.which would indièate_

. .:,

how mÙch rent people·can pay. The draft designs were maqe,

circulated among the intended beneficiaries for their comments

and modifications were made in the final draft reflective of the

. , these comments. Then, eight demonstra-

E
U
'
tion houses were built for them to visit. Paul Harrison (1980)

EQ
notes a variant of this approach, the 'site and· services·
TH
approach in which the authorities provided_ land, constructed

s~me of the pUblîc utilities like water, sewege and access roads,
O
LI

and then allowed the people to build their settlement to suit

IB

their lifestyles, pockets and standards.

-B

This contrasts the "planner-knows-all" app.roach where

1

des~gns were sketched a prioriOCy, decisions as ta-patterns,

IA
R

made; and the citizens participation amounting,to mere

ES

acquisence: In Nigeria, in the Second Republic (1979-83) the

D

regime embarked and exècuted·low cost housing programs. This

O

was intended to help- curb urban drift; but iri the main, its
C

----------
main purpose-was __to. . help in the upliftment of rural housing

standards. Today, a greater percentage of.these houses are

inhabitable by human beings owing to locational defièienèies.

They are rather housed by lower primates and/or constitutes

hide-outs for hoodlums. In some places, where i t is possible to

tnstigate other complementary services ·or ecbnomies,· they now

serve as barracks to sqme members of the·force ... The reason

 ~.-,· .... ,.~·~ :.. ~ .,. ,. : . .:..;:,.·· . :.,.... : . ·. ·.... ·...,:.....

was that ~he planners neglected the lifestyles, residence patterns

and standard of living·of the· intend~d beneficiaries,. Furthermore;

,,·

adequate considerations was not given to other complementary

activities that w-:i..11 engënder econornies .of scale. consequeni:ly,

the layouts lacked effectilve horizontal and vertical integration

with other. sectors of the economy.

The problem of lack of adequate.citizen involvement in the policy

E
U
process finds further dernonstration in previous government attempts

EQ
at agricultural development. In the Green Revolution programme

(1980), apart from appeals to farrners to go back to farming, 1 no

TH
serious attempt was made by the administration o~ Shehu Shaga.J:"i
O
LI

to seek the opinions of P.easant far.mers as to what their

IB

problems and needs were and how best to meet them.

-B

hardly any serious atternpt to establish local par.ticipatory units

based on the. existing traditional social structures for the

IA
R

pur.pose of invol ving the peasant far.mers in the agricul turaJ/

·'
ES

development policy pr·ocess. This eli tist inclination have

D

been found to be responsible for programme failures.

O

In Northeast Thailand, one persistent problein conrronting ·

C

development cbncerns water. This· is a drought-prone region and

irrigation·and portable w~ter supplies are often inadeq~ate to

meet agricul tural and domestic needs. '.'Despi te several

decades of large scale capital investment in ground and surface

water development, many farnilies in these cornmunities are still

beyond the feasible technical and economic limits of piped water

4
systems". In one of the studies, it was identified that "lack

,,
 . . . ,· ,, ~ - ~ ~ ( ' • . . . :;. . . . . . . :• • • • ~ : _ . ''": ..... • : : ... 4 • .... ··~·,..>-,

J)

75

of community participation in systems development, lack of

community motivation, çlifficulties in co-ordinating the actions of

the many agencies involved in rural water development and inade-

. .
quate user participation", were responsible for the failùre to

maximise the objective functions of· other atternpts. Thus, in 1981,

The TUNGNAM project was embarked upon, premised upon· the làpses
.
of past efforts. The project held a series of meetings _wi.th

E
interested districts and households delegating to them particïpation

U
EQ
in choice of project design. The project was to help villages/

districts to construct water reservoirs with a capacity of 11,000

TH
·1itres.
O
The actual process of tanlc construction was by the villagers
LI

themselves with technical assistance provided by TUNGN~ field

IB

staff~ Local mat.erials like bambo were used, reinforced .wi th.
-B

cernent moulds. The interaction of the operat~· of the ·

IA

programmes with the families enabled them to device a functional

R

. .
~chedule for the repayment of the cost of materials. Re::;ults
ES

1
showed that in the first year of programme implanentation, 1,000
D
O

rain water storage tanlcs~were constructed. BY: the end of the

C

second year, 5,470 tanlcs had been completed.sparsing·eleven

5
districts ..

What these goes.to show is that citizen p~ticipation is

honest attempts.
----
the panacefi\-to development problems that seern to have de_fied(

In a bid to show the lessons ·which these

studies hold for Nigeria, Hafner

'
concludes that geogr~phic
.
barriers
.

as_a constraint to the delivery of rural·developmeut activities

 - ' ... ·~··. .... ..
, : ·~ .,. -........ _•· ':,• ... ........... ·..... ':'

·76

has been overcorne by a strategy of direct involvement' with tlle

targèt corrununities; that local skills and initiative are. a

valuable reservoir often neglected and untapped by m9re~

. .

conventional programmes. These exarnples further show that prpject

beneficiaries are willing to pay for development activ~ties when

the benefits are clear and costs reasonably commensurate with_

benefits.

E
--·-·-·
The Korean example as typified in the "Saemaul Undouing"

U
6 .

EQ
hold the sarne lessons for Nigeria. · Revolutions in primary

health case delivery as examplified in the.Bàrefoot doctors of

TH
China and Bangladesh are cases in point; and even 'in· human
O
.resource development as demonstra~ed in_the èhoice of educational
LI

system in the Phillipines and Indonesia. For instance, in an

IB
-B

. · · _experimental project in the Phillipines and Indonesia, cbildren

are _taken to the fields to learn the techniques of cultlva.H on

IA

from fanners, and get prâctical lessons in woodwork from the

R

7
ES

village carpenter. This stresses the ne~·fcr a rnuch closer

linkàge between school curricultnn and community.needs.

D
O

Education is supposed to help reinforce the·replenishment of

-
------- -
C

- -
what Todaro-(""1971) _calls the "real resource needs · of a

community. In Nigeria,social contexts that_ are purely agro-

based need to have a different school curriculum geared ·

specifically to the predominant economic activity. ·It is unfortunate

to realise that in riverine areas, c~ldren néglec~ fishing.and

farmihg as a plausible occupation; and rather than being schooled

 ..... '. : ... ... ~.-· ...
,,: •'•. ..
. - .:.. '':.• ......

77

in the modern techniques of fishing and fanning they pursue

6

western-styl~ education and subsequently graduate into unemploy-

ment. What a dysfunctional educational system.!

-)
2.2 DECENTRALISATION, PARTICIPATION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT:
ISSUES AND PROCEDURES:

The degree of effective citizen involvement in decision-

E
. .
making for rural development obviously depends on the ~xtent to

U
.Y

EQ
which the decision making units have been decentraJised and powers

absolutely devolved ·to lower levels. ~ significant n~ber of·

TH
y' ~ountries h~ve realised the importance of decentralized planning
O
and administration as a m~ans of encouraging local participation.
LI

The Chinese approach is usually mentioned in this vein; while

IB
-B

Tanzania, Zambia, Papua New Guines, Senegal and indeed many

. .
developing nations of the world have at certain stages of
IA

there development process undergone exten.sive administrative

R
ES

decentralisation with a view to attaining greater·levels.of

citizen involvement in decision-making for development •.

D
O

Various procedural and substantive issues emanat~ from these

C

1experiences and constitute v@:'itable lessons for others.

- ...... .
Considering the subjective classification of forms of decentrali-

sation - deconcentration, delegation and devolution, - and

the inherent tendency of varied meanings between.nations, the

com~arative arialysis more concerns itself with a gelineation of-

functional activities over which authority is devôlved, the type

\
 •• ~ • • •• •• '•• v • .,. ••, • • • ._ ••• < ..

78

of powers transfer.ed and the explication of other -variables that

. '

must exist<:ltlth dec~ntralisation to enhance the maximisation ~f '

objective functions.

·There is also the need to understand the managerial and

political objectives of decentralisatïon.. In the rolitical

.
parlance;-li:1:s-necessary to know that the issue of.participation

assumes the sensitive and strategic p·osi tion in ~evelopment

E
U
studi.es ·because of i ts poli t:i,.cal and ideological undertones. It

EQ
concerns not only·with t~e distribution of powe,r between
TH
different levels in the politico-administrativé hierachy, but.

also the distribution of power betwe~ interest groups at

O
LI

each level ..
IB

The Chinese example always finds repeated reference in

-B

comparative studies. Chinais one of the few countries which ·have

IA

really evolved a decentralized planning procedu~e that extends

R

right down to the rural masses, and is adequately integra~ed

ES

into the national planning framework. The whole country-is

D

divided into Twenty-nine (29) administrative units. Each of

O

these urüts is further sub-divided into smaller uni-ts (ê'hich

C

. J)
extend to the level of the "production team" in the rural areas

and the "street" in urban areas;. In her illustration using the

yearly proc·ess of agricul tural planning, eonyers notes that i t

makes for a "high degr:ee of genuine grass-roots participatfon

8
in the Chinese planning system".

The first step is for the levels·in the hierachY- to submit

to tne level immediately above it an estimate of the amount of

 ..... ,, .·.. ~. ... :.,, ... ... . . . ...
,:, ', ..
. . .: ... ..,... . . ...-........ L

79

produce it expects to produce in the year and what proportion

of it will be made available for sale to the state. -These

estimates eventually reach the higher echellons - provincial and

natlonal levels; where they are reconcileci' w.i,th national estimates

and targets.. The revised estimates are. also- passed over again

through the· hier~chy, each level setting·the targets for the

lev~l below ito The details of these targets are wor~ed out

E
by the production units.

U
EQ
The decentralisation programme in Tanzania dates from 1972 •

.· The 1972 instrumental decentralisation transferred powers and

TH
functions significantly to the regions and districts with a view
O
to improving on local administrative capacity ,so as to succeed in
LI

her "Ujamaa" yillage programmes .. The country is divided into

IB

0 . ( '
twenty (20) administrative regions 7 with further sub-divisions
-B

into districts and development committees. These dèvelopment

IA

co~ittees, however were mere advisory bodies, 11

with no power
R

. . 9
to enforce decisions and only limited financial control".
ES

At the. distr1'ct level, the system of elected local government

D

càuncils, which had been established before independence w~s

O
C

also operational •. The regional development committee comprising

of civil servants 9 party officials and represent~tives of local

.
development council, supported by the district development

and planning committee feature at the district ·level. In 1978,

a new leglslation was enacted to take care of the urban areas.

The regional and district development authorities have power ta.

 I'

80
FIGURE 2.,1
'-

CHINA' S ORGAiT\f.ISATIONAL STRUCTURE

E
NATIONAL PA.,.qTY -------a NATIONAL PEOPLES f.

U
CONGRESS CO~illr.t:S

EQ
. ST.A.TE COUNCILS

l MINI!TE~IES. .

TH
AUTONoJous MUNI CI PALI TI ES

O
PRO'~ REGIONS 1

LI
Î
' r:C:

IB
A.REAS

-B
1 NEIGHBOUR- COM-F
COUNTIES DISTRICTS
1
.L·-j HOO,.

IA
COMMUNES STREET$ BRIGADES
CO
TOWNS
R
ES
1 1
BRIGADES .TEANS

~
D

Q
O
C

SOURCE: DIANA CONYERS 9 An Introduction to S~i::ial Planning in the third. wo.rld, (NY, John Wiley &
Sons· 7 1982) p., 111 ..

1
 plan and implement development programmes, constrained. only by

national policy objectives and targets.

The institution of participatory democracy in Zamiia is another

example. Irrespecti ve of a number of piecemeal ref'orms towards:

decentralis~tion in the pre-independence and earlier post-indepen-

dence era, the United National Independence party, in her n~~ local

government Act, 1980 1 made further decentralisation. The

E
decentralisation measures and procedures shared in the basic

U
tenets of the Tanzanian approach, but Zambian example differed·

EQ
in the introduction of the "village productivity and ward

development commi ttee", following

TH
the enactmmt of. the .:,
. .
O
Reg~stration and development of village~ Act_, .1971. . The 'functions
LI

of the village.productivity comrnittees, ward councils and

IB

ward committees were explicitly stated, subsisting mainly in

-B

"structuring local activities within established channels of

IA

communications so that local leadership will not only be in the

R

position to interprete national directives or policies in-terms

ES

of their applicability to local needs, but·also t6 transmit

D

local in{:erests and aspiration·s to the national deéision making

O

10
C

structures". ·

The motives behind the deè:entralisation pro.grammes. in the

,.· · ·three countries vary owing to the different id~logy and\

planning fr~üework, yet t~u aims-can be identified:

.
Ci) the desire to iricrease local involvement in development

plans, and

(ii) the need for more effective planning an~ implementation

of development at regional or local levels.

-------------
The lessons these -cases reveal is the need to es_tablish an·

organisational structure that will facilitate the institution of

 • • • •- , · , ~~:~,·..... ::::,.-.- , ; , _ ·• • ···:. .. •• _ : , . . . . : ... .:_ ~. . . . ··1·~),.. ....... -. ' L

... 82 ·

a two~way communication process between the local.levels and

nationai lev·els through· a.hi'erachy of intermediate planning levels.

The question, then, is what have been the course of citizen

pc:1.ctlcipation in thC"se contexts wi th e:;-,;tensi':'e decer1tralisatlon7

In the Ujamaa Scheme of Tanzaniaf it was observed that

inspite of the fact that local participation was esponsed as an

.important objective, with political education in mass participation

E
U
as a key element of the strategy, genuine grassroot participation

EQ
11
has not evolved. Tanzania's Ujamaa villagisation policy for
TH
rural transformation was a failure because its c~nception arid

implementation was an elitist affaire Its speci?l Rural

O
LI

Development Programme (SRDP) was carried out without meaningful

IB

\l
involvement of the local people. Uma lele stresses. thff-1:: the
-B

pèople were neither consulted during programme planning nor

IA

informed in advance of programme implementation. In her words,

R

"programmes for villages were prèpared, priorities worked o.it,

ES

budgets allocated and personnel deployed by the sectoral

D

ministeries in Dar es Sai--am .... Decisions took an _inordinatelY:

1
O

long time to reach the field personnel and often overlpoked

C

local resource endowments and environmental factors. Consequently,

"i
Farmers i nit ative and co-:operation_
· were often strangled,". 72

A similar observation of low level or l_ack of peasant

participation in the policy process is also noted to be the case

in South Korea. Kihl points out that in that country "decisions

 •• ·-··.--~ .. - •'·-· ~-...·-··· •:., . . . . • r~ ....... ~"-

83 ·

are rarely subject to bargaining and negotiation amopg autonomous

actors; rather they refle.ct the will anà desire of the leadership

. · in an elaborate c]-:\ain of command that is based cin the explici t

13
<;li.fferentiation of superior and subordinate rules".• Continuing

he notes that in almost all cases po1icies are. shaped by the top·

political elite and their staff, to the exclu,sion: of the

peasants - the intended beneficiaries.

