EVALUATE PUBLIC PROGRAMS IN NIGERIA: A STUDY OF SURE-P
Rated 5/5 based on 7,652 reviews
Enugu, Nigeria
Nigeria
Enugu State
Nigeria
09080008483
info@projectng.com
09080008483
info@projectng.com

Evaluate Public Programs In Nigeria: A Study Of Sure-p

Get the Complete Project Materials Now! ยป

EVALUATE PUBLIC PROGRAMS IN NIGERIA: A STUDY OF SURE-P

ABSTRACT

In this research work titled “Evaluation of public programs in Nigeria with particular reference to Sure-P. the researcher examined the effect of public programs on the development of Nigerian economy. The relevance of Sure-P on the development of Nigerian economy. The extent at which public programs are managed in Nigeria. The researcher also identified the problems hindering the successful operation of public programs in Nigeria. Data for the study was sourced from two main sources Primary and Secondary. Primary data were sourced from the use of questionnaires and oral interviews. Secondary data were sourced from journals, and other relevant materials. Extensive literature review was carried out on the direct literature and indirect literature on books, journals and past works. The research instrument used in this study includes oral interview and questionnaire. The questionnaire is structural as to contain both close and open ended question. Simple tables and percentages were used in treatment of data. At the end the researcher found out that Sure-P has significant impact on the development of Nigeria economy. Sure-P is welcomed development in Nigeria as it helps in reducing unemployment in Nigeria. The study also revealed that Sure-P helps in ensuring that the resources generated from subsidy removal is well invested for the development of our country Nigeria. based on the findings the researchers Recommendations were made that; selection of SURE-P beneficiaries should be devoid of political sentiments but should be based on equity and fairness, so that every eligible youth will benefit from the programme. Government should also provide the basic infrastructural facilities such as good roads, stable power supply and logistic facilities for the smooth operation of the programme in the study area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page                                                                                          ii

Approval page                                                                                           iii

Dedication                                                                                        iv

Acknowledgement                                                                                     v

Table of contents                                                                             vii

Abstract                                                                                                     x

CHAPTER ONE

1.0       Introduction        .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         1

1.1       Background of the study       .         .         .         .         .         1

1.2       Statement of problems.         .         .         .         .         .         4

1.3       Objective of the study..         .         .         .         .         .         4

1.4       Research Question.      .         .         .         .         .         .         .         6

1.5       Significance of the study.       .         .         .         .         .         .8

1.6       Limitation of the study.          .         .         .         ..        ..        .         9

1.7 Scope and limitation of the study.     .         .         .         .         9

CHAPTER TWO

2.0            REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.0            REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Background of Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment

Program (SURE-P) in Nigeria                                                          10

2.2 SURE-P MCH Supply Chain                                                     11

2.3 Analysis of Subsidy and Reinvestment Programme

(SURE-P) and Youth Empowerment in Nigeria                    14

2.4 Fuel Subsidy In Nigeria                                                            16

2.5 Empowerment                                                                                     17

2.3. Youth Empowerment                                                               20

2.4. SURE- P And Employment Generation                                   23

2.5  Challenges of graduate Unemployment in Nigeria                 27

2.6 The Concept of youth unemployment and its main causes 30

2.7 Unemployment In Nigeria: Causes                                          35

2.8 Psycho-Social Effect Of Unemployment                                   37

2.9 Causes of unemployment:                                                        41

          References          

CHAPTER THREE

3.0    Research Design and Methodology.         .         .         .         .43

3.1    Research design..         .         .                  .         .         .         .43

3.2    Area of study.     .         .         .                  .         .         .         .         .43

3.3    Sources of data.  .         .                  .         .         .         .         .45

3.4    Research Population and sample size.              .         .         .45

3.5    Research Instrument   .         .         .         .                  .         .48

3.6    Validity and Reliability of the Instrument .       .                  .49

3.7    Data Analysis      .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         49

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 Presentation and Analysis of Data .  .         .         .         .         50

4.1    Data Presentation.       .         .         .         .         .         .         .         50

4.2 Discussion of result .      .         .         .         .         .         .         .51

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0    Summary of Findings, Conclusion and

Recommendations        .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         65

5.1    Summary of Findings.  .         .         .         .         .         .         65

5.2    Conclusions.       .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         67

5.3    Recommendations.       .         .         .         .         .         .         .         68

Bibliography       .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         69

Appendix I.          .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         70

Appendix II         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         71

 

CHAPTER ONE

1.0                             INTRODUCTION

1.1  Background of the Study

The social contract theory defines and prescribes a symbiotic pattern of relationship between the state and the citizen. The two parties in the relationship are positioned to contribute to each other long term progress. Specifically, the State is to employ reasonably its resources in such a way that will expand the general well-being of the people who by the very nature of the invisible hand cannot aid them to meet their basic needs, particularly in a second best economy.

