Examination of the Policy Responses to Poverty Issue in Nigeria and Alternative Policy Options

Examination of the Policy Responses to Poverty Issue in Nigeria and Alternative Policy Options

Akinlabi Akinbowale John, Azeez Alamu

Department of Political Science, University of Lagos

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000225

Received: 25 July 2025; Accepted: 30 July 2025; Published: 04 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Poverty remains one of Nigeria’s most pressing and persistent development challenges, despite successive government efforts to mitigate its impact through various programs and policies. This paper adopts qualitative research method to conceptualize the term poverty and critically examine the historical trajectory of poverty in Nigeria, evaluates the policy responses implemented by different administrations and provides statistical insights into the multidimensional nature of poverty in the country. Key interventions such as Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) and the National Social Investment Programmes (NSIPs) were analyzed in terms of their design, implementation, and outcomes. The findings reveal that while some policies have achieved limited success, most have failed to deliver sustainable poverty reduction due to issues such as poor governance, corruption, lack of continuity, and ineffective targeting. In light of these challenges, the paper recommends alternative policy strategies including the adoption of Universal Basic Income, investment in human capital, progressive tax reforms, and rural development initiatives. It concludes that a comprehensive, inclusive and evidence-based policy framework, driven by transparency and accountability, and continuous reevaluation of the policy response is essential for effectively addressing poverty in Nigeria.

Keywords: Poverty, Policy Responses, Social Protection, Poverty Alleviation, Social Investment.

INTRODUCTION

Poverty remains a significant social issue in Nigeria even in the face of the country’s vast natural and human resources. Despite being rich in natural resources such as oil, Nigeria continues to grapple with high levels of poverty, with a large proportion of its population living below the poverty line (World Bank Report, 2024). As of 2023, over 133 million Nigerians are classified as multi-dimensionally poor, according to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2022). In addressing this challenge, successive Nigeria governments have introduced various poverty alleviation programmes, but these have often failed to produce lasting impacts due to other ensuing challenges such as corruption, lack of adequate census figures, inconsistent policy implementation, and inadequate funding capacities, necessitating a re-evaluation of existing approaches and the exploration of alternative solutions.

Poverty is a multifaceted and global challenge that affects many countries in the world, hindering progression and creating clear social inequalities gap between the rich and the poor. In Nigeria, combatting this cankerworm has been a recurring policy issue, with the country’s administrations at different times since independence formulating and executing various approaches and measures to contain the unfortunate situation while bettering the lives of the most affected population; the poor. This research thus intends to examine the policy responses of successive Nigeria government to poverty issue in the country and also suggesting alternative policy response to arrest the situation. Poverty in Nigeria has deep chronological, sociopolitical and economic ties. Before the advent of colonialism, local economies were flourishing in their primitive lifestyles, but colonialism disrupted traditional systems and created socio-economic inequalities.

After independence, Nigeria struggled with many problems, such as political instability, corruption, and resource mismanagement, which entrenched poverty. In the 21st century, even with economic growth, many people remain poor. The fast growth of population, urbanization, and environmental issues make it harder to tackle poverty in Nigeria (Ayodele, et. al, 2024). Nigeria which is adjudged as the most populous country in Africa and a significant player in the global economy especially in global oil market grapples with a multifaceted socio-economic pathology. Despite substantial natural resources and economic potential, a considerable segment of the population lives in poverty, facing challenges such as inadequate access to education, healthcare, and employment opportunities (Ayodele, et. al, 2024). In the face of these adversaries, successive Nigerian governments has formulated and implemented several policies aimed at poverty reduction over the years. This paper thus, examines key policy responses to poverty issue in Nigeria and recommends alternative approaches that could enhance effectiveness and sustainability.

This study adopted a qualitative research design to explore the nature, effectiveness, and limitations of policy responses to poverty in Nigeria, and to propose viable alternative policy options. The qualitative approach was considered appropriate due to its strength in uncovering complex social and political phenomena through interpretation and context (Creswell, 2014). It allowed for a deeper understanding of the socio-economic dimensions of poverty and the policy mechanisms employed by the Nigerian government and its partners.

