An Evaluation Of The Impact Of Napep On Entrepreneurship Development In Nigeria

ABSTRACT
The focus of this research “An Evaluation of the Impact of NAPEP on Entrepreneurship development in Nigeria” was to access the impact of entrepreneurship activities in Nigeria, a case study of Imo State. The programme was designed by the government to cater for unemployed youth and jobless person all over the country. To arrive at my conclusion, I administered a questionnaire with some primary and secondary data on different categories to know the percentage of the response to my analysis. There were 33 questions altogether which were split into different categories. Appendix I, Section A, the questionnaire was administered to both male and female which the response was low (25) in Section B, those that were aware were just 18 and majority were aware through friends or relations, a few benefited in kind, a few in cash. In section C, assessing the impact, out of 25 people, 21 saw it effective while 4 saw it ineffective. In conclusion here it was discovered that there is no enough money to meet their challenges which causes poverty / laziness. Under policy implementation majority agreed that the policy does not address multidimensional problems. 66.7% agreed that government and NGOs are needed, while 33.3% disagreed and 5.6% agree that there are sufficient fund available. From my Chi-square table, the chi-square (x2c calculated is (2.4994) and the chi-square (X2t) tabulated is (15.5): if the X2c < X2t, we conclude that there is no positive relationship between NAPEP and Entrepreneurship development which is accepting the null hypothesis (Ho). In enhancing entrepreneurship development in Imo State, we finally recommended that government should monitor funds being allocated to different sectors of the economy for improved activities of NEPEP so that they further assist the beneficiaries for greater and effective participation in the programme for the interest of the Nigerian economy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page---------------------------------------------------------------------------i
Certification -----------------------------------------------------------------------ii
Dedication--------------------------------------------------------------------------iii
Acknowledgement---------------------------------------------------------------iv
Abstract-----------------------------------------------------------------------------v
Table of Content -----------------------------------------------------------------vi
List of Table -----------------------------------------------------------------------ix
List of Figures---------------------------------------------------------------------x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study -------------------------------------------------1
1.2 Statement of the Problem-------------------------------------------------4
1.3 Objectives of the Study----------------------------------------------------6
1.4 Significance of the Study--------------------------------------------------6
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study--------------------------------------7
1.6 Hypothesis--------------------------------------------------------------------8
1.7 Outline of the Study--------------------------------------------------------9
1.8 Definition of Terms--------------------------------------------------------10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW---------------------------------------------------------12
Introduction
2.1 Conceptual literature -----------------------------------------------------12
2.2 Theoretical Literature ----------------------------------------------------17
2.3 Empirical Literature Review---------------------------------------------20
2.4 Case Study Review ------------------------------------------------------22
2.5 Poverty and Economic Development---------------------------------24
2.6 Economic Perspective on Entrepreneurship-----------------------27
2.7 Nigeria Poverty Alleviation in Enhancing Entrepreneurship ---29
2.8 Overview: The Entrepreneurship Challenge in Nigeria--------31
2.9 Brief History of NAPEP--------------------------------------------------33
2.10 Constraints on NAPEP in Enhancing Entrepreneurship---------35
2.11 Summary--------------------------------------------------------------------36
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-----------------------------------------------37
Introduction
3.1 Research Design----------------------------------------------------------37
3.2 Sample Size and Sample Technique---------------------------------38
3.3 Data Collection-------------------------------------------------------------39
3.3.1 Primary Sources-----------------------------------------------------------40
3.3.2 Secondary Sources ------------------------------------------------------40
3.4 Method of Data Collection ---------------------------------------------40
3.5 Data analysis Technique -----------------------------------------------35
3.6 Justification of Method Used ------------------------------------------43
3.7 Presentation of Data------------------------------------------------------43
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA--------------------44
4.1 Distribution of Questionnaires to Beneficiaries
and Agencies-------------------------------------------------------45
4.2 Analysis of he Responses on the Questionnaires
Administered to Beneficiaries ----------------------------------47
4.3 Analysis of Questionnaire Administered to Agencies ----53
4.4 Test of Hypothesis-------------------------------------------------58
4.5 Findings of the Research----------------------------------------62
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of Findings-----------------------------------------------------64
5.2 Conclusions ----------------------------------------------------------------65
5.3 Recommendations--------------------------------------------------------66
BIBLIOGRAPHY ---------------------------------------------------------68
APPENDIX I----------------------------------------------------------------70
APPENDIX II---------------------------------------------------------------73
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.5.1: Selected Micro -Economic Indicators (1980-2000)--------26
Table 4:1 Distribution of Questionnaires to Beneficiaries And
Agencies-----------------------------------------------------------45
Table 4.2 Analysis of the Response on the Questionnaires
Administered to Beneficiaries --------------------------------45
Table 4.2.2 Distribution of Bio-date------------------------------------------46
Table 4.2.3 NAPEP Awareness and Benefits-----------------------------47
Table 4.2.4 What did you benefit, Number of time-----------------------48
Table 4.2.5 Accessing the Impacts of NAPEP----------------------------49
Table 4.2.6 Is the Credit Enough to Meet your Challenges and
factors that causes poverty in your area-----------------50
Table 4.3.1 Organization and Responsibility -----------------------------51
Table 4.3.2 Is Collateral Demanded, what Kind and Any difficulties
in Loan Recovery-----------------------------------------------53
Table 4.3.3 Policy Implementation ------------------------------------------54
Table 4.3.4 Involvement of Government and NGOs,
Sufficient Funds--------------------------------------------------55
Table 4.3.5: Poverty Reduction not Consistence and Positive
Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and NAPEP--56
Table 4.3.6: NAPEP is Better than Other Poverty Alleviation
Programme in the country---------------------------------------57
Table 4.4.1 Observed Frequency Table (beneficiaries and agencies)
In your own view, how can you access NAPEP/how
Can you access the impact of NAPEP on entrepreneurship development?-----------------------------------------------------------59
Table 4.4.2 Expected Frequency Table------------------------------------------60
Table 4.4.3 Chi-Square Computation for Hypothesis------------------------61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.2.1 shows the relationship between entrepreneurship
and poverty-------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Figure 2.5.1: selected micro- economic indicators (1980-2000) -----26
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Poverty and unemployment represent the biggest challenges to government in Nigeria. Unemployment rate continue to rise alarmingly, poverty has economic, social and political ramifications. Basically, Poverty has been conceptualized in the following ways;