The second best economy is one in which the market system is incapable of achieving unaided a perito-optimal resources allocation. We find out generally that the market equilibrium resource allocation yield a lower level of welfare for everybody, than some resources allocation which are attainable with the resource and technological possibilities available to the economy (Ress,1976) in (Anderson, 1997).

This description presupposes that there are divergent shortcomings that characterize and inhibit the second best economy for which Nigeria is not excluded from. Under these circumstances, it is necessary for the state to intervene and meet the basic social needs by pushing the wheels of welfare liberalism to the frontiers that will allow for the obtaining of a broarder positive view of freedom that links people to personal and national development. This kind of progress should open the avenues for the flourishing of the individual potentials, i.e. the ability of the individual to gain fulfilment and achieve self realization (Heywood, 2005: 46).

This imperative provokes the need for state intervention to some degree, however not excluding private involvement. With the new wave of neo-liberal thinking, state involvement in the economy is in opposition to the idea of a neutral economic order based on self regulating market that orders a strict distinction between government and the economy, although the roll back of the state has merely resulted in instability and unemployment (Heywood, 2005:184). The neo-liberal conditionality of the World Bank had informed the adoption of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) by the Nigerian state. The SAP conditioned focus of governmental reforms in Nigeria have provoked the roll back of the state via the privatization of public enterprises, yet with a by-product of less improvement in inefficiency, loss of employment and social dislocation (Moshi, 1991). This conclusion is not dissimilar with the conclusion reached in the empirical work conducted by Sankey in 2001 on the impact of privatization on public enterprises in Nigeria (see Sankey, 2001). This situation points to the fact that the state must in some way involve itself in the correction of these dislocations through the platform of national development plan. The national plan is expressed through the instrumentality of public policy. It is through the public policy table that values of society are articulated and expressed through programs and projects which has far reaching implication on the people and the state. However, Naidu (2006:59) noted that "policies made and implemented by Government with a view to achieving certain goals are means to attain definite objectives of government. These policies designed are not only to have far reaching consequences in determinig the future shape of society, they also affect people in their social, economic and political spheres of life."

Programms and projects are outcomes of government policies designed in response to percieved public problems. Public policies are tools used by government to confront public problems and redressing conflicting interest in society which is articulated in the yearly budget of government. These problems can be individually or collectively identified and percieved to be significant enough for which relief is sought via divergent means from the appropriate public authority. Programs and projects designed, approved and budgeted for action by government represent the authoritative allocation of values (Easton, 1979, 1989) i.e. benefit, reward, or penalty which is accepted in society and considered by the citizens (Heywood, 2005:4) to reflect their progressive aspiration. In this participatory process, the citizenry view democratically elected institutions as constituting both the enabling enviroment for social development and becomes the basic evaluative framework for judging the processes of policy making (Mkandadwire, 2002:1) and governance.

The machinery of government which create the enviroment for politics to take place within the polity, and by extention defines its legitimacy, operate within a complex web of interrelationship predicated on the principle of seperation of power for which the policy making process is inherently political, and is characterized by negotiation, bargaining, persuations and compromise (Waldt, 2001:91). This web of network relationship have been functionally differentiated by Woodrow Wilson as cited in Bryner (2007) when he observed that policy making is carried out by political function while the enforcement of policy is that of administration. Although, this framework assumes a simple linear relationship between policy formulation and implementation that largerly mirrows the seperation of power where the legislature makes the policy choices and the executive branch (and local government) implement (Bryner, 2007:191) is however a limited structure of the policy process framework in actual practice. A clear understanding of this functional differentiation does in no way reduce the conflicts that tend to impinge on the successful pursuit of genuine state policy.

