Revitalizing Rural Economies through Agricultural Incentives and Political Empowerment: A Pathway to National Development in Nigeria

Revitalizing Rural Economies through Agricultural Incentives and Political Empowerment: A Pathway to National Development in Nigeria

¹Dr. Zuobomudor Edwin Agbana., ²Lubo Ebisine

¹Institute of Entrepreneurship and Vocational Training

²University of Africa, Toru-Orua

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000555

Received: 13 September 2025; Accepted: 22 September 2025; Published: 17 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Nigeria’s rural economies remain the largest reservoir of human and agricultural capital, yet they are the least transformed. Using a six–geo-political-zone survey of 600 rural actors (farmers, extension agents, cooperative leaders, local councilors and CBO members), this study examined how agricultural incentives and political empowerment interact to stimulate rural economic revitalization and, ultimately, national development. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses reveal that while 63 % of respondents were aware of at least one federal or state agricultural incentive scheme, only 27 % had actually accessed subsidized inputs or credit. Political empowerment indices (voter turnout at local elections, women in council seats, attendance at ward town-hall meetings) were positively correlated with the utilization rate of agricultural incentives (r = 0.68, p < 0.01). Regression results show that a 10 % increase in political empowerment score raises the probability of incentive uptake by 6.4 % and household agricultural income by 8.2 %. Conversely, infrastructural deficits and elite capture jointly explain 41 % of the non-utilization of incentives. The study concludes that agricultural incentives alone are necessary but insufficient; their effectiveness is contingent upon the extent to which rural communities are politically empowered to influence priority-setting, resource allocation and programme monitoring. Policy recommendations include (i) embedding participatory budgeting in every LGA that receives federal agricultural funds, (ii) mandatory 30 % female representation on State Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) boards, (iii) digitized input voucher systems with biometric farmer authentication to reduce leakage, and (iv) a renewed FADAMA IV project with a legal ring-fenced budget line.

Keywords: Agricultural incentives, political empowerment, rural revitalization, FADAMA, Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

Nigeria’s rural sector, home to over 70% of its population, has historically been the backbone of the nation’s economy, primarily through agriculture. Before the discovery of oil in the late 1960s, agriculture was the mainstay, contributing significantly to GDP, employment, and foreign exchange earnings. However, the oil boom led to a neglect of the agricultural sector, resulting in rural underdevelopment, increased poverty, and food insecurity (Nwankpa, 2017). In recent years, there has been a renewed focus on agriculture as a means to diversify the economy and promote inclusive growth. Government initiatives such as the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) and the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme (ABP) aim to boost agricultural productivity and empower rural farmers. However, challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, limited access to credit, and political marginalization continue to hinder the full potential of rural economies (Eze et al., 2010). Political empowerment is equally crucial. The exclusion of rural populations from decision-making processes has led to policies that do not adequately address their needs. Empowering rural communities politically ensures that their voices are heard, leading to more effective and inclusive development strategies (Akpan & Udoh, 2016).

Despite various agricultural initiatives and policies aimed at revitalizing Nigeria’s rural economies, the desired outcomes in terms of poverty reduction, food security, and economic diversification have not been fully realized. There are persistent challenges which cut across, Inadequate Agricultural Incentives: Many farmers lack access to essential inputs, credit facilities, and modern farming techniques, limiting productivity (Eze et al., 2010), Political Marginalization: Rural communities often have limited representation in political processes, leading to policies that do not reflect their unique challenges and needs (Akpan & Udoh, 2016) and Infrastructure Deficits: Poor road networks, limited access to markets, and inadequate storage facilities hinder the efficient distribution of agricultural produce. These issues underscore the need for a holistic approach that combines agricultural incentives with political empowerment to stimulate rural development and, by extension, national growth.

Objectives of the Study

The primary objective of this study is to examine how agricultural incentives and political empowerment can synergistically revitalize rural economies in Nigeria. The specific objectives are:

1. To assess the current state of agricultural incentives available to rural farmers in Nigeria.
2. To evaluate the level of political participation and representation of rural communities.
3. To analyze the relationship between agricultural incentives, political empowerment, and rural economic development.
4. To propose policy recommendations for enhancing rural development through integrated agricultural and political strategies.

