Index

Abstract

Urbanization itself is not a curse if positively managed. This is due to the current fact that there is a fundamental debate that the mobilization of human resources is critical and unavoidable for the political, socio-economic and technological transformation of any nation. Though successive governments in Nigeria have initiated the National Urban Development Policy however, the reverse is the case because the swelled urban towns and cities’ government have not made decisive efforts to meet the development demands of the city overflow which is referred to as “urban slum” that has created a sharp gap between the urban wealthy and urban poor. This paper, therefore, adopted the content analysis and Poverty-Focused Intervention Approach to analyze its major arguments. Hence, through primary and secondary data, the study presented some findings and recommendations. The research concluded with campaigns for efficient, inclusive and sustainable development of all settings of the urban sector in Nigeria.

Keywords: Development, Marginalisation, Policy Structure, Poverty, Slum, Urbanization.

JEL Classification: : L38 Public Policy.

Received: 18 July 2019 / Revised: 22 August 2019 / Accepted: 27 September 2019 / Published: 6 November 2019

Contribution/ Originality

This study contributes to the existing literature by the pictorial exposition of the absence of impactful implementation of National Urban Development Policy in Nigeria resulting in –perpetual overcrowding, poor environmental management, inadequate critical infrastructure, poor supervision and abandonment of development projects, and the explosion of road-side-marketing by the slum occupants. 

1. INTRODUCTION

The challenges of critical infrastructures, social services delivery and sufficient housing for the ever-increasing world population have been major development concerns of cities and towns in developing countries at large in the 21st century. Sattelberger and Neumann (2017) cited the UN as positing that the world urban population can increase from “3.9 – 6.4 billion between 2014 and 2050” due to urbanization and migration. Evidently, there is a critical infrastructural deficit due to population increase. Following this development, poor urban settlers and new arrivals stay in informal settlements known as "slums”.

Consequent upon the above, National Urban Development Policy was formulated in 1992 by the Babangida’s military-civilian led administration “to develop a dynamic system of urban settlements, foster sustainable economic growth, promote efficient urban development, and to ensure improved standards of living” for Nigerians. Though the policy has undergone reviews in 2006 and 2012 however, Okoye (1992); FGN (2010) and Lamond et al. (2015) noted that slums settlements have continued to create the existence of semi-urban dichotomy and other forms of countryside blight after many decades of the initiation of National Development Planning and National Urban Development Policy, and more than five decades of nationhood. This Okoye emphasized has so many planning, economic and policy implications. To this end, the settlers in the low-cost region of the urban areas of Nigeria usually experience worst conditions of living in comparison to their counterparts in the remote and detached areas from urban centres. Moreover, Porter (2002) and Matthews et al. (2010) says, they are marginalized and indiscernible even by local and state governments.

However, this particular challenge is not new. Khalifa (2015) argues that it is a fundamental phenomenon that characterizes the accelerated urban development process globally due to the failure of the government in attending to the needs of the urban poor. Nonetheless, urbanization in itself is not a curse but a positive phenomenon if they are productive, inclusive, innovative and sustainably managed (FGN, 2010; Indrawati, 2014).
Though (FGN, 2010; Indrawati, 2014) view the urgency and importance of all-encompassing development efforts in the Third World, there are substances of economic and welfarism. To this end, Moughalu (1992) notes that urban-suburbs needs economic independence that is not limited to food security and provision of raw materials for industries but as well as development of the structure, content, and volume of their urban section. This will not only support the achievement of a development-equality question but as well the organisation of human and material resources for the designing and execution of development programmes. This will stave off instability and help to achieve the so-called verbalize national integration (Moughalu, 1992).

Therefore, the force of fast urbanisation and the persistent adamant of Federal and States Capital administration to make provisions of necessary infrastructures and public utilities for all its inhabitants will earnestly constitute social, economic and security challenges for the affluent that are core urban dwellers. This study canvasses an argument for the application of contemporary development dynamics in urban-slum communities with efficiency, inclusiveness, and sustainability. The paper is segmented into the statement of the problem; review of literature; theoretical framework; findings; conclusion and recommendations. 

2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

According to Ogbundinkpa (1992); FGN (2014); Adewale (2015) and Ado (2017) history has proven without equivocation that it was the British Administration that transformed Nigeria from an entirely rural sector. Notwithstanding this great transformation, the present situation of Nigeria is obviously a relatively smaller though very powerful capitalized urban sector counter-balanced by a quite much larger albeit sprawling backward almost entirely “slum sector” within. The fact is that while the core city centres are represented by affluence and ostentatious living, its periphery is engrossed in abject poverty and squalor. In fact, the level of poverty in Nigeria has continued to increase on daily basis and the income and standard of living imbalance have not in any way increased the situation of the urban poor (Igbaja, 2012).