The data for this study were collected from secondary sources, including peer-reviewed journal articles, government reports, policy documents, official statistics, publications from international development agencies, and relevant news sources. Academic databases such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, and Scopus were accessed to gather scholarly materials. In addition, documents from institutions such as the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), World Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development were reviewed to assess the scope and content of poverty-related policies and programmes.

The use of secondary data was deemed sufficient for this research because it enabled the exploration of trends, historical context, and policy outcomes without the limitations associated with direct fieldwork. This approach aligns with existing scholarship on qualitative policy research, which emphasizes the value of document-based data for evaluating government interventions and policy discourses (Bowen, 2009).

The data collected were subjected to thematic analysis, a method suitable for identifying, analyzing, and interpreting patterns of meaning within qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis involved six key steps: familiarization with the data, generation of initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing up findings. This process allowed the researcher to systematically uncover key policy themes such as conditional cash transfers, youth empowerment programmes, agricultural subsidies, social investment schemes, and their implications for poverty reduction.

The thematic analysis also enabled the identification of alternative policy directions, such as localized poverty mapping, community-driven development, and structural economic reforms. By organizing the data into coherent themes, the study was able to assess both the intentions and the practical outcomes of poverty alleviation strategies in Nigeria.

Since the research relied solely on publicly available secondary data, there were no direct ethical risks to human participants. However, care was taken to ensure that all sources were appropriately cited and that interpretations remained faithful to the original context of the data.

Nature and History of Poverty in Nigeria

Poverty in Nigeria is a complex and persistent issue, affecting a substantial portion of the population. It stands out as one of the greatest challenges affecting humanities especially now that it is being accompanied by terrorism and other insurgencies. Despite being Africa’s largest economy, Nigeria grapples with high levels of income inequality, unemployment, and multidimensional poverty. According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), as of 2022, approximately 63% of Nigerians—equating to over 133 million people are classified as multi- dimensionally poor, meaning they are deprived in areas beyond income, including education, health, and living standards (NBS, 2022). The drivers of poverty in Nigeria are multifaceted, including poor governance, weak institutions, corruption, conflict, inadequate infrastructure, and limited access to quality education and healthcare. These structural and systemic issues have created cycles of poverty that are particularly entrenched in rural areas and the northern regions of the country (Aigbokhan, 2008).

Sen (1999) defines poverty as “the deprivation of basic capabilities” and emphasizes that it should not only be viewed through the lens of income levels but also in terms of individuals’ abilities to lead fulfilling lives. His conceptualization views poverty as a multifaceted issue that affected humanity in general. Marmot (2005) argues that poverty impacts access to healthcare and nutrition and that socioeconomic inequalities significantly affect overall health and well-being. His submission revealed that poverty is the root cause of inequalities. Poverty is a multidimensional challenge that incorporates aspects like education, health, and living standards in its Human Development Index (HDI) (UNDP, 2010). Their reports highlight the critical need to address these various dimensions to improve overall human development. These views of poverty by different scholars reveal the multidimensional and multifaceted nature of poverty signaling various perspectives that shape policy responses to poverty alleviation across different contexts.

In the early years following independence, Nigeria’s economy was largely agrarian, and poverty was widespread but relatively uniform. However, the discovery of oil in commercial quantities in the late 1950s and the oil boom of the 1970s shifted national priorities away from agriculture and rural development. While oil wealth increased government revenues, it also created economic distortions and inequalities, urban-rural disparities, and rent-seeking behavior that weakened social investment (Okonjo-Iweala & Osafo-Kwaako, 2007).

One of the most consequential periods in Nigeria’s poverty history was during the implementation of the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) in the mid-1980s. Under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, Nigeria adopted SAP to restructure its economy. The program included measures such as currency devaluation, subsidy removal, and trade liberalization. Although aimed at economic stabilization, SAP led to job losses, inflation, reduced purchasing power, and cuts in social spending, thereby exacerbating poverty, especially among urban dwellers (Olaniyan et al., 2003; Iyoha & Oriakhi, 2002). Since then, social inequalities have been on the high increase where the country’s wealth get concentrated in the hands of the few and many others wallowing in abject poverty.

