[size=13pt]Poverty alleviation requires proper implementation[/size]
http://tribune.com.ng/index.php/letters/18812-poverty-alleviation-requires-proper-implementation
Monday, 14 March 2011


CURRENT events in Nigeria affirms the description of the country as a paradox by the World Bank in 1996.  The paradox is that the poverty level in Nigeria is at variance with the country’s immense wealth.

It is a general belief that if there is an increase in per capita income, simultaneously with a more even distribution of income, such would lead to poverty reduction.  Reduction in the level of unemployment is also  perceived as a necessary condition for the realisation of increased income per capita.

Development is not just a matter of growth in income per capita, as it is possible  to record high growth rate in income per capita, while the people continue to live in abject poverty; lacking the basic necessities of life.  This is a situation peculiar to Nigeria today.  The momentum of growth derivable  from a sector has a little direct impact on  bulk of the population.

Generally, the priorities and strategies enunciated in virtually all the plans show that agricultural production is always accorded the highest priority (FRN) (1990:17) (1981: 37); FRN (1970:35).  Even in the Structural Adjustment Programme document, agriculture was considered one of the critical sectors, whose rehabilitation was crucial to the success of the programme (FRN) (1986:.

An appendage of agricultural development is rural development. Against the background that the poor are located in rural areas, and are mainly engaged in agriculture, with highest priority accorded to agriculture in the plan documents, suggest a favourable disposition towards poverty alleviation.

The two distinct approaches to poverty alleviation are the economic growth strategy, that presumes the trickling down of the benefits of growth to the poor, and the strategy of rural/agricultural development.  Indeed, rural development could be viewed as being central to Nigeria’s poverty alleviation strategies.

And the centrepiece of  rural development policy has been agricultural development, complemented by social and economic infrastructure.

For sometime now, the economic growth performance of the country has not been satisfactory, given negative growth in the first half of the 1980s and very low growth since 1992.  Even in periods of economic growth, Nigerians did not experience considerable or commensurable poverty reduction.

Between 1985-1992, there was a slight increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and per capita income, with a slight drop in aggregate poverty head count level (from 46.3 to 42.7 per cent). But inequality worsened and the poor did not share in the growth, as severity of poverty did not improve significantly.  This suggests the need for a strategy for growth, with equity for poverty reduction.

Within the framework of the National Development Plans, the implicit thinking was that a positive relationship existed between growth in the GDP and increased welfare for the general citizenry.  The strategies in the plan were not lucidly direct and explicitly specific, because the approach to poverty alleviation, as expressed in the fundamental objectives of the development plans did not involve policies and programmes which directly targeted the poor.

The poor were expected to benefit from the “trickle-down efforts” of the overall process of development.  But this has not been the case.  And so, growth must be accompanied by a deliberate policy for targeted interventions.

In conclusion, the embarrassing paradox of poverty in Nigeria suggests the compelling need for a single-minded pursuit of the objective of poverty reduction and its eventual elimination.  To this end, there is the need for a realistic poverty reduction agenda that can be used by all stakeholders – the Federal Government,  state governments, local governments, NGOs and the international donor community.  There is also the need for strong political commitment to the poverty reduction goal.

Oyelakin, Ruth Oluyemi,
University of  Ibadan.

Article removed so folks can get past the silly and move on instead to the main

[size=13pt]Nigeria’s Poverty Rate Increased By 30%
[/size]
http://csrinaction.com/blog/nigeria%E2%80%99s-poverty-rate-increased-by-30/nigeria%E2%80%99s-poverty-rate-increased-by-30/


8 Dec, 2010 (By Leadership Editors)


The United Nations Children Education Fund (UNICEF) has said that the recent level of corruption and failure of governance in Nigeria have contributed to a sharp rise in poverty level from 46% to 76% over the last one decade.

Chairman of the Code of Conduct Bureau, (CCB) Mr Sam Saba, who quoted the UNICEF data yesterday said the trend was inspite of the country being the seventh largest natural gas reserve in the world, in addition to producing 2 million barrels of oil daily.