Therefore, urbanization in the 21st century Nigeria has “created new challenges of climate change, depletion in resources, food insecurity, social and spatial inequalities, economic instability, urban sprawl, and unplanned peri-urbanization” (FGN, 2010). Hence, Akinwotu (2017) posits that the urban–poor and urban–rich development dichotomy has continued to constitute a serious humanitarian crisis to Nigeria and by extension, the entire global developmental discourse. The reason is premised on the statistic presented by Lyneham (1998) which states that:

“The rate of urbanisation worldwide is increasing exponentially. By the year 2020, migration, coupled with natural increase, will have had an unprecedented impact, transforming major metropolitan cities within the APEC region into megacities, located primarily along with coastal areas and waterways. By the year 2020, world population will have increased from the Malthusian one billion at the beginning of the 19th century, to eight billion. Approximately 1.6 billion of these people will be in the developed regions, while 6.4 billion will be in the developing regions of the world. Between 1996 and 2020, approximately 95 percent of the global population increase is expected to take in developing regions, with Africa growing to 1.58 billion, China to approximately 1.5 billion, India 1.5 billion, Pakistan 267 million, Indonesia 263 million, Brazil 245 million, Mexico 150 million and Iran 122 million. Australia, by comparison, is expected to increase from its 1990 population of 16.7 million to 22.7 million by 2025”.

As Prahalad and Hammond (2002) and Cohen (2006) contends, urban areas have presently accommodated more than half of the global population and over the next 30 years, it is projected to grow to over two billion populations majorly in the developing countries. Egboje (2018) observes that this overcrowding situation has created increased pressure on few available critical socio-economic infrastructures, and systems. In addition, Nigeria, as World Bank writes in 2017, the population of the lives in low-cost settings and slums of urban centres, is about 85%. Comprehensibly, the description of urban-slums does not easily appear in the analysis of public programmes, policies and projects distributions which are overwhelmingly metropolitan. Ofuebe (1992) therefore situates Nigerian governments to have always been involved erroneously in an insistence on the inevitability of the provision of amenities for the poor as a counterpoise to the amelioration of her underdevelopment. This is basically because they are not the focus for governance and state institutions (Akinwotu, 2017).
In developed countries, third world poverty and underdevelopment are depicted with the characteristics of deprivation, marginalisation, and those who are not in the core city centres like the Government Reservation Areas (GRAs), government quarters and estates. There is, in this developmental and ethical challenge of underdevelopment that has dominated public policies from the 1960s, when the World Bank, in particular, made this the central component of its purpose and strategy (Riddell and Robinson, 1995; Escobar, 2011; Rondinelli, 2013) . This presents an impending danger considering the findings of Sattelberger and Neumann (2017) which says:

“The number of people living in slums around the world is on the rise. Current UN-Habitat estimates assume that approximately 1.3 billion people lived in slums in 2015 – this figure is projected to reach 1.5 billion already in 2020. The slum inhabitants often represent the lowest socioeconomic class in cities: they usually cannot afford better housing and their precarious living conditions limit their chances of rising out of poverty on their own”.

Nevertheless, during the preceding decades in Nigeria, it was increasingly acknowledged that growth in itself may not produce a significant reduction in poverty in the absence of direct programmes of assistance, especially in an unequal allocation of land and other assets to the urban poor who mostly dwells in the slums and far-reaching centres. The design and implementation of the National Urban Development Policy in Nigeria were the prerogative of elite groups who resides in the developed part of the urban core.  Consequently, “the failure to effectively implement the 1992 National Urban Policy had to do with the fact that majority of the actors responsible for the implementation were found to either not to be fully aware of their roles and responsibilities; or did not have the requisite knowledge and capacity; or were simply not left out of the implementation process… This has prevented the effective participation of the stakeholders in the implementation…” (Zubairu, 2015).

As Mansuri and Rao (2004) observe, many large-scale government-initiated development programmes ranging from education, health care, credit facility, to irrigation systems perform poorly in the non-elite settlement zones of the urban centres in Nigeria. Considering all the above, therefore, this study shall investigate the:

1. National urban development policy and development of slums.
2. Slum, city core and development dichotomy.
3. Neglect and marginalization of the urban poor.

3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

In theory, this study is an addition to the present body of research in rural and urban development administration and policymaking in order to provide information support to the government and major stakeholders for specification and investment at both local and international contexts. In addition, the adoption of the “Poverty-focused Intervention Approach” and its application in this study is to be cherished in its characteristic which emphasized greater attention to the interest of urban-community development and institution-building as processes of standardizing urban renewal programmes’ implementation and sustainability. It reiterates the participation of the government together with Community Development Associations, NGOs, and other critical stakeholders in policy formulation and implementation.

Empirically, the study justifies the overwhelming need for the decongestion of the overcrowded slums, provision of proper environmental management mechanism, tackling of inadequate critical infrastructures, uncompromising supervision of development projects, and waging war against the explosion of road-side marketing which blocks major streets and free-flow of traffic.

4. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

4.1. The National Urban Development Policy and Development of Slums

Nigeria is Africa’s most populated country and has the largest surface area of the West African States. It is one of the most rapidly urbanizing countries in the region and over the past five decades, the rate of urbanisation rose from “15% in 1950 to 23% in 1975, 43.3% in 2000, and 60% in 2015” respectively (FGN, 2010). It is a federation with 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), all comprising 774 local government areas with FCT Abuja and Lagos as the most urbanized cities.