'

E
(
-0

U
Charlick, (1972) in his analysis of the participatory

EQ
development strategy in the republic of Niger, observed that

ins.pite of the 10-year time-lag for the programme, little was

TH
achieved_by way of translating the strategy into a working
-----
O
.

field. policy., "While still officially supporting mass popular

LI
IB

participation in development, it has in fact shifted to

-B

operational ·development policies which have entirely different

political and economic implications". Continuing, he notes

IA

. . .... . . - - .- .
snir~ nas neen away rrom par~1c1pat1on as shared
~ -
R
ES

influence in decentral~zed structures, designed both to

produce structural change at local level and to develop

D
O

.individual capabilities, to participation as mass- involvement

C

without influence in development projects, dictated by technical

1114
i:onsiderations ..

In the light of the above catalogue of failures in the·)

attempts to àttain an effective participatory s~rategy, the·

study is justified or rationalised in the sense of being an

\t
attempt at discovering what other variables actually iake

for effective citizen participationa

 •

.
84
. .
Various reasons for failure were however identified from

,.· ·. 6ther studi~s and experiences. As Uma Lele no·tes from H~r

s~rvey of Af:r.ican ·cases, even "the most ambitious·effo?:"ts to foster popular

. 15
involvement can be thwarted by subtle forms of· paternalism."

Lack of ·aàequate mutual interaction and comiT,utücation between

development officials and planners and the rural.audience is

adduced as one of the reasons.

---------

E
- .
There isaemonstrated centrist-atti tude which makes . .

U
EQ
officials-to scorn participation of rural people in development

activities. In the few instances where development officials

TH
and rural people meet, -the "top bottom 11 syndrone dominates
O
with few questions permitted and little,evidence ot willingness
LI

·. · 16
. to modify approved plans to suit local conditions.
IB

rn·the Sud~n, Howell observes that the local government.staff

-B

at àistrict and .local levels distrust the ab~lity and probity

IA

. of local councillors and consequently instructions ar:e cynically

R

· 17
administered$ In Kenya, this distrust manifests él!1.d.is
ES

~~inforcèd by poor communication resulting in lack of knowledge

D

··about rural peoples objectives and motivations.; In few

O
C

instances where participation was achieved local leaders and

community r.ryresentati.ves were directly involved in major proj,éct '

activities from an early _stage. Rondinelli and Ruddle, (1977)

contend· that the success of projects such as the Lilonge project

in Malawi and the Camilla project in Bangladesh was attributed

to goverrimënt-offi.cials "be.llef in the value· of rural life, the

 .............-.....,........ ;..,,. ··,.--u: .,, . ·...··,:•"·
!} .

basic wisdom of local farmers concerning agricultural processes and

cultural traditions and the ability t6 improve rural conditioris

. 18
through solutions· of problert1s at local level". .

Itwas also observed that legal instruments. establishing the

decentralised structures ~ere almost always vague . about the extent

"'
. .
and forms of decentralisation to be established, the procedures

for participation and roles of and r~lationship of officials at

E
various levels of administration. This results in dysfunctional

U
EQ
overlap of functions and possible frustration in maximising

objective functions ·of programmes and/ or.plans •.

TH
Finally, financial autonomy is one of the·most i~portant
O
aspects of deçentralisation. Unfortunately, auth~rity is
LI

commonly delegated to lower levels without adequate resources to

IB
-B

perfonn new roles .. Illustrating on the importance·of.this·

piana Conyers, (1986) points out the levels of power th~t needs
IA

1
be decentralized for maximum resul ts·. These are policy making,
R
ES

financial powers and po~ers over personnel matters. These are

interrelated, and decentralisation of some without others will

D

19
O

frustrate the plans. Comparative studies shows instances in

C

less developed countries where local governmen~ and local planning

-------
authorrti-es_,are ineffectual because they have powers to formulate
.....
policies or plans but do not have control over· the financial
20
and manpower resources ne~ed to put these plans into effect.

What these goes to show is that participation is not·

completely dependent on the degree of decentr,alisation. Certain

othe~ variables within the realm of psychology, sociology,

ec·onomic and rel;i.gious spheres need to camp~ ement decentralised

 •• . , • • •• • C ._ , .• • ... .-. • • ~ •• _ .. -o.••'- -- • ••• •·"

86

structures, and there is the need ta minimize the size of

.decentralised·units ta ward level and production units ta facilitate

and guarantee participation of the lower members of the society.

E
U
EQ
TH
O
LI
IB
-B
IA
R
ES

•'
D
O
C

.,
 ...,· .. ·..:~"' .. ~.-···· ,, _·.
L

87

CHAPTER TWO

{)
( '
REFERENCES

1 .
· A Goldsmith, "Popular participation in South Korea' s
New community movement," Rural Development Participation Review,

.2
.
.
----
Ithaca: Carnel University Centre for International Studies, Rural
Developmer]:é:_ Committee publication, III, No.~, 1982. p.2 •
IJ)

Arza Churchman, "Issues in·Resident Participatio~:Lessons

.

E
from the Israeli experience; Policy Studies Journal, Vol .. 16,

U
No~2, 198?• p.290.

EQ
3 .
Patrick Ollawa, "On.a dynamic model for Rural Development
in Africa," The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol.,15, 3,
1977 .. p .. 419., TH
4·
O
James Hafner, "View from the Villag·e:. Participatory Rural
Developrnent in No_r;th East Thailand: Comrnunity Development Journal
LI

Vol,.22, No.2 7 1987i pe89a

IB

5
-B

Ibi' d p. 9· 0 ..

6
see: A Goldsmith, "popular participation in South Korea's
IA

New Communi ty Movement". Rural Development Participation Revievr,

III, No.3, 1982; Joung Whang, 1981, p .. 91 ..
R
ES

. 7Paul Harrison, The Third World Tommorrow, 2nd ed, (N,Y.,

Penguin Books, 1980)~ Pœ217~
D
O

8 .
Diana Conyers, An Introduction to Social Planninq in the
C

third world, {N .. Y, John Wiley & Sons, 1982) p .. 110. 1/,.

.P
9 ..
Diana Conyers, "Decentralisation for regionaJ'. development:
a comparative study of Tanzania, Zambia and Papua New Guinea",
Public Administration and Developmento, Volo1, 1981. p.109.

10
Patrick Ollawa, Participatory Democracy in Zarnbia ·
(Bri.tain, Arthur Stockwell Ltd,.., 1979) o p .. 154 ..

1
1iJennis Rondine.Hi and Kenneth Ruddle 7 11Local. Organisation
for Integrated Rural Development: Implementing equity Policy in
Developing Countries" .. International Review of Administrative
Scienées. Vol.SL III 7 No.1, 1977@ p~26~
 ..... - ~_,,.

88

12Uma Lele, The Desi of Rural Develo ment: Lessons from

~fricap ·(u .. s .. A., John Hopkins, 1975 p.,.152.,

13
Young Whan Kihl, "Politics and Agrarian.Change in South
Korea's Rural modernisation by "induced" mobilisation" in R.E.
Hopkins, et al, Food, Politics and A9ricultural Development:
. Cas·e studies in the Public Policy -of Rural 'Modernization" (Colorado,
Brulder: Westview Press 1979)., ·
14 ·.,
· . Robert Charlick, "Participatory· Development and Rural
Modernization in Hausa NigerUI African Review, Vol .. 12, No.4, 1972

E
p.499 ..

U
15
um~ Lele, -Op.cit, p.162., .

EQ
16' . . .
Dennis Rondinelli, "Government Decentralisation in
TH
·comparative perspective".International Review of Administrative
Sciences 1 Vol.XLVII, No.,2, 1981, p.140~
O
17
LI

John Howell, "Administration and Rural Devèlopment

Planning: A Sudai:ies.e_.case" Agricul tural Administration, ( '
IB

Vol.4 7 No;z, April, 1977., Po109è ·

-B

18
Denis Rondinelli and Kenneth Ruddle, op.cit~
IA

19 . ·
Diana Conyers, "Decentralisation and Developme.nt: A
R

Framework for Analysis", Comrnunity Development Journal, Vol.21,

· Noo 2, 1986 1 -PPo.s\_8-97.
ES

ID
. · 20 . .
Richard Vengroff and Alan Johnson, "Decent:talisation and
D

7,
Implementation of Rural Developrnent in Senegal: Role of Rural
O

Counc_ils". Public Administration and Developrnent, Vol. No .. 3,

1987. p .. 286·.
C
 89

Cr!APTER THREE

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN NKWERRE/ISU LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AREA: A PRELI~ITNARY SURVEY

Having reviewed the theoretical and conceptual u~derpinings,

one will iike .to relate the established indices of partic.lpation

to the context Under study. What is the existing state of the

art: and what factors influencé the relevant variables? To be

E
able to provide answers to this questions, "this ch:apte\ is

U
EQ
subdivided into the following sections:

3.1 The State of the art TH

3.2 Conditions for Participatiop
O
3Q3 Assertions· about participation.
LI
IB

3.1 -THE STATE OF THE ART

-B

The question relating to ·rural peoples partic.ip~tion in

IA

rural development activities requires an ùnderstanding of whether

R

the indigenes are aware that such activities did in.fact exist.
ES

Respondents were asked questions relating. to the existence of

D

'
rural projects in their respective èommunities; sponsorship
O
C

to such projects_ and whether any form of data collection exercise

preceded ·the adoption of which project to implernent; and if

·· so, whether they were directly involvede It ~as further required

of them to state whether those projects actually reflect the

felt needs of the communityQ

In iine with results of previous researches, it was found

· that a number of development projec~·s existed in. many rural

( '
 90)

communi ties in the local government area. Most of these project.s

were self-help communal efforts, some were sponsored by the ,,

9overrunen t as par t o f e ff ors IC • ti es;

t t o mo d erni set h e rura 1 cornmuni
J.!

while an appreciable number of these projects start as self-

help development projects with remarkable government subvention.

These projects include Hospital/rnedical centres, mark~t

projects, access roads, bridges/culverts, water supply scheme,

E
rural electrification, school project and human capital

U
EQ
development projects like scholarship programmes for ~heir

sons in institutions of higher learning. Table 3a1 shows the

TH
distribution of respondeqts classification of project ~ponsorship.
O
·Th~ table indicates that most developm~nt projects were "through
LI

self-help, 23 · per cent were jointly sponsored, .while 14 per

IB
-B

cent accounts for goverrunents (State· and Federal) projects in

the area.
IA
R

TABLE 3 .. 1
ES

CLASSIFICATION OF PROJECT SPONSORSHIP

D

RESPONDENTS (N "" 265.,

SPONSORSHIP
O

NUMBER PERCENTAGE
C

GOVERNMENT 36 14·

COMMUNITY SELF-HELP 204 77· \

-- --
JOINT
-_.._
-·- - 62 23.-4
l
.
NB: Each respondent was free to tick moré than ·one

proj ect and/or sponsors whère applicabl_e and this accounted

for the fact that the total respons~s were more than 265
(total number of respondents) and percentages totalled
--------more-than__ 100 ..
·- - .
 ... ' . . •. ~.'

91

!t was found that before the choice of project, especially

government or jointly _sponsored projects, opinion polls or sample

surveys were never conducted to ensure that_ projects conform with

the felt-needs of the intended beneficiaries. Fifty-eight

per cent of _the respondents agree with this, whii°e Forty-two per

cent contend that the opinion· of the citizens.were sought before

.
choice of projects. However, in answer to whether anybody

E
ever sought their opinion, 72 percent had never been

U
EQ
consulted personally 7 while only 28 percent had· had such transitional.

participative roles. This shows that 7 in fact, rural people,iare not

TH
consulted in development planning despite the abundance of persans
O
endowed with all the attributes for effective participation.
LI

It was found that local organisations which engineer and pilot

IB

.1)
-B

communal efforts are more dernocratic. Seventy on~ percent

of the respoDdents are of the view that decisions or choice

IA

of projects are usually the collective expressions as agai~st

R
ES

executive discretion. ·Asa result, these self-help

programmes almost always reflect the fel t-needs of the.

D
O

community. Only 22 per cent of the respondents deny' the fact

C

that· such collective decisions does reflect felt needs, while

78 percent answered in the affirmative.

· · Thus, the missing imperative is the absence of a purposive

programme of mobilization and deliberate sincerity of the

political will to integrate the wishes and contributions of

the rural peoplea This makes it necessary to identify the

variables that ought to exist for effective participation

 ... . . ·~'
' ,

and" to know the extent to which the"se necess_ary conditions

are available in Nkwerre/Isu Local Government Area of Imo State.

3~2 •. CONDITIONS FOR PARTICIPATION:

The participation of an individual in development pro"grams

is influenced by many variables among which perscinality characteris-

·tics are very important. These character_istics · are sex, age, (

{) '. '

E
educational and incarne level; ·and these variables together

U
determine· the persons socio-economic status.

EQ
The 'issue is to determine how far these personal characteris-
TH
--
tics coher~ a positive indication of par'!:ic1patory orientation.
.
O
• IJJ
Earli:er researches have established education and incarne level,
LI

as posi ~ive indicators of one' s (_social and econorriic)

IB

ability to influ~nce ·and control outcomes affecting ohe's

-B

circumstà.nce. Table 3.2 is a sumrilar.y of the persona! charac-

IA

terisi;:ics of the .1-. t:.,1-'uudents ..