Significance of the Study

Understanding this research study can inform policymakers on the importance of integrating agricultural incentives with political empowerment to achieve sustainable rural development.​ The study further adds to the existing body of knowledge by exploring the interplay between agricultural and political factors in rural development, a relatively under-researched area in the Nigerian context.​

For development practitioners and NGOs, the findings can guide the design and implementation of programs that holistically address the needs of rural communities.​ The importance of political inclusion cannot be exempted as the study advocates for greater participation of rural populations in governance, leading to more responsive and effective policies.​

Scope and Limitations

The study focuses on rural communities across Nigeria, examining the availability and effectiveness of agricultural incentives and the extent of political empowerment. It considers various government programs, political structures, and their impacts on rural economic development.​

Access to up-to-date and comprehensive data on agricultural incentives and political participation at the rural level may be limited.​ Given Nigeria’s diverse socio-political landscape, findings from specific regions may not be universally applicable across all rural communities.​ The dynamic nature of political and agricultural policies means that the study’s findings may need periodic updates to remain relevant.​

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Framework

The revitalization of rural economies in Nigeria hinges on two interrelated concepts: agricultural incentives and political empowerment. Agricultural incentives encompass government-provided supports such as subsidies, credit facilities, extension services, and infrastructural development aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity and livelihoods in rural areas. Political empowerment refers to the processes that enable rural populations to participate actively in decision-making, governance, and policy formulation that affect their lives and communities.​ These concepts are grounded in the understanding that sustainable rural development requires both economic and political interventions. Economic incentives without political inclusion may lead to misaligned policies, while political empowerment without economic support may result in unfulfilled aspirations. Therefore, a synergistic approach that combines both elements is essential for meaningful and lasting rural transformation.​

In Nigeria, various programs have attempted to integrate these concepts. For instance, the FADAMA projects aimed to enhance agricultural productivity through community-driven development, emphasizing both economic support and participatory governance (Onoyemeakpo, 2020). Similarly, the Community-Based Agriculture and Rural Development Project (CBARDP) in Kwara State demonstrated that combining agricultural support with community participation led to significant income improvements among beneficiaries (Adewumi et al., 2015).​ However, challenges persist. Studies have shown that many rural development initiatives in Nigeria suffer from inadequate community involvement, leading to suboptimal outcomes (Doma & Laah, 2020). Moreover, political marginalization of rural populations often results in policies that do not reflect their needs and realities. Therefore, understanding and operationalizing the interplay between agricultural incentives and political empowerment is critical for the revitalization of rural economies and, by extension, national development.​

Theoretical Foundations

The study draws upon several theoretical frameworks to analyze the interplay between agricultural incentives, political empowerment, and rural development.​

Endogenous Development Theory posits that sustainable development must originate from within the community, leveraging local resources, knowledge, and capacities. This theory emphasizes the importance of community participation and ownership in development processes. In the context of Nigeria, the FADAMA projects exemplify this approach by promoting community-driven development, where rural communities identify their priorities and manage resources accordingly (Temowo, 2018).​

Political Economy Theory examines how political institutions, the political environment, and the economic system influence each other. This theory is pertinent in understanding how political structures and power dynamics affect the distribution of agricultural incentives and the inclusion of rural populations in decision-making processes. For instance, studies have highlighted that political marginalization of rural communities in Nigeria often leads to the misallocation of resources and ineffective policy implementation (Akpan, 2012).​

Participatory Development Theory advocates for the involvement of beneficiaries in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of development projects. This approach ensures that development initiatives are aligned with the actual needs and aspirations of the community. The CBARDP in Kwara State demonstrated the effectiveness of participatory development, where beneficiaries’ involvement led to significant income improvements (Adewumi et al., 2015).​ These theoretical frameworks provide a comprehensive lens through which to analyze the complexities of rural development in Nigeria. They underscore the necessity of integrating economic incentives with political empowerment to achieve sustainable and inclusive rural development.​

Hatzenbuehler and Mavrotas (2024) conducted a study on the Agricultural Transformation Agenda (ATA) in Nigeria, which was implemented from 2011 to 2015 to modernize agriculture through increased public funding, input provision, and support for agribusinesses. The study employed a quantitative research design with descriptive and impact assessment methods. The findings revealed that the ATA led to increased use of modern farm inputs among smallholder farmers, indicating a positive impact on agricultural productivity. The study concluded that strategic government support significantly enhances input adoption and agricultural output in rural areas.