According to Ajaegbu (2000); Opoko and Oluwatayo (2014); Bloch et al. (2015) Nigeria like many countries of the world, has experienced a heightened rate of urbanisation on the basis of an urban centre as a settlement with 20,000 or more inhabitants in the Federal Capital Territory and States capitals. An attempt to trace the history and situation of the “slum” cannot be separated from the identified characteristics of the urban poor communities in Nigeria. Satterthwaite (2001) cited by Mabogunje (2005) posits that underdeveloped urban centres inherently reveal features which includes “inadequate income; unstable or risky asset base; inadequate shelter; inadequate provision of ‘public’ infrastructure; inadequate provision of basic services; limited or no safety net; protection of poorer groups’ rights through the operation of the law; and poorer groups’ voicelessness and powerlessness”.

Mabogunje (2005) and Ado (2017) further explains that the severity and prevalence of the above features are diverse base on the size of such area. Therefore, “high density of settlement, however, increases their health risks and vulnerabilities which are further compounded where the location of their settlement is in marginal areas such as floodplains or mountainsides” (Mabogunje, 2005). A World Bank Report maintains that:

“Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, and by 2030 that will rise to an estimated 60 percent. Nearly all of this growth is happening in developing countries, where as many as 66 million people migrate to urban areas each year. Urbanization has historically served as an essential engine for economic development: No country has reached high-income status without undergoing a successful urbanization process” (The World Bank, 2014).

Thus, the rate of informal settlements originated after the Second World War and went up during the 1960s (Ajaegbu, 2000; Khalifa, 2015). After the 1960 political independence from Great Britain, Nigeria witnessed great migrations to the suburban areas. Amongst these centres as Ajaegbu (2000) mentions are Abeokuta, Benin City, Calabar, Ibadan, Ile-Ife, Kano City, Katsina, Lagos, Maiduguri, Yerwa, Ogbomoso, Onitsha, Oshogbo, Sokoto, and Zaria. As Indrawati (2014) maintains, by 2030 the global urban population will double to two billion people and the size of the cities will triple.

From the foregoing, the National Urban Development Policy (NUDP) was initiated with the consciousness that the growth rate of the urban population is estimated to be an extremely high at 5.8%, almost double the national average population growth rate of 2.8%, placing it among the highest in the world. The main thrust of the policy as highlighted in FGN (2010) document includes:

1. Creation and constantly reviewing conditions for efficiency in service delivery in urban centres.
2. Poverty and unemployment reduction, the improvement of urban transportation, shantytown “upgrading, and making the environment conducive for living, working and recreation”.
3. Provision and maintenance of infrastructure, improved social welfare, urban security, urban planning, and finance.

According to Olotuah and Bobadoye (2009); Babanyara et al. (2010) and Jiboye (2011) Nigeria has one of the highest sprawl and city population growth rates in the world. The proportion of the Nigerian population living in urban centres has increased phenomenally over the years. It was “7% Nigerians that lived in urban centres in the 1930s, and 10% in 1950, by 1970, 1980 and 1990, 20%, 27%, and 35% lived in the cities respectively” (Okupe, 2002). Although the ultimate target of the policy is to “achieve efficient functioning towns and cities in the context of continuous growth in population, economic activities and enhanced living conditions”, the urban poor live in over-crowded housing, often in self-made temporary structures in slums and squatter settlements where they exert unprecedented pressure on deteriorating urban infrastructure and social services (Babanyara et al., 2010; FGN, 2010; Tanko, 2017).  Essentially, Zubairu (2015) says the National Urban Development Policy reviewed in 2012 has the following core objectives. It is to:

1. Facilitate efficient urban development, management, and good governance.
2. Ensure that all tiers of Government effectively carry out their functions and responsibilities with regard to plan implementation and are accountable for them.
3. Strengthen the capacity of the urban centres to manage economic growth, social development and the alleviation of poverty.

In addition, the characteristics such as poor social security systems and infrastructures, volatile and very low incomes, represent the living standard of the poor people irrespective of their residence. Sattelberger and Neumann (2017). Hence, Idike (1992); Catalán et al. (2008) and Gkartzios and Scott (2010) variously agreed that population is the main characteristics that differentiate slum from the urban core especially in the developed countries. According to Tanko (2017) the main features of these areas are depression, degradation, deprivation, poverty, absence of critical infrastructures and amenities. In this environment, the inhabitants depend on shallow wells or guinea worm-infested ponds as sources of their water supply.

The major strategies of the National Urban Development Policy 2012 are:

1. Establishment of an institutional structure in order to ensure the development and efficient management of Nigerian urban settlements.
2. Classification and profiling of towns and cities for policy intervention purposes.
3. Review and restructuring of all current government institutions which are concerned with urban management issues at the Federal, State and Local government levels and where important, establish new ones with an intention to tackle Nigerian emerging challenges of urbanisation.