R
ES
D
O
C

\t
.i;
.1J
 \
93

" TABLE 3.2

C"H..I\R~CTERISTirs OF THE RESPONDf.NTS

RESPOND"ENT N == 265
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
NÙMBER PERCENTAGE

SEXf -......___ . - -- -- _·-

. Mâl_e____
163 61 .. 51
102 38.49
AGE BRACKET:
(~) Below 21 years 10 3 ... 77

E
(b) 21-30 years 83 31 .. 32

U
(c) 31-40 years 100 37.74

EQ
( d) 41-50 years 47 17.74
Ce) Over 50 vears 25 9.43
TH
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL:
O
· ( i ). t-lo educa.tion 22 . 8.30
LI

Cii) Primary School·only 58 . 21 .. 89

IB

(iii) Secondary School only 69 26.,04

-B

(iv) Hiqher education 117 · 44 .. 15

INCOME LEVEL:
IA

Ca) Below N4,000,.00 pa. 56 21.13

R

(b) Between N4,000-B,OOO ,'11.6, 43.77

ES

(c) Il
e,000-12,000 61 23.02
( '
D

(d) " {) 12, 000::..'16,. 000 14 5.28

O

.( e)
" 16,000-20,000 16 6.04
C

(f) . above N20,000.00 3 1.13

----
The_table shows that the age distribution ·is dispropor-

tionately c8mposed of middle aged rural persans. In the

occupational specification, civil servants especially teachers

and local governrnent -employ~s dominated. Others are. typists,

..
traders and farmers hence justifying_ the prevalence of people
 ··"'-··· ....~;.,-.~ .... ~.··.. ,._,. ,-...:-..••'"'~··"'- .:·;- . ..... -...... ~ ..... ,

94

who earn between fi4,000 and N8,000 per annum. Considering also

the subsis~nce level"of .most rural dwellers, it shows the data

/
'
are realistic.

The tenets of participation include voting in an election,

reading newspapers, listening to radio and television and commen-

taries,. andorgànisational
. a,
membership,. 'J:'hese constitutes various

ways in which a persan can become informed or involved in the

E
U
mechanic·s 'o~ decision makin9. .for rural development.. Rogers, et

EQ
al, (1980), using the mobilisation hypothesis shows. that
TH
organisational i_nvol vement, sense of personal ·efficacy and
. . 1
media exposure stimulate persans to become active·participants.
O
LI

I-low are these variables empirically relevant and what are its
IB

im~lications?_
-B

(i) ORGANISATIONAL INVOLVEMENT:

There is a demonstrated degree of organisattonal involvement

IA

among the citizens of Nkwerre. This is shown by the fact t~at

R
ES

fifty -six percent of the respondents responded to the

D

Federal Government clarion call for rural people to belong

O

to development committees in their communities and war9t5. This

C

\~
. . $
was intended by the gbverrunent as a way of generat~ng informa-

tion for planning purposes. However, a sizable percentage - 44

per cent did not heed this call.. Furthermore·, 72 per cent

of the respondents are.active members of rural organisation~,

with only 28 percent non-members. This is significan~ly

buttressed by the fact that 54 percent have held leadership

positions. In answer to the question on meeting attendance as .a

 ...., ....... ,· ..... ,·.,.......... _... :.·--- ............. ,,.-,.

95

measure of their active involvernent, 69 percent .have atten~ed

50% of the meetings of their organisations for the year.

What these go to show is a dernonstrated high degree of

organisational involveinent in the area and points to try,,e

!J
abundance of politically active individuals who cru;i be rnobilized

for participation in development programmes. This may have accounted

for the high turnout in the 1987 Local Government Elections,.

E
where 72 percent of the respondents voteda

U
EQ
(ii) MEDIA EXPOSURE:
TH
The place of media exposure as an important pre-condition
O
for participatory orientation is not in question.· Results
. .of
LI

the.interview schedule shQw that·15 percent of the respondènts

IB

lisi;:en to radio and television very regularly.- About 52 percent

-B

listen regularly, while 30 percent are irregular listeners.

IA

Only 3 percent never listened to radio and Television

R

commentaries ..
ES

About 20 percent of the respondents read newspapers-

D

everyday, 49 percent read few times a week, 18_per cent are

O

irregular readers, while 11 percent never·read newspapers.

C

"
The high incidence of people who read few times a week

may be explained by the irregular·supply of national dailies

to rural areas, and the cost constraint especially now that

·newspapers are very costly •

\

. · It is 7 however, important to note that the respondents in

. .
rural areas appear to rely more heavily on informal face-ta-face
 0 ( '

96

communicâ.~ion-pr.ocesses as their primary source of information,

. Ili ,·

th~s apparently reflecting the developmental relationship between

the rura-1,and urban areasQ This observation ernanates frorn answers

ta questions which. required.respondents-to state what they

considered most effective rneans for mobilisation for rural

development. (See questions 14 and 26 in Appendix.I)a Respondents

were required to choosè frqm among the following options: Radiq,

E
U
Television, Newspapers and Local organisations. About 33 percent

EQ
chose radio, !6 percent said talevision, 4 percent chose
TH
newspapers, while 48 percent prefer local organisations.

In the sarne vein, in answer to this question - "Through

O
-;
LI

what means do you think the governrnent can effectively mo?ilise

IB

rural people for development?" About 19 per cent said

-B

through government agents or MAMSER representative,14 percent

\l
considered councillors and representatives, while 67 percent
IA
R

consider direct contact through rural organisations as the

ES

most effective instrument.

D

(iii) SENSE _OF PERSONAL EFFICACY, S~.'l'ISFACTION AND LEVEL

O

OF INTEREST:
C

Efficacy is defined as the feeling that one's ow.:i particl-

pati~n in cornmunity issues has some effect on the outcome of

collective decisions or outcome of public. policy~ It is the

"fel t_ potential of an ind1 vidual mobilizing to .at1::empt 'to

2
inf·luence policy". Tho se rural dwelle!rs who feel a sense of.

efficacy are more likely to be active participants in decision-

making for development. Researchers have also identified the

 97

·s'alience: of this variable in encouraging ci t;lzen participation.

In this study, similar concept of conununity efficacy is

'
examined relative t'a the ci tizens awareness of. the· existence

of epportunities for participation.

Respondents were asked if they thought opportuni ties

existed in their communities for peop~e of the same socio-

economic status with them to take part in dec.ision making.

( '

E
About 23 ~r cent ~dmitted that enough opportunities existed1

U
61 percent admitted some levels of opportunity, while 16

EQ
per cent decry the presence of any niche for their invol vement ..
TH
Another important condition for citizen participation
O
is the indiv:Lduals sense of community satisfaction. Various
LI

lit

studies have demonstrated and hypothesized the positive

IB

. . 3.
cor relation between participation ..and communi ty satisfaction.
-B

.. .

In O~lawa' s contribution.,· he notes that satisfaction is a

IA

critical ingredient ta th~ structuring of any kind of

R

disposition to participate. Put differently, the argument

ES

is that generally people tend to be ~ e or less actively

D

i~volved if they are satisfied·with the system and its

O
C

distributive.outputs. Dis-satisfaction, Ollawa notes,

has negative implications for participation in that generally

people, who experience disappointment and a strong sense Î

of frustration tend invariably to be both disaffected and

4
alienated.

However, Rojek 9 - et al (1975) has shown that the ~pe of only

J)
objective variables to measure social conditions ~f human

existence appear inadequate& Applying the same arguement ta·

··.;.·
 98

·." . Korea, Whang {1980) found the necessi ty to recognis~ the impacts
.. •. ,, .
of dununy variables in community satisfaction analysis. He found

that in some communities, people were demonstraply dis.....satisfied

with the quality of life in their communities, yet exhibits a

high degree of involvement since "there is ·no place like home".

To some, the inter-village competition instig~ted their avid

-----
invol ven~nt,. -.

E
In answer to questions 21 and 22, ·the degi;:-ee of s·atisfâ.ction

U
or otherwise by indigenes of Nkwerre Local Government' Area is

EQ
.
appraised. In answer to question 21 which states "How·satisfied
TH
are you with the quality of life in your cçinmunity?", about 5
O
per cent are very satisfied, 31 per -cent are satisfied, 7 per cent
LI

ar.e undecided 9 .44 per cent are dissatisfied and 13 per cent
IB

are very dissatisfied., Responses to question 2.2 reveals that

-B

,, · 36 per cent "f~el at home"

.
in their communi ty, l16 per cent feel
IA

no content:ffllent, while 48 percent does not quite feel at home.

R

· The implication of this finding is that, following th~·argurnent

ES

· by Hojek et ai (1975) ~nd Whang (1980), the greater percentage of

D

people who are dissatisfied and those. who are not qui te content
O
C

with their village settings will seem to bé prepared to do

anything wiGün limits; of their means and wi thin limi ts of th' '
opportunities provided to improve on the· standard of life in their

commuriities~

are endowed
.
-
The foregoing analysis reveals the abundance of citizens who

with-the
ru
. for participation:
requisite pre-conditions
.

satisfactory organisational involvement, adequate exposure to

information,. active involvement in their organisations as 54 per·cent

 .. ._ .......-,.-,.,--·.-.. , ·-~-·· '····1:1:: _.......,.,,.. •. .~. .. ·~ -., ..

99

have held "gladiator" roles in their organisations, 69 percent have

'
actively attended a greater percentage of their organisations.

meetings for the year. This positive attitude mus.t have .

accounted for the high level of interest in commUhi ty. or J,oèal

Government affairs or in the high turn out in the 1987 local

govepiment elections; and further showw that any development

strategy that aims at mobilising the c'i tizens for participation

E
U
have a high tendency of followership. This is in line with the

EQ
propositions of McGregors' theory Y as reviewed and analys_ed in

the theoretical framework. TH

IO

3.3 ASSERTIONS. ABOUT PARTICIPATION

"
L
IB

In the review of literature and conceptual clarification,- ou:r

-B

attention was drawn to the seemingly general consensus by mahy

.. people on the desirability of rural participation in· devefopment

IA

programmes. In answer ta question 27 of the. research questionnaire,

R
ES

34 percent of the responclents are of the opini~n that it makes

a great deal of difference if local people take part in making

D
O

àecisions for development; 40 ·per_ cent thinks that it makes

C

some difference, while 26 percent think otherwipe. Cumulatively,

~. ---- -
it shows thak'M___,,percent
___ - think highly of local involvement in

development planning.

Table 3.3 summarizes resp9ndents reactions to questions

in section Bof the questionnaire which sort ta test peoples

attitude to these assertions.

Let "strongly agree" and' agree' be· k;nown -as simply "agree",

whiie 'disagree' and 'strongly disagree' be simply disagree, so

 .. - .........· ... ..:·.· ,·- .. :,
,;,_ ~ .. . ... ........... ...... - ....... ·~ ... ...

...J..VV
""

that the cumulative frequencies of the responses be used in the

analysisD It means that as high as 83 percent-of the respondents

~gree that rurctl people know and understand their problems and are

in a better position to say what should be done for them. As high

as 75 percent faveur participation since it is· the lives of rural

people which will be affected by the results and effects of fhese

programs~ Almost as high as 70 percent agree that the government

E
U
has not sincerely provided.measures to enable rural people to take

EQ
part in making development decisions.
JJ
TH
Based on these responses, there is considerablé support that

rural people have potentials ta take initiative and offer help

O
LI

and co-operation in rural development activi ties; but possib:l{Y

IB

because of the ineffectiveness of the government decentralisation

-B

measures to devolve power adequately to lower levels, this have

not been actualised.

IA

What this means for development administratioD is that

R
ES

efforts should be made to E!ducate.people on goverriment efforts

"'
so as· to mobilise their support and involvemEr).t_. It also implies
D
O

·that deliberate ·measures be taken to integrate the wishes and

C

aspirations of rural dwellers in develbpment planr..ing arid

irnpleinentation, since, as Whyte (1981) showed 9ne of the

' .
imp9rtant aspects of any new research and development model built

upon the fruits of agricultural and social science research was

that "srnall farmers must actively participate in the research and

extension activities carried out in their area, helping to· identify

problems and set criteria as well as judg_e results. '!'hey can no

: longer be considered the passive recipients of materi.al and infonnation

5
hiinded down to them by professionals". \
 101

TABLE 3.3

ASSERTIONS ABOUT PARTICIPATION

.,
z
" µl >< w
~
(.') µl
~
0::
f.ù
0::
l'.J
....:i
t')
z l')
w
0::
z.w. t,.:l t,.:l < 0..(
0 f.ù ~- u C/l ~: V)
0:: cr: [ci H
E-•
U1 .(
t')
.J!)
,4J 5 H
0 Cil p

1 .. Rural people know and under- 115 105 30 \ 13 2

stand their problems and are ·1 '•
·in a better position to say "(43 .. 4) ~39.6Î (11.3\(4 .. 9 · °fi1'0.8)
what should be done for them.

E
00· 118 .33 l 25

U
2. Since it is the lives of rural
people which will be affectedp (3.4)

EQ
<44·.s > (12.5) ( 9.4)
they should be involved irr planninç (30.2)
and imolementation.
. TH 40 27
100
3 .. Rural people are mostly _not edu- 6 92
cated;---J.t--is_r;_ot possible for
IO
them to take par"t effectively in C2o3)
(15.. 1) Cio;.2) (37.7 (34.7)

planning and implementing rural

L

develooment oroorammes. -
IB

4 .. . In general, rural people lack the 4 33 48 98 82

-B

ability to con-tribute eff ecti vel y

( 12.5) (18.1) (37.JJ (30.9)
in planning develop~ent programmes .. ( 1.,5)
·-
IA

'
5 .. It is no use asking for their 5 25 29. 85 121
R

opinion in planning development (-1.9) (9 .. 4) (10.9) (32,.1 (45.1)

ES

· programmes.

·'148 8 21
.39
•,
D

-6 .. ·· Local·orgànisations like town 49

.. unionst village meetings can
O

(18 ..5' (65 .8) â.4. 7) (3.0) (·1.9)

,better mobilise people to
C

'
participate than representatives•
.
.
'J. Local organisations are usually 14 47 67 63 74
for the rich ones and exclude the
poor members from taking part in (15.3) ( 17 ..7) ( 25.3: _(23.B) (27.9)
decision making.