Saba who was delivering CCB’s 2010 score-card, punctured the illusion by civil servants that they are sacred custodians of the knowledge of the workings of government and exercise power to such a level that no one could challenge or hold them accountable to their actions.

The Minister of Information and Communication, Professor Dora Akunyili , who represented by Mr Clinton Adebolu Oni, in her opening remarks noted that the CCB was established by government ministries to showcase their activities to the Nigeria public.

Saba described as alarming, the social tolerance level of members of the public the people with the extravagant displays of wealth by public servants. Public servant he argued should reconcile their source of income and lifestyle, ”this is what should determine the success and sustainability of an anti-corruption strategy”, he added
According to him, CCB has the mandate to receive declarations in accordance with the requirements of the code of the law, as well as examine declarations in accordance with the Code of Conduct and requirements of the law.Others are to retain custodies of such declarations and make them available to the public among others.

What? Posts too long, what is your point? Higher GDP/capita doesn't necessarily imply lower poverty rates?

what is this one trying to say? OP. Get some meaningful thing to say rather than boring cut and paste.

ekt_bear:

What? Posts too long, what is your point? Higher GDP/capita doesn't necessarily imply lower poverty rates?

Seems ironic, but I suppose in summary, yes.

I don't see what evidence those two articles provide to support this idea.

I bet if I show you a plot of GDP/capita versus poverty, the former going up causes the latter to go down.

Anyway, imo our focus in Nigeria should be on producing more stuff, getting economic growth. Let's make the pie bigger first, then worry about how to split it up.

Mai Suya:

Seems ironic, but I suppose in summary, yes.

I wouldn't dare link the situation in that way. Poverty rate has been on the rise . . . . yet through out the same period, we have recorded increases in poverty rate. I don't think this is NORMAL in anyway. If anything it is abnormal -- while we have been recording high GDP, we have also witnessed significant jump in poverty levels -- the Poverty rate is currently at over 75% of the population, up about 30 % since 1996.

Poverty rate is NOT on the rise. It is a lie!

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-633327.0.html#msg8003363

[size=13pt]Nigeria: MDGs - Poverty Rate Rises to 76 Percent - UN
[/size]
Onyebuchi Ezigbo27 February 2009

Abuja — [size=13pt]The UN Habitat, an arm of the United Nations responsible for promotion of quality housing and urban planning around the world yesterday said from its analysis the poverty rate in the country has shut up from 46 per cent in 1996 to 76 per cent at present.[/size]

Country Director of the UN Habitat in Nigeria, Prof. Johnson Falade, who delivered a lecture at the investiture of 18th President of Nigerian Institute of Town Planners (NITP), Chief Napoleon Osayande, in Abuja, said the body based its assessment using access to decent housing as well as other economic indices in the last one decade.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200902270161.html

[size=13pt]Nigeria: Poverty Rate is Increasing - Economist[/size]

Jibrin Abubakar[b]11 January 2010[/b]
http://allafrica.com/stories/201001110213.html

Head of Economics Department of the Ahmadu Bello University Zaria Dr. Mike Duru has said that poverty rate is rising in Nigeria.Dr. Duru who spoke to Daily Trust on phone said the quality of lives of Nigerians is falling. He described as misleading equating rise in Nigeria's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to fall in poverty.

Provisional data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) indicated that real GDP grew by 8.23 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2009, up from 4.50, 7.22 and 7.07 per cent in the first, second and third quarters.

But the overall GDP growth for 2009 was projected at 6.90, up from 5.98 in 2008; hence the non-oil sectors remain the major driver of the economy.

Dr. Duru also said other indicators showing rising poverty level in Nigeria include: unemployment, inflation and fuel scarcity.

2nd article you posted is bunk; he cited GDP figures, but made no mention of poverty rates. Or any sort of zonal analysis like the CBN did.

Regarding the first article, let's see zonal data and progression over time. And better yet, link to the study.

I don't believe it. No man can honestly say poverty is HIGHER now in Nigeria than it was in 1996. It is a lie.

Kobojunkie, maybe you haven't been to Nigeria in a while. Every time I've gone back it has looked better.