Amidst these strategies, however, Adelekan (2010); Hnatkovskaa and Lahiri (2013) observes that “many residents in high-density, low-income areas, live in environmentally degraded conditions and lack basic infrastructure, and services including water supply, electricity, roads, stormwater drainage, solid waste disposal, sanitation, and quality housing. Apart from the major roads that lead into the communities, most roads are in a state of disrepair and lack all-weather surfaces”.

4.2. The Slum, City Core and Development Dichotomy

The dichotomy between urban-poor and the urban-wealthy in terms of development is traced to colonialism with the creation of GRAs in towns with the enactment of the “Urban Acts” were enacted towards grabbing lands for colonial masters and the introduction of capitalist modes of production in some designated settlements that prominently featured multinational companies as urban (Aribigbola and Ayeniyo, 2012; Afolabi, 2017) cited by Paul et al. (2014). These development planning activities by colonial masters planted and encouraged the seed of spatial segregation because, unlike the development of slum regions, the management of development programmes in the colonial urban settlements were purely dependent on British urban development standards which ensured the provision of basic and critical infrastructures (Mabogunje, 1990; Lamond et al., 2015).

Though National urban Development Policy provides financial mechanisms within the three tiers of government, Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and NGOs for implementing development programmes that concern upgrading of the slum, urban restoration, strategic policies’ execution and management of economic growth, it has been realized that such efforts are urban-centre biased and elite-driven (Idike, 1992; Okoye, 1992; FGN, 2010). Okoye further opines that it is not an overstatement to state abnitio, that the slum communities have been constantly and deliberately milked to impoverishment to the advantage of the “city-core”. These common denominators have so far made the policy to prove counter-productive. Thus, Riddell and Robinson (1995); Parker (1999); Olotuah and Bobadoye (2009); and Afolabi (2017) maintain that the overall environmental and socio-economic challenges of developing countries are borne out of direct and indirect prevalence of poverty and perpetual movement of young people into the urban setting mainly because of neglect of the rural sector and concentration of development projects in urban-core.

More often, policymakers and development partners in Nigeria, for example have adopted several methodologies to realize the development goals and objectives of the poor. In fact, some of the approaches include the National Development Plans, States and Local Government Creation Exercises, The Rolling Plans, and other Visionary Policies and Programmes which are as old as the country herself (Ibietan and Ekhosuehi, 2013); (Paul et al., 2014). However, Agono (2017); Upokawo (2018) and Tedele (2018) note that there exist amorphous development gaps between urban-slums and urban-core centres.  Nevertheless, there is no development in the living standard of the slum dwellers in real sense hence; their situation is getting worse daily. This is consequent upon the design and implementation of the development agenda which is a closed one.

Figure-1. Slum poverty rate.

Source: Afolabi (2017).

As Afolabi (2017) analyzed, “…the urban-rural pattern except…where the urban population is more vulnerable than the rural, in all other cases: incidence, intensity, and severity, the rural picture is grimmer. Indeed in terms of incidence, the rural is more than twice the urban while the rural is close to five times more than urban in severity. The vulnerability is lower in the rural than in the urban which is a logical outcome because, as the saying goes, the one who is already down needs fear no fall” see Figure 1. For instance, Afolabi (2017) graphically presents the Blue Colour as an urban centre and Red Colour as slums.

As a corollary, the present world is rapidly experiencing a high rate of urbanisation with attendant’s issues of excessive pressure on the little sustaining infrastructures and resources, which in itself has led to the diminishing of quality life and wellbeing.

4.3. The Neglect and Marginalisation of the Urban Poor

There is no gainsaying the fact that “the poor shall not cease out of our land” but the challenging reality is that there are poor in the urban areas whose conditions are characterised with the dynamics of localism, complexity and diversities. Significantly, Tanko (2017) maintains that:

“The rich and powerful are found in the expensive city centers, with the best social amenities, good road networks with drainages and streetlights for their exotic cars, posh buildings, round-the-clock power and water supply, security, and large commercial complexes. Next, to these are the well-to-do with decent amenities and social structures; while farther away in the slums and suburbs are those at the bottom of the pyramid where everything is poor and poverty defines everything the senses see, feel, taste, smell and touch”.

In the view of Tanko (2017) the incidence of “slums and ghettoes” is a magnitude of development challenge where urban progression does not equal urban development because it is a classical situation of non-enforcement of principles guiding urban development. It is observed that the National Urban Development Policy essentially addresses issues that concern urban renewal, urban infrastructure, urban governance, access to land, urban information management, urban environment, urban planning, human resources, security management and urban finance. However, these issues have not been settled by the policy as many problems and people of similar social classes are found living in the same neighborhood in city centres with the inclusion of FCT, Lagos, Ibadan, Kano, Port Harcourt, and Enugu (Matthews et al., 2010; Zipin et al., 2015; Tanko, 2017) . Davis (1965); Prahalad and Hammond (2002); Sachs (2005) maintain that the slum dwellers are often disengaged from the market forces because they have no essential human capital – adequate education, good nutrition, and health care. When resources available with the government, it tends to relegate the poorest of the poor to the ‘back bench of development’ to an extent that so much is taken from project funds and equipment that the death of quite a number of projects results from this type of practice (Omale, 2005; Sachs, 2005; Hammond, 2008; Amsden, 2010) .