Takeshima and Nkonya (2014) examined the Growth Enhancement Support Scheme (GES) in Nigeria, which introduced an e-voucher system to deliver subsidized inputs directly to farmers. The research adopted a mixed-methods approach combining survey data and field observations. The study found that while the program reduced corruption and improved the timeliness of input delivery, its effectiveness was limited by infrastructure deficits and illiteracy among some farmers. The authors concluded that digital-based agricultural interventions require inclusive access and supporting infrastructure to be fully effective.

Adewumi, Ayinde, and Omonona (2015) carried out a study on the Community-Based Agriculture and Rural Development Project (CBARDP) in Kwara State, Nigeria. The research adopted a quantitative approach using descriptive statistics and regression analysis. The results showed a 46.3% increase in income among beneficiaries, suggesting that programs which integrate economic incentives with community participation have the potential to substantially improve rural livelihoods. The study concluded that participatory models of agricultural development offer more sustainable results.

Ndukwe and Nwuzor (2023) investigated the Ebonyi State Agricultural Development Programme (EBADEP) with a focus on its effectiveness in promoting food security and rural development. Using a mixed-methods design that involved surveys and interviews, the study found that the program was hindered by inadequate funding, poor infrastructure, and limited access to credit. The study concluded that without adequate resources and support mechanisms, rural development programs are unlikely to achieve their goals.

Doma and Laah (2020) examined the role of community participation in rural development initiatives across Nigeria. The study utilized a qualitative methodology, including interviews and focus group discussions. Findings revealed that despite policy efforts to encourage grassroots involvement, rural populations often remained marginalized due to elite capture, poor resource governance, and lack of meaningful engagement. The authors concluded that political empowerment is critical to ensuring that development policies reflect the real needs of rural communities.

Temowo (2018) conducted a study on the Second National Fadama Development Project (FADAMA II), which emphasized community-driven development and local institutional engagement. The research used a mixed-methods design to assess the impact of participatory governance on project implementation. The study found that involving rural institutions improved project ownership and sustainability, but constraints such as limited financial resources and institutional capacity hindered full realization of objectives. The author concluded that combining economic support with local participation improves rural development outcomes when adequately resourced.

Afropolitan Journals (2023) assessed the Youth Empowerment in Agriculture Program (YEAP) implemented in the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. The study employed a case study approach using field surveys and stakeholder interviews. The findings indicated that although the program provided physical infrastructure like irrigation systems and access to extension services, its overall impact was limited by weak implementation strategies and lack of financial support to participants. The study concluded that youth empowerment programs must be properly funded and monitored to produce meaningful results.

Onoyemeakpo (2020) analyzed the long-term sustainability of rural development initiatives with a focus on the termination of FADAMA III. The study applied a documentary review method and argued that the absence of a follow-up phase after FADAMA III created setbacks in the continuity of rural development programs. The study concluded that there is a need to launch FADAMA IV with improved institutional frameworks to sustain rural development impacts.

Akpan (2012) reviewed rural development practices in Nigeria using a meta-analytical approach that examined multiple government interventions and policy documents. The study found that despite the implementation of various rural development projects, rural areas continue to face underdevelopment due to weak institutions, corruption, and fragmented policy coordination. The study concluded that holistic and well-coordinated rural policies that integrate both agricultural incentives and political empowerment are essential for sustainable rural transformation.

Gaps in the Literature

While numerous studies have examined agricultural incentives and political empowerment separately, there is a paucity of research that explores the synergistic effects of integrating both elements in rural development. Moreover, existing literature often lacks longitudinal analyses that assess the long-term impacts of such integrated approaches. There is also a need for more empirical studies that investigate the role of local governance structures and rural institutions in mediating the relationship between agricultural incentives, political empowerment, and rural development outcomes. Addressing these gaps is essential for designing effective policies and programs that can sustainably revitalize rural economies in Nigeria.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopted a quantitative descriptive survey design to examine the effects of agricultural incentives and political empowerment on the revitalization of rural economies across Nigeria’s six geo-political zones. The quantitative approach was selected for its suitability in systematically collecting data from a large sample size and in making generalizations about the wider population. The descriptive nature of the study enabled the researcher to assess the current state of rural development programs and identify patterns related to the research objectives.