1. Lack of access to basic needs/goods.
2. Lack of or impaired access to productive resources
3. Lack of job opportunities e.t.c.
The level of poverty since the implementation of SAP in the 1980s has tremendously increased [UNDP Nigeria, 1998; FOS, 1999; World Bank,1999].The poverty profile has shown that poverty increased from 28.1% in 1980 to 43.6% in 1985 but declined to 42.7% in 1992 and rose again to 65.6% in 1996.since 1990,the country has been classified as a poor nation.
In recent years, there has been a semblance of continuity of liberal tradition in Nigeria; attitudes towards the system of welfare that supports the poor are rooted in our different cultural settings. The normative tradition approach to liberalism in the Nigerian society
function to promote social cohesion, solidarity and citizenship. The duty to share among Nigerians in our diversity is intuitive. This duty rests on the consideration of human worth. In this context, we reason that others have human souls as we do and so we always choose to be indifferent to the needs of others (FEAP, 2001). Apparently, Nigerians always choose to care for others. This duty comes from a sympathetic concern that others be able to make life. In mitigation, however, it has, over time, introduced several macro-economic measures and initiations to address unemployment questions and also promoting entrepreneurship in the country. There was a structural adjustment programme (SAP) in 1986, which preached the liberalized economic approach, Directorate of food, roads and rural infrastructure (DFFRI), which was devoted to rural infrastructural projects and more recently, the national poverty eradication program (NAPEP) but of more relevance to the youth were such initiatives as the national Directorate of employment (NDE) programs, which targeted skills development and job creation among the youths. Thus the difference between NAPEP and poverty reduction agencies is that it is not a sector project implementation agency but a co-ordination facility that ensures that core poverty eradication
ministries are effective. It would only intervene when necessary, under its secondary mandate which gives it the right to provide complementary assistance to the implementing ministries and Parastatals nationwide. The importance of both small and large enterprise growth and, more broadly, of sustainable private sector development and expansion as principal sources of economic growth and employment cannot be overstated. Economic growth is fueled, first and foremost, by the creativity and hard work of entrepreneurs and workers. Driven by the quest for profit, private sector enterprises innovate, invest and generate employment and wage income. They typically represent not only a majority of the total stock of enterprises but also a significant proportion of the national production system. They also are largely responsible for the vitality of local markets and make a major contribution to the improvement of living standard. The promotion of sustainable entrepreneur activity both large and small and of the national private sectors that contain them, is “ a broad and wide ranging subject, because entrepreneur takes many forms, not just in terms of size, sector and spatial dimension but also in terms of how an entrepreneur is managed and governed and its legal status and operational objectives”. (Google).
A careful study of the entire poverty alleviation program already put in place in Nigeria shows that there is a drive in the direction of making more people to work by encouraging entrepreneurship and small and medium scale business.
1.2 Statement Of The Problem It has been known in Nigeria that every government embarks on one form of poverty reduction strategy or the other in promoting entrepreneur activities. However, what has remained unanswered is the extent to which these programme have impacted on business or the entrepreneurs. Today, poverty has been addressed as a global problem, especially in places like Africa, Asia, and Latin America. On the average 45-50 percent of sub-Saharan Americans live below the poverty line. In Nigeria, about 43% of the population was living below the poverty line of N305 a year in 1985 prices. To this effect, the United Nations declared 1996 the international year of eradication of poverty and 1997-2006 a decade of poverty eradication. So many times on assumption of office in 1999, president Obasanjo indicated that the poverty situation in which over 60% of Nigerians live below the poverty line, requires more effort to prevent it
from getting worse. All these resulted to the introduction of NAPEP in Nigeria in the year 2001. Recently, studied in (OECD;2000) on poverty alleviation and its agencies as well as programs indicate that considerable gap exist between the target objectives and achievements. Despite all the efforts being made, poverty has still been in an increasing rate in the country, efforts of various government policies are ineffective and therefore not much has been done to actualize the benefits. Thus, the alleviation of poverty in Nigeria is not an intractable problem. This problem is first and foremost a political and ideological challenge requiring a recruitment effort for entrepreneur sustainability (ALIYU; 2001). Also, the lack of continuity in the programs from one administration to the other in one of the problems in the development of entrepreneurship. This study thus, attempts to answer the following questions;
1. In which way can NAPEP promote entrepreneurship activities in
Imo state?
2. Are there any relationship between NAPEP and entrepreneurship development?
3. Is poverty eradication program appropriate for Nigeria?
4. How has government concept of NAPEP affected its success?
5. How has NAPEP activities impacted on poverty reduction as a
boost to economic development?