Chambers (1995) posits that the current conditions of the slum dwellers that run into hundreds of millions are appalling, negative and their future prospects are very bad. The urban poor is faced with powerlessness, social inferiority, humiliation, physical weakness, and seasonal deprivation. This is an occurrence in situations where policies and programmes are always drawn and planned by the government and donor agencies and brought down for implementation (Ofuebe, 1992; Omale, 2005; Paul and Samuel, 2013) . The fact is that poor people are local, complex, diverse, and dynamic. For instance, “citizens without residential registration do not have equal access to social and public services in Lagos” (Indrawati, 2014).

In another development, the findings of Adelekan (2010) reveals that though flooding due to exacerbated urbanisation has been a challenge to city core, the susceptibility of those living in slums is not always considered in planning and development process of the urban sector. He stated further that “the vulnerability of the poor urban population is highly linked to poor urban management and the government’s inability” to tackle their development concerns. This was aptly brought to fore by the demolition of Maroko community around the Third Mainland Bridge, Victoria Island-Lagos in 2016, after the forceful eviction of the over 30,000 residents by the Lagos state government. However, the land was reallocated and developed into an expensive district within Lagos Island. For instance, at St. Peter’s and St., Bridget’s primary schools Ogbete Coal Camp and Asata, Obiagu, Enugu coal city south-eastern Nigeria, the pupils study under an unconducive old building built by the colonial masters, and which have turned into a mechanic village in the city.

Consequently, most of the cities in African states majorly in Nigeria are challenged with high environmental pollution and failing physical condition. The deterioration as Idachaba (1985) cited by Ogbazi (1992); (Babanyara et al., 2010) and Lourens (2018) further contend results in the system of slums, shortfalls in service delivery and critical amenities, flooding and erosion, settlements, urban sprawl and squatters’ and increasing traffic congestion.

5. THEORETICAL ADOPTION AND APPLICATION

Poverty-Focused Intervention Approach is adopted for this study. Riddell and Robinson (1995) in discussing this model argues that the failure of both integrated development programmes and the intensive Green Revolution approach comprehensively to address the needs of the poor gave rise to a consideration of approaches targeted at more particular, and narrower, objectives, though (Dawson et al., 2016) notes that it transformed the rural economies of many Asian and Latin American countries during the 1960s – 1990s. These include programmes designed to improve asset position and productivity through credit provision and the improved supply of productive inputs and training of the poor. In the process, greater attention was given to participation, community development, and institution-building as means of improving programme implementation and sustainability. Problems of putting participation into practice generated interest in local grassroots organisations to further community participation in development project design and implementation (Uphoff, 1984).

The adoption of this theory is reliant on the fact that the poor performance of integrated development programme was often credited to absence of community participation in planning and designing different sectoral factors (Uphoff, 1991; Riddell and Robinson, 1995). Also, in a bid to develop the slum, no thought of drawing up an effective organisational and institutional configuration to collate, synthesize and coordinate development ideas, policies, and projects, in order to foster a network among the several agencies to achieve unity and comprehensive operational efficiency. Hence, development programmes tended to emphasize a top-down approach in which programme content was determined by government officials and external expert relegating the consultation with concerned people to the background on their development needs contrary to a situation that put development as universal because, the conditions leading to economic expansion were universal (Rodney, 1972; Moughalu, 1992; Omale, 2005; Escobar, 2011; Nelson, 2013) .

Poverty-focused intervention approach emerged in order to integrate and redesign development programmes for the facilitation of greater community involvement, adequate institutional mechanisms, and further participation. These include functional Community Development Associations (CDAs), Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs), artisans’ organisations, cooperative societies and other loan credit guarantee schemes, where a particular activity or programme provides the focus for group formation. Okoye (1992) punctured other models of development due to the adoption of wholesale development ideal from outside Nigeria which has proved counterproductive.

6. METHODOLOGY

This paper adopted both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The quantitative data involved the figures (pictorials) which were directly obtained by the researcher in order to provide facts and “thrill of discovery.” In another development, the data obtained from secondary sources (like government publications, journals, books, periodicals, etc.) were flexibly interpreted to offer a broader perspective and resolution of inaccuracies (Rozakis, 2004). 

7. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

1. The slum settlements in Nigerian urban areas remain congested and overcrowded see Figure 2. According to Riddell and Robinson (1995); Mabogunje (2005) while poverty is predominantly a rural phenomenon, urban poverty is pervasive in many countries, especially in those with high rates of urbanisation. Although services are more readily accessible in urban areas, the urban poor, who are often crowded into slums and squatter settlements, suffer from problems of overcrowding, poor sanitation, and lack of drinking water. “While incomes are generally higher in urban areas, so too is the poverty-line.”