Don't just accept statistics/data you hear from not-very-credible sources without poking into it, seeing how they come up with their conclusions. ESPECIALLY if it seems to contradict reality.

WOW . . . you are definitely the first person who has tried to use that line of argument, right??

^^^ what happened was the currency value of the Naira decreased. Notice how the defininition of poverty is earning less than 2[i] $[/i] a day. In the 80's and 90's the value of the Naira to the Dollar was worth more than it is today. If  the Dollar suddenly dropped to half its current value the 'poverty rate' of Nigeria would drastically reduce also. And if the Value of the Naira doubled the poverty rate would also decrease.

sometimes i wonder if the people who make these statistics didn't think about all these factors before jumping to conclusions.

pleep:

^^^ what happened was the currency value of the Naira decreased. Notice how the defininition of poverty is earning less than 2[i] $[/i] a day. In the 80's and 90's the value of the Naira to the Dollar was worth more than it is today.

Well genius, that definition has rarely changed in the last 20 years( I believe it recently changed from $1 a day to $2 dollars a day). So what do we need you retelling this for?

pleep:

If  the Dollar suddenly dropped to half its current value the 'poverty rate' of Nigeria would drastically reduce also. And if the Value of the Naira doubled the poverty rate would also decrease.

And you don't see how this is exactly what the number is telling you  . . . that currently, these people are living below the poverty rate since the dollar is not HALVED yet? Seriously, you know that you are not the first to try using this line of argument before now, right?

^^^
from your source:

Poverty is the lack of basic human needs such as clean water, nutrition, healthcare, education, clothing and shelter because of inability to afford them

if an individual is making 200 Naira a day and is able to buy basic needs like water, food, and medicine education etc, in 1986 he is not poor according to this definition. And if an individual is able to buy those same basic needs with 200 Naira in 2011 he is not poor either according to this correct definition.

However, According to your other source, (that says poverty is increasing in Nigeria) poverty is making less than 2$ a day. Lets say that in 1986 the first individuals 200 Niara is worth 3$. Then he is not poor right? However, according to you if the second individual's 200 naira is worth 1.50$ he is poor. Regardless of the fact that they have the exact same standard of living.

good job smart one

pleep:

^^^
from your source:  if an individual is making 200 Naira a day and is able to buy basic needs like water, food, and medicine education etc, in 1986 he is not technically poor. If an individual is able to buy those same basic needs with 200 Naira in 2011 he is not poor either according to this correct definition.

However, According to your other source, (that says poverty is increasing in Nigeria) poverty is making less than 2$ a day. lets say that in 1986 the first individuals 200 Niara is worth 3$. Then he is not poor. However, according to you if the second individual's 200 naira is worth 1.50$ he is poor. Regardless of the fact that they have the exact same standard of living.

I think that it is the case that at some point in all this, you lost your point !!! ROFLMAO!!

Kobojunkie:

I think that it is the case that at some point in all this, you lost your point !!! ROFLMAO!!

haha, don't play that game with me. I don't expect people like you to admit defeat. However, i am impressed that you didn't cry ROFLMAO and continue to argue as blindly as a headless chicken like you usually do.

^^^ Now you are just being childish !!! What defeat are you rambling on about now? the article clearly tells you that measured at least $2 dollars a day(i.e able to afford goods and services of values of $2 of more a day and regardless of the exchange rate at time of measure), there are over 70% below the poverty line but you continue to spew what again??


Anyways, keep trying to twist around what was stated . . . when you succeed at something new reasonable, let me know so I can read it then!