8., The government has not sincerely 35 .149 20 '28 33

provided measures to enable rural
(13.2 ) · ( 56 .. 3 ( 7.5 (10;6: (12.5)
peoples t6 take par_t in making '
development decisions.
·-·
 102
Il .
.b
A sizeable proportion of th~ respondents did not consider lack

of education a sufficient hindrance to participation. About 73 ·

per c~nt of the respondents believe that al though rural people.

are mostly not educated,·it is possible for them to take part

effectively in planning and implementing rural development

programmes. In the same vein, 68 percent does not agree that

rural people lack the ability to contribute effectively, while

E
U
77 ~er cent debunks the assertion _that it is no use asking fàr the

EQ
opinion· of rural people in the planning of development programmes.
TH
While thère can be no justification to deliberately ignore·

the contributions of rural people in development planning,

IO

illiteracy is definitely a serious constraint. Lack of ability

L
IB

to read and write will make rural people unable to comprehend ·

-B

adequately the technicalities of development planninq. Without

mass literacy, it is unrealistic to expect effective involvement

IA
R

of rural people;· thus any mobilization apparatus th 9 t is based

ES

on the use of mass media - newspapers, seminar.s, pamphlets, and others,

D

.would be ineffective because those who cannot read and write·

O

,.. m_ày not be able to use these services adequately~

\
C

_The policy implication of this finding is the need to

establish an informal edueational system that wi;J.-1 deal closely

with the rural people in their socio-economic settings and.

inculcate the requisite techn~q,..1es of appraisa1.· ·The use of local

organisations have been advocated as an instrurriept for education

-- 6 .
and mobilization.
.
__-According to Lowdermilk and Laites, (.1981)
.
. .
"if learning and local.initiative are important, programs must be

tailored to local conditions. ,outside planners simply.cannot

anticipate and evaluate adequately without the participation of the

 . -··-. ... • .•. . ....... ........
~

.. 103

people directly involvect. 117 • In addition, a recent Field study of

36 rural development pràj ects in Africa and Latin America found · that

49 pe.r cent of the varintion in overall project success was explained

by effective and direet involvernent of the rurçl dwellers ..

In the light of the results from the data collected, one can

see ~hat the requisite variables necessary for effective citizen

.participation for development in Nkwerre/Isu Local Government Area

E
of Imo State are available. Our next concern is to test the

U
EQ
extent to which these responses validate our hypotheses and

at what level of significance. TH

O
LI
IB
-B
IA
R
ES
D
O
C

"
 ., -, • • •,,~,· ,., •• r .,. , •• ,. ··•-• ''t."•"" ' ' , ... ,•,,..-

104

CHAPTER THREE

REFERENCES

1 David Rogers, et al, "Voluntary Association Membership and

Political Parti~ipation: .... "Op.cit, p.306.
o r '
2
Janet L .. Bokemeier and John L. Tait, "Women as Power actors:
A Comparative Study of rural communities" Rural Socioloqy,
45(2} 1980 ~-241.

E
· 3Willis G~udy, "Evaluations of Local attributes and C~~munity

U
Satisfaction in Small towns 11 Rural Sociology, 42, .1977, pp.371-82;

EQ
See also, P:E;-01-lawa, · Participa tory Democracy in Zambi~ Op.;ci t
pp.366"'."'369.· ~·

4 .
P~E. Ollawa, Ibid, p.369.
TH
O
5 . . . . .
F.U. Whyte, Participatory Approaches to Agricultural Research
LI

and Developrnent: A State of· The Art Paper:. I t}:laca ;·. Corn el Uni ver si ty
Centre for International Studies, Rtiral Development Committee,
IB

special series, No.1, 1981. ·

-B

6i-.A.o~, Rural Organisation~, Action Programme, Research

Guidelines, ( Rome, l:JN , 1989) ..
IA

•7
R

M.,Lowder::milk and W.R. Lai tos, 1.1Towards a participa tory

ES

.. s.trategy for Integrated Rural Development" Op.cit. p.,696.

D
O
C

Î
 \

...
105

CP~TER POLIR

DATA ANALYSIS: RESULTS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The preceding prèliminary survey reveals that despite the

-------------- .
existence of~ticipatory orientations in the study ar.ea, .a greater

percentage of the rural dwellers do not participate in. the planning

process. Evidence shows that no survey or opinion poll.precedes _the

choice of any programme.- This demonstrates the absence of any

E
U
purposive programme of mobilisation for participation in rur~l

EQ
· .develÔpment programmes..
To be able to appraise the theoretical
. cytJ;;-iC~ e..~ .J-.·~
significanc~ of the assertions and facilitate easy s.fghi.f-ieance~of TH
. .
.the statistical tests 1 we di vide this chapter int6 two~'
O
4e1 Estimating validity ·and reliability of the scales.
LI
IB

4.2 Test·of Hypotheses ..

-B

4 ... 1 ESTIMATING VALIDITY. AND RELIABILITY OF_ THE SCALES

IA

The relevant variables were operationalisep using certain·

R

questions in the ques~ionnaire, and these were converted into

ES

ô (
scales~ We have the participation scale, level of interest, community
D
O

satisfaction and organisational involvement scales.

C

· _The validi ty of a se ale is the property that ensures that

questions and_!I.:~~rmation generated does acLually·measure

what they are ''supposed to measure. There are usually three

types of validity that can be distinguished. These are content,

empirical and ·construct·validityo

In content validity, t\llO types can be recognised. The face

--..l , .. .. .......
'-'' 1.u saillp..L.L!ig va.1..1-a..1. "C'.l,;, Face·vaiidity rests on the subjective

evaluation of· the researchero This is because a researcher first

 106

relies on his own skill and j:udgenent before applying · other :

.,,
vali~ity tests •. In additi;n, if need be stated th~t some of the

items have found use in other researches, especially Rogers; et· al

(1975), Alfor.d and Scoble <1969), Nie,. et al <1969), and Van Loon

(1970). For instance, Van Loon applied the level of lnterest

scale in his study of political participation in Canada~ while

Nie, et al (1969) used the same type of scale, but called it

E
"political attentiveness". However, one major pro}?lem of content

U
validity is the:absence of replicable rules for eva1uating its·

EQ
effectiveness ..
TH
This research is guided by a set of theoretical· perspectives
O
.· .ar:>:d assumptions. Construct validi ty thus relates to .the
1xtent ·
LI

·-to which the instruments are tied to the concepts and theoretical
IB

assumptions that are employede The instruments are valid to the

-B

extent that the analytical derivatives are related to the

IA

mobilization hypothesis.·
R

The reliability c:oefficient of the scales ·were calculated

ES

using computer_~--------.
The·following coefficients was r~alised:. the.
D

level of community satisfaction 0.67, organisational ·1nvolvement

O
C

0 .. 48, level of interest 0.58 and participation index 0~57. ·

This showed that the scales were reliable. Acccirding to

Nachimias and Nachimias ·(1976), a reliability ~oefficient of 0.50 shows

.that the predictive validity of the instr_uments have been

1
· estàblished ;- whil.e Inkeles and Smith describ!;!s such as been
2
"moqerately r~liable .. " The computer used ·the cr~nbach-/üpha

Formula in computing the reliability coefficien~s.J

 108

'1~2 'l'EST OP Pf!i'.'O'J'l!ES!:~S

_The major assumption in this study is that government and change

agents should actively motivate and mobilise the rural citizens for

development programs. Data has shown that the.potentials for human

development, the capaci ty f_or assuminq responsihili ty, the rendlness

to direct behaviour towards organisational goals are ~11 lpresent in

lJ
the rural dwellers. It is therefore the responsibility of govern-

E
ment and development planners to recognise and develop these

U
EQ
human characteristics for authentic rural development. There.is

general consensus that_tne masses are not adequately involved in

the decision making processes.

TH
To test the validity and·
O
empirical import of this assertion, we posit this hypothesis.
LI
IB

Hypothesis I:
-B

Ho: The ~ral citizens are adequately involved

in the rural development·decision making

IA

process.
R
ES

H1: The rural poor are insufficiently involved

in the rural development decision making·

D
O

processes ..
C

To be able ta test the null hypothesis of sufficient involvement

of rural dwellers in the planning and implemèntation of rural

-developm.ent. planning, the pearson correlation. ccef"fi~ient between

participation and citizens level of·interest in local affairs was

_calculated. Using questions 23 and 24 ta measure ·the:ctegree of

·;é~pondents interest in local affairs·anct the pa~ticipatioÀ scale

.
 109

as the depende~t variable, we obtained 0.586 an~ 0.729 as the ...

ô (
correlation coefficient and it shows a strong relationship between

the level of interest and citizen participation •

. Using section B (items 1-5) of the questionnaire, we calculated

---
the Chi-square to test the Ho .. Our obtained sample result is

683.75. which is far greater than the Chi-square tabulated

of 2°6.3 (d .. f 16) at 0.05 level of significance. (See appendix II)

2

E
Even at .higher levèls of- .signifi~ance· of 0.01, for example (X = 32.,0),

U
it is still statistically significant, and calls for the rejection

EQ
TH
sis that the rural poor are .insufficiently ·involved in the
O
planning and implementation of rural development programmes.
LI

Hence, Almond and Verba observe that if there is a revolution

IB

·g~ing on in the· world, it is a revolution of a new world

-B

. 4
cu lture o f par ti c i pation.
IA

-)
HYPOTHESIS II
R
ES

'Ho: Local organisations will make for more effective

mobilisation for participation than government

D

\t
O

instituted_organisations and representative;,.

.
C

.
H1: Government instituted organisations and representatives

qre more. effective instruments of mobilisation for

participation in rural development programmes.

Various attempts have been made in the pursuit of authentic

rural development. One of the approache~ by the gov.ernment had .

been the institution of ad hoc committee or organisations.

 ~ - - .

110

Thousands of millions of Naira'have been expended with. less than

commensurate results.

In answer to questions 14 and 26, ,it was discovered that 67

percent of the respondents consider direc~ contact through

organisations
.
the more effective
.
instrument of mobilisation than

gover~ent agents, councillors or representatives·. Onè reason for

· this support may be in recognition of the fact that in the rural

E
...

U
·. ·a.i'."eas there are alre·ady existing power relations ·and systems

EQ
of:aùthority which the people recognise and obey without coercion

or manipulation; as against situations.where councillors or

TH
representatives simply manipulate the electoratè to win their
O
votes, thus r.rj.égating·participation to mere voting activity. ( '
LI
IB

~o further discover their allegiance, respondents were

-B

àslced: 11
supposè your local governrnent chairman and the

president of your toWh union disagree about what should be done

IA

about some·publie-issue, which leader would you feel greater

R
ES

moral obligation ,to obey" (Que·stion 29) ... Data show that .80

percent of the citizens will support their town leader more

D
O

than the local government chairman.

C

To test our null hypothesis, we conducted. an analysis of

variance using items 6 7 7, 8 of section Bof the questionnaire.

An insignificant F-rï;ltio was obtained (3 .. 10 <:3 .48) • Then, we

accept the null hypothesis. (See appendix III). As a measure of

th_e strength of the relationship between the variables -

mobilisation for participation and local organisations· in

addi tian to the level of significance, the epsif.on ( ~) was

 111
:------ -
calculated and found to be 0.6, .this furthér made us conclude

that thei;e is a strong relationship between local organisations

and mobilisation of rural citizens to partièipate in the decision

Ill

making process.

Consequently, following the demonstr.ated effectiveness of

rural organisations in initiating and executing vari6us ·self-help

... '· \
communal projects, one can confidently conclude and recommend

E
that'local organisations is a more effective instrument of mobili-

U
EQ
sation than government instituted ad hoc organisation~. The

problem for further research is to identify.what functional TH

proc~dure to employ in the use of local organisations towards
O
the maximisation of the objective functions of rural development
LI

--------.
--------- . .
IB

programs. '
-B

Having identified citizen participation· as a necessary

pre-requisite for any successful development.strategy,_ the next

IA

issue is to see the extent to which certain.personality

R
ES

characteristics of the individual c~re.with p~tic~patory

1

in.c:)..inations~ The demographic characteristics of the citizen

D

.
O

'

include sex,:,.age, educational level and incarne level. These

C

. variables indi~~dually and collectively relate·to the persans l

. isocio-economic status, sense of personal efficacy ,. and· relati vely

determine the content and context of a persans level of

interest and community satisfaction.

{) (
 112

TA8LE 4 .. 2

CORRELATION MATRIX

'
1 2 3 4 5

1 1.00
·,
2 -0 .. 1818 1·.00

3 -0.1991 -0 .. 2169 1.00

E
'

U
4 -0.3201 0.,3542 Ûo 12.62 1.00

EQ
5 ·0.1367 -0.3549 o.5352 o.5170
TH ,,

( 1.) Sex
O
LI

( 2) Age
IB

( 3) Educational level
-B

( 4) Incarne level

(5) Participation scale.

IA
R

The correlation matrix shows the extent of relat~onship between the

ES

personality_characteristics
. .
and the participation scale. There is
D

·a weak but positive relationship between sex·and participation;

O

there is a significant but negativè correlation with.age; in~orne

C

·."and educational level are positively and significàntly related with

\
participation •. The remarkable relationship between incarne and age

need also be noted. A negative correlation, however, does not

irnply no relationship; it ?hows negative.relationship and may be

accounted for by data fluctuations.

~t is comrnonly believed that certain activitiès are explained

along Sf>..X lines.. This means that in deducing a strategy for

. ,~ -----------------
mobilizing citizens for
- effective participation tn deveioprnent
 .~ .... ~-· -......

------
.
113

programmes, it is necessary_to identify issue areas where sex

plays a dominant role in determining the character of such

a.ctivity.

Other variabl~s like a persans sense of personal efficacy,

lev~l of interest also influence a persans inclination to

participate. Sorne of these variables are either direct correlations

to the personality characteristics or are.thenselves products but

E
U
are capable of inflicting independent effects on one's disposition.

EQ
~)

Our intention, therefore, is to identify which of these va~iables

better explains participatory orientationse TH We thus hypothesiz.e:

O
HYPOTHESIS III
LI

i)
Hot <Participatory orientation is better exp'l.ained
IB

along sex lines.

-B

H1 :· Sex ( personali ty characteri stics) does not better

IA

explain participatory orientations.

R

The null hypothesis states that sex (personality characteristic)

ES

better explains citizen participation than level of inferest and

D
O

community satisfaction. This seeks to find out if males and

C

females differ in their attitude towards some participatory

"'
activifies. Is·there·any significant sex-role _distinction. between

the participatory orientations of ruralites towards development

issues'?