Figure-2. Overcrowded Obalende, Lagos.

Source: Field survey, 2018.

2. There is poor environmental management with high pollution of air and water (reservoirs, streams, wells, etc. as in Figure 3 in the course of improper refuse disposal. Putting this into consideration, diseases like gastro-enteritis, typhoid, malaria, and cholera is prevalence in the slum.

Figure-3. Poor environmental condition of mushin-ajegunle, lagos metropolis.

Source: Field survey, 2017.

3. Inadequate critical infrastructures. This evidently manifests in the absence of water supply, electricity, mortgage housing, standard schools and hospitals, and amongst others. Residents, therefore, resort to an alternative source of water supply see Figure 3. For instance, the urban governments (i.e. State and Local) have been guilty of non-provision of critical infrastructures like adequate  power supply (Bahadure and Bahadure, 2012; Lourens, 2018) safe drinking  water, storm water  drains, sanitation  and transportation facilities,  and social  amenities like  motorable roads, education and health services in the semi-urban centres.

Figure-4. Source of Water Supply in Coal Camp, Enugu and Drainages used as Public Toilet in Kabawa-Lokoja.

Source: Field survey, 2017; Kwara News, 2018.

4. Improper development project supervision and abandonment of development programmes. The people of Gbeleyi in the Idimu part of Lagos State have lamented that the abandonment of a major road project which has crippled the socio-economic activities in the community. Also, Berger – Alagbole – Akute – Agbado – Sango in Abeokuta road dualization project has been abandoned by the government of Ogun State. BUK Panshekara road in Kano is not also exempted.
5. The explosion of road-side shops, marketing, table-top displays of petty-trading wares; Kiosks thereby blocking major streets and free-flow of traffic (Ajaegbu, 2000).

8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Many of the developing countries of the world from the 1980s have their engine of economic growth reduced, thereby breaking the fence of economic prosperity for poverty and raising an urgent question of addressing all sectors (rural, urban and semi-urban areas). In Nigeria, the slum is on the increase due to the country’s planning structures and approach of implementation which needed to be overhauled to in order “…to take proper cognizance of the country’s needs vis-à-vis its resources and executive capacity.” This is because there is a long list of outdated National Urban Development Plans and policies which lack the most important quantitative and qualitative analysis and real resources for implementation. So, there cannot be any meaningful harmonious co-existence and security when the chunk population of a nation only perceives development without tasting it. Consequent upon the above, it is recommended that:

1. The government and development partners should conduct a special population census to accurately estimate in quantitative and qualitative manners the housing needs of the urban poor and their multi-faceted nature.
2. The federal government should reawaken the enforcement of monthly environmental sanitation by the Federal Ministry of Environment, State Ministry of Environment and Public Health Department across the local governments in Nigeria. This will halt and reverse environmental degradation, and arresting and prosecution of polluters.
3. Nigeria should enforce tough environmental laws, regulations and standards in order to hold polluters accountable.
4. The government at all levels and development partners should ensure the provision of functional critical infrastructures and social services in all sectors of urban settlements in consonance with developed settings in the 21st century.
5. Emphasis should shift from clientele planning to target-driven planning which the Poverty Intervention-Focused Approach canvassed for. That implies the development of plans in which the people being planned for make sufficient input into the process.
6. There should be critical review and redesigning of National Urban Development Policy, National Housing Policy, Environmental Protection Laws and other urban development programmes in Nigeria.
7. Finally, local government financial autonomy should be encouraged and improved in its entirety.

Funding: The research was not funded by any organisation but was individually supported by Mrs. Raliat Abeke Jegede and Aunty Omii Ebele Nwankwo both of the Training School, Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria, Ikeja-Lagos, Nigeria.

Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

REFERENCES

Adelekan, I.O., 2010. Vulnerability of poor urban coastal communities to flooding in Lagos, Nigeria. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2): 433-450.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247810380141.

Adewale, K.L., 2015. The forefathers dream for Nigeria. Ibadan: Leaders Printers.

Ado, M., 2017. Urbanization challenges in the 21st century Nigeria: The issues. Geography Research Review, 12(3): 60 – 79.

Afolabi, J.F., 2017. The poor we have with us always. Bayero University, Kano Professorial Inaugural Lecture Series, No. 22, 26th October.

Agono, C.M., 2017. Where has the rural people gone wrong in Nigeria? Nasarawa: Tempo Publishers.

Ajaegbu, H.I., 2000. Urbanisation, urban development and prospects, In, H.I. Ajaegbu, B.J. ST. Matthew-Daniel & O.E. Uya (Eds.), Nigeria, a people united, a future assured: Vol. 1, A compendium. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Information.

Akinwotu, E., 2017. The rural-urban divides in Nigeria. The Guardian Newspaper.

Amsden, A.H., 2010. Say’s law, poverty persistence, and employment neglect. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 11(1): 57-66.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19452820903481434.

Aribigbola, A. and O.I. Ayeniyo, 2012. Sites-and-services as a strategy for achieving adequate housing in Nigeria in the 21st century. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2): 126-132.