With the return to democratic governance in 1999, Nigeria witnessed renewed efforts to combat poverty. The government introduced several national programs including the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) and the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). While these initiatives had noble objectives, they were marred by poor implementation, political patronage, and insufficient impact evaluation mechanisms (Omotola, 2008) and even corruption among the public officials saddled with the implementation. Moreover, the economic gains of this period were unevenly distributed, with poverty rates remaining alarmingly high in northern part of the country.

In recent years, poverty challenges have intensified due to economic recessions in 2016 and 2020, driven by falling oil prices and insecurity. Despite the launch of Social Investment Programs (SIPs) under the Buhari administration, including N-Power, Trader Moni, and Conditional Cash Transfers, Nigeria became the “poverty capital of the world” in 2018, surpassing India in terms of the number of people living in extreme poverty (Brookings Institution, 2018). These programs have struggled to make a dent in long-term poverty due to issues of limited reach, inadequate funding, and corruption (World Bank, 2020).

Theoretical Framework

To have a more comprehensive understanding of this study, the Institutional Theory is adopted. Institutional Theory is rooted in sociology and political science and it provides a valuable lens for understanding the development, evolution, and impact of government policies. Applied to the Nigerian context, this theory offers insights into the formal and informal structures shaping measures for addressing poverty challenges, shedding light on how historical decisions have influenced the current state of poverty in the country. Johnson and Williams (2023) highlighted the significance of formal structures in poverty reduction policies. Legislative frameworks, policy documents, and bureaucratic organizations serve as the bedrock of poverty alleviation initiatives, influencing the legal and procedural foundations shaping recent developments in Nigeria. Adeleke and Okoye (2022) also submitted that the impact of informal norms, traditions, and practices on poverty reduction policies takes the center stage. Cultural factors, social expectations, and historical legacies play a pivotal role in shaping recent government interventions, revealing implicit rules guiding decision-making in contemporary Nigerian society.

Drawing from the work of Khan and Smith (2021), the concept of isomorphism unveils recent dynamics in policy adoption and adaptation. Examining whether recent poverty reduction policies in Nigeria mimic global models (mimetic isomorphism), respond to external pressures (coercive isomorphism), or emerge as unique responses to local conditions (normative isomorphism) provides crucial insights into recent policy dynamics. Also, Okonkwo et al. (2023) emphasize the role of path dependency in recent historical policies and their impact on the current state of poverty. Recent research underscores how decisions made in the past set the trajectory for subsequent policies, contributing to the persistence of certain challenges or the emergence of successful strategies in recent poverty reduction efforts. Ahmed and Patel (2022) shed light on the instances of institutional change within recent poverty reduction policies. Analyzing recent critical junctures where policy paradigms shifted, institutions were reformed, or new structures were introduced provides valuable insights into the transformative potential and challenges associated with evolving institutions.

Garcia and Johnson (2021) further emphasizes the centrality of legitimacy in the assessment of current poverty reduction policies. Recent insights delve into how policies are perceived by various stakeholders in terms of legitimacy including the public, non-governmental organizations, and international bodies providing recent perspectives on compliance and adherence to these policies. Li and Wong (2022) in their own view added that the recent exploration of organizational isomorphism within government agencies responsible for poverty reduction unveils how recent institutions align with global models, conform to external pressures, or adopt practices based on internal norms. Recent studies contribute to understanding how recent organizational dynamics influence policy outcomes. Recent research within Institutional Theory, with its emphasis on formal and informal structures, isomorphism, path dependency, and institutional change, enriches our understanding of recent policy options to reduce poverty challenges in Nigeria. These views reveal the recurring measures influencing concurrent policy trajectories and decisions, implementation strategies, and the ultimate impact on poverty outcomes, offering valuable recent perspectives for both researchers and policymakers.