To answer the question, we obtained the mean, standard

deviations 7 the mean differences and standard error as concerns

certain participatory activities. The essence is to see whether

the obtained mean differences in view of its correspondi~g standard

error is large énoùgh to reject. the null hypothesis.. Then·, the

 .......... "( '" ~-~·~~ .. - '···-- ... :.,,.. . ........... . .

. •:.

114

·critical region or·zone-of rejection was obtained by_ dividing the

·difference between the sample means by its standard error. ·The

~ - distribution is used considering the sample population of 265;

and the leveb of signif~cance is a.os .. <.? ~ 1.96) ··csee appendix(IV) '
= v-"-1-X2

E
Iî 2 ,/2

U
01 +U2

EQ
N------- N
1 2

where X_ = mean of group I ( males

1 TH
x = mean of group 2 (females)
2
O
LI

ando; = standar~ deviations of the means of the groups •

IB

.L'- -
L.J.I~ means of
-B

the two groups.

IA

N~ and N = Size of the 2 sarnples.

2
R

(N = 163, N = 100).
1 2
ES

Following table 4œ3, the sex-role distinctions in ~articipation

D
O

using some issue areas was determined. It shows that in some issue
-)
C

areas .there is no difference in participatory orientation between

the sexes. In such cases, we accept the null hypothesis which ·

states that sex better explains participation. As concerns the

issue area - interest on events at local government level, it can

. .~ ~

be seen that 16.64% of the cases in a normal distribution fall .

between the mëan and +0.21. This is within the, acceptance region

since the :?:.. calculated is less than the ~tabulated of .!,1.,9b:~·

 .,•\ .......... ~·.... ~.:,:-.,·,• -· ;-.._.. ' ... ;., ........ _ ... ~-~"'"'

115

Except the underlined Z-levels, the others are not significant

and implies that the mean differences between the sexes might have

arisen as a sampling fluctuation.

-------i:,rsu€--ar~a_s
Sorne .
like disposition to read newspap~s, _having

a great deal of concern for public issues, and one's involvement at

discussing _communal problens vq.th close associated with _a view to

profering plausible solutions or options were seen to be explained

E
along sex lines. They are significant at 0.,05, level of s·ignificance

U
· _a~d rejects the null hypothesis that sex. better explains participatory

EQ
orie.ntations.
TH
-What·this means for development çidmihistration is,that
O
. ,certain personality characteristics of the intended participants-conclusion•
· emphasizes
LI

··r~ .,j__ the need. for any development strategy to stu~y

IB

pepples circumstances and socialisation patterns~

-B
IA
R

'\
ES

{) (
D
O
C

----
 , -~ .. ~- -..-~ .... .. -.. _. .....-
, ,

.116

. .;,
.5.EXn80I,E OISTTNCTIQN::> _TN
..
PA11TICIPATION; MEAN AND STANDARD DE'llATIQNS
GROUP I .GROUfl 2
Issue Area · MEN WOMEN ré %
N ;: 163 N"" 100

1. Interest on events x 1 .. 9080 1.8900

at local goverrunent
s.D 0.815 0.567 0.21 16.64
level S.E 0.064 0.057

2. Vote in last local

x 1 .. 2577 1.3200 -1.074 71.5
S.D 0.,439 0.469
government elections S,.E
00039 0 .. 047

1 .. 4785 1 .. 3900
x

E
3. Member of rural' 1.4 83.8
00501 0,.490 "

U
developmènt S.D
0 .. 039 0,.049
committee. S.E

EQ
4o Attending MAMSER
x 1 .. 6564 1 .. 6700
s .. D 0 .. 489 TH 0 .. 55.1 ..:0.203 15.9
forums 0.03s o.. oss.
•. S.,E \
O
2 .. 0368 2.4800
5 .. ~i-sten to Radion X
LI

0,.674 -0.35 27.36

and Television s.,.n o. 702 0.067 .
IB

Commentaries S .. E. 0 .. 055
-B

2.,0675 2 ... 3700

6. Read Newspapers X
-2 .591
99.04
S.D
S .. E
. 0.,854
Ow067
0 .. 960
0 .. 096-
=
IA

. -
R

7. Active me..rnber of X 1.3067 1.2600 ·.

local Ôrgani-s~_:_:_ _- S,.D 0.476 a.sas o. 74, 54 .. 08
ES

tion., S .. E 0 .. 037
D

8. Held leadership x 1,,4479 1.3900

O

in one's organi- S.D ·0.568 0.567 0~80 59 .. 9

sation. S.E Q.,045 .0.057
C

9. Attended 50';(, of the

·-X 1.2515 , 1 .. 2700
meetings of the S,.D 0.714 0.649 .... 0.22 '17.42
organisation forthe S,.E 0.056 0 .. 065
year,.

.,

1 o. ·concerri for public, -

X
1.8282 · 2.0300·.
'
..ei ther comm1,m_i ty S.,D 0.,615 0.559 l i-2 .. 73 99.4
' problems or local s .. E. 0,.048 0.056
.. ... government affairs •
1. .. Disçuss the Commu- X 2 .. 0000 2.2900 .
,nt ty · probl ems wi th S.D 0.,809 0.,808 -2.82 99~5
:close association S.E 0,,063 0 .. 081 --

~: X = groupmean, S,.D == Standard devlatîon,

s~E ~ Standard error.
Cr?.)tical values at a.os level of sigriificance (Z Q .:t_t,96)o '
 (

1·17 .

CHAPTER FOUR

REFERENCES

1David Nachimias and Chava Nachimias Research. Methods in the

Social Sciences (England, Edward Arnold Publications, 1976) p.61o
. .
2 \C
Alex Inkeles and David Smith,
Becoming modern: Individual Change in Six Developing Couhtries.
(London:: Heinemann, 1974) p .. 376 ..

3
Cronbach-Alpha Formulais

E
c 1-:Zv1>

U
~
c n 2v. s . )

EQ
n-1

where n is the number of items. TH

Vi-::::. ~ t/P< }'i..°'n a (>--f 1/iz_ !k ; ~ . c
~ - the variance of a scale which is the.average ·of the
IO
items,. See: Inkeles and Smith, Ibid, and .
SPSS UPDATE; New procedures for·releases 7 and B•.
L

(New York, McGraw Hill, 1979) p.125 ..

IB

.4 .
G~A. Almond and s. Verba,
-B

The c·ivic Culture; Poli tical attitudes arid Democracy in Five Nations:
An Analytical Study. (Boston, Little-Brown, 1965) pp .. 2-3 quoted by
IA

E.C. Amucheaz:f., 11 Local Government reforms and mobÎli.;;ation for ·

Rural developrnent" in E.. c. Amucheazi (ed .. ) Readinc;s in Social Sciences:
R

Issues in National Development .. (Enugu, Fourth Dirnensi(m, 1980) p.44.

ES
D
O
C

-------- -
.

-------
. . .. ... -._
 ~.~ ....... ~ .......,-~·,, ~- -~~--·· ... .....
~

{) ( '
118

CHAP'rER FIVE

SUMMA.RY, CONCLUSION AND POLTCY RECOMMENDATIONS

---
In this stucty,- our fü(:us have been to. highlight the role of

the .individual in the economic developmerit process.. This is. in

recognition' o~ the .centrali ty.. of mean_ingful invol vement of people

of a given area in the planning and implementation of development

programmes towards the attainment of the objective functions of.

E
U
such development programmes. Various attempts· at rural develop-

EQ
ment have in the past relegated the intended beneficiaries to

mere·recipients of programso TH
The peasants who constitute the

· -majori ty are almost always excluded from the decü,ion-making

O

'process for development. This study thus investigated and identified

LI
IB

insufficient involvement of rural citizens in the design, imQJenen-

-B

tation and evaluation of development programmes as the main

cause of plan failures.

IA

The review of·relevant literature showed that, in i+self,

R

1t:
ES

!'!
citizen participation can generate more· questions than !f:he
'
immediate answers it provides. There are issues of clearly delineating
D
O

the "how", "what" and "who" of participation. -What forms and

C

methods are more appropr~ate? How much participation is

possible and desirable on given issue·s? On what issues and at

what stages in the decision making process is citizen participation

most useful? What are the costs and ·benefits of participation

to the various groups in society'? This study tried tà support

its contentions .with enough.relevant literature and-tried to

"'
 •• ~, .......... ,;i~ ·.:·····.,,_, ·..;;..· ... • ........ · ··--~· ......",'.-' .... .

119

·. profer answers and/or rationalisations· to the· questions as are

gerrnane to obtaining an _effective apparatt.is for citizen

: participation, as well as grappling wi th· the broad req.uirem0nts

. , and lev·els .of the pr.oce·ss.

A comparative analysis was Undertaken which showed that

· :_:r~gardiess of· the différences in context and specifi.c details of

··parti.cipatory programmes, there are similari ties among countries

E
in the general trends and in the broad issues that arise. The'

U
EQ
main essence{)f the co~parative analysis was tci highlight the ( '
constraints in implementation and procedures for solution, and
TH
,to use this situational experiences of differing political systems
O
to foster a theoretical and analytical framework which will
LI

_further explan~~~ and predictione It was revealed that citizen

IB

participation is the panacea to develop~ent problans, especially

-B

geographic barriers which are constraints to delivery of

IA

development programmes ·and can only be overcome by ,a strategy

R

of direct involvanent with the intended beneficiaries • . Furthermore,

ES

·.-:e saw that local ·skills cttld. initiatlve are a y~luable reservoir
D

which are often neglected and untapped by more conventional

O
C

programmes; but more importantly, the comparative analysis

debunked the assumed passivity of the rural masses -by revealing

that project beneficiaries are "7illing to make financial

contributions towards programme success, especially where the

-)
benefits are made clear to them and costs reasonably commensurate

with benefits.

...
..,.
 ..... ' ·•~" '° .. ~-r •.•••. • • -.,_ • .......

·120

It has also been noted that some schools of tR~ught prefer

centralisation as against decentralisation. Nonetheless, there

seem to be consensus that the advantages of decentrqlisations over-

. .
. .shado~s those of centralisation, especially for heteroger\ous societies

wher.e culture; history" and tradition differ; and where communities

have varied, divers interes_ts and policy preferences -than can

possibly.be adequately handleà in a centrali"seà fonn of governmeni:.

Various procedural and substantive issues are involved in devolu-

E
U
tion of decision unifs to lower levels. These involves a clear
-

EQ
-

--------
delineation or"'the-functional acti vi ties ov.er which authbri ty is
TH
devolved, the.type of powers transfered, th~ levels to which such

authori ty/power is transfered •and the explication of à.11· the

O
LI

variables that must exist with decentralisation to enhance

IB

the maximisation of objective functions of programm~s. The~e

-B

. variables incl ude the legal instruments ·establishing the decentra-

IA

lised structures .. ·· It was suggested that the' legal instrµment

.... .
R

.. must· clearly state the procedures for participation artd. roles

ES

,of and relationship of officials at various levels of admini-

D

stration. · _Another important variable is financial aut.onomy to

O

·deè:entralised· structures; and above all, there must be the

C

willingness of the ''black box" to support and encourage decentra-

li sed authority in the execution of its functions.

The met5'dology of. this research used questionnaire in (

elicii:ing information which was subjected to various statistical

·techniques to facilitate v&ifiable dtliductions .. . The implication

of the findings is that policies and strategies which are

aimed at authentic...rural development and realisation of human

potent:tals are likely to achieve their objectives if the citizens

are part of the decision process. Data also indicates that the
 .. ........... ·~ ,, . ·-·-. ':.-... ' .. , __ .. .
~

121

governrnent hà.s not sincerely instituted measur.es to enable rural

peoples to take part in making development decisions. It w~~

also noted that the rural people are not really passive citizens,

but are already imbued with the necessary variables li~e

organi;sational involvanent, media exposure and a high degree

of community satisfaction and level of interest in local affairs.

,f,

These variables are t~e neêessary pre-requisites-for effective

E
mobilisation.

U
The study identified the use of local organisations as the

EQ
most effective instrument in mobilisation for develoµment. It
TH
is preferred to the use of councillors or representatives. This
O
is because in the rural areas, the)(e are al_ready _existing _
LI

systems of authority and power relations which· the people

IB

recognise and obey· without much manipulation and coercion, as

-B

. . ' ~

against the pseudo-participation perpetrated by representatives

IA

and their cohorts.

R

The empirical analysis further revealed that thé use of

ES

._radio, television, and newspapers in mobilisation is less '

D

effective than local orgaryisations. Earlier res·earches have

O
C

since shown that rural people rely heavily on informal face-to-

face communication processes fpr their primary ~ource of

information. The effectiveness of local organfsations id

dônonstrat,:;;g in the-fact that self-help communal _projects worth

---------- -- -
-
millions of naira are successfully initiated and executed by
- -

these local secular organisations, and these projects almost

alwàys reflect the felt needs of the people. In the choice of

 " ~ •' •••~•";.._ o•-,• ,• •, ,-.•-•• "1•''"" • " - .............. ~

122

project, it was shown that executive discretion is .subordinate to

the supreme wish o~ the general assembly. It was also shown that

the .ci tizens owe more allegiance to their local leader than to

the local government chairman.-

The hypothesis that personality variables better explains

participatory orientations than sense of community satisfaction and

-)

level of interest was found to be significant _at a.os leve~ of

E
significànce. It was however observed that certain demographic-

U
EQ
characteristics (s~ch as sex) are more related to certain partiel-
. lt
patory activities than others. Also some variables, -~u~h as the
TH
citizens level of interest in communal affairs and sense of
O
personal efficacy, more explains participatory orientations of·
LI

demoqraolù.c
rural people than the variabies. This questions·:·the
IB

Y, : ,.
-B

inherent assumption in strategies which are administered without

regard· to the recipients·role-situations and socialisatfon patterns.

IA

It shows the need to clearly study developme_nt activitiès and

R
ES

identify which variable need be emphasized •.