Babanyara, Y., H. Usman and U. Saleh, 2010. An overview of urban poverty and environmental problems in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 31(2): 135-143.

Bahadure, P. and S. Bahadure, 2012. Sustainable urban development in India: Challenge & Approaches. In Conference proceedings on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering Conference held on 21st – 23rd June, 712-720. Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering Conference held on 21st – 23rd June, pp: 712-720.

Bloch, R., J. Monroy, S. Fox and A. Ojo, 2015. Urbanisation and urban expansion in Nigeria. Urbanisation Research Nigeria (URN) Research Report. London, GB: ICF International.

Catalán, B., D. Saurí and P. Serra, 2008. Urban sprawl in the mediterranean?: Patterns of growth and change in the Barcelona Metropolitan Region 1993–2000. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85(3-4): 174-184.

Chambers, R., 1995. Poverty and livelihoods: Whose reality counts? Environment and Urbanization, 7(1): 173-204.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789500700106.

Cohen, B., 2006. Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technology in Society, 28(1-2): 63-80.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.005.

Davis, K., 1965. The urbanization of the human population. Scientific American, 213(3): 40-53.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0965-40.

Dawson, N., A. Martin and T. Sikor, 2016. Green revolution in sub-saharan africa: Implications of imposed innovation for the wellbeing of rural smallholders. World Development, 78: 204-218.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.008.

Egboje, M.J., 2018. The unending challenges of rural sector in Nigeria. Bata-Kano: Abdullahi Karaye Printers.

Escobar, A., 2011. Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world . Princeton: University Press.

FGN, 2010. Nigeria at 50: A compendium. Abuja: Federal Republic of Nigeria.

FGN, 2014. Nigeria at 100: The journey so far. Abuja: National Planning Commission.

Gkartzios, M. and M. Scott, 2010. Residential mobilities and house building in rural ireland: Evidence from three case studies. Sociologia Ruralis, 50(1): 64-84.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2009.00502.x.

Hammond, L., 2008. Strategies of invisibilization: How Ethiopia's resettlement programme hides the poorest of the poor. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(4): 517-536.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen041.

Hnatkovskaa, V. and A. Lahiri, 2013. The rural-urban divide in India. London: International Growth Centre, Working Paper.

Ibietan, J. and O. Ekhosuehi, 2013. Trends in development planning in Nigeria: 1962 to 2012. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 15(4): 297-311.

Idike, A.A., 1992. Rural development in Nigeria: An overview, In M.S.O. Olisa & J.I.Obiukwu (Eds.), Rural development in Nigeria: Dynamics and Strategies. Awka: MEKSLINK Publishers. pp: 65 – 106.

Igbaja, S.J., 2012. The impact of public investment on poverty reduction in Nigeria. A B.Sc. Project Submitted to the Department of Economics, Kwara State: University of Ilorin.

Indrawati, S.M., 2014. Opening remarks at the international Conference on Urban China: Toward efficient, inclusive and sustainable urbanisation at Beijin, March 25. The World Bank Group.

Jiboye, A.D., 2011. Sustainable urbanization: Issues and challenges for effective urban governance in Nigeria. Journal of sustainable Development, 4(6): 211-221.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v4n6p211.

Khalifa, M.A., 2015. Evolution of informal settlements upgrading strategies in Egypt: From negligence to participatory development. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 6(4): 1151-1159.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2015.04.008.

Lamond, J., B.K. Awuah, E. Lewis, R. Bloch and B.J. Falade, 2015. Urban land, planning and governance systems in Nigeria. Urbanisation research Nigeria (URN) Research Report. London: ICF International.

Lourens, K., 2018. The impact of 100kwh free electricity on meeting the energy needs of poor urban households. A Published Doctoral Dissertation.

Lyneham, S., 1998. The great divide in the 2020 megacity: Urbanisation trends, problems and opportunities. In, Australian Development Studies Network (Ed.), Urban Infrastructure and Development. Australian National University: Development Bulletin, 46:  9 – 13.

Mabogunje, A.L., 1990. Urban planning and the post-colonial state in Africa: A Research Overview 1. African Studies Review, 33(2): 121-203.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/524471.

Mabogunje, A.L., 2005. Global urban poverty research agenda: The African case. In a Seminar on “Global Urban Poverty: Setting the Research Agenda” Organised by the Comparative Urban Studies Project of the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars held in Washington DC on Thursday. 15.

Mansuri, M. and V. Rao, 2004. Community-based and driven development: A critical review. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No 3209.

Matthews, Z., A. Channon, S. Neal, D. Osrin, N. Madise and W. Stones, 2010. Examining the" urban advantage" in maternal health care in developing countries. PLoS Medicine, 7(9): e1000327.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000327.

Moughalu, L.N., 1992. Planning and administration of rural development in Nigeria: The missing link, In M.S.O. Olisa & J.I. Obiukwu (Ed.), Rural development in Nigeria: Dynamics and Strategies. Awka: MEKSLINK Publishers. pp: 129 -142.