Persistent Challenges

Several challenges have been reoccurring owing to the effect of poverty in Nigeria. Some of them are:

• Regional Disparities: Northern Nigeria continues to lag behind the south in virtually all development indices, including education, health, and income, creating a regional dimension to poverty (UNDP, 2022).
• Youth Unemployment: With over 70% of Nigeria’s population under the age of 30, youth unemployment and underemployment remain key drivers of poverty (NBS, 2020).
• Security Crises: Insurgency in the North-East, banditry in the North-West, and communal clashes in the Middle Belt have displaced millions and destroyed livelihoods, contributing to rising poverty levels (IDMC, 2021).

The historical trajectory of poverty in Nigeria reveals a pattern of missed opportunities, policy inconsistencies, and structural vulnerabilities. While various efforts have been made over the decades, their limited success underscores the need for a more integrated, transparent, and inclusive approach to poverty alleviation that addresses both the symptoms and root causes.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), 133 million Nigerians (63% of the population) are multi-dimensionally poor as of 2022 (NBS, 2022). This form of poverty considers deprivations in five key areas: health, education, living standards, employment, and security.

1.  Monetary Poverty (Income-Based)

According to the World Bank (2023), over 40.1% of Nigerians live below the national poverty line. Approximately 96 million Nigerians survive on less than ₦376.5 per day (about $0.50). Extreme Poverty: Nigeria has over 71 million people living in extreme poverty (less than $2.15/day as of 2024 World Bank thresholds). Nigeria ranks 1st in Africa and 2nd globally in terms of number of people living in extreme poverty (World Poverty Clock, 2023).

2. Child Poverty: Over 70% of children in Nigeria are considered multidimensionally poor (UNICEF, 2022). Deprivations include lack of access to education, nutrition, clean water, and health services.

3. Youth Unemployment and Poverty: Youth unemployment rate stands at 53.4% as of 2023 (NBS, 2023). This demographic (ages 15–35) is most vulnerable to poverty due to lack of job opportunities and skills mismatch.

4.  Regional Disparities

(Source: NBS MPI Report, 2022)

5.  Access to Basic Services (Deprivation Indicators)

6. Trends Over Time

 Sources: National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2022).

Policy Responses to Poverty by the Nigerian Government

Poverty in Nigeria is both deep-rooted and multifaceted, driven by factors such as inequality, unemployment, poor governance, and weak infrastructure. In response, successive Nigerian governments have implemented various poverty alleviation policies and programs. Despite these efforts, the impact has often been limited by poor implementation, lack of sustainability, and corruption. This section provides an extensive overview of these policy responses across different eras and evaluates their effectiveness.

Early Poverty Alleviation Efforts (1970s–1990s)

Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) – 1976: Introduced by the Obasanjo military regime, OFN aimed to reduce food shortages, raise nutrition levels, and create employment through increased agricultural production. However, the program failed to achieve its objectives due to poor planning, corruption, and lack of continuity (Igbuzor, 2006).

Green Revolution Programme (GRP) – 1980: Launched by the Shagari administration, GRP was intended to modernize agriculture and increase food production. Though large sums were invested, results were undermined by bureaucratic inefficiencies and elite capture of agricultural inputs (Olaniyan et al., 2003).

Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) – 1986: Under the Babangida regime, Nigeria adopted SAP, encouraged by the IMF and World Bank. It aimed to liberalize the economy and reduce government intervention. However, SAP increased poverty due to mass retrenchment, inflation, and reduced social services (Iyoha & Oriakhi, 2002).

Democratic Era and Targeted Programs (1999–2015)

National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) – 2001: NAPEP was the first major post- military poverty intervention. It targeted four main areas: youth empowerment, rural infrastructure, social welfare, and capacity enhancement. While NAPEP recorded some localized successes, it lacked sustainability, suffered from duplication with other agencies, and was politically manipulated (Omotola, 2008). National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) – 2004

NEEDS was a comprehensive framework introduced during President Obasanjo’s tenure. It sought to promote private sector-led growth, wealth creation, and social service delivery. Despite its ambitious design, the implementation was weak, and poverty reduction was not significant (World Bank, 2005).

