Poverty reduction programmes are not new in Nigeria, but it is important to review the country’s poverty reduction initiatives since the beginning of the Fourth Republic before assessing President Bola Tinubu’s household prosperity and empowerment social protection programme (Hope-SP).
President Olusegun Obasanjo introduced the Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP), which later gave rise to the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP).
The late former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, during his three years in office, introduced a seven-point agenda, one of which focused on wealth creation. Former President Goodluck Jonathan introduced YouWIN — Youth Enterprise with Innovation in Nigeria, while the late former President Muhammadu Buhari launched the National Social Investment Programme (NSIP).
The NSIP was designed to address unemployment and improve livelihoods through initiatives such as N-Power, which provided young Nigerians with skills and work experience through programmes including N-Teach, N-Health, N-Agro, N-Tax and N-Creative.
The latest initiative is Hope-SP, launched by Oluremi Tinubu, wife of the president. The Household Prosperity and Empowerment Social Protection Programme is reportedly designed to provide $1 billion in relief to Nigerians.
There is, however, a need to assess the poverty reduction initiatives implemented during the past 25 years of the Fourth Republic. Have they significantly reduced poverty in Nigeria, or have some of the funds ended up in the hands of political cronies?
The objective of any poverty reduction programme should be to empower households to increase their disposable income and improve their ability to provide for their families. It is therefore important to establish who genuinely needs the Hope-SP intervention, why they need it, and how the programme will ensure that the intended beneficiaries receive the support.
LESSONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
Brazil introduced a poverty reduction programme known as Bolsa Família in 2003. It was designed as a conditional cash transfer programme targeted at poor families.
The programme combined cash transfers with measures such as school enrolment, nutrition support and complementary programmes aimed at employment and economic inclusion.
The results were significant. According to World Bank evidence, between 2004 and 2014, Bolsa Família contributed to a 58 percent reduction in extreme poverty in Brazil, alongside a significant decline in overall poverty.
Also, Vietnam’s economic transformation and poverty reduction experience deserve the attention of Nigerian policymakers.
Vietnam provides an important example because its poverty reduction strategy was driven largely by productive economic transformation rather than reliance on cash transfers alone. The country invested in agricultural productivity, encouraged private enterprise and investment, promoted manufacturing and exports, and increased investment in education and social infrastructure.
The results were dramatic. According to the World Bank, between 2010 and 2020, Vietnam’s poverty rate at the $3.20-a-day international poverty line fell from 16.8 percent to five percent, meaning that more than 10 million people were lifted out of poverty.
Nigeria can draw lessons from both the Brazilian and Vietnamese models. A combination of the two approaches could be particularly useful: immediate interventions such as targeted cash transfers can provide relief for vulnerable households, while long-term policies can support agriculture, manufacturing and small businesses and create sustainable sources of income.
AVOIDING A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL APPROACH
Nigeria must also pay attention to the amount spent on administration, logistics and technology. These costs could consume a significant portion of the $1 billion expected to fund Hope-SP if they are not properly controlled.
A one-size-fits-all approach should also be avoided, as it has not produced the desired results in previous poverty reduction efforts.
At different times, governments have distributed tricycles to young people, provided direct grants to youths and households, and implemented other interventions without sufficiently considering the specific economic needs of different communities.
A more effective approach would involve assessing the needs of communities across Nigeria’s 774 local government areas. Some local governments may require support for mechanised farming, farm-to-market roads, small business capital or affordable fertiliser to help residents move out of poverty.
Some areas may need access to clothing materials and other inputs to support local manufacturing, while others may require an enabling environment for digital businesses and other emerging industries.
Poverty reduction programmes should therefore be designed around local economic realities rather than applying the same intervention everywhere.
FROM TEMPORARY RELIEF TO SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS
Poor households obviously need temporary support, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic and following the removal of the fuel subsidy. The federal government, for instance, provided some workers with a monthly intervention of N40,000 for three months. But what happens after the three months?
Without sustainable sources of income, households can easily return to their previous economic circumstances. This is why Nigeria must institutionalise solutions that are capable of reducing poverty over the long term, drawing lessons from countries such as Brazil and Vietnam.
According to the federal ministry of humanitarian affairs and poverty reduction, the government has a social register used to identify vulnerable Nigerians who qualify for assistance.
The integrity of this register is critical. The government must ensure that politicians do not weaponise it by inserting their cronies or using the programme to reward political supporters rather than ensuring that the poorest and most vulnerable Nigerians benefit.
There should be strong safeguards, transparency and independent monitoring to ensure that beneficiaries are selected based on clearly defined criteria.
Traditional rulers and community leaders could also play a role in identifying vulnerable households within their communities, provided adequate safeguards are established to prevent favouritism and political manipulation.
Hope-SP must learn from the successes and shortcomings of NAPEP, NSIP, N-Power and other poverty reduction programmes implemented in Nigeria.
Monitoring and control mechanisms should be strengthened through technology, while beneficiaries and programme outcomes should be regularly evaluated to determine whether interventions are actually improving household incomes and living conditions.
The ultimate measure of Hope-SP should not be the amount of money disbursed or the number of beneficiaries announced. It should be whether poor households are able to increase their incomes, build sustainable livelihoods and eventually move out of poverty.
Nigeria needs a poverty reduction strategy that combines immediate relief with long-term economic transformation.
If Hope-SP can provide targeted support while simultaneously creating opportunities in agriculture, manufacturing, small businesses, education and the digital economy, it can become more than another government intervention.
It can become a sustainable pathway out of poverty for millions of Nigerians.
Aliyu Ilias, an economist and public affairs analyst, writes from Abuja.