@OP,
I can tell u for a fact that whoever wrote those 2 initial articles either didnt study Economics in an African context or skipped some of their classes. Why? Cos a particular arm of Economics is dedicated to studying the peculiar problems of Developing economies and is called Development economics (DE). DE was championed in relatively advanced economies like India which (explains the authoritative status of the likes of Gunnar Myrdal, D R Gadgil and G M Meir) where the poverty level is no different from what obtains currently in Nigeria and I dare to say sometimes worse even for a country celebrated as a BRIC Nation. so to paint a demeaning picture and describe Nigeria as a 'Peculiar' case is downright misleading but only good enough to foool the ignorant.
Fact is economists in developing countries have come to realize that while economic growth may mean development in advanced countries, the concepts are different and must be tackled individually in developing countries mostly due to the presence of Dual Economies within a particular economy. No country as of today has been able to bridge that divide not Brazil not India and obviously not Nigeria. Even though the effects are seen in varying degrees among the countries mentioned, Nigerias economic growth still remains the quickest way to pull the rest of the country out of its poverty as long as proper attention is paid to that other half, but to come out with such scathing criticism of an economy that is only beginning to realize its true potentials is downright wicked and keeping with the celebration of negativity syndrome that seems to be a recurring decimal that has underlined the oppositions campaign these days.