In _summary, it was noted that three conditions must be fulfilled

D
O

for rural participation to be effective. - These are:

C

(a) a positive orientation toit by the political leadership

and political system through effective and functional

devolution of decision-making units to smaller local leve+s•

----~
(b) the existence of formal and insti tutionalised procedur·es of

integrating local organisations into the planning process_

and
"
· ( c) the abiii ty and willingness of the peopl·e thems.el ves to

participa te.,
 In the light of the above findings, we therefore propose

a policy structure or organisational arrange,mei:it for reaching .the

rural masses aDd through which the potentials for· development of

{) ' ( '
the rural peasants, their skills, needs and knowledge of their

. environrne_nt can be transfered to the policy agenda. · Such

orgaz:iisational arrangement must be built upon the existing social

organisations in the rural economy around which the rural

----~--~

E
population· have themselves, over the years·, organised their

U
EQ
' '

political, economic, religious and social affairs. · These will

include· a:ge-:-g.rades;, town-tmions, the ·village, clan and community

TH
assembl;i.es. This is the participa.tory strategy for integrated
O
rural development~
LI
IB

Considering the_ position of the local government following

-B

the 1984 local government reforms, there is no doubt _that this

s.trategy of plânning from below must be co-ordinated. by the local

IA

government. The local government authority need to employ at

R
ES

least ten-to-twenty (10-20) community development officers, who

must be graduates of the social or behavioural sciences. Th~

D
O

must be provided adequate remunerations and incentives so as to

C

encourage them to build their career in rural·development

administration. These officers will be required to relj~e to

the local government chairman directly. The main du'ty of these

officers will be to relate with leaders of secular local organisa~

tians. All organised local unions to be identifièd and ....

·'

recognised.

•'
 .,~ .. .....r · ... , .. .-.. , . • .•. ·• .. • • \ ' • --·,•~

124

Alluthe~nions,- organisations whosè activities are

------ -
subservient to the main town union will be encouraged to liase

with the town union leader to discuss their programs, harmônise

deliberations to reflect the general interest and felt:needs of the

indigenes. These policy preferences are then collated by the

commun;L ty development officer before pass.ing than to the local

E
U
· govérnment for onward transmission to the state and federal

EQ
goverri_ment for· statistical requirements and planning p4rposes9

~y so doing, wè wi.11 achieve the ideals of devel'opment from

TH
·below' , as well as instituting a two-way traffic in flow of
O
information between·rurai and urban, agriculture and industry,
LI
IB

arid other sectors and infrastructures •. This will guarantee plan

-B

success since the rural people are more likely ~o comply with

any strategy in which they have.a hand in devising·and which

'
IA

{) . (

recognises their local needs and aspirations~

R
ES

Furtht=r · recommendations concern the election of the represen-

tatives and councillors. The four-year tenure is too much and

D
O

makes representatives hardly responsible and r~spohsive to the

-- -------
C

wishes and aspirations of the rural people. We suggest that

structures and institutions be created which will facilitate the

direct influence of the electol':'ates on._the policy agenda ·and

decisions. Councillors and representatives.e. of the rural

l""0mm1,Yd -1-.; e~ should ht:iV•-~ ct stai:.utory oblig~·tion to discuss and

solicit the opinion of the citizens on proposals and policies

that are geared towards the improvement of their conditions.

 "'
:125

As Kim Jang IL correctly observes:

"The masses of the people know the reali ty

better than anybody else and have a wealth
of experience. Only when the will and

--- demands of the broad masses are integrated

in a policy one is working out, can policy
be correct, ~onform with their aspirations
and interests, win their heartysupport nnd
inspire them".1

And it is also when this happens that the creative ·power of the

E
people which is an important element in the developmént process will-

U
be stimulated ..

EQ
The system of communication or information fl~w is- essentially
TH
'
vital to the success of any partid.patory strategy of rural develop-
O
ment. The level of participation in government by citizens of
LI

any country is related to the level of information that are made

IB

available to them. It follows that if public·opinion is adequately

-B

infor~ed and supplied with facts and fair inte~pretation, it is

IA

more l i k ~ p _ a t h e t i c wi th a ca~se. On the other hand,

R

public opinion which is misinformed or uninformed can be hostile

ES

to a cause. Thus, through a mutual flow of information, the

D

government will be in a better position·to identify th~

O

gratifications and frustrations of its ·citiz~ns.·

C

' purposes ·of developing

If the masses are to be mobilised'for

the .rural ar'E~as they should first be politically educated ta

understand the purpose and value of its government in order that

they may be committed toits survival. As Bless~ng Osuagwu

( '
 .. -. .......... ~.: . ... -·· . :.•,.. ·"' ..... -~ ...
~

126

pointed out;

"the justification for public information diserninatidn..

is based on the fàct that in enlightened societies,
suppoet is rclatéd to th(~ extent to wh:lc!1 there is
congruence between peoples expectation about how
the political system ought to perform and their
perceptions of·how it is performing".2

This social awarenes·s would provide a constructive Sieve for

objective perception. Hence a viable'political education. is

E
advocated.

U
EQ
In the light of the above admonitions, we recommend the

use of local organisations as the most effective instrument for

TH
this information disemination and political education, 'co-
O
ordinated and .supervised by the community developm~t offièers.
LI

A caveat is necessary here. Past efforts relied dysfunètiorially

IB

. ,:.
-B

on traditional rulers ·and councillors or local _government

agents. This lag is clearly expatiated by Nnadozie Nwo~ù in

IA

his paper, "inter-government relations· at the locéll level and

R

the impact on rural devèlopment." Nwosu notes that the

ES

communication gap between the local government c·ouncils and

D
O

various groups arose from the heavy reliance on the traditional

C

rulers by the various tiers of government in_ Nigeria. Sorne

of ·these Eze' s, ·'Igwe' s or chiefs are the 'Noµveau Rkhe'

who bought their Ezeship with marie~ and are hardly traditional ·

rulers as such .. Excessive reliance on these uncultui?~ct self-made

. upstarts may also hinder efforts at effective so·cial or màf>S

...
 ()
( '

127

mobiiisation. Nwosu thus opines,

--,,Asgrowing concern for the less fortunate· ·

m~mbers of the community is in· part being
satisfied by the vigorous activ.i ties of
bath secular and religious voluntary
' a_ssociations which s_prang from the
conscic:iusness and:resourcefulness of the
ci tizens and pio.neered. many of the social
services such as education, and other.
rural infrastructures, nothing should
be de~(! t~ ~lië:r~ate su . .-::1-i l~al powei:-
centres as the development-oriented interest

E
groups such as town/development uhions and social
clubs ... Any çonscio_us or unconscious alienation

U
of these vital local power links will, in

EQ
our opinion, be detrimental to the 3
strategy for for rural development".
TH
Hbwever, in emphasiz~ng the importance of active maximum
O
:feasible rural involvement in the planning process, it is not
LI

-)
intended to over-exagerate the capacities of rural people or to
IB

denigrate the potential contributions of government and her

-B

change agents. It is tosome degree true that rural people

IA

\t
are. not likely to know the resources available to goverpment
R

or to fully understand the intricate modern planning'

ES

techniques. f.lut, with regards to their respective communities

D

and the candi tiens affecting them, they certainly have -:,:
O
C

sufficient expertness.
 128

CI-IAPTER FI VE

REFERENCES

1i<im Jong IL, On the Juche Idea Pyongyang, Korea:·

_Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1982 p.55 •
. . 2 . . . .
· Blessing Osagwu,. "Cul tivating a participating culture
· through MAMSER", The State .nan September 16, 198.7. p.5.

3
Nnadozie Nwosu, "Inter-governmental Relations at the Locâl

E
level and the impact on Rural Development", a paper presented at

U
University obNigeria; ,Nsukka/University of Jos Joint Workshop ( '
on Rural Development in Nigeria, held at Nsukka, October 28-31,

EQ
198'/. p .. 24-25.

TH
O
LI
IB
-B
IA
R
ES
D
O
C
 129

BIBLIOGRAPHY "

Abasiekong, E.. M, Mass Participation: An essential element for Rural

· Development Proqrwnmes in Developing CountrlPs .(Calabar,
Scholars Press, 1982w)• \

- - - - - - - - : Inteqrated Rural _Devfl..opment in the Third World.

(N.Y., Exposition Press, 1982) ..

Akpan, N.u., Public Administration Nigeria.

(Ikeja, Longmar1 l"Jigeria., 1982) •

. Apter, David E., ·Choice and Pôlitics of Allocatiàn: A Development

E
. ~heory (London, McGraw-Hill, 1981).

U
BlB.lock ,,-1:l.abert M,_ Social Statistics

EQ
(London;---McGraw-J-lill, 1981) •
. ·~.
Berelson and Steiner, Human Behaviour: A Inventory of Scientific
TH
Findinqs (N.Y, Harcourt Brace Inc., 1964) ..
O
Clark, Robert P, Power and Policy in the Third World.
(N. Y, John Wiley, .1978) ..
LI
IB

Conyers, Diana, An Introduction to Social planning in the Third

World., (New York, John Wiley and'.sons, 1982). ·
-B

Harrison, Paul, ·The Third World Tommorrow.· ( 2nd ed.)

(Engla.nd, Pènguin l;looksy 1980).
IA

:.Inkeles,· Alex and. Smith, David, Becoming Modern: ·Individual

R

change in.Six Developinq Countriesu (Londo~, Heinemann, 1974).

ES

· ;.Kelejian, Harry and Oates, Wallace, Introduction ta Ec6nometrics·:

Principles and Applications. (N.Y, Harper and Row
D

P.ublishers, 1981) ..
O
C

. Kiin J'ong IL, On the Juche Ides. Pyongyang, Korea: Foreign

· Languages Publishing House, 1982·.

Koontz, H, O'Daniel, c. and Weihrich, H.

Management., (N.Y, McGraw-Hill, 198.0).

Long, Norman;')An Intr~d~ction to the Sociology of Rural DeveloprKent •

'
(London, Travistock, 1977).

·Macpherson,.· Stewart, Social Policy in the Third World.

(~ritain, Wheatsheaf. Books, 1982).

------.
 -µo
McCurdy, Howard E, Public Adminis.tration: A Synthesis. (Califqrnla,
Cummings Publishing Company, 1977).

McGregor, Douglas, The Human Side of the Enterprise •.. (Tok,yo,

McGraw-Hil.1 Kogakusha; 1960).

Nachimias, David and Nachimias, Chavao Research Methods in the·

Social Scienceso (England, Edward Arnold Publisher.s~ 1976) •.

Nwosu, E.J. The Politics of Development Administration: A vie\yPoint.

· (1?udapest, Centre for·Afro-Asian Research, ~974) ~ .,.

Ollawa, Patrick E, Participatory Democracy in ·Zâillbia. The P·oli tical

· · Economy -of· National Development. (Bri tain, Arthur Stockwell
Ltd., 1979).

E
U
Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry. The Loqic of Cor,1parative

EQ
Social Inquiry. (N.Y, John Wiley & Sons, 1970).
--·-
Todaro, M.P. Economies For a Developinq World. (Hong Kong,
Longman, 1977).
TH
Uma Lele, The Design of Rural Development: Lessons From Afr_ica.
O
(USA, John Hopkins, 1975).
LI

Waddimba, J, Sorne Participative.aspects of programs ;to involve

IB

the poor in Development, Geneva, No .. 7, ,1979 ..

-B

Welkoontz, Joan, et al, Introductoiy Statistics for the behavioural

Sciences~ (New York, Academic Press, 1976).
IA

,.· Wflàng, Jonng, Managing Rural Change.

X l
R

Whyte_, F.U. Participatory ApJ?Eoaches to Agricultural Research

ES

· and Development: A State-of-the Art Paper •. Ithaca: Cornell

University, Centre for International Studi~s·, Rural
D

Development Committee; Special Series,.·No.1, 198_1.

O
C

Wcnnacott, Thomas, and Wonnacott, Ronald, Introductory Statistics

for Business and Economies. 2nd ed. (New York, John Wiley
· and Sons, 1977) •.
(B) ARTICLES IN BOOKS:

Alechina, Iraida, "The contributions of the United Nations System

• to Formulat:i.ng Development Concepts", in Different
Theories and Practices of Development (Paris, UNESCO, 1982).

F'~lusi, Abiodun; "Agricultural Development: Operation Feed the

· Nation" in o. Oyediran (ed.) Survey of Nigerian Affairs,
1976-77. (Lagos, ~~IA, 1981).

Galtung, J; Preiswerk, R. and Wernegah, M. "Development Centre~

on the Human Being: Sorne West Eur:opean Perspectives" in
Different 'rheories and Pr:actices of Development, Op.cl t

E
U
Gboyega, Alex, "Community Participation and the Administration of
Social Servie.es in_ Western State of Nigeria" in The

EQ
Administration of Social Services in Nigeria: The Chëllenge
to Local Government .. (Ife, University of Ife, 1981;!).
TH
Grindle, Merillee, "Policy Content and Context in Implementatiof!"
in Grindle ( ed .. ) Poli tics and Policy Implementation in the
O
Third Wôrld., (N.;r, Princeton University P~ess, 1980).
LI

Kihl, Young Whan "Poli tics and Agrarian Change in South Korea::•·s
IB

Rural Modernisation by 'induced' mobilisation" in R.E.

-B

Hopkins, et al, Food, Poli tics., and Agricul tur:al Development:

Case Studies in the Public Policy of Rural Modernisation.
(Colorado, Bo~lder: Westview Press 1 1979)~
IA

Nwosu, . E.J .. "Rural Development as a F-actor in National

R

Development" in Amucheazi, E .. C. (ed,.) Readings in So.cial

Sciences. (Enugu, Fourth Dimension, 1980).
ES

.
Sant~s, · Dos T "The Cri.sis of Development Theory and .The Problem
D

of Dependence in Latin America", in Beinstein, Henry·.(t!Jd .. )

O

Underdevelopment and Development .. CEngland, Penguin_ Books,

( 1973:).,
C

{e) JOURNÀLS AND PERIODICALS:

Aleshire, Robert, "Power to the People: An As·sessment of the

Communi ty Action and Madel Ci ties experience".
Public Administration Review, Oct., 1973).

Alford, Robert and Scoble, Harry, "Sources of Local-· Political

Invol vernent" .. American Poli tic al Science Review. Vol .62
.
. No .. 6, .1968, pp .. 1192-1206., · •
'

.
Bell, Martin, "Exploitation of Indigenous Knowl e,dge: whose use •
of what for what? Development, Journal of' Society for
Intern·agonal Deyelopment, 1980/2-3. (
'
and Tait, J .. L .. "Women as power actors: A
Bokemej_er, ,T,.L.,
Comparative Study of Rural Comrnunities", Rural Sociology,
45(~) .1980. pp.238~255.

