MEMBERSHIP PARTICIPATION AND SUSTAINABILITY OF GOVERNMENT-DRIVEN RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN ABIA STATE OF NIGERIA.

• Author: Uche, Okala Agwu

1. Introduction

   This paper explores issues underlying the sustainability of government-driven rural development projects and argues that if rural development projects are to be sustained, we must, among other things:

   --advocate for the inclusion of the community members in decision-making processes;

   --advocate for membership participation in all spheres of the project in the development process;

   --focus more on embarking on projects that address the felt needs of the benefiting communities;

   --adopt an effective monitoring of projects from inception to completion.

   One of the major challenges of developing countries such as Nigeria is how to improve the quality of life of the citizens. Over 1.15 billion people in developing countries live below the poverty line (US $350 per annum) and the majority of them reside in rural areas which constitute about 80% of their national population (World Bank, 2000). Development implies an increase in the capacity of a people to produce, to enable them to solve their own problems and meet their own needs. This capacity is inherent in the people, and depends on a people's outlook, knowledge and training to solve problems posed by their environment by the systematic use of scientific methods (Ngoddy, 1991). Rural development emphasizes the development of the moral, social, political and economic potentialities of rural communities to enhance their economic self-reliance through the provision of appropriate infrastructures such as pipe borne water, electricity supply, good roads, small scale industries, medical facilities, increase in political consciousness and participation and promotion of their moral and social wellbeing (Ezeani and Atodo, 2010). It is all about positive change and overall transformation of the rural environment.

   In spite of the laudable development programs developed by the past and present government, such as Operation Feed the Nation (OFN), Directorate for Food, Roads, and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI), Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), and the National Economic Empowerment Strategy (NEEDS), among others, which are channeled towards rural development, this objective has remained a mirage as evidenced in the wanton rural--urban migration, lack of basic social amenities and low income level.

   Rural development policies and programs in Nigeria mostly emanated from the top and, in most cases, the central bureaucracy continues to dominate rural policy decision-making (Okafor, 2003). The community members at the grass-roots level are excluded from rural policy decision-making processes. Eboh (1995) observed that the strategies for achieving rural development in Nigeria include investing in human development to alleviate poverty, human misery and stabilize population, ensuring food security through rural compensation measures, creating incentives for community growth and employment by improving access to production resources and institutional services, empowering rural people via participatory rural community oriented development that is woven around local principles, skills and technologies and protecting the environment by generating and facilitating appropriate resource management systems.

   Successive governments have established special development agencies for rural development in Nigeria (Ibeanu, 2008). These agencies have commissioned various projects in the rural areas. In spite of the existence of government driven-rural development projects, there appears to be insufficient field-based information regarding the impacts on the goal of sustainable development. The paper addresses the following research questions:

   i. What are the government-driven rural development projects in the study area?

   ii. What is the level of involvement of the community members in the execution of government-driven projects?

   iii. What are the impacts of government-driven rural development projects on the quality of life of the community members?

   iv. What is the capacity of the community members regarding the sustainability of government-driven rural development projects?

   Providing answers to the research questions have broad development implications and could enhance practices and policy formulation to address the challenges of sustainable rural development. The paper follows through in-depth explanation of application of theories to the study, the methodology adopted, results from the field, discussion of findings, effects of lack of membership participation, implication of the study to other developing countries, conclusions and recommendations to foster sustainability of government-driven rural projects in Nigeria.

2. Theoretical framework

   Several theories have been put forward for the explanation of rural development. However, we are concerned with community members' participation and sustainability of rural development projects. To this end, we consider models such as the social action model, the diffusion model and the social planning model inadequate for explaining and understanding community participation and sustainability of government-driven rural development projects.

   In spite of the weakness of the existing models, this study does not intend to develop a new approach, model or theory but to select the most suitable one for this study. Therefore, we consider the locality participation model and the system theory as appropriate for this study. Rothmans (1979) described the locality participation model as a self-help approach to rural development. The model advocates for a broad participation of a wide spectrum of the local people in terms of determining goals and actions in rural development. Through effective participation, the individual personalities become transformed. Omoruiyi (2001) and Igbokwe and Enwere (2001) observed that participation of community members in rural development occurs when the change agent and members of the community share in the formulation and execution of proposals or plans and programs designed to bring about improvement in the living situation of the community. Participation stipulates that the local people should take part in the planning, utilization and assessment of the social amenities or facilities designed to enhance their quality of lives. It is such participation that gives people the pride of ownership of the projects completed in the process of rural development.

   The locality participation model addresses the felt needs of the rural communities through the effective participation of the local people. It is a non-directive approach to rural development that emphasizes the need for self-help, self-determinacy and self-reliance. The model provides for voluntary cooperation, development of indigenous leadership and attainment of educational objectives.

   Different individuals in the same community may have different interests and may not necessarily want to participate in development projects (Nampila, 2005). However, with community participation, the people decide, act and reflect on their actions as conscious subjects. Involving the community members in rural development and empowering them has the potential to enhance their quality of lives and foster development (Kakumba and Nsingo, 2008). The participation of the local people in decision-making processes on issues that affect them provides for indigenous knowledge.

   The Asian Development Bank (2006) found that the locality participation model through the Community Based Organizations (CBOs) was used to mobilize the people in water projects in Sri Lanka. Tasks are divided among the men, women and the youth in the community. For example, sanitation, security and maintenance, among others, involve all the groups in the community. Social groups such as age-grades, men, women and youth groups are formed. This is for easy access to the members of the group when community development tasks are carried out. Sanctions are applied against defaulters in the community for failure to participate in community development tasks. Rewards are also given for good performance. This is a source of motivation for community members.

   The inclusion of participation elements in development assistance was included by the World Bank in their social investment fund (Narayah and Ebbe, 1997). Initially, focusing on targeting these projects has moved towards a more holistic attempt at inducing participation through institutions that organize the poor and build their capabilities to act on their own interest (Narayan, 2002).

   However, the weakness of this model revolves around the fact that sometimes, for one reason or the other, the community members may dislike and reject the change agent's non-directive approach. It could be that the people do not want to shoulder the responsibility of thinking and deciding for themselves.

   Systems theory could also be used to explain participation of community members in rural development. The idea of systems implies the interdependence of parts and sub-parts for the effective performance of the whole system (Das and Choudhury, 1997). The central assumption of the theory is that all social, economic, and political phenomena are interrelated. They affect each other for the survival of the whole. Hanson (1995) argues that the value of systems theory is that it deals with 'wholes' rather than parts of humans or sections of a community as other theories do.

   The effective interaction between the government agencies and community members in rural development projects makes it possible for rural communities to experience comprehensiveness in rural development projects. It also helps to ensure that contractors handling the projects are effectively monitored. This development helps to ensure the delivery of standard projects that impact meaningfully on the quality of life of the people. It also gives the community members the pride of ownership of completed projects because they were part and parcel of it.

   The systems theory could be used in studies on social...