poverty by years In spite of Nigeria’s abundant natural and human resource endowment, poverty remains pervasive,
multifaceted, and chronic. Given the most recent data available, it is estimated that approximately 69
million (or 54.4 percent) Nigerians lived in poverty in 2004, an increase of more than 24 percent since
1980. This brief deals with poverty in Nigeria and focuses on the determinants of poverty in rural
households by identifying the household/community characteristics (such as the status of women)
and region-specific risks that affect rural poverty and how they have changed over time.
Introduction
The measurement and analysis of poverty are
necessary to: (a) know what the situation is, (b)
understand the factors determining this situation,
(c) help design interventions best adapted to the
situation, and (d) assess the effectiveness of
current policies and to determine whether the
situation is changing. Various definitions and
concepts exist for this purpose, but this brief
focuses on the incidence, depth and severity of
poverty.
The incidence of poverty (headcount index) is
the share of the population whose income or
consumption is below the poverty line; that is, the
share of the population that cannot afford to buy a
basic basket of goods. The depth of poverty
(poverty gap) provides information regarding how
far households are from the poverty line. This
measure captures the mean aggregate income or
consumption shortfall relative to the poverty line
across the whole population. The poverty severity
(squared poverty gap) takes into account not only
the distance separating the poor from the poverty
line (the poverty gap), but also the inequality
among the poor; that is, a higher weight is placed
on those households further away from the poverty
line.
Dimension of Poverty in Nigeria
Nigeria’s national poverty profile (as well as those
of the urban and rural areas) is illustrated in Figure
1 for 1980-2004 (based on available data). The
incidence of poverty has generally been on the rise
since 1980, with two significant dips during 1985-
1992 and 1996-2004. Focusing on the most recent
surveys (1996 and 2004), the national poverty
incidence was 65.6 percent in 1996 and declined to
54.4 percent in 2004. Similarly, in 1996, the poverty
depth (P1) and poverty severity (P2) were 0.358
and 0.207, but these decreased respectively to
0.225 and 0.122 in 2004 (Figure 2).
Estimates of inequality also indicate that Nigeria
has more unequal distribution of income than
Ethiopia, Madagascar, India, and Niger. Further
analysis also suggests that poverty in Nigeria is
predominantly a rural phenomenon, with rural
poverty increasing from 28.3 percent in 1980 to
63.8 percent in 2004. However, the proportion of
the urban poor also rose from 17.2 percent in 1980
to 43.1 percent in 2004 (Figure 1).
Thus, within rural areas approximately 44.4 percent
of households in 2004 could not meet their food
expenditure requirements. Another 19.4 percent
could meet their food expenditure requirements, but
not the minimum expenditure to cover other basic
Quantitative Analysis of Rural Poverty in Nigeria
NIGERIA STRATEGY SUPPORT PROGRAM Brief No. 17
Bolarin Omonona
needs (NBS, 2007). In the case of urban
households, 26.7 percent were not able to meet
their required food expenditure requirements while
16.4 percent could meet their food expenditure but
not other non-food basic expenditure needs.
Figure 1. Trends in rural and urban poverty (1980- 2004)
The predominance of rural poverty over urban has
been consistent during 1996 to 2004. In 1996,
about 70 percent of rural households were poor, as
compared with 58 percent of the urban households.
In 2004, the incidence of urban poverty declined
more rapidly than rural poverty with 64 percent of
rural households being poor (a 6 percent decrease)
while urban poverty decreased by 15 percent to 43
percent. The same pattern holds true for the other
poverty indices (depth and severity). It is important
to note that the incidence, depth and severity of
poverty among rural households are higher than
the national poverty figures, while those of the
urban households are lower, as shown in figure 2.
In terms of geopolitical classification, poverty
incidence, depth, and severity are higher in all three
northern Nigeria regions than in the three southern
regions for 1996 and 2004 (Figure 3, 4, and 5)).
Figure 2. Poverty depth (P1) and Severity (P2) by location
(rural, urban and national)
Figure 3. Incidence of poverty by geopolitical
zones
Figure 4. Depth of poverty by geopolitical zones
Figure 5. Severity of poverty by geopolitical zones
The North West, North East and North Central
zones have the highest poverty incidence, depth
and severity in descending order while the South
West, South East, and South South have the
lowest poverty incidence, depth and severity in
ascending order. All zones witnessed reductions in
their poverty measures (incidence, depth and
severity) from 1996 to 2004 except the North West
where poverty incidence increased from 72.7
percent to 76.4 percent. The reductions in the
poverty incidence, depth, and severity for rural
households in the southern zones are greater than
those achieved by their northern counterparts.
Hence, it could be concluded that poverty is more
prevalent in the northern zones than in the southern
zones.
The poverty estimates also indicate that rural
households headed by males are poorer than
female-head households, with all three poverty
measures higher for male-headed households in
1996 and 2004. It is also important to note that
there was a general reduction in poverty incidence,
depth and severity from 1996 to 2004 for both
male- and female-headed rural households. But the
reductions in these poverty measures between the
two periods were far greater (even quadrupling in
some cases) for the female-headed households
than male-headed households.
Determinants of Welfare in Rural Nigeria
The major causes of Nigeria’s poverty go beyond
low incomes, savings, and growth—which are
usually associated with a poor country—to include
high level of inequality attributable to unequal
access to income opportunities and basic
infrastructure, and poor education and health
status.
Using the fixed-effect regression model, the study
identified some factors that influence poverty and
the nature of their influence on poverty in rural
households for 1996 and 2004 (Table 1).