Nelson, R.R., 2013. National innovation systems: It is. Regional innovation and global. Routledge. pp: 19-34.

Ofuebe, C., 1992. Organising the Nigerian peasantry for rural development: The case for effective education in rural co-operatives. In, M.S.O. Olisa & J.I. Obiukwu (Eds.), Rural Development in Nigeria: Dynamics and strategies.Awka: MEKSLINK Publishers. pp: 176– 182.

Ogbazi, J.O., 1992. Maintenance of rural physical infrastructures through capital improvement programming. In, M.S.O. Olisa & J.I. Obiukwu (Eds.), Rural development in Nigeria: Dynamics and strategies. Awka: MEKSLINK Publishers. pp: 232 – 249.

Ogbundinkpa, A., 1992. Quest for Nigeria’s rural technological development: The way out. In, M.S.O. Olisa & J.I. Obiukwu (Eds.), Rural development in Nigeria: Dynamics and strategies. Awka: MEKSLINK Publishers. pp: 165 – 175.

Okoye, J.C., 1992. The rural content of Nigeria’s development plan. In, M.S.O. Olisa & J. I. Obiukwu (Eds.), Rural development in Nigeria: Dynamics and strategies. Awka:             MEKSLINK Publishers, pp: 107-126.

Okupe, L., 2002. Private sector initiative in housing development in Nigeria–How feasible. Housing Today, 1(6): 21-26.

Olotuah, A. and S. Bobadoye, 2009. Sustainable housing provision for the urban poor: A review of public sector intervention in Nigeria. The Built and Human Environment Review, 2(1): 51-63.

Omale, I., 2005. Policies and strategies for rural development in Nigeria:  From the colonial era to the era of DFRII in the mid-80s to the early 1990s, In I. Omale & J. Ebiloma (Eds.), Principles and practice of community development in Nigeria. Makurdi: Aboki Publishers.

Opoko, P.A. and A. Oluwatayo, 2014. Trends in urbanisation: Implication for planning and low-income housing delivery in Lagos, Nigeria. Architecture Research, 4(1A): 15-26.

Parker, A.M., 1999. Decentralisation: The way forward for rural development? Policy Research Working Paper. Available from https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-1475.

Paul, O., M. Agba and D. Chukwurah, 2014. Rural development programmes and rural Underdevelopment in Nigeria: A rethink. International Journal of Public Administration and Management Research, 2(4): 1-14.

Paul, O.S. and O.O. Samuel, 2013. Rural development policies and the challenges of realizing the millennium development goals in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2): 643-648.

Porter, G., 2002. Living in a walking world: Rural mobility and social equity issues in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 30(2): 285-300.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00106-1.

Prahalad, C.K. and A. Hammond, 2002. Serving the world's poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9): 48-59.

Riddell, R.C. and M. Robinson, 1995. Non-governmental organisations and rural poverty alleviation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rodney, W., 1972. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Washington, D.C: Howard University Press.

Rondinelli, D.A., 2013. Development projects as policy experiments: An adaptive approach to development administration . London: Routledge.

Rozakis, L.E., 2004. The complete idiot’s guide to research methods. America: Alpha Penguin Group Inc.

Sachs, J., 2005. The end of poverty: How we can make it happen in our lifetime. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Sattelberger, J. and V. Neumann, 2017. Urban poverty: New challenges for growing cities. KfW Development Research in Brief. Available from https://www.kfw- entwicklungsbank.de › PDF› Download-Center › 2017.

Satterthwaite, D., 2001. Reducing urban poverty: Constraints on the effectiveness of aid agencies and development banks and some suggestions for change. Environment and Urbanization, 13(1): 137-157.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1630/095624701101285531.

Tanko, A., 2017. Urbanisation and rise of slums: An imbalance between urban growth and urban development. Green Habitat Initiative Publishers.

Tedele, K.V., 2018. Untapped resources and development of rural communities. Agricultural Development Research, 5(3): 40-59.

The World Bank, 2014. Toward efficient, inclusive, and sustainable urbanisation. Washington DC: Development Research Center of the State Council, the People’s Republic of China.

Uphoff, N., 1984. Participation in development initiatives; fitting projects to people. In Cernes, M. (ed.). Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Uphoff, N., 1991. A field methodology for participatory self-evaluation. Community Development Journal, 26(4): 271-285.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/26.4.271.

Upokawo, D., 2018. Development programmes and the expected development. International Journal of Development Studies, 3(2): 70-89.

Zipin, L., S. Sellar, M. Brennan and T. Gale, 2015. Educating for futures in marginalized regions: A sociological framework for rethinking and researching aspirations. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(3): 227-246.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.839376.

Zubairu, M., 2015. A case study from Nigeria: Development and implementation of Nigerian National Urban Development Policy, 2012. A Paper Presented at the Incheon Metropolitan City First International Conference on National Urban Policy: Towards Smarter and Greener Cities. 14-15 December 2015, Incheon, Republic of Korea.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Public Policy and Administration Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.