SURE-P (Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme) – 2012: SURE-P was launched under President Jonathan to reinvest fuel subsidy savings into infrastructure and social programs. It included components such as maternal health support and youth employment. However, poor monitoring and lack of transparency led to minimal long-term impact (ActionAid Nigeria, 2014).

Social Investment Programs (SIPs) – 2016 to Present

Under President Buhari’s administration, the government launched the National Social Investment Programmes (NSIP), Nigeria’s most ambitious social welfare initiative.

1. N-Power: Provides vocational training and temporary employment for graduates and non- graduates. As of 2020, it had enrolled over 500,000 beneficiaries (National Social Investment Office, 2020).
2. Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT): Targets the poorest households with cash stipends conditioned on school attendance, antenatal care, and other behavioral changes. Studies show modest gains in household welfare, but coverage remains low (Gentilini et al., 2020).
3. TraderMoni and MarketMoni: These are micro-credit schemes designed to support small-scale traders with collateral-free loans. Despite good intentions, the schemes have been criticized for politicization, poor recovery rates, and inadequate scale (BudgIT, 2019).
4. National Home-Grown School Feeding Programme: This initiative provides free meals to public primary school students to improve nutrition and school enrollment. It has reached millions of pupils but suffers from irregular funding and monitoring lapses (World Bank, 2020).

Institutional and Strategic Reforms

Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) – 2017–2020: ERGP was a medium-term plan to restore growth, invest in infrastructure, and reduce poverty. It aimed to lift 10 million people out of poverty by 2020. However, implementation challenges and the COVID-19 pandemic derailed many of its targets (IMF, 2020).

National Development Plan 2021–2025: The current plan aims to lift 35 million people out of poverty by 2025 through targeted investments in health, education, job creation, and infrastructure (Federal Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning, 2021).

Nigeria’s policy responses to poverty have evolved from food security programs to social investments and economic growth strategies. While many initiatives are well-designed, their implementation has been undermined by governance challenges, corruption, and lack of institutional capacity. To improve effectiveness, future policies must be evidence-based, transparent, inclusive, and better coordinated across government levels.

Alternative Policy Options for Poverty Eradication in Nigeria

Despite decades of policy interventions, poverty remains deeply entrenched in Nigeria. The failure of past programs can often be attributed to poor targeting, weak implementation, corruption, and lack of inclusive growth strategies. Therefore, Nigeria needs bold, innovative, and context-specific policy alternatives that address both the symptoms and structural roots of poverty.

Strengthen Social Protection through Universal Basic Income (UBI)

A Universal Basic Income (UBI) system whereby all citizens receive a regular, unconditional cash transfer can reduce income inequality and smooth consumption shocks, especially in times of crisis. Pilot programs in countries like Kenya and India have shown significant improvements in nutrition, schooling, and economic productivity (Banerjee et al., 2019). In Nigeria, a regionally phased UBI program can replace fragmented social welfare schemes and reduce administrative costs while providing direct benefits to the poorest households. Initiate UBI pilot schemes in poverty hotspots like the North-East and scale nationwide based on data-driven evaluations.

Expand Access to Quality Education and Skills Development

Investing in human capital, especially education and vocational training, remains one of the most effective long-term poverty alleviation tools. According to UNESCO (2022), every additional year of schooling increases an individual’s income by 10%.

Nigeria must reform the educational system to include: Free, compulsory primary and secondary education. Massive investments in technical and vocational education (TVET), and digital literacy training, especially for youth and women in rural areas. Establish state-led skill development hubs linked to labor market demands, with incentives for private sector collaboration.