Burstein, Paul,' "Social Structure and Individual ·Poli tical

Participation in Five countries". American Journal of Sociology,
Vol .. 11.,-l:Jo.6, 1972. pp.1087-1110.
-------
Charlick, Robert, "Participatory Developrnent and Rural Modernization
. in Hausa Niger" African Review, Vo:i..2, No.4, 1972 pp.499-

E
U
Chekki, Dan A •. "Planning and Ci tizeri Participation in a Canadian

EQ
City" Coinmunity Developnient Journal. Vol.14, No.1, 1979,
PPe34-40. .
TH
Churchrnan, Arza, "Issues in President Participation: Lessons from
Cè1e Israeli e...~pc~~enceii Policy Stuaies Journal, Vol.16,
No.2, Winter 1987, pp.290-299.
O
LI

·Cohen, John and Uphoff, Norman, ."Participations Place in Rural

Development: Seeking clari ty through specifici ty".
IB

• World Dev_elopment. Vol.8, 1980. yp .. 213-235.

-B

·conyers, Diana, . "Organisation for Development: The. Tanzanian

Experience 11 • Journal of Administration Overseas, Vol
IA

XII, No.3, July, 1974 pp.438-448.

R

Conyers, Diana, 11 Decentralisation for Regional Development: · _>

ES

a Comparative Study of Tanzania, Zambia, and Papua

New Guinea 11 Public Administration & Development.
Vol.I, 1981, pp.107-120.
D
O

Conyers , D. "Decentralisation and Development: A Framework for

Analysis 11 Cominunity Development.Journal, Vol.21,· Nol!2'
C

1986. pp.88-97. .
JJ
Cunningham, James, "citizen Participation in Public Âffairs",
Public Administration Review, Vol.XXXII_, Oct.,. 1972 ..
pp.589-~02 ..

Dahl, Robert, "The City in the Future of Democracy"

American Political Science Review, Vol.LXI, No.4,
December, 1947 pp~953-970~

Deseran, Forest A, °Community Satisfaction as Definition ·of the

Situation: Sorne conceptual issues" Rural Sociology, 43(2)
1978. pp~235-249
 133

-.______________
---------
-- ·- ·-·-
·-- --

fakolade, Ayodeji and Coblentz, H.S "Cid.zen Participation in

Urban and -Regional planning in Nigeria •. A Preliminary
Enquiry 11 • Cornmunity Developrnent Journal. Vol.16, No.2_, 1981.
pp.119-129 ..

Finsterbusch, J<urt & Van ·Wicklin, W.A,III "The Contribution of

beneficiary partic1pat:Lon 'in development project effectiveness".
Public Adrninistrat:ion & Develooment: 7( 1) '1987 ·pp.1-23.

Goldsmith, A., 11 Popular Participation ~n South Korea's New

Comrnunity Mov.ernent 11 Rural Developrnent Participation Review:.
· Corne],.Uniyersity, Centre for Internatlonal·:Studies, Rural
Pevelopment Cornmittee Publication, J;II, No.3, 1982. pp.1-7 •
.· . ~

E
· Goudy, Willis,_ "-Evaluati.ons of Local attributes and Comrnunity
Satisfaction in srnall towns" Rural Sociology, 42,° 1971, pp.371-82.

U
EQ
Goulet-Dennis, "Deve1oprnent as Liberation: Policy lessq,ns
from cas.e studies", World Development. Vol 7, No.6, June,
1979. pp .. 555-566. TH
Gàw, D.D. ·and Vansant J. "Beyond the rehetorics of _Rural Developrnent
O
Participation: How Can i t be done?" ·Wor,ld Developrnent
Vol.II, No.5, 1983.
LI

( '
IB

Grindle, Meri{)l~e, "Anticipating Failure: The Implernentation

of Rural Development Prograrns" Public Policy Vol.29,
-B

. No.1, 1981.
. n .. .
Hafae.t, James·, "View from the Village: Participatory Rural
IA

-_Development in North East T)1ailand "Comrnunity Development

Journal, Vol.22., No.2~ 1987. pp.87-97.
R
ES

Hart, Davt~~"Theories of Government Relatéd to Decentralisation

anq. Citü:.en Participation" Public Administration Review,
D

. Vol.32, October, 1972 pp.603-621.

O

Haq, Mal)bub,UL, "Crisis in Deve;Lopment Strategies" World Development

C

Vol.1, Nd,.7» 1~73 pp.29-31 ..

Hayward, Fred M. "Political.Participation and·its roie in·

Development: Sorne Observations drawn fro"m the African Context"
Journal of De'velopinq ~-T,eas·, ·19)3, p·p.591~61~e
.
Herbert, A.W. "Management, under Conditions of Decentralisation
and citizen participation '.'Public Administration Review
Vol.32°. Special issue, October, 1972, pp .. 622-637.

Hicks, Norman and St:reeten, Paul, "Indicators of Development:

· The Search.for a Basic Need Yardstick .. " World Development,
Vol.7, No .. 6, 1979. pp.567-580.
I

\t
 ·134

Hobbs, · Daryl J. "Rural Development: Intentions and Consequences"

Rural Sociology, Vol.45, No.1, 1980. pp.7-25.
~~----
Howell, John "Administration and Rural Devèlopment Planning:
A Sudaness Case" Agricultural Administration 1 · Vol.4, -No.2,
April, 1978. pp.99-120.

Ilchman, W.F. and ~hargava, R.C. "Balanced thought.and Economie

growth" Economie· Developrnent and Cultural Chanoet Vol .• XIV,
·No.4,. July, 1966. pp.385-399.

Inkeles, Alex, "Participant Citizenship in ·Six Developing

Countries". American Poli tic~l Science Review Vol .LXIII·,
December, 1969. pp.1120-1140.

E
U
,.. Krefetz, s.P .. and Goodman, A.E., "Participation for what lnd

EQ
for whom? Sorne Considerations for Research" Journal of
·comparative Administration. Voï .5, No.3, No_vernber, 1973.
pp.367-380. ~
TH
Kunkel, John "Values and Behaviour in Economie Development"
O
Economie Developrrient and Cultural Change, Vol,.XIII, No.·3,
April, ~965. pp.257~276. ·
LI

Ladewig, Howard and MçCarin, Glen c. "Community·s9 tisfaction:

IB

Theory and Measurement", Rural· Sociology Vol .• 45, No.1,

-B

1980"--p~~~~---

Lakshmanan, J.R., "A Systems model of Rural Development" World'

IA

Development, Vol.10, No.10, 1982 pp~885~898.

R

Lev.y, Frank and Truman, E.M. "Toward a Rational theory. cif

ES

Decentralisation: Another View. 11 American Poli tic-al

Science Review .. Vol.LXV, March, 1971. ~p.172-179.
D

Lijphart, Arend, "Comparative Politics,arid the Comparative

O

.Method 11 1 American Political Science Review, Vol.65,

1971 pp .. 682-693.
C

· Loon·, Rick V:an "Poli tical · Participation in Canadép The 1965

Election" Canadian JoÙrnal of Political Science.
Vol.III, No.3, September 1970 ... pp.376-399~ '

'Lowdermilk, · M. and Lai tos, W.R. "Towards a participa tory

· Strategy for Integrated Rural Development 11 Rural Sociology,
46, (4) 1981~ p .. 688-702 ..
. .
Montgomeny, John and Esman, Milton "Popular Participation in
Development Administration 11 Journal of Comparative
administration Vol.3,. November, ,1971 pp.358-382 ..
.i

{) ( '
Mulder, Mank, "Power equalization through Part;icipation"
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.16, N~.1, March, 1971.
pp .. 31-37 ..

Nie, N.H.; Powell,G,.B.; et al, "Social Structure anct.·Political

Participation: Developmental Relationships. Ameriç~n
Political Science Review. VOl.63 9 No.3, September~ 1969.
pp.,808-832 ..

Nnadozie, o.. u., "Citizen Participation ·and Community Development

in. Nigeria" Nigerian Journal of Public J\drninistration and
Local Government, Vol.IV, No .. 1, March, 1980, pp.47-54. ·'
. ·:·. ·

Nwani, A.O. "Planning-for Development in Nigeria: The Missing

E
Link" Niqerian Journal of Political Economy, Vol.1, No.1,

U
April, 1983, pp.210-241.

EQ
Ollawa, Patrick, "On a dynamk: model for Rural Development in .
Africa" Journal of Modern Afriéan Studies, Vol.15·, 3 7
1977. pp.401-423. TH
- - - - - - - - , "Political Participation in a developing .;mci·ety:
O
Theoretical considerâtions and the case of -Zambia".
LI

Jourr:ial of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics. Vol.CV!,

No.2, July, 1978. pp .. 169-189 ..
IB

Picard', Lonis, "Sociallsm and the Field Administratc,r: Decentrà-

-B

lisation in Tanzania" Comparative Politics Vol.12, No.4,.

July, 1980.
IA

Rein, Martin, "Decentralisation and citizen particip3.tion in

Social Services". Public Adrninistration Review,
R

Vol .. 32, Oct., 1972, pp~687-700.

ES

Rogers, D.L., Bultena, G,.L. and Barb, K.H. "Voiuntary Association

D

Membership and Political Participation; An Exploration of

the mobilisation Hypothesis". Sociological Quate·r1y,_
O

16, 1975 pp.305-318. •

C

Rondinelli, Dennis and Ruddle, Kenneth ''Local organisation for

Integrated Rural Development: Implèmentin9 Equity ?olicy
in Developing Countries", International Review-of Administrative
Scienceso Vol.SLIII, No.1, 1977, pp.20-30.·
\
·.Rondinelli, Dennis, "Aqministration of Integrated Rural.
Developrner-1 t Polie y: The Poli tics of P...grariar1 Ref orrn it1
Developing Countrie~", World Politics, Vo1·.31, No.3,
April, 1979. pp.389-4160
 136
Rondinelli, Dennis, "Government Decentralisation in.Comparative
Perspective". International Review of Administrative
Sciences. Vol.XLV~I, No.__1 1 1981,. pp .. 133-145,.

Rosener, Judy B.. "Citizen Participation: Can we measure i ts

effectiveness" Public Administration Review, Vol .. 38,
No.5, 1978, pp .. 457-463.

Slack, James D, "Policy Implementation Effectiveness in Cross

National Analysis".· International Journal of Public
Administration, 3(2) 19"81·pp.,219-242.

Spronle-Jones, Mark .and Hart, Kenneth _D. "A Public-Choice

Madel of Political Participation" Canadian Journal of
Political·Science .. Vol.VI, No.2, June, 1973 pp.175-194.

E
U
Streeten, Paul and Burki, Shahid J. "Basic ·Needs: Sorne

EQ
issues" world Develo_pment Vol.6, No.3, 1978 pp~411-421.

Streeten, Paul "The Distinctive features of a Basic Needs

TH
Approach to Development" • International Development
Review. Vol.19, No.3, 1977.
O
Swift, Jeremy, "Notes on_ tradi tional knowledge, Modern
LI

Knowledge, and Rural Development" .. Development: · "

Journal of the Society for International DevelopmfJît, 2-3,
IB

1980.
-B

_Vengroff, R. and Johnson, Alan "Decentralisation and

Implementation of Rural Development on Senegal: Role of
IA

Rural Councils". Public Administration.and Development.;

Vol.7, No.3, 1987, pp .. 27~- ·.,:
R

White, Gordon, "cuban Planning in the Mid-1980 1 s:

ES

Centralisation, Decentralisation and Participation"

World Development. Vol.15, No .. 1, 1987, pp.153~161.·
D
O

Whynes David, "The Measurement of Comparative Development

survey and cri tique, 11 Journal· o·f Modern African Studies.
C

XI, I, March, 1974 pp.89-107.,

(D) .NEWSPAPERS -AND CONFERENCE PAPERS:

Nwosu, Nnadozie, "Intergovernment Relations àt the local -level

arid the Impact. on Rural Development". a paper presénted Rt.
University of Nigeria/University.of Jos Joint Workshopo..n
Rural Development in Nigeria held at University of Nigeria,
October 28-31, 1987. ·
--- --

"
 . 137

. O'gbuagu, Chibuzo, "Citizen Participa tian: Implications _for

· · R,esource mobilisation for Rural Devèlopmen"t:, paper presented
at the Seminar on·Rural Development at the University of
Calabar, June, 14-16, 1987~

Ollawa, Patrick, "Approaches to the study.of Development and

Underdevelopment: A Critical Overview 11 ; paper presented
at.the Nigerian political science conference in Kano,
April,<33'-15, 19[,31.. ( '
ûlugi;Jemi, Stephen, "Development Administration: The Dilemma of
a par<;l.digm in Expediency", paper presented at the National
c_onfereri.ce on the Role of Administrators in Development

E
at the Institute of Public Administration and Extension

U
Service_s, University of Benin, February, 25-27, 1985.

EQ
Osuagwu, BTessi-ng.,_ 1_1Cul tivating a participating cul tur.e
thr,ough Mt"11SER 11 • The Statesman, Septèmber 16, 1987 p.5.
TH
L IO
IB
-B
IA
R
ES
D
O
C
 ·iH<·UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR*·><·
·l\·*i·CALABI\.Ril··ii--i(·
. 138
A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

·· DEar Respondent,

CITIZEN F,~.RTICIPATION FOR .DEVELOPMEN'l' IN

~ NKWERRE/ISU LOCAL GOVERNMENT ·AREA
--------------- .

This . questionnaire is aimed at ~licitin~ information

.

from rural dwellers regarding the extent and dimension~ of

rural ·particJpation in development programmes . . It is ~urely

E
for academic purposes. · The answers you ·giye to our

U
9uestion~ will not be identified wiih you _pers6nally, as

EQ
we- are• only interes.ted in the aggregatè respo_nses to.
partiçular
. . . . qüèstïons.
.
TH
O
· ·. ·Your co-oper.ati on will be hie;hly appreciated.
LI

· ;..Thank you.
IB

Yours' sincerely,
-B
IA
R
ES

0
( '
SECTION A
.........................•...........
D

1• Autcinomou~ Community
O

. . . .
C

2. Vil~age ............... 111 •••••••••••••••••••••• u••o••••••

4.
Male
Age· bracket:
I ----
Sex (Mark X in the appropriate box)
Female / l

(a) ùelO\~ 21 years ·(b) 21 JG ye~rs

(c) 31 - 40 years (d) 41 50 years
(e) over so years
 5. EDUCATIONAL L8VEL
i) ·no education
.
ti)·· Primary· School only
iii) Secondary S6ho6l ·only
iv) University, College of Education,- OND, HND or
its Equivalent.
6. INCOME LEVEL
a) Below N4,000 .Per annum
b) Betv,een Mi., 000 ti:.8,000 P.a.

