The Geography of Poverty
in Nigeria: Patterns,
Determinants and Policy
Implications
Tolulope O. Osayomi
Department of Geography,
University of Ibadan,
Ibadan, Nigeria.
Background




Minot and Baulch(2005) ‘s study of spatial pattern of
poverty in Vietnam employed the two indices:
poverty incidence and poverty density.
The mapping revealed two distinct spatial patterns.
The interpretation of these was : “the most poor
people do not live in the poor areas…”(Minot and
Baulch, 2005). The import of this is that a balance
must struck in alleviating ‘poor people’ and ‘poor
areas’.
However, the study was silent on the possible
factors influencing the two different spatial patterns.
The Research Problem



In Nigeria, the national poverty incidence rate
is 78.3 %(National Bureau of Statistics,
2009).
There are noticeable high levels of poverty
concentration in 21 states (out of the 36
states in Nigeria) whose rates exceed the
national average.
Attention needs to be drawn to the need for a
more detailed research to unravel the factors
behind spatial heterogeneity.
Research Questions

1.
2.
3.
4.
The paper therefore attempts to answer the
following questions using Minot and Baulch (2005)
approach:
Can these two indices of poverty: poverty
incidence and poverty density generate contrasting
spatial patterns of poverty in Nigeria?
What are the significant determinants of these
contrasting patterns if any?
What is the specific contribution of structural
factors to poverty in Nigeria?
What are the policy implications of the findings?
Methodology




Employed the stepwise regression method to identify
the significant predictors of poverty at three
geographical scales of analysis: national, urban and
rural.
Three sets of variables: demographic/household;
social and political/economic factors.
Previous research on poverty in Nigeria is silent on
the contribution of structural factors.
Poverty incidence based on the poverty headcount
of year 2004. poverty density derived by multiplying
the poverty incidence by the population of the state
and dividing by the areal size of the state. Measured
as number of poor people per square kilometre.
Spatial pattern of poverty in
Nigeria
Spatial pattern of poverty in
Nigeria (2)






Poverty incidence is highest in Ekiti, Bayelsa, Borno, Ebonyi,
Kwara and lowest in Jigawa, Oyo, Osun.
Poverty density is highest in Lagos, Kano, Ekiti, Imo, Enugu, Abia
and lowest in Zamfara, Yobe, Niger, Kwara.
Generally, areas of high poverty incidence do not coincide with
areas of high poverty density.
This is confirmed by the Spearman’s Rho (r= -0.194; p>0.05).
In the language of Minot and Baulch(2005), some areas would
record high poverty incidence because of the low population
sizes.
Two distinct geographies of poverty.
Study variables




Demographic and household: household (average number of
persons per household), number of children (percent of children
under the age of 15), number of elderly persons (percent of elderly
65 years and above), household income ( percent of low income
households), unemployment ( percent of unemployed persons),
percentage ownership of radio, television and mobile phone.
Political and economic: legislative representation( number of seats
in the Federal House of Representatives), budgetary allocation(
allocations from the Federal government from January- June, 2007)
Geographic: distance from the Federal capital, Abuja, urbanization(
population density as a surrogate).
Social: social capital ( surrogate: percent of voters’ turnout at the
2003 presidential election), access to social services (the number of
health facilities)
Results (National)

Poverty incidence:
Legislative representation (-0.445)
R2= 20%; p < 0.05

Poverty density
Urbanization (0.976)
Number of children (-0.047)
R2= 99.3%; p < 0.05
Results (Urban)

Poverty incidence
Legislative representation (-0.503)
R2= 25%; p < 0.05.

Poverty density
Legislative representation (0.754)
Number of children
(-0.57)
R2= 58%; p < 0.05
Results (Rural)

Poverty incidence
Low income households (0.625)
Household size
(-0487)
R2= 55%; p < 0.05

Poverty density
Legislative representation(1.524)
Budgetary allocation
(-1.189)
R2= 58%; p < 0.05.
Conclusion and Policy
Implications



Poverty in Nigeria is largely structural in nature.
Future poverty reduction efforts must appreciate
this.
Given the distinct geographies of poverty, there is a
need for place based poverty alleviation policies
which would take into the consideration the
uniqueness of certain locations.
Poverty density index should be considered in
poverty mapping so as to have a full and richer
understanding of the poverty situation.
THANK YOU!