Table 1: Determinants of welfare in Nigeria
Variables Influence on poverty
1. Size of household Generally, large family size reduces welfare
in most regions of Nigeria. The larger the
household size, the poorer the family.
2. Dwelling type Decent accommodation also influences
welfare positively. Poverty is common
among household dwelling in huts than
those dwelling in decent houses.
3. Safe toilet There is also a positive relationship between
safe toilet and welfare. Poverty is more
pervasive in household with an unsafe toilet
than those with a safe toilet.
4. Marital status and
type of family
Polygamous families generally are poorer
than monogamous family type. Also, welfare
is higher in households headed by someone
who is monogamous, polygamous or by
those in the divorced/separated/widowed
category than households headed by never–
married persons.
5. Education Households with formal education have
higher welfare than households without
formal education.
6. Gender and age The gender of the head of the household
impacts on the nature of household poverty.
Similarly, the age of the head of the
household has an overall positive effect on
the welfare of the household.
Given the fact that differences in gender and
geopolitical factors have implications for the
determinants of welfare in rural Nigeria, the
analysis was extended to account for the gender
and geopolitical dimensions of those determinants
as described below.
Gender Dimensions of Determinants of Rural
Welfare in Nigeria
The following are important determinants of welfare
for households headed by males and females in
rural Nigeria:
With respect to age, education levels, dwelling
type, and access to safe water and toilet, there are
no significant gender differences. All the above
factors have equal favorable influence on the
welfare of male- and female-headed rural
households in Nigeria. Generally, households
without access to the above factors (either male- or
female-headed) have lower welfare than those with
access.
Male-headed households engaged in farming have
lower welfare than those engaged in nonfarm
occupations while female-headed households
engaged in farming have higher welfare than those
engaged in nonfarm occupations.
Geopolitical Dimensions of Determinants of
Rural Welfare in Nigeria
The following factors are important determinants of
rural welfare in the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria:
Education and Occupation: Across the six
geopolitical zones, education improves the welfare
of rural households, while households engaged in
agricultural activities have lower welfare than those
engaged in nonagricultural activities.
Size of Household: Large household size reduces
welfare in all the geopolitical zones except in the
rural South South zone, where the size of
household does not influence welfare.
Gender: Male-headed households have higher
welfare than female-headed households in North
Central and South South zones in rural Nigeria but
lower welfare in North West. Gender does not have
any influence on welfare in the North East, South
East and South West zones.
Dwelling type: Households living in descent
accommodations have higher welfare than those
living in huts in the North East and South West
zones but lower in North Central. Dwelling type
does not have any impact on welfare in the North
West, South East and South South zones.
Access to safe water: Households with access to
safe water have higher welfare than those without
safe water in the North Central, North West and
South East zones but lower in South South.
Access to safe water does not affect welfare in
North East and South West.
Access to safe toilet: Households with access to
safe toilet facilities have higher welfare than those
without safe toilets in all the geopolitical zones of
rural Nigeria except in North Central, where it is
lower, and North East where it does not affect
welfare at all.
Age of household head: As the age of the
household heads increases, welfare improves in
households in North West and South East but
reduces for households in South South rural
Nigeria. Age of household head does not affect
welfare in the North Central, North East and South
West zones.
Policy Implications
Three major findings could be drawn from this
study:
First, education is a key factor in the reduction of
rural poverty in general, whether the households
are headed by men or women and regardless of
the zone in which the household resides. Welfare
levels increase as educational attainment
increases, so households whose heads attained
tertiary education were the least poor while those
without any formal education were the poorest. In
line with this finding, existing educational efforts by
government and nongovernmental organizations
should be geared toward every person of schoolgoing
age, so that no one is left out.
Second, larger households were found to have a
significantly decreased level of welfare among rural
households. Awareness building on reproductive
health knowledge that could empower household
heads to make quality decision regarding their
family size may be useful.
Third, geopolitical factors are important
determinants of welfare. The poverty profile
revealed that poverty was lower in the southern
zones than the northern zones. Although poverty
exists in all the geopolitical zones, the determinants
vary across zones, so poverty eradication policies
should be flexible to address specific challenges of
each zone rather than generalized for the whole
country.
This brief is excerpted from the background paper “Quantitative Analysis of Rural Poverty in Nigeria.” This brief was written with the assistance of
Babatunde Olaniyan, Valerie Rhoe, and James Sackey. It is intended to promote discussion; it has not been formally peer reviewed, but it has been
reviewed by at least one internal and/or external reviewer.
The Nigeria Strategy Support Program (NSSP) of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) supports the Agricultural Policy Support
Facility (APSF), an initiative to strengthen evidence-based policymaking in Nigeria in the areas of rural and agricultural development. In collaboration
with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources and funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), APSF supports
the implementation of Nigeria’s national development plans by strengthening agricultural-sector policies and strategies.

