CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Local government can also be defined as that tier of government closest to the people, “which is vested with certain powers to exercise control over the affairs of people in its domain” (Lawal, 2000:60).
Akpan (1982) defined local government as “the breaking down of a country into smaller units or localities for the purpose of administration in which the inhabitants of the different units or localities concerned play a direct and full role through their elected representatives who exercise power and undertake functions under the general authority of the national or state government”.
According to Rao (1965), Local government is “that part of the government which deals mainly with local affairs, administered by authorities subordinate to the state government, but elected independently of the state authority by the qualified residents.
Robson (1949), in a lengthy definition, says that “Local government may be said to involve the conception of territorial, non-sovereign community possessing the legal right and the necessary organization to regulate its own affairs. This in turn pre-supposes the existence of a local authority with power to act independently of external control as well as the participation of the local community in the administration of its own affairs.
A local government is expected to play the role of promoting the democratic ideals of a society and co-ordinating development programme at the local level. It is also expected to serve as the basis of socio-economic development in the locality.
The concept of rural development in Nigeria lacks a unified definition as different scholars tend to view it from varying perspective. Some scholars look at rural development from the aspect of educational training like Haddad (1990), and Hinzen (2000). Obinne (1991) perceived rural development to involve creating and widening opportunities for individuals to realize full potential through education and share in decision and action which affect their lives. Others like Olayide, Ogunfowora, Essang and Idachaba (1981) view rural development as means for the provision of basic amenities, infrastructure, improved agriculture productivity and extension services and employment generation for rural dwellers. Olatunbosun (1976), Williams (1978), Lele (1979), Idachaba (1980) and Ogunfiditimi (2000) viewed rural development from various perspectives.
However, there is a consensus among them about the need for improvement in rural living conditions and standard of living of the rural populace. Olatunbosun (1976) stated that rural development is based on the need to balance the pattern and direction of government for the benefit of both the urban and rural sectors and provide technical requirements for speeding up economic growth in the development. Olatunbosun (1976), Williams (1978), Lele (1979), Idachaba (1980) and Ogunfiditimi (2000) viewed rural development from various perspectives. However, there is a consensus among them about the need for improvement in rural living condition and standard of living of the rural populace. Olatunbosun (1976) stated that rural development is based on the need to balance the pattern and direction of government for the benefit of both the urban and rural sectors and provide technical requirements for speeding up economic growth in the development.
Adelemo (1987) sees the concept of rural development to include resettling displaced communities or adopting new types of housing unit. He continues that rural development should include alongside land-use development, economic factors such as land carrying capacity for each area of farmland, irrigation improved farming method and finance.
The issue of funding is a big challenge. Some of the rural development programmes are so bogus without clearly defined sources of funding. The cases of the Housing for ALL, Universal Basic Education (UBE) and so on are clear examples. They are often initiated before sourcing for funds from philanthropists and international donors which may never come.
Another challenge is the armed conflicts ranging form ethnic, religious and communal issues which do not provide enabling environment for the implementation of sustainable development programmes in such areas. For instance, a situation where foreigners and government workers in some coastal rural areas are target of kidnappers demanding ransom is obviously not conducive for development work.
Also, corruption poses a very big threat to rural development. There is lack of integrity, accountability and transparency on the part of people who are supposed to implement development projects in the rural areas. Nwakoby (2007) laments that public funds (made for rural projects) are strarched away in bank vaults in Europe and America, while an overwhelming proportion of the population live in abject poverty.
Another challenge is the lack of political will and commitment, policy instability and insufficient involvement of the intended beneficiaries of the programmes hence according to Chiliokwu (2006), most of them died with the government that initiated them. For example, development programmes like Operation Feed the Nation, Green Revolution, Free and Compulsory Primary Education, Low cost Housing Schemes which impact positively on the rural dwellers could not be sustained. Onibokun (1987) sees rural development to be faced with the paradox that the production oriented rural economy relies heavily on non-productive people who are well -equipped with outdated tools, technical information, scientific and cultural training and whose traditional roles and access to resources pose problems for their effective incorporation into modern economic systems, whereas the consumption oriented urban economy is flooded with people many of who are either unemployed or unemployable or marginally employed or underemployed in the urban centres where they choose to live. As a result of this mass exodus, the rural areas have been qualitatively depopulated and are progressively less attractive for social and economic investments while the urban areas are becoming physically congested, socially unhealthy and generally uneconomic to maintain.
So the study is carried out to examine the administration of local governments and the challenges of rural development.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The key problem facing most local governments is lack of adequate finance to implement various developmental programmes. It would be recalled that since early 1990s, there have been tremendous increase in the total amount of funds available to local governments in Nigeria. The reasons for the lack of adequate finance can be attributed to the fact that local government allocations are been hijacked by state governors, used for electioneering campaigns and shared among political God- fathers and members of state assemblies. This fact was indicated by the Central Bank of Nigeria in its economic report for the third quarter of 2011 when it announced that the total receipts by the 774 local government councils from the federation and VAT pool Accounts for the period of July, August and September was #493.77billion. The media report of Monday, December 26, 2011 indicated how allocations to local government areas were been hijacked by state governors and at times out rightly diverted to non- existing projects. Also, state governors have used the joint Account to siphon local government allocations from the federation account.
Akhabue (2011) pointed out that the last criminal fad was that state governors redistributed allocations to local government from the federation account and gave less than #20million to each council to pay salaries, and take care of their overhead costs. All these corruptive activities had added in no small measure to the problem of inadequate finance which has made effective services delivery at the rural areas to be impossible. This study therefore focuses on the challenges faced by the local government on rural development.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The general objective of this study is to examine the administration of local governments and challenges of rural development using Anambra East LGA as a case study. The specific objectives are:
1. To ascertain if Anambra East Local government is well funded by the federal government.
2. To find of the effectiveness of the local government officials of Anambra East Local Government.
3. To examine if there are skilled men and women in Anambra East Local Government.
4. To ascertain the extent of corruption among the local government officials.
5. To determine the level of education of the people living in Anambra East Local Government.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions related to this study are:
1. Is Anambra East Local government well funded by the federal government?
2. What is the effectiveness of the local government officials of Anambra East Local Government?
3. Are there skilled men and women in Anambra East Local Government?
4. What is the extent of corruption among the local government officials?
5. What is level of education of the people living in Anambra East Local Government?
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The finding from this study would help to know if Anambra East Local government is well funded by the federal government
This study would also reveal, whether the revenue accrued and generated for development in Anambra East Local Government is sufficient and properly utilized by the government.
This study would provide an improved and proper guide for stakeholders of rural administration in Nigeria to among other things; pinpoint the major challenges to rural development in Nigeria.
1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study is restricted to the study of local government administration and the challenges of rural development.