Support Agricultural Value Chains and Rural Development

Over 70% of Nigeria’s poor live in rural areas and rely on subsistence agriculture. Supporting smallholder farmers through access to credit, mechanization, irrigation, and market linkages can significantly reduce rural poverty (FAO, 2021). Create Agro-Industrial Processing Zones (AIPs) across regions; Revive rural extension services and farmer cooperatives. Introduce climate-smart agriculture initiatives to increase resilience.

Implement Progressive Taxation and Eliminate Fuel Subsidies

Nigeria’s fiscal policy remains regressive, with overreliance on oil revenues and under-taxation of the wealthy. Reforming the tax system to target high-income earners and luxury goods while eliminating costly fuel subsidies (which benefit the wealthy disproportionately) can free up funds for poverty-focused programs (IMF, 2022). Channel subsidy savings into conditional cash transfers, public health, and education for the poor.

Invest in Public Health Systems and Universal Healthcare

Poor health is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. Over 90% of Nigerians pay for healthcare out-of-pocket, making them vulnerable to medical impoverishment (WHO, 2020). A well-functioning universal healthcare system will protect the poor and enhance productivity. Strengthen the National Health Insurance Authority (NHIA) to ensure coverage of the poor. Build more primary health centers (PHCs) in underserved rural areas. Use mobile clinics and telemedicine in remote communities.

Enhance Decentralized and Transparent Governance

Most poverty alleviation programs in Nigeria are centrally managed and prone to elite capture. Empowering local governments with greater fiscal autonomy and accountability can ensure that interventions are community-specific and better monitored (World Bank, 2021). Institutionalize participatory budgeting at state and local levels. Digitize public spending records for transparency and citizen oversight.

Promote Financial Inclusion and Digital Credit Systems

Access to affordable financial services can help the poor save, invest, and insure against risks. Over 36% of Nigerian adults remain financially excluded (EFInA, 2022). Expanding mobile banking, digital wallets, and micro-credit options can reduce poverty and stimulate small-scale entrepreneurship. Partner with FinTech companies to expand mobile banking in rural areas. Use digital ID systems like NIN to target social benefits and micro-loans effectively.

Conflict-Sensitive Development and Displacement Support

Armed conflict and insecurity, particularly in the North-East and Middle Belt, have displaced millions and exacerbated poverty. Development aid must be conflict-sensitive, targeting Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and post-conflict reconstruction. The government must develop an integrated National Resettlement and Livelihood Program for IDPs. Combine security efforts with socio-economic development initiatives will help in reducing and suppressing the effects of poverty in the affected communities.

Eradicating poverty in Nigeria requires more than ad hoc interventions, it demands structural transformation, inclusive economic growth, and robust institutions. The alternative policies outlined above focusing on social protection, education, rural development, and governance offer a roadmap toward sustainable poverty reduction. Success, however, hinges on political will, transparency, and active citizen participation.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Poverty in Nigeria remains a persistent and multidimensional challenge, deeply rooted in structural inequalities, weak institutions, poor governance, and an over-reliance on volatile oil revenues. Despite numerous policy efforts spanning several decades—ranging from agricultural support initiatives and economic reforms to large-scale social investment programs—millions of Nigerians continue to live in deprivation. The failure of many of these interventions is largely due to inadequate implementation, corruption, political interference, weak monitoring systems, and poor targeting of beneficiaries. While programs such as NAPEP, SURE-P, and the more recent National Social Investment Programmes (NSIPs) under the Buhari administration have made some measurable impact in specific areas such as youth employment and social welfare, they have not substantially reduced the overall poverty rate or addressed the systemic barriers to economic inclusion. Moreover, the majority of these programs have focused on short-term relief rather than long-term structural transformation.

Addressing poverty effectively requires a radical shift from fragmented, reactive policies to a coherent, inclusive, and data-driven development strategy. The recommended alternative policies including the adoption of a Universal Basic Income, investments in quality education and healthcare, revitalization of agriculture, tax reform, financial inclusion, and local governance empowerment offer a practical and sustainable pathway for lifting millions of Nigerians out of poverty. Furthermore, Nigeria must institutionalize transparency, accountability, and community participation at all levels of policy formulation and implementation. Only through inclusive governance, resilient economic systems, and a genuine political commitment to equity can the country begin to break the cycle of poverty that has held back its development for decades.