The target population for this study comprised rural dwellers, smallholder farmers, cooperative leaders, local government officials, agricultural extension agents, and community-based organization (CBO) members from the six geo-political zones of Nigeria: North Central, North East, North West, South East, South-South, and South West. These categories of respondents were chosen because of their direct involvement in rural economic activities and their experience with government-led agricultural and empowerment initiatives. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, over 70% of Nigeria’s population resides in rural areas, with varying degrees of involvement in agriculture and local governance. Therefore, focusing on this population enabled the study to derive context-specific insights on rural development dynamics.

The study adopted a multi-stage sampling technique. In the first stage, one state was purposively selected from each of the six geo-political zones based on their level of rural agricultural activity and history of participation in government empowerment programs. The selected states were: Benue (North Central), Borno (North East), Kano (North West), Imo (South East), Bayelsa (South South), and Osun (South West). And in the second stage, two rural local government areas (LGAs) were selected from each state using simple random sampling, bringing the total to 12 LGAs. In the third stage, a total of 600 respondents (100 per zone; approximately 50 per LGA) were selected using stratified random sampling to ensure representation across gender, age, and occupational strata.

The instrument of data collection was a structured questionnaire titled “Rural Economy Revitalization Survey (RERS).” The questionnaire was designed based on the study’s objectives and organized into four sections: Demographic information, Perceptions of agricultural incentives, Experiences with political participation and empowerment and Opinions on the relationship between these interventions and national development. Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” The questionnaire was validated by experts in rural development and tested for reliability using a pilot study with a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.83.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed across six geo-political zones in Nigeria. Out of these, 571 questionnaires were correctly filled and return, resulting in a response rate of 95.2%, which is statistically adequate and strengthens the reliability of the findings.

Table 4.1: Profile of Respondents (n = 571)

Source: Author’s Computation 2025

The demographic breakdown shows that a large proportion of respondents were crop farmers (59.7), followed by livestock rearers (20.7%), while women constituted 41.9% of the total sample. The dominant age group was 36-60 years, representing 55% of participants, indicating mature, economically active individuals. The presence of 11.7% cooperative leaders suggests a reasonable level of organized group activity in rural communities.

Awareness, Access and Effectiveness of Agricultural Incentives

This section examines the degree to which rural farmers are aware of and able to access major agricultural support schemes.

Table 4.2: Awareness vs. Access of Agricultural Incentives (Multiple Responses Allowed)

Source: Author’s Computation 2025

While 63.4% of respondents were aware of at least one support scheme, actual access remained significantly low. For example, while 42.7% were aware of the Anchor Borrowers’ Programme, only 18.9% accessed it. The GES e-voucher system, which provides modern inputs (seeds and fertilizer), had the highest perceived effectiveness (Likert mean score = 3.64) but access was limited to 14.5%.
This disparity between awareness and access suggests possible institutional bottlenecks, elite capture, or logistical failures in reaching the targeted rural beneficiaries. Consistent with findings by Adewumi et al. (2015), awareness campaigns often outpace actual disbursement mechanisms, limiting the real impact of these programs.

Indices of Political Empowerment

A Political Empowerment Index (PEI) was constructed based on five indicators: Voter turnout at last local government election, Attendance at town-hall meetings, Membership in community development associations (CDAs), Women’s representation in local leadership and Perceived influence over local budget priorities 

Table 4.3: Political Empowerment Index by Region

Source: Author’s Computation 2025

The mean PEI score of 4.8 reflects a moderate level of political inclusion. The highest scores were recorded in Benue (6.2) and Imo (5.9), indicating relatively better engagement in community governance. The lowest score was observed in Borno (3.4), likely due to security challenges that restrict free movement and civic participation.
Political empowerment in rural Nigeria is uneven across regions. Security, eduction, and socio-cultural norms play a defining role in civic participation. The findings align with Doma and Laah (2020), who argued that rural empowerment in Nigeria is hindered by both elite dominance and governance asymmetries.