Policies when legitimized becomes laws that help administrators to act in line with legal requirement in the realization of desired objectives. Public administration as an integral part of the State is primarily responsible for the collective organization and peaceful attainment of community life "the good life" which the political community strive to make available to its citizens. The pursuit of this goal" the good life" (social, economic,and political) has impact on the administrator in a veriety of ways, causing them to consider in a political context, information and action that reflects the diverse conditions, attitudes and values that are prevalent in a plural society. It is by this political process that individuals and groups exercise the right to access the decision maker with the resulting adjustments and compromises, for which the accountability of public administrators in a representative democracy is put to the most sophisticated test, and the angle from where decision of public interest is honed (Rosen, 1998).

The existence of scarcity and hetoregeniety in Nigeria calls for the cautious determination of who gets what, when and how at defferent levels. It also presupposes that programs and projects decided upon should differ significantly depending on the communities benefiting, the nature of the problem, and the resources available to the determining public authority. Whatever the kind of package agreed upon should symbolize government's way of responding to public demand as they arise from time to time. It should represent a beneficial interface between the people and the State in the political and social community.

Programs are a complex sets of goals, policies, procedures, rules, tasks assignments, steps to be taken, resources to be employed, and other elements necessary to carry out a given cause of action and normally supported by a capital budget (Harold and Heinz, 1988:661). Programs and projects are directed at reducing poverty and figthing 'unfreedoms' in society. Removing these limitations is of the essence because if nothing is done about figthing grinding poverty, then, lasting peace and stability are a distance dream in any polity. The government that is incapacitated to deliver on these essentials; that government is best which does not govern at all; as it is not just physical survival of the state that is the issue, but the capacity of the state to empower its citizens to meet the legitimate needs for food, health, clothing, education, shelter that is non-negotiable. It is thus required that the government, as the initiator of socio-political and economic progress and change, using whatever methodology, must make the process accessible to all as well as participatory.

For this ends to be achieved, the plan (captured in programs and projects) must not be left on the policy table, but empowered by a budget for its realization. In this pursuit, implementation and evaluation are evidently crucial elements that must not be dispensed with if the ideal goal of meeting social demand is not to be compromised. Evaluation and implementation are important tools in the tool box needed for fine- tuning the wheel of holistic change that will in turn expand citizen's potentials. As Aligwekwe (1986:209) argues, "development should be seen first and foremost as the unfolding into concrete reality and putting into progressive usefulness the potentialities of man and human nature to the extent that it satisfies the socio-economic needs and aspirations of man."

The significance of programs and projects to socio-economic life of the people and national development cannot be over-emphased. It therefore becomes "de rigueur" to take absolute care in the process of evaluation and implementation of projects and programs vis-a-vis the acquisition of relevant knowledge relating to the subject matter in order to have a good ground to reach the right goals. However, if implementation and evaluation are not properly carried out, using the appropriate knowledge, the likelihood of deviating is boundless.

According to Adebayo, (1999) Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme is an intervention sequel to the mass protest against the removal of oil subsidy, championed by organized labour and civil society early 2014. The move by the incumbent administration was a means of cleansing the sector from the myriads of corruption that plagued the effective operation of the oil sector, thereby hampering the plausible benefits to be felt in the Nation’s economy.

As a matter of fact, the proponents of SURE-P said that the programme was basically a cushioning effect of the pains occasioned by the partial removal of subsidy in the downstream sector of the petroleum sub sector, with a view to transferring the proceeds to more critical needs of Nigerians, especially the infrastructural needs.

According Adebayo, (1999) Unemployment is one of the fundamental developmental challenges facing Nigeria at the moment. Research have shown that unemployment was high in the 1980s, but the available reports from various local and international bodies, and the glaring evidence of joblessness in this decades are clear indications that there was no time in Nigeria’s chequered history where unemployment is as serious as now. One cannot really conclude that the government at one level or the other have not done anything at one time or the other, to reduce unemployment in Nigeria. For instance, the creation of National Directorate of Employment (NDE) and its skills acquisition programmes, NAPEP, PAP, the SURE-P,YOUWIN, just to mention a few, are some of the various intervention mechanisms aimed at ensuring economic growth that is rich with job creation opportunities. Besides, the Federal Government over the years has been claiming strong real GDP growth rate measuring at 6% or 6.5% since 2005 till date (see Aganga, 2010 and Ogunmade, 2013). This is apparently a paradox. A situation whereby, there is a decade of strong real GDP of 6.5% economic growth, and in the same period, unemployment rate continue to rise annually from 11.9% in 2005 to 19.7% in 2009, and over 37% in 2013% (Aganga, 2010 and Ogunmade, 2013). The apparent economic growth has not lead to economic development. The rate of poverty is still very high, the industries are still in shambles, technological development is till at rudimental stage, income inequality is high, immortal mortality rate and child mortality rate is high, and in fact, Nigeria development index is still very low.