Copyright © 2010, International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. This material may be reproduced for personal and not-for-profit use
without permission from but with acknowledgment to IFPRI. For other use, contact ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org.
For more information:
IFPRI-Abuja
International Food Policy Research Institute
c/o International Center for Soil Fertility and Agriculture Development
No.6/ Plot 1413 Ogbagi Street
Off Oro-Ago Crescent
Cadastral Zone 11, Garki, Abuja
Nigeria
E-mail: ifpri-nigeria@cgiar.org
www.ifpri.org
www.ifpri.org

Kobojunkie:

^^^ Now you are just being childish !!! What defeat are you rambling on about now? the article clearly tells you that measured at least $2 dollars a day(i.e able to afford goods and services of values of $2 of more a day and regardless of the exchange rate at time of measure), there are over 70% below the poverty line but you continue to spew what again??


Anyways, keep trying to twist around what was stated . . . when you succeed at something new reasonable, let me know so I can read it then!

If your trying to say that the measure of poverty is adjusted for inflation, and fluctuating exchange rates i dont know why you didn't just say that in the begining . Anyway, the article doesn't state that, and i have never heard that fact before. but it might be true, ill do some research i guess.

pleep:

If your trying to say that the measure of poverty is adjusted for inflation, and fluctuating exchange rates i dont know why you didn't just say that in the begining . Anyway, the article doesn't state that, and i have never heard that fact before. but it might be true, ill do some research i guess.

uum . . . Oh genius . . . I DON'T NEED to SAY IT because that HAS ALMOST ALWAYS BEEN tracked that way!! I don't see why you would need articles to explain that bit to you EVERY SINGLE time they try to inform you of the problems in our communities.

@pleep: You were wise to not get dragged into a long and pointless argument.

Kobojunkie's article said:

It is estimated that 75 percent of the 150 million population live in poverty indexed as those living below USD $1 per day

I think it's best to consign this familiar ''estimate'' to the dustbin of idiottic foolishness where it belongs.

Recent report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) puts Nigeria as the 27th poorest country in the world. For example, the country’s current Gross National Product (GNP) is about $290, below that of Bangladesh at $380 and compares with natural resource poor countries like Tanzania and Mozambique and then pales in comparison with South Africa’s $3,500 and Botswana’ $3,600.

PRODUCE THE REPORT THAT STATES THIS, INCLUDING THE YEAR.

From MY research the annual per capita GDP of NIGERIA as at today stands at:

$2,400 (CIA World Factbook 2010)

$2,398 (IMF 2010)

$2,203 (World Bank 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

So I've no idea where you got your figure of $290 Kobojunkie.

^^^ Seriously, o ju e fo or something??

Where in the world do you have me stating some GDP $290 figure . . . worse what the frell are you even rambling about? READ . . .  OPEN YOUR EYES AND READ!!

No, YOU READ WHAT YOU POSTED. What does the $290 refer to? EXPLAIN!!!! I'm quoting your dubious, misleading articles.

uumm

a) I didn't write the article

b) If you bothered to read it, and then did a simple google search, you would actually have figured out that the number, the GNP, quoted in the article is from only a couple of years ago, as is the article itself. It is even stated on there for you to READ.

GOSH!!!

Kobojunkie said:

uumm

a) I didn't write the article

No. You only posted it. And its claims are manifestly wrong and misleading.

b) If you bothered to read it, and then did a simple google search, you would actually have figured out that the number, the GNP, quoted in the article is from only a couple of years ago, as is the article itself.

I thought you were smarter than this. You seem not to know what 'GNP' means, or its appropriate use. Neither does the goat whose article you pasted here. Now, what he did was clearly misleading. Those GDP per capita figures are MOST DEFINITELY NOT from ''2 years ago'', and the very latest I would place them would be 1996 if not earlier!

The current Annual GDP per capita figures (what you and your writer term ''GNP'') for Nigeria hover around $2,400 per annum as I earlier posted with links, NOT ''$290''.

Sigh!!  . . .  again . . . . USE GOOGLE to search for what is stated. . . .

[size=13pt]Recent report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) puts Nigeria as the 27th poorest country in the world. F[b]or example, the country’s current Gross National Product (GNP) is about $290, below that of Bangladesh at $380 and compares with natural resource poor countries like Tanzania and Mozambique and then pales in comparison with South Africa’s $3,500 and Botswana’ $3,600[/b].[/size]

You go to google . . . type in GNP for the year quoted in the ARTICLE  . . . not CURRENT as you CONTINUE TO SPEW, and NOT PER CAPITA since the ARTICLE does not SUGGEST IT IS . . . . and you will see a graph POP up as first thing on the search to show you where the numbers likely came from  . . .  other than that  . . .you are just making noise still!

Rossikk: Ain't worth your time, bro. Unnecessary gray hairs will be all you'll gain.

^^Kobojunkie, the date quoted on the article was ''01/02/2011'' !!!!!!

I don't need to go to google to know that the per capita GDP (what you and the goat writer call ''GNP'') of Nigeria is NOT $290 in 2011.

You really need to stop digging, Kobojunkie!!