Regression Results: Impact of Agricultural Incentives and Political Empowerment

To assess the joint impact of agricultural incentives and political empowerment on rural economic outcomes, a multiple regression analysis was conducted. The dependent variable was perceived improvement in rural livelihood, while independent variables included: Access to Agricultural Inputs (binary). PEI Score (continuous). Participation in Cooperatives (binary) and Infrastructure Quality Index (derived)

Table 4.4: Multiple Regression Results

Source: Authors Computation 2025

All predictors were statistically significant at 5% levels, and the model explains 51% of the variation in perceived rural livelihood improvement. Notably, access to agricultural inputs (β=0.412) had the strongest positive influence, followed closely by political empowerment (β=0.329) and infrastructure quality (β = 0.265).

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

These results confirm that both economic incentives and political empowerment significantly improve rural well-being. This supports theoretical frameworks such as Participatory Development Theory, which emphasizes the interplay between civic inclusion and access to resources for sustainable rural transformation (Temowo, 2018). Moreover, the statistically significant impact of cooperative participation reveals that social capital mechanisms are equally crucial for disseminating benefits and improving rural resilience. These findings resonate with Obiakor and Okorie (2020) who emphasized that integrated rural development must bridge both structural and participatory gaps.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the empirical findings, awareness of agricultural incentives is moderately high, but actual utilization is only 27 %, largely due to supply-side bottlenecks and elite capture. Political empowerment is uneven across zones and is a statistically significant determinant of both incentive uptake and household income. A synergy exists: the marginal effect of incentives on income rises with higher levels of political empowerment. Infrastructural deficits (bad roads, erratic power, lack of storage) and security challenges in the North-East attenuate programme impact.

Revitalizing Nigeria’s rural economies and achieving national development goals cannot be accomplished through technocratic agricultural packages alone. The evidence demonstrates that political empowerment, manifested in inclusive governance, transparent allocation mechanisms, and active rural institutions would amplify the economic returns to agricultural incentives. Therefore, policymakers must deliberately integrate governance reforms with agricultural programmes to create a virtuous cycle of empowerment, productivity and prosperity.

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations were made for policy formulation and implementation.

1. Amend the National Agricultural Extension Policy to require at least 30 % female and 10 % youth representation on all ADP management boards.
2. Make release of federal matching grants to LGAs contingent on documented town-hall deliberations and published expenditure scorecards.
3. Deploy an open-source “Rural Incentive Tracker” portal where beneficiaries can monitor fertiliser distribution in real time; leverage the national identity (NIN) database for biometric authentication.
4. Government should partner with the Infrastructure Bank to issue green bonds dedicated to feeder roads linking 2 km-radius farm clusters to markets.
5. Provide micro-grants (₦500,000–₦1 million) to registered CDAs that present bankable proposals for joint procurement of tractors or cold rooms.
6. Establish a five-year panel of 3,000 farm households across the six geo-political zones to track dynamic impacts of policy shifts.