Unemployment according to ILO (2006), is among the biggest threats to social stability in many countries (including Nigeria), putting the global rate at 12.6% (ILO, 2012). When compared with her counterparts in the continent, Nigeria’s unemployment crisis is more serious. For instance, South Africa’s unemployment rate is currently standing at 25.2%, and in Ghana is about 14% in 2010, while Nigeria is around 37%. Recent statistics by the World Bank has put the unemployment rate in Nigeria at 22 percent, while the youth unemployment rate is 38 percent. The report shows that the bracket age of 15-35 years olds account for close to 60 percent of the Nigeria’s population and 30 percent of the work force. The report also indicates that approximately 4 million people entered into the labour market every year (Subair, 2013).

 

 

 

1.2 Statement of the problems

According Kolade (2013), he disclosed that the Programme requires N273.52 billion in its 2013 budget, said that one of the major problems the SURE-P was facing has to do with the fact that it never came up with brand new programmes on its own, adding that the beneficiaries of the mass transit buses are the National Road Transport Operators and some organizations in transport business.

One of the problems of the SURE-P intervention attempts is that there projects duplication that we don’t seem to know how payments are paid to these contractors working on these projects.’’

The committee said however that unless the organization provides its full details of 2012 dealings, it would not debate the 2013 budget and therefore directed the chairman, Dr Christopher Kolade to furnish it with the details before it considers the next sitting date to debate on the budget.

According to Senator Abe, “there is no need to discuss anything on the 2013 budget when there are issues unresolved here in the 2012 budget. From the mood of members of this committee, nobody is ready to discuss anything on issue regarding 2013 budget”.

1.3 Objective of the study

The aim of this research work is to evaluate public programs in Nigeria with particular reference to Sure-P. The specific objectives of this research work includes the following;

1.   To examine the effect of public programs on the development of Nigerian economy.

2.   To examine the relevance of Sure-P on the development of Nigerian economy.

3.   To examine the extent at which public programs are managed in Nigeria.

4.   To identify the problems hindering the successful operation of public programs in Nigeria. And also proffer possible solutions to the problems identified.

1.4 Research Questions

Based on the objectives above, the researcher asked the following questions to guide the study;

1.   What are the effects of public programs on the development of Nigerian economy?

2.   How relevant is Sure-P program on the development of Nigerian economy?

3.   To what extent are public programs managed in Nigeria?

4.   What are the problems hindering the successful operation of public programs in Nigeria. And also proffer possible solutions to the problems identified.

1.5       Research Hypotheses

Ho1: Sure-P on do not have any impact on the economic development of Abia state.

Ho2: Sure-P do not have any contribution in the provision of employment opportunities for graduates in Abia state.

Ho3: There is no relationship between Sure-P and economic growth of Nigeria.

Ho4: There are so many problems militating against the management of sure – p in Nigeria and Abia state.

1.6 Significance of the Study

Sure-P is welcomed development in Nigeria as it helps in reducing unemployment in Nigeria.

Sure-P is also important in the area of ensuring that the resources generated from subsidy removal is well invested for the development of our country Nigeria.

This research work will be of immense help to the researcher as it will help her to know more on the impact of Sure-P in economic development in Nigeria. It will also be of great importance to Nigerian youths and youths in Abia state in particular as it will enrich their knowledge on the benefits and benefits of public programs in Nigeria.

This study will be of great importance to the students and other researchers since it will serve as a reference point for the upcoming researchers.

1.7 Scope And Limitations Of The Study

The study shall focus on the evaluation public programs in Nigeria with particular reference to Sure-P.

The researcher in carrying out this study encountered numerous problems, which include:

FUND: This included lack of enough fund to move around and visit the organizations. The researcher has to visit the organizations more than two times. The researcher equally needed enough money to source materials as needed. High cost of transportation in the city due to long distance also imposed its own limitation on the researcher.

LACK OF RESEARCH MATERIALS: lack of research materials was also one of the problems faced by the researcher in the cause of this research work.

RESPONSES  BY THE RESPONDENTS: Another constraint to the researcher is that some of the respondents found it difficult to express their view with regards to the subject matter. 

 

Download Evaluate Public Programs In Nigeria: A Study Of Sure-p Research Materials

Share On Social