E
c) Between N~,000 N-12,000

U
.

EQ
. d) Betwe~n W12,000 W16,000 P.a •
e) Between N16,000 N20,000 P.a TH
~.f) Above N20,000 P.a.
.
IO
' '

7. OCCUPA1 ION (SPECIFY) •••••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••

1 'ï
L

8. How much interest do you generally have in what is going

IB

on at the Local Govermnent Level. ·

-B

a) a good deal (b) Sorne interest (c) Not much interest.

IA

9 .: Did you vote in the last year Local Government Elections?

R

Yes ,_/._ _./ No /

---. L
ES

----------- ·- --. '

10. '11 he Govern~h-~-~-- advised people to belong to. development

Cornmittees in their Communities. Are you a member of any ·
D

developrnent Committee?
O

· Yes/ No .._!_ _ _ _
------
C

11. Have you attended any of the MAMSER forums where people
freely ask the Officers and Councillors questions?

Yes ! ____
.... No · ' ._!____
12 •. Do _you listen. to Radio. and Televisi.on Commentaries and
news iterns1 (a) Very regularly · (~) regularly
(c) irregularly (d) . Never
; 13. :. Do you r'ead n~wspapers?_
.:(a) Every day. (b) Few times a week
_·.. (c) Very ir·regularly (d) Never
14.. 11v'hièh do· you consider most effective in t1obilisation for,
 'MO

rural clev<?lÔptnt~11t. (a) l(udio. · (b) 'l'elevü;.lon

·-·(c) Newspapers (d) Local Organisations
15. Are you an active member of one- or·more of the Local
Organisation in your Community?

Yes ..._!_ _ _ . No .._l_ _ 7

16. Have you helcl any lGDdership po.sition?
Yes / No / \t
17. How did you belong? (a) By force because Pt is
compulaory for people of my status and age:
(b) _ Voluntarlly.

E
18. How would you access the contributions.of your organisation

U
to developu.ent issues? ·

EQ
i) They. wa ste tl)eir tiine on irrel evant issues.
ii) They concern thernselves mainly with settling TH
leadership problerus.
iii) They deli be rate more on problems of the Commun_i ty.
IO

19. Do you have leadership probleins? Yes / L ...)

L

. 7 No
IB

20. Sincerely speaking, wQuld you clain to have attended

-B

50%.o~ the meetings of your organisation· this y~ar.

! ___ _
Yes .... No .._l_ _l
IA
R

21 • How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your

Cornrnunity? · (i) Very satisfied ( ii) .Satisfie d ·
ES

(iii) Don't know (iv) Dissatisfied (v) Very ..

-~-- dlssatisfied.
D

Would you say you feel "at home II in this Comrnuni·ty

O

22.
__
C

Yes/
...._ . No..._! ___. °I'~ot ü.ui te :..f_._ _ /

Have you ever gotten so highly càncérned regarding some

public issue·, either concerning your communi ty or Local
Goverrnnent that you really wanted to· do ;3o_mething about i t.
(i)" F'req1-1ently (ii) Ofteri (ii-i)" Rarel1: (iv) Never
24 ..· .··How often do you discuss the problems. o:.(" yoûr Commun_i ty ·
,.· ·-wi th your wife, friends and neighbours? \
(~}. Verv often
.J
(ii) Often (iii) Rarely (iv) Never

25. Do you think there are enough opportuni.tie·s .in your

CommunitY for people like you to take part ~n decision.
making ·for development.
(a) much (b) ·Sorne (c·) None
 141
( '
26. Th~'ot .;)i vi\1,d: rnenn~, do you thinl\ the Covurnrnent cntl
effectlvely mobilise the people. for developwent~?
(a) · ·,i'hrou15h Goverrw1ent agents or MA.lVJSSH. representatives
(cb)· Thr01.1gh direct contact wi th rural organisations
( ) 'I'brough councillors and representat.i ves only
27. --------
In your .op.i.nion ·, do you think i t · rnEl kes ___ :_ _________ if
Local ~eople take part in making development decisions?
A c;reat deal of difference (b) Sorne diffcirenee.
No difference
· 28. Generally speaking, do·you think the Government actually
seek rural peoples opinion before de6isions are made?
(1) Often (ii) rlarely (iii) Never

E
U
29. Suppose the Local Government Ché=iirtnan and the president

EQ
of your town Union c1isagreed about what should be done
about some public issue. Which leader ·would you feel·
gr~ater moral obligation to ob~y. · TH
·.· (i) Local Government Chairman · (b) President of my
To\vD. Union. ·
IO

JO. Which of the following Programmes/Projects are taking

L

place in your Community (Tick the one, that apply~

IB
-B

Specify whether project's ar

IA

Government CommunJty Joint

R

Spônsored Self-g,Ielp
ES

a) Hospital/Medical Centre
D

b) Marl-;:et Project
O
C

c) Road/Bridges/Culverts
d) \1/ater Supply Scheme
e) Rural BJ.ectrif i cati on
f) Sçhool Project
g) Civic Centre
h) 'Scholarship Pr.ogramme "'
·others ( speci,fy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ..... .

31. Were ,surveys or opinion polls c.onducted beiore choi ce

of projects?
Yes .._/___. No · ._/___.
-- ....
 142

~2- Did anyDody seek your opinion?· Yes .._!_ _ ! No __

/ _ _/
33·. (If self help), was it decided at·the general meeting or
executiy~ discretidn only?
i) General meeting -(ii) Executive
3~:~: Did tha-t decision reflect the fel t-need _of the .Communi ty?
Yes .._!_ _ _• l\lo ....__
/ __ /

35 . _Whé.'Jt contribution would you as an individùal be prepàred

. to make to communal projects? . ..{i) Contribute Money only .•
· (ii.) Take part in physical Labour Contribution only ·
(iii) Contribute money and labour· ,(i,v) · Nothing

E
SECTION B ( '

U
0
Please read each statement carefully and decide how you

EQ
feel aboutit. Mark (X) in that column against the statement
being considere4.
TH
------ r:::
O
:>, •,-! (]) :>, (1)
ri ro (]) ri (])
LI

b.O QJ -j....l H uD h
r::: QJ . QJ h b.O ~ b.O
o H QJ (]) ro o ro
IB

h· t.tO h 0 (/) h Cf)

+)~ . t.io s:::: ·ri. . -J....l ·ri
Cl) <i: ~ ç:::i Cl) ç:::i
-B

. '
..
1 • Rural pt':ôple· kn o\,r and·
understand their problern_s and.
IA

are in a better position to

say what should be done for
.
R

the!!! . 1
ES

2. Since it is the lives-of rural

D

p12ople which wi11· be affected,

they should be involved in
O

planrling-and lmplementation
C

·J. Rural people are mostly not

educatl;d, it is not possible
for thern to take part
effecti vely-·in planning and -)
_irnpleinenting rural developrnent
programmes.

4. In general, rural people lack

the ability to contribute
effectively in piannîng and \t
development programmes. - .P
'

·:.,..
--,,..--

1'13
"

s::
:>,
•rl
CU
(lJ
(lJ . :>,
ri (lJ
(lJ

r-l (lJ
(lJ •
.+> f..i bDf-i
bD (lJ .f..i uO ~ uO
~ ~I (lJ· (lJ (\) 0 (\)
0 bO ~j ,. ·o y.11 H U)
H·-::1:
.p
t10 r~
~·
ri · ·P •ri
<l! Î-1 cf) r..::i
rn

5. It is no use asking for

their opinion in planning
develop1nent nJ:""-rn-,;:-
crr ;., rnm0 c: _
--~·-····.._._,.

.
6 •. Local Organisations like

E
'I'ovm ·Unions, Village
MeetiD~s, c~n better -

U
mobilù;-~e -to--partici-

EQ
pate than reprèsentati ves
and MAMSER agents
qye
TH
7. Local Orgar:ii'sations .;:..r-i-cl u~ually
for the rich o:nes and exclude
IO
,

the poor n1embers from taking ;

part .in decision-making

L
IB

'
.8 •. The G.ovc=:rnn,ent has not sincerely
-B

provided meéisures to enable

rural peoples~ .to take part in
ma king dev~lopment deci sions.
IA

,,
,',
R

.Thank you.
ES
D
O
C

( '

- ------:
..
 144

APPENDIX II

See Section B, items 1-5 in appendix I;.and table 3.3

Ca) ~ strongly agree,

(b) = agree,

{ç:)_ :;; uncertain •'

(d) ;:: Disagree

Ce) strongly disagree.

E
U
EQ
a b C d e Total
--- 1 115 105 30 13 TH 2
2 BO 118 33 25 9
O
3 6 40 27 100 92
LI

4 4 33 48 98 82
IB

5· 5 2 5 29 85 121 "'
,ro7
-B

io1,'J·I- :2.10 32/ 3:a1 ,BO(o !BJc:!.5

2
Chi-square (X ) = actual
Freguancies - E;:icpected
Frequencies
IA

Expected Frequencies.
R
ES

,
ï.f -r ;
;_ '2
o e
D

fe
O

where f = (Row total)(Column total)

e
C

'I'otal
2 . 2
= (115-42)·+(80-42) + .. ...
•
. .
·,(92-61.2)
2

-~2---...

2
-- .
4a 61 .. 2

(82-61.2). · 2
61 .. 2 + (121-61 .. 2)
61.2

= 126e9+34m4+30.9+34,.4+32.6+ ••••••••+
15.5+7.1+58 0 4
2
x = 683 .. 75
 145

degrees of freedom · -= (r-1) (Jc-1)

::: (5-1)(5-1)

"" 16

Level of significance "" a.os

Critical values of Chi-square at d.f 16

E
Oo05 level = 26.30.

U
EQ
TH
L IO
IB
-B
IA
R
ES
D
O
C
 '146.

{) ( '
APPENDIX III ANOVA

.See·section B, items 6;7,8 in appendix I and.table 3 .. 3.

a = strongly agree, b = agree

C = uncertaln--- d"" disagree e = strongly disagree.

·.a b C d e 'Total

E
6 49 14à 39 8 21 265
.. '

U
7 14 4'i·. 67 63 74 265

EQ
8 35 149 28 33 ·265

Tata] 98 344 .99 128

TH 795
IO

1~ Total sum or squares - SST

L
IB

k r
z ~
2
- T ••
2
-B

xij
j=1 i=1 n
Î
IA

·where Xij = the observation in the i th -row and jth eolumn

R

T ... = total number of observations •

ES

. 2 2 2 2 2
= 49 +14 +35 +148 + --+33.
D

= 2401 + 196+ •••••••••••o +5476+1089

O
C

= 68369.
2
= 68369 795
15 , ...
.•

= 68369-42135

SS ""26234.
T

2. Sum of squares between groups - ss8

2
~
N
 .. -.,; ..,, .....~,;-:,_ .. ,._ ... _- _· .. -; ·.;.... ......... ........... -~- -:;- ·. •., .

--------- --
- -
--
147

.
The between-groups sum of squares deals with the difference

between the mean of each group and the grand mean.

2 2 2 2 2 ' 2
= 98 344 126 99 128 - T ••
+--+--+--+--
3 3 3 3 3 ' 15.

= 3201~3+39445.3+5292+3267+5461.3

=-~6666.9 - 42~35

= 14531~9

E
· :.3... Sum of squares wi thin groups; also called Error suni of· squares.

U
EQ
TH
""26234-14531 .. 9
IO

'
L

(
IB

ANOVA TABLE
-B

..
SOURCE OF SUM OF DEGREE OF MEAN F IF0.05
IA

VARIATION SQUARES FREEDOM SQUARE

---
R

K-1
Betw~en::-- 4
3632. 9.8 3.10 3.48
ES

groups .. 14531 .. 9
Within n-k
10 1170 .. 21
D

grouj:> .. 11702.1
O

Total 26234 . nk-1 44

C

'

STRENGTH CF ( Ê)

d.f (F-1)
8

d.fB F+dfe.

= 4(3.10-1)
4(3.10)+10 =
I 8.4
22 .. 4
. J
= .. 6
0 .. 375

-)
=

./)
 148

°:è' .,, -0.0623 ... -10074

0 .. 058

3. Member of Development Comrni ttee.

"
... a.sol o.. 490 2
--- +--- .2510.0 +· .2401
·163 10
t63 100

·I 0.,00154+0.00240
.. I 0.003941

E
U
"" 0.053 ..

EQ
= 1.4'785-1.3900

= a.oses
TH
IO
· ;f:. "" 0.885 ,., 1.40
0 .. 063
L

=-e3.84":G.
IB

-~-zn-.-92x2 ___
-B

This same procedure was used on all the items. See table 4.3.
IA
R
ES
D
O
C

....
(
{)

-----
 APPENDIX IV

SEX-ROLE DISTINCTION.: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

1. Interest on events at local level

~ Jô.2-1 + 2
/)2
--
N1 N2 ....
.,.

"" 2 2
-
" ~815 + .. 567
163 100
,.. 0,.66423
+
0~32149
100

E
163

U
""~ 0000408+0.003215

EQ
"'/ 0.007295

On . 0 .. 085 •
TH .
-
IO
x1-x2 "" 1.9080-1.8900 0..018
L

;:t: ... x1.-x2 0,.018

IB

""
0.085
-B

QD

--·····-- ~ "" 6.21.

IA

From normal curve distribution table~= 0.21 = 0~8.:32x2 bècause

R
ES

of the two-tail gives 16.64%.

D

2. Vote in last LGA election.

O
C

°n ... 2
.439 +469
2
"' 0.19272+0.21996
---
163 100 163 100
\
~1 0 .. 0012+0 .. 0022 J 0.0034 t11

,.
x1-x2 ... a.ose.
x1-x2 "' 1.2577-1.,3200

lllll -0 .. 0623
~.
0/
·C

-·o:.
.

CODICE
-.~·
('
.'