REFERENCES

1. Adewumi, M. O., Ogunjimi, S. I., & Ajala, A. O. (2015). Community-Based Agriculture and Rural Development Project impact assessment in Kwara State. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 19(2), 74-87.
2. Afropolitan Journals. (2023). Youth Empowerment in Agriculture Programme: Mid-term evaluation. Abuja: Afropolitan Publishers.
3. Akpan, S. B. (2012). Rural development practices and political marginalization in Nigeria. Journal of African Studies, 10(4), 45-58.
4. Alhassan, Y. J. (2024). Revitalizing Agricultural Extension System for Food Security in Nigeria. Zaria: Ahmadu Bello University Press.
5. Doma, U. I., & Laah, J. G. (2020). Community participation in rural development initiatives: Evidence from North-East Nigeria. International Journal of Rural Development, 34(1), 89-103.
6. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD). (2023). National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Policy (NATIP). Abuja: FMARD.
7. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Demographic Statistics Bulletin. Abuja: NBS.
8. Obiakor, T., & Okorie, C. (2020). Revitalizing the rural economy in Nigeria: The role of political inclusion. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 11(10), 142-150.
9. Takeshima, H., & Nkonya, E. (2014). Input subsidy and its decentralised delivery in Nigeria. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01371. Washington DC: IFPRI.
10. Temowo, O. O. (2018). Endogenous development and FADAMA II performance in South-West Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Rural Sociology, 18(1), 22-31.
11. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Rural Development and Decentralisation: Lessons from Sub-Saharan Africa. New York: UNDP.
12. Nwankpa, N. N. (2017). Sustainable Agricultural Development in Nigeria: A Way Out of Hunger and Poverty. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(4), 175-184.​
13. Eze, C. C., Lemchi, J. I., Ugochukwu, A. I., Eze, V. C., Awulonu, C. A. O., & Okon, A. X. (2010). Agricultural Financing Policies and Rural Development in Nigeria. 84th Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, Edinburgh.​
14. Akpan, S. B., & Udoh, E. J. (2016). Farmers’ Decision to Participate in Government Agricultural Programmes in a Volatile Political Environment: A Case Study of Farmers in the South-  South Region of Nigeria. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 5(53), 135-143.​
15. Alhassan, Y. J. (2024). Revitalizing Agricultural Extension System for Food Security in Nigeria.
16. Onyekuru, N. A., Tikon, F. U., & Effiong, M. O. (2015). Structural Effects of 2010 to 2015 Fertilizer Policy.​
17. John, O. A., & Nnenna, O. A. (2024). Cultivating the Future: Reviving the Youths’ Interest in Farming. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Research, 10(1), 67-     77.​
18. Adebayo, K. (2020). Understanding Agricultural Development in Nigeria: Challenges and Prospects. Ibadan: University Press.
19. Adegbite, D. A., & Olorunsanya, E. O. (2021). Agricultural financing and productivity of rural farmers in Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 10(3), 44–53.
20. Akinola, M. O. (2018). Political inclusion and grassroots governance in Nigeria. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, 12(1), 1–12.
21. Bamidele, F. S., Babatunde, R. O., & Rasheed, A. (2022). Access to agricultural incentives and the productivity of smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 14(5), 172–181.
22. Bayelsa State Ministry of Agriculture. (2021). Report on Community-Based Agricultural Programs in the Niger Delta. Yenagoa: Government Press.
23. Chukwu, O. J., & Eze, S. O. (2020). Agricultural policy implementation and rural development in Nigeria. International Journal of Rural Studies, 27(2), 101–111.
24. Duru, M., & Iwuoha, H. C. (2019). The politics of rural development: A study of the Niger Delta. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 11(5), 65–74.
25. Ekong, E. E. (2020). An Introduction to Rural Sociology. Uyo: Dove Educational Publishers.
26. Eze, S. O., & Okezie, C. A. (2021). Impact of agricultural extension services on rural development in Imo State, Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 16(2), 34–42.
27. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (FMARD). (2020). Annual Agricultural Performance Survey. Abuja: FMARD.
28. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2021). Incentives for sustainable agriculture: Case studies from Nigeria and Kenya. Rome: FAO.
29. Garba, A., & Ibrahim, M. (2019). Political empowerment of rural communities: A case study of Northern Nigeria. Journal of African Studies and Development, 11(4), 67–77.
30. Idumange, J. (2020). Reviving rural Nigeria through local governance. Niger Delta Journal of Development Studies, 8(3), 113–126.
31. Ikejemba, E. C. X., & Schuur, P. (2021). The dynamics of agricultural transformation in the Niger Delta. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 36(2), 112–121.
32. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Demographic Statistics Bulletin. Abuja: NBS.
33. Nwachukwu, I. N., & Ezeh, C. I. (2021). Evaluation of youth participation in rural agriculture in Southeast Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension, 25(1), 45–54.
34. Obiakor, T. & Okorie, C. (2020). Revitalizing the rural economy in Nigeria: The role of political inclusion. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 11(10), 142–150.
35. Ofem, N. I., & Inyang, B. (2020). Agricultural development and employment generation in rural Nigeria: The case of South-South. Journal of Human Ecology, 71(1-3), 45–53.
36. Ogundele, O. J., & Akinlabi, B. H. (2022). Government incentives and agricultural transformation in Nigeria. Journal of Economic Policy and Research, 27(2), 76–94.
37. Okon, D. P., & Ekpenyong, E. I. (2019). Political representation and rural development in Nigeria. African Research Review, 13(4), 23–39.
38. Ukaoha, K. C. (2021). The role of cooperatives in economic revitalization in rural Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Economic Development, 29(3), 78–89.
39. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Rural development and decentralization: Lessons from Sub-Saharan Africa. New York: UNDP.
40. World Bank. (2020). Enhancing Agricultural Productivity in Africa: Country case studies on Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications.