Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences ( 2010) Vol 2, No 1, 88-111

Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development

in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach
Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University
(Abraka, Nigeria)

Abstract: This paper is aimed at examining the imbalances in the living

conditions of the urban and rural dwellers and the determination of the
rural poor to bridge this gap through self-help development activities.
The odds against rural development in Nigeria were rather immense. The
configurations of government plans were tailored strictly to facilitate the
exploitation of the natural resources of the rural areas for the
development of the few urban centres. Consequently, most of the initial
infrastructural development in Nigeria were skewed in favour of the urban
areas to the detriment of the rural areas where the majority resided and
inadvertently created a dualism. Since the government was “far” from the
rural areas in terms of development and with the realization that
government alone cannot provide all their needs, the people had to learn
to “do-it-themselves”. This alternative strategy of self-help and the
communitarian philosophy of the people has not only accelerated the level
of growth but has also spread the benefits of development to the rural
areas in Nigeria. However, where the government is properly playing its
expected role, self-help activities should complement rural development
and not replacing it.

1. Introduction

One of the major characteristics of the developing

countries is the increasing disparity between the urban and
rural areas. This gap according to Igboeli (1992) has its
roots in the neo-classical economic theories which presumed
that “development can be accelerated by concentrating
investments in the cities and that rural poverty will be
ameliorated by the trickle down of benefits from the urban
industrial growth”. With the so-called growth-centred
strategy, the developing countries have continued to witness
imbalances in the living conditions between the urban and
rural dwellers. Consequently, development theories over the
years have been searching for alternative strategies that

88
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

would not only accelerate growth but also spread the

benefits of development to the rural areas.
The distortion of Nigeria’s development pattern has
been sufficiently highlighted in the relevant literature.
Aboyade (1980) has specifically decried the profound
dualism between the urban and rural areas and the
proportionate costs and consequences of rural
infrastructural lag behind urban modernism. Onimode
(1982) has even gone much further to pinpoint the historical
origin of the dualism in contemporary Nigeria between the
rural and urban areas. According to Onimode (1982:63)
some eighty percent of the population in rural areas either
had no medical services or made do with rudimentary
facilities scattered over wide distances.
Olatunbosun’s volume, Nigeria’s Neglected Rural
Majority, is an indictment of both colonial and independent
governments not only for neglecting the majority who live in
the rural areas but also for “milking them dry” for the
benefits of the British metropolis and the urban minority in
Nigeria. Nigeria’s development financing has been derived
mainly from direct and indirect taxation of rural people who
have benefited little or nothing from economic development
activities. The author argues for a radical change in
priorities and in attitudes toward the rural sector as an
economic and social necessity.
Similarly, Muoghalu (1992) contended that rural
development has become a national imperative in Nigeria
and gave the following reasons for his position. His first
argument stems from the proportion of the national
population resident in the rural areas of Nigeria. That in
1963 census, 80.7% of the national population were resident
in the rural areas. By 1985, this proportion has gone down
to 70.13% and by 1990; it is expected to drop to 69%. It is
therefore clear that dispite our high level of urbanization,
Nigeria remains largely rural.
Secondly, is the realization that a dangerous gap exists
in the development levels of both the urban and rural areas.
This seems to be threatening the political and social stability
of the country. Despite having the overwhelming proportion
of our national population, the rural areas are characterized
by pervasive and endemic poverty, manifested by widespread

89
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

hunger, malnutrition, poor health, general lack of access to

formal education, livable housing and various forms of social
and political solution compared with their urban
counterparts.
Thirdly, it is being recognized that the problems of our
urban centers cannot be solved unless those of the rural
areas are solved, or at least contained. These problems
emanated from the unprecedented rural-urban migration
which in turn derives from rural stagnation or
underdevelopment, poverty and unemployment. With our
major cities growing at annual rates ranging from 5-17.5%,
they suffer from severe pressures on available resources
thereby worsening already bad situations in urban
employment, management, service delivery and livability.
The rural areas on the other hand experience labour and
capital flight to the cities. Therefore, rural development is
directed at both getting the migrants back to the rural areas
and preventing further streams of migrants from leaving the
rural areas.
Consequently, between 1973 and 2000, the federal
government of Nigeria launched successively, five national
rural development programmes with more than eight
supportive schemes. The low level of infrastructural and
human capital development of these rural areas is clear
signs of the weaknesses and ineffectiveness of these
programmes and schemes. The decay and worsening rural
conditions and the attendant increasing rural-urban
migration are evident in the long years of neglect of these
areas.
Despite the efforts made in the past to effect rural
development, the conditions of the rural dwellers have not
improved, rather they have further deteriorated. It is against
this background that the paper examines “self-help
approach” as a veritable tool for sustainable rural
development in Nigeria. Since the government (federal, state
and local) was “far” from the rural areas in terms of
development and with the realization that government alone
cannot provide all their needs, the people had to learn to
“do-it-themselves”. However, where government is properly
playing its expected role, self-help activities should
complement rural development, not replacing it.

90
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

2. Self-Help Conceptualized

Community development includes all strategies,

interventions or coordinated activities at the community level
aimed at bringing about social and economic development.
Idiode (1989) however asserted that three major approaches
to community development in Nigeria have been identified –
the extension approach, the project approach and the service
approach. The extension approach involves directly teaching
the rural people improved methods and techniques of either
farming, health care or how to read and write. The
Ministries of Agriculture and Health use this approach. The
project approach to community development is generally
motivated by the government’s desire to improve the
economic conditions in the rural areas. It is, therefore,
characterized by the establishment of economic ventures,
such as government farms or rural industries. In the
government circles in Nigeria, the project approach to
community development is usually referred to as “rural
development.”
The service approach to community development calls
for the active participation and initiative of the local people.
Used as the main strategy for community development in
Nigeria. The service approach concentrates on the provision
of social amenities such as postal agencies, maternity
centres, pipe-borne water, dispensaries, electricity and so
on, in the rural areas. These are provided at the initiative of
the community itself. The service approach to community
development is known as “self-help” in Nigeria. It is at this
level that self-help programmes are most apparent.
Self-help development according to Udoye (1992),
should be both an object (what) and a process (how). As an
object, it should be an induced change for the achievement
of community improvement. As a process, it should be a
well articulated programme and effort to assist individuals to
acquire attitudes, skills and concepts required for their
democratic participation in the effective solution of as wide a
range of community improvement problems as possible, in
order of priority determined by their increasing level of
competence. For the United Nations (1956), it is the process
by which the efforts of the people themselves are united with

91
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

those of the governmental authorities to improve the

economic, social and cultural conditions of the communities,
to integrate these communities in the life of the nation and
enable them to contribute fully to national progress.
Since development is an on-going process, there is
probably no community in the world that would not benefit
from further development (Sautoy, 1970). The initiative for
the attainment of this process-goal equation could derive
from several sources; the individual, the community, socio-
cultural organizations, institutions, governments or the
government acting in concert with any of these bodies. Self-
help should have its roots fully entrenched within the socio-
cultural and economic milieu within which it is to be
practiced. It is the internal dynamics of these socio-cultural
and political praxis that galvanise and strengthen motivation
to achieve developmental goals. An improper articulation of
this perspective may ultimately weaken group cohesion and
hence, the propensity to achieve development targets.
For purposes of convenience and because of
relatedness, community development and self-help will be
used interchangeably in this paper to describe the service
approach to community development. Besides, both terms
are so used in the community development literature on
Nigeria. The attention given to self-help in this paper stems
from the fact that it enables us to identify, as a movement,
the massive local involvement which has helped to
popularize the initiatives of the rural people in efforts to
develop their areas. More than ever before, self-help still
attracts a great deal of attention in the rural areas as it is
used by the people and the government as a sort of
mobilizational force to induce the people to work together for
the common good of their community.

3. Evolution of Self-Help Development Activities in

Nigeria

That community participation in rural project

development is an important element and a sure way to the
speedy development of the rural areas in Nigeria is well
attested to in development literature (Udoye, 1986 and 1987;
Muoghalu, 1986; Okafor, 1984). The need to develop the
rural areas and to a large extent, reduce the contrasting

92
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

scenario of urban opulence and rural decadence has equally

received ample documentation in literature (Hansen and
Schulz, 1981). The evolution of the practice of self-help
development activities has the following periodic dimensions;
the pre-colonial, the colonial up to 1939, the period from
1940 to the Nigerian Civil War, the civil war years and the
post civil war years to the present democratic settings.
Before the onset of colonial administration,
communities across Nigeria had employed communal efforts
as the mechanism for mobilizing community resources to
provide physical improvement and functional facilities in the
social, political and economic aspects of their lives.
Communal labour was employed in constructing
homesteads, clearing farm lands, roads or path way,
construction of bridges and for the provision of other social
infrastructural facilities required by the people. Some of the
relevant institutions were the age-grades and the village
councils. Though some of these institutions have persisted,
the difference between self-help activities undertaken in the
past and those prosecuted today are not hard to find.
Differences exist in the scope of the operations, equipment
utilized and the extent of government involvement.
As Idode (1989) observed, in the past, self help efforts
in Nigeria particularly in Bendel State now Edo and Delta
States mainly related to the construction of footpaths or
roads, dredging of rivers and streams, clearing of public land
and market places. Later, Idode further observed, the scope
of operation included the building of schools and market
stalls. Projects such as pipe-borne water, road tarring,
dispensaries, cottage hospitals and so on, were not usually
attempted. Furthermore he continued, equipment used was
simple; hoes, cutlasses, diggers and shovels were generally
utilized. The construction of walls did not follow any
standard measurements as the people used their
imagination to plan and construct such projects. At this
stage, there was little or no government involvement as the
planning and execution of these self-help projects was the
sole responsibility of the people. Where the government was
involved at all, was for the purposes of taking over completed
projects for operation or maintenance. But where neither

93
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

the state government nor the local government councils were

interested in such project, the missionaries took over.
During the colonial period, community development
efforts took a compulsive and coercive turn. The alien
governmental apparatus with its clientele (Warrant Chief)
arrangement, extorted taxes and compulsory labour from the
people. Taxation by itself questioned the rationality of
further labour conscription for road and other
infrastructural development at the instance of the District
Commissioner. The contradictions in the new development
effort, therefore, did not fire the corporate imagination of the
people and this was given expression by the tax debacle of
1929, popularly known as the Aba women riot. It question
the whole essence of the tax laws as established then, the
imposition of the Roads and River Ordinance and the
apparent shirking of development responsibility by a
government that had already extorted taxes for this purpose.
Apart from the establishment of governmental
exploitative infrastructural apparatus, linking the major
seats of government through forced labour, no serious self-
help programmes eliciting popular participation was
encouraged. Any development that occurred was a by-
product of profit (Hancock, 1942). Nonetheless at very local
levels, the family, interfamily and village settings, the pre-
colonial trappings of mutual assistance through self-help
persisted for the construction of homesteads, clearing
farmlands, clearing water points and for providing other
socially felt needs. Church organizations were also able to
cooperate with members for the building of schools.
By the late 1940’s however, an element of modern
community concept in rural development was introduced in
the form of mass mobilization for self-help activities. This
was heralded by the abrogation in Britain of the Colonial
Development Act which was replaced by the Development
and Welfare Act in 1939. As rightly noted by Arndt, (1981),
this gave a positive economic and social content to the
philosophy of colonial trusteeship by affirming the need for
minimum standards of nutrition health and education. At
the local level, the earlier Native Authority Councils were
replaced by the Country Council. Suffice it to say that this
development led to the establishment of Community
Development Division at the local level and thus became an

94
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

important organ of government, charged with the

responsibility of channeling and coordinating the efforts of
the people towards promoting social and economic
development (Onwuzuluike, 1987). The Development and
Welfare Fund provided for the colonies by the British
Government was thus able to permeate to the grassroots
level through this third tier of government..
By the late 1940’s however, an element of modern
community concept in rural development was introduced in
the form of mass mobilization for self-help activities. This
was heralded by the abrogation in Britain of the Colonial
Development Act which was replaced by the Development
and Welfare Act in 1939. As rightly noted by Arndt (1981)
this gave a positive economic and social content to the
philosophy of colonial trusteeship by affirming the need for
minimum standards of nutrition, health and education. At
the local level, the earlier native authority councils were
replaced by the Country Council. Suffice it to say that this
development led to the establishment of Community
Development Division at the local level and thus became an
important organ of government, charged with the
responsibility of channeling and coordinating the efforts of
the people towards promoting social and economic
development (Onwuzuluike, 1987). The Development and
Welfare Fund provided for the colonies by the British
Government was thus able to permeate to the grassroots
level, through this third tier of government
By the beginning of the war in 1967, the observations
of Sir James Robertson, aptly typified the state of
development needs and awareness and the immense role the
governments expected self-help activities to play to
compliment their efforts. After the Nigerian Civil War (1967-
1970), the need for massive reconstruction work further
aroused the people a revival of the spirit of self-help which is
deeply rooted in their rich traditions. Most communities
realized that the only way for immediate reconstruction of
the war ravaged facilities was through self-help. This period
also marked the evolution of a multiplicity of social clubs
with aims consonant with social insurance and self-help.
Further efforts by government to motivate development at
the grassroots, led to the enactment of the 1976 Local

95
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

Government Reform to create new growth centres for further

spatial spread of development. In addition is the creation at
the state level of local government service commission, the
conferment of wider powers and functions to the Local
Governments by the 1979 constitution and the enactment of
the special Development Fund Law, aimed at generating
more funds for community development at the local level.
Thus, deliberate government support became necessary to
increase the spate of development activities by the various
communities.
The period between 1973 and 2007 marked a
watershed in rural development efforts in Nigeria. The
period witnessed deliberate government efforts at mobilizing
the people for rural development. A number of task forces
and bodies were set up to oversee, organize and to direct
partnership with the people on self-help activities. They
include: Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural infrastructure
(DFRRI), Rural Electrification Schemes; Credit Schemes to
small holders through various specialized institutions such
as People’s Bank, Agricultural and Cooperative Development
Bank, Community Banks, NERFUND, SME Credit Schemes,
the Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP),
Universal Primary Education Schemes and Low Cost
Housing Schemes, Health Scheme as the Primary Health
Care Programme, National Directorate of Employment
(NDE), Better Life for Rural Women Programme as well as
the Family Support Programme (FSP).
More recent programmes include the National Poverty
Eradication Programme (NAPEP) as well as the Small and
Medium Industries Equity Investment Schemes (SMIEIS).
The various state governments had also articulated blue-
prints on rural development, adopting the Integrated Rural
Development Strategy as their strategic option to carry
development to the masses of the people. From the fore-
going historical analysis, two principles underlying self-help
activities have emerged. These are (a) the principle of
individual and corporate survival and (b) the principle of
societal “felt need”. These two principles have variously
acted as the motive force in organizing and mobilizing the
people in their pursuit of self development.
4. Lessons From Experience in Delta State: Self-help
Activities Among Communities in Urhoboland

96
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

This study so far has made exposition of the inner

dynamics of self-help programmes in Nigeria. It has also
established the fact that the survival instinct and the
societal felt-needs inform most self-help activities. This
community-based or community-dictated development
approach involves the movement of the people designed to
promote better living for the whole community with the
active participation of, and if possible on the initiative of the
community concerned. According to Dunham (1970:172),
community development is not concerned with anyone
aspect of life such as agriculture, business, health or
education: it is concerned with the total community life and
needs. Ideally, it involves all the members of the community
and requires their fullest participation in first making and
then implementing decisions. The people work together to
shape their future. As Williams (1978:16) asserted,
community development entails that the people themselves
exert (their own efforts along side those of government
authorities to improve their economic, social and cultural
conditions. Okafor (1984) however observed that if the
initiative is not forthcoming from members of the community
concerned, then the government can stimulate their interest
through various strategies, including enlightenment
campaigns, the initiation of projects and financial aid for
specific projects.

Williams (1978: 17) has identified four essential

elements in the complex process of community development:
“(a) it encourages analysis of local problems with a view to
improving the level of living and as much as possible on the
initiative of those concerned; (b) it provides technical and
other services in ways which encourage initiative and
cooperation; (c) it considers the local community, the basic
unit for planning and development; and (d) it diffuses the
decision-making power by emphasizing the principle that
those affected by community change should themselves
select and manage such change.”

The contribution of self-help development activities to

rural development depends largely on the existence of
committed local leaders in the rural areas concerned as well

97
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

as the extent to which government encourages local planning

and participation. The wide variations in the scope and
impact of self-help activities on the welfare of rural dwellers
in different parts of the study areas, reflect the nature of
community leadership and their inclination towards self-help
programmes. This implies that in those areas where there
are no effective self-help groups, community development
activities have not made much impact on the social welfare
of the rural population.

It is often taken for granted that people in the local

communities will at one level or the other participate in the
development of their communities. Little attention is
therefore paid to their level of participation and the outsiders
be it government, planners, companies and individuals carry
on the development business as if the community is the
problem and they are the solution. The result of this, as
expected is that most projects designed by the government to
develop these rural areas, often fail to achieve totally the set
objectives.

Every community has a traditional structure to ensure

the participation of inhabitants in projects and programmes
that have positive effects on the life of the majority. It has
been established in this study that projects identified,
planned, executed and managed by the community
themselves; outlive those imposed by a benefactor with little
or no community participation. Sustainable development is
what every community wants, and as of right deserve;
anything less is not development. Our concern now, is to
apply same to definite self-help activities of communities to
see the impact of these dynamic forces in the attainment of
projected goals.
This section is the outcome of data collected in 2006
and 2007, in which 280 people in twenty communities in
Ethiope East and West local Government Areas, were
interviewed (11 communities in Ethiope East and 9
communities in Ethiope West, tables 1 and 2). This was to
assess the level of community participation in development
in the areas, as reflected in tables 1 and 2 below. Moreover,
it also provides an overview of the nature of community
development efforts especially their perception of what

98
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

constitute their development, identification of

problems/needs to the final stage of achieving the set goals.
In all, 150 and 130 respondents came from Ethiope East and
West respectively (tables 1 and 2).

Table1: Respondents interviewed on Community Participation in

Development (Ethiope East local Government Area).
Communities No of Male Fema L.G.A Total
responden le
ts
Umeghe 9 5 4 Ethiope 9
East
Ekrejeta 20 16 4 “ 20
Erho 10 6 4 “ 10
Eku 15 8 7 “ 15
Igun 17 12 5 “ 17
Samagidi 10 6 4 “ 10
Oviiorie 18 12 6 “ 18
Isiokolo 15 10 5 “ 15
Okpara Inland 14 9 5 “ 14
Orhoakpo 12 8 4 “ 12
Kokori 10 5 5 “ 10
Total 150 97 53 150

Table 2: Respondents interviewed on community participation in

Development (Ethiope West Local Government Area)
Communities No of Male Fema L.G.A Total

99
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

responden le
ts
Ovade 12 9 7 Ethiope 12
West
Ugbenu 14 9 5 “ 14
Oghara junction 15 10 5 “ 15
Ijomi 10 7 3 “ 10
Idjerhe town 15 9 6 “ 15
Irhodo 12 8 4 “ 12
Okueka 9 5 4 “ 9
Okuodibo 10 7 3 “ 10
Otumara 12 8 4 “ 12
Total 130 130

Tables 3 and 4 below show self-help projects carried

out by some communities in Ethiope East and West Local
Government Areas respectively. These communities did not
receive any support from either the local, state or federal
governments in executing the projects. According to Chief
Mebradu Johnson:
“The projects were executed by the
communities through the money
realized from fund raising for such
projects, donations, fines and so
on”.
“Similarly, the projects executed in
our community (Urhuoka) was
through the sweat and commitment
of and those who were fortunate to
get political appointment” (Chief
Onyewoko G., personal
communication, 2008).

The tables show that of the 395 projects undertaken in

the 20 communities, 68 were roads and bridges projects; 48
were educational projects; non were agricultural projects; 19
were civic center projects; 21 were market and motor park
project; 9 water projects; 6 were health projects, 9 were
communication projects and 15 were drainage projects.
The tables also show that in the study area,
development projects are dominated by projects such as
water supply projects, road, education, market and motor

100
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

park, civic center projects and health care. Pastor

Oghenekaro, J. Moses Uge, madam Ejovwoke, R. contended
that: “the projects reflected the felt needs of the people,
hence the emphasis on them”. The pattern that emerges
from these, is that, in terms of number, the communities
preferences are reflected on the projects they embarked
upon. It is vital to note that agriculture is not reflected in all
the projects executed by the communities studied.

Table 3: Self-Help projects in some communities in Ethiope East

Local Government Area.

Pipe borne water

Roads & Bridges

Grammar school

Primary school

Wells & water

Postal agency

Public latrine
Coop fishing
Community

Dispensary

Town halls

Maternity

Fish pool
Markers

Lighting
Hospital

tanks
Urhuoka 4 1 - - - 1 1 1 - - - 6 - - -

Oria 4 1 - - 1 1 2 1 - - - 5 - - -

Eku 5 2 - 1 - 2 2 1 - 4 - 4 - - -

Kokori 3 2 - - 1 1 2 1 - - 15 2 - - -

Orhoakpo 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 - - 5 2 - - -

Okpara 5 1 - 1 1 2 2 1 - - - 3 - - -
Inland
Ovu 3 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - - - 3 - - -

Okpara 3 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - - - 4 - - -
Waterside
Okurekpo 2 1 - - - 1 1 1 - - - 4 - - -

Igun 2 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - - - 4 - - -

101
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

Total 33 12 - - 6 12 14 10 - 4 20 37 - - -

Table 4: Self-Help projects in some communities in Ethiope West

Local Government Area.

102
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

Pipe borne water

Roads & Bridges

Grammar school

Primary school

Wells & water

Postal agency

Public latrine
Coop fishing
Community

Dispensary

Town halls

Maternity

Fish pool
Markers

Lighting
Hospital

tanks
Orhokpoko 2 1 - - - 1 1 - - - 5 4 - - -

Idjerhe 4 1 - - 1 1 2 1 - - 15 6 - - -

town

Ejenesa 3 1 - - - - 1 1 - - 9 2 - - -

Irodo 4 1 - - - 1 1 1 - - 12 4 - - -

Okuemore 3 - - - - - 1 1 - - 6 4 - - -

Mosogar 4 1 - - 1 1 2 1 - - 8 6 - - -

Ogharefe 5 1 - - - 1 3 1 - - 11 9 - - -

Oghareki 3 1 - - - 1 1 1 - - 10 10 - - -

Ajamuonya 4 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - - 9 8 - - -

vwe

This confirms the position of Okpala (1980) that rural

communities have different perceptions from that of the
government as to what constitutes their development and as
such they do not share government’s enthusiasm for
agricultural development. The communities undertake other

103
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

types of projects that they think are more relevant to their

felt needs and aspirations. Idjerhe, Ekrejeta, Oria, Samagidi,
Ovu, Eku, Igun, Kokiori, Irodo, Mosogar, okpara and Oghara
comities believe:
that development, entails a wide
range of mixed activities and
programmes include projects to
improve health and education, to
expand and improve transportation
and communication and to improve
the general civic infrastructures.

In fact, rural communities do not voluntarily set up

agricultural projects. It is clear from respondents and
personal observation that development projects will, of
course, vary with the requirements and priorities of the
community involved. One of the respondents (Mr. Okobia
Samson) who is a student suggests “the need to make a
distinction between rural development and agricultural
development”.
The respondents also gave reasons for the success of
self-help projects embarked upon in the area. First, that the
development projects were an expression of the people’s
preference, to which they want to spend their money and
energies on. Such decisions were largely influenced by the
prevailing local environment and what the people consider to
be their pressing needs. Secondly, the people derived special
satisfaction from projects which they plan and execute
through communal labour. They see themselves as being
part and parcel of the community and actively contributing
to its development. They are also delighted to see the
practical fruits of t heir collective endeavour. Thirdly, the
high rate of embezzlement of public funds, which usually
characterized the failure of governments in Nigeria, is
avoided in self-help activities because the publicity given to
the projects and the collective nature of the contributions
reduce the chances of misappropriation. These views are
similar to those of Idode (1989) on his reasons for the
success in self-help projects in the then Bendel State.
Among the communities studied, participation in
community activities can be determined in several ways.
First, activities that are carried out essentially at individual

104
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

and family levels, second, activities involving community

participation and thirdly membership in community based
organizations.
As this study has demonstrated, there are many such
organizations in all communities in Urhoboland, ranging
from social clubs (Elite Club at Okpara Waterside and Ighene
Club at Eku), to service and church organizations to mutual
assistance organizations. Of the respondents interviewed in
the area, (52%) belong to at least one community based
organisation and many of them belong to more than one.
Men and women belong to such organizations (48% are men
while women have 42%). While the remaining 10% are
indifferent to such organizations.
In addition to membership, interest in community
maters is shown through contributions to local projects. In
the 2006 survey, 40% respondents reported that they had
contributed to least one project. More men than women
reported such contributions. As to the type of projects, some
respondents (Egbegbedia Thomas, Ukere John, Ajamo Eko
and Umude Uvo). simple said “the development of the town”
while others specified projects such as community secondary
schools, the ovie’s palace and others. The most commonly
reported way of contributing, was to donate money. (78%
made financial of those who contribution while 22%
contributed their service.
Self-help projects have been successful in Urhoboland
simply because, participants see them as their own, meeting
and satisfying their needs. As such 100% involvement is the
case from conception to execution and sustenance of the
facilities.
In this study, we have seen how roads, bridges,
schools, maternity centers, post offices/postal agencies and
town halls have been completed through self-help by the
local people through their various socio-cultural
associations. However, the practice of leaving the rural
areas to cater for themselves through self-help tended to
improve the lots of the relatively rich communities who were
able to contribute more for the execution of self-help
development project. As was the case for Mosogar, Oghara
and to a lesser extent, Okpara Inland.

105
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

This was one of the reasons that led the then Bendel
State Government to appoint Nwanwene Committee to review
the matching grant principle under the “development
administration” system in 1975. The recommendations of
the committee according to Idode (1989), were overtaken by
the local government reforms of 1976 which abolished the
development administration system. In any case, the
unpublished report, called for a review of the matching grant
principle. Since 1977, the principles of quota and equality
have guided the award of grants-in-aid for self-help projects
in the then Bendel State. Under the new arrangement, the
estimated cost of a project may influence the amount of
grant paid but the overwhelming criterion was the principle
of equality.
Idode (1989) however, observed that the mere
introduction of a more equitable system of grant-in-aid did
not solve the problem of inequalities among rural
communities. According to him, the richer communities
were still able to contribute more towards self-help projects
and thus widen the gap between them and the poorer
communities. H e further contended that the government
needed to ensure that adequate grants were paid to all
communities and encourage them to work harder for the
development of their areas, take appropriate steps to site
some viable projects in poorer communities as a means of
improving the standard of living in such areas. Good roads,
health centers, small scale industrial projects are some of
the projects that can be contemplated.
The involvement of everyone or nearly everyone in their
community and commitment to assisting it, does not mean
that there are no conflicts or tensions. On a general note,
Urhobo communities are not homogenous. They are rather
complex with varying groups and factions. Even the
smallest of the communities, has the potential for division
along various structural lines; family and kinship networks,
religious affiliations, occupations and what have you.
However, key potential sources of tension and conflict within
communities are the struggle for Ovieship (kingship) or
chieftaincy titles and land disputes. Good examples of these
cases are the Idjerhe and Mosogar on one hand and
Umiaghwa Abraka and Oruarivie in Abraka Clan on the other
hand. Others include differences between those who are

106
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

living at home and those outside and between the wealthy

elite and the ordinary “grassroots” community members.
Conflicts can also result from perceptions that individuals
are not fulfilling their obligations to the community. There is
also the potential for conflict or disagreement over the
setting of the agenda for development.
The Urhobo of Delta State have a framework of laid-
down conventions or rules by which conflicts are resolved or
managed. They also have a body of rules that define and
quality people’s relationships with each other and the state.
These rules and regulations form the law of the land. In such
communities, there may not be a written constitution, the
basic set of standards which individual members have been
socialized from childhood to conform to and from which
other standards in the culture derive, become the framework
of conflict management and regulation. For example,
conflicts arising within communities such as struggle for
overship( kingship) or chieftaincy titles and land disputes are
resolved by the “Elders’ Council” at the instance of the
community development agents.
The symbolism of authoritative decisions associated
with elders’ cultural trusteeship and customary practices,
has sustained conflict resolution and management in
Urhoboland. The constitution of the king –in- council or of
village or town councils and their legitimacy of interventions
in conflict situations, are well known events in various
communities in the area.
The elders according to Otite and Albert (2001) may
not have physical power to enforce decisions but rely on the
leaders of the various age- grades or youth associations to
bring about and monitor peace on the basis of the negotiated
terms in particular conflicts or of the known institutionalized
forms of conflict management. Kings and chiefs of various
designations and statues, practice their indigenous cultures
admirably in resolving, managing and transforming conflicts
within and between their domains. Yet, those who disagree
with the verdict of these functionaries proceed freely to settle
their conflicts in the modern westernized sector, for example
the courts. This was the case between Umiaghwa in Abraka
and Oruarivie in Abraka clan over their struggle for ovieship
(Kingship).

107
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

Town councils are also agents of conflict prevention,

resolution, transformation or management within and
between communities. The basis for this mode of
intervention is the people’s surviving confidence, trust and
reliance on culture as a means of rallying and mobilizing
people to behave in patterned ways, a condition which can
thus be used to handle conflict problems at the ethnic or
inter-ethnic levels.

5. Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing discussions, a conclusion

could be reached that self-help is a relevant strategy for
rural development in Nigeria. Like the cooperative
movement, the self-help movement in many parts of Nigeria
rest on the rich tradition of the people. We found also that
local communities in Urhoboland in Delta State and other
states in Nigeria, have been undertaking self-help projects
from time immemorial. But the latest development in self-
help activities is the partnership which the government now
forms with the people.
It has been established that there is a relationship
between time related events an the motive force that
sustained self-help development activities in Urhoboland in
Delta State. These motive forces have been idealized to
relate to (a) the instinct of self and corporate survival and (b)
the societal felt need. It is these two principles, which are
known to vary spatially and temporally, that govern the
inner dynamics of self-help activities and thus dictate the
observed spatial variations in the attainment of economic
well-being.
In self-help strategy, intrinsic value is accorded to
participation. This is reflected in the opinions of
development scholars that if development is to benefit the
people, they must participate in planning and implementing
their development plans. In some communities, most people
are mere participants in self-help activities but do not in the
actual sense play a meaningful role in initiating and
controlling development projects in their own interest.
Community elites do not often perceive their interests as
identical with those of the community as a whole though

108
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

sometimes they contribute more than their share both in

terms of financial contributions and individual efforts.
Furthermore, people’s participation cannot be said to
have increased when some development projects were
imposed on them by outsiders who may be ignorant of the
real needs of the communities. In most cases, particularly
where technical assistance or matching grants are made
available to the self-help groups, bureaucratic control over
decision making becomes a prominent feature of self-help
activities.
Lastly, the success of self-help efforts in Nigeria is
sometimes hindered by the corrupt attitude of both
development officials and the community elite. It is a
common feature to hear of various situations where the rural
elite spearhead self-help projects as an avenue for self
enrichment and political gains. Community development
officials in like manner, fall victim to the same offence by
receiving grafts to render services which are supposed to be
given free of charge.

References

109
 Self-Help as a Strategy for Rural Development in Nigeria: A Bottom-Up Approach

Aboyade, O. (1980), “Nigerian Public Enterprises as an Organizational

Dilemma”. Pp. 83-97 Colins, p(ed) Administration for
Development Nigeria. Lagos: Africa Education Press.
Akpomivie, B.O. (2009). Socio-Cultural Associations and the
Development of Urhoboland, Delta State, Nigeria. Unpublished
Ph.D Thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Arndt, H.W. (1981). Economic Development; A Semantic History.
Economic Development and Culture Change, 29(3): 45 7-466.
Aziz, S. (1978). Rural Development: Learning from China. London:
Macmillan Press.
Dunham, A (1970), The Community Organization. New York; Gowell.
Hancock, W.K. (1942). Survey of the British Commonwealth Affairs.
Problems of Economic Policy, 1918-1939, 2:267.
Hansen, W. and Schulz, B. (1981). Imperialism, Dependency and Social
Class. Africa Today. 29(3) 5-36.
Idode, J.B. (1989). Rural Development and Bureaucracy in Nigeria.
Ibadan; Longman Nigeria.
Igboeli, M.O. (1992). “Self-help as a Strategy for Rural Development: A
Critique” in Olisa, M.S.O. and Obiukwu, J.I. (eds), Rural
Development in Nigeria: Dynamics and Strategy. Awka; Mekslink
Publishers.
Muoghalu, L.N. (1992). “Rural Development in Nigeria: A Review of
Previous Initiatives” in Olisa, M.S.O. and Obiukwu, J.I. (eds)
Rural Development in Nigeria: Dynamics and strategies: Awka;
Meklinks Publishers.
Okpala, D.C.I. (1980). Towards a Better Conceptualization of Rural
Community Development; Empirical Findings from Nigeria.
Human Organisation, 39(2): 161-167. society for Applied
Anthropology.
Okafor, F.C (1984a), “Dimensions of Community Development Projects
in Bendel State, Nigeria”. Public Administration and Development,
4:249-258.
Okafor, F.C (1984c), “ Integrated Rural Development Planning in Nigeria:
A Spatial Dimension” Cahiers d, Etudes Africaene, 20:83-95.
Olatubosun, D. (1975). Nigerian Neglected Rural Majority. Ibadan;
Oxford University Press.
Onimode, B. (1982). Imperialism and Underdevelopment in Nigeria. The
Dialectics of Mass Poverty. London: Zed Press.
Onokerhoraye, A. G and Okafor, F.C (1994), Rural Development and
Planning for Africa. Benin-City: University of Benin Press.
Onwuzulike, P.N. (1987). Community Development in Adazi-Nnukwu.
Unpublished N.C.E. Project.

110
 Akpomuvie, Orhioghene Benedict, Delta State University (Abraka,
Nigeria)

Otite, O (2001), Aspects of Conflicts in Theory and Practice in Nigeria”

in Otite, O. and Albert, I.O (eds), Community Conflicts in Nigeria.
Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited.
Robertson, J. (1963). The Challenge of Underdeveloped Territories.
Journal of African Affairs, 62(248): 236-244.
Rodney, W. (1972). How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Dares Salam:
Tanzanian Publishing House.
Udoye, E.E. (1992). “Grassroots Involvement in Rural Development” in
Olisa, M.S.O. and Obiukwu, J.I. (eds) Rural Development in
Nigeria: Dynamics and Strategies. Awka; Mekslink Publishers.
United Nations Organisation (1956). Twentieth Report of the
Administrative Committee on Coordination to the Economic and
Social council, 24th Session, Anex III, Docuemtn E/2931, Oct 18.
Waterson, A. (1965). Development Planning: Lesson of Experience.
Baltimore; John Hopkin University Press.
Williams, G. (1976). Nigeria Economy and History. London; Rex Collins
Williams, S.K.T. (1978). Rural Development in Nigeria. Ife; University
of Ife Press.

111