Ultimately, poverty eradication in Nigeria is not just a social obligation it is a national imperative for economic growth, peace, and democratic consolidation. With bold leadership, collaborative governance, and innovative policy thinking, Nigeria can transform its rich resources and youthful population into engines of prosperity and shared development.

REFERENCES

1. ActionAid Nigeria. (2014). Poverty Alleviation Strategies in Nigeria: A Review. ACGS/MPAMS Discussion Paper No. 3, UNDP.
2. Aigbokhan, B. E. (2008). Poverty, Growth and Inequality in Nigeria: A Case Study.
3. Annual Review of Economics, 11, 959–983.
4. Banerjee, A., Niehaus, P., & Suri, T. (2019). Universal Basic Income in the Developing World.
5. Brookings Institution. (2018). The Number of Poor People in Nigeria is Increasing. https://www.brookings.edu/blog
6. BudgIT. (2019). Review of National Social Investment Programmes. https://yourbudgit.com EFInA. (2022). Access to Financial Services in Nigeria Survey. https://efina.org.ng
7. FAO. (2021). The State of Food and Agriculture: Making Agrifood Systems More Resilient.
8. Federal Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning. (2021). National Development Plan 2021–2025.
9. Gentilini, U., Almenfi, M., Orton, I., & Dale, P. (2020). Social Protection and Jobs Responses to COVID-19: A Real-Time Review. World Bank.
10. IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre).       (2021). Nigeria: Country Profile. https://www.internal-displacement.org
11. Igbuzor, O. (2006). The Millennium Development Goals: Can Nigeria Meet the Goals in 2015? In A Strategy for Achieving the MDGs in Nigeria.
12. IMF. (2020). Nigeria: 2020 Article IV Consultation. https://www.imf.org
13. IMF. (2022). Nigeria: Fiscal Monitor. https://www.imf.org
14. Iyoha, M. A., & Oriakhi, D. E. (2002). Explaining African Economic Growth Performance: The Case of Nigeria. AERC.
15. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2022). 2022 Multidimensional Poverty Index Report. National Social Investment Office. (2020). NSIP Factsheet and Impact Report.
16. National Bureau of                Statistics                 (NBS).       (2020).       Labor       Force Statistics. https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng
17. NBS. (2023). Labor Force Statistics Report. https://nigerianstat.gov.ng
18. Okonjo-Iweala, N., & Osafo-Kwaako, P. (2007). Nigeria’s Economic Reforms: Progress and Challenges. Brookings Global Economy and Development.
19. Olaniyan, O., Bankole, A. S., & Yinusa, O. G. (2003). Structural Adjustment and Poverty in Nigeria: A Review of Empirical Issues.
20. Omotola, J. S. (2008). Combating Poverty for Sustainable Human Development in Nigeria: The Role of Civil Society. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 2(1), 1-7.
21. Transparency International. (2021). Corruption Perceptions Index: Nigeria.  https://www.transparency.org
22. UNDP. (2022). Human Development Report: Nigeria. https://hdr.undp.org UNESCO. (2022). Global Education Monitoring Report. https://www.unesco.org
23. UNICEF. (2022). Child Poverty in Nigeria: Multidimensional Overlap Deprivation Analysis (MODA).
24. WHO. (2020). Global Spending on Health: A World in Transition. https://www.who.int World Bank. (2005). Nigeria: Poverty-Reduction Strategy Paper – NEEDS.
25. World Bank. (2020). Nigeria Social Safety Nets Project. https://www.worldbank.org
26. World Bank. (2021). Nigeria Public Finance Review: Fiscal Adjustment for Better and Sustained Results. https://www.worldbank.org
27. World Bank. (2023). Poverty and Equity Brief: Nigeria. https://www.worldbank.org World Poverty Clock. (2023). Real-time Poverty Data. https://worldpoverty.io
28. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
29. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
30. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.