May 1, 2014 - from Lagos to Abuja, Karu local government area began to witness growth ... satellite towns due to the affordability of residency a relief to their ...
HOUSING POLICY IN NIGERIA AND THE GROWTH OF URBAN MARGINALITIES: A CASE STUDY OF KARU LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF NASARAWA STATE, 2000-2014
BY
DATEER DAYI DAMULAK NSUK/SS/M.Sc/086/08/09
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, NASARAWA STATE UNIVERSITY KEFFI, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE (M.SC) IN PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
OCTOBER, 2015 1
DECLARATION I hereby declare that this dissertation has been written wholly by me and it is a report of my research effort. I further declare that this work has never before been undertaken or presented by anybody as part of the requirement of any academic degree by any institution whatsoever. All quotations are indicated and sources of information specially acknowledged by means of references. …………………….. Dateer Dayi Damulak
2
CERTIFICATION This research work has been read and approved as meeting the requirement governing the award of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS (M. Sc PPA), in Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences of Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria.
…………………………… Dr. Abdullahi, Mohammed Yamma (Supervisor)
………………… Date
…………………………… Dr. Eugene T. Aliegba (Head of Department, Political Science)
….…………… Date
……………………………….. Asso. Prof. A. Zamani (Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences)
…………………. Date
……………………………… Mallam Yahaya. A.Adadu Internal Examiner
…………………….. Date
……………………………… Asso. Prof. Victor Egwemi External Examiner
…………………….. Date
…………………………………… Prof. M. I. Fodio (Dean, Postgraduate School)
………………… Date
3
DEDICATION This research work is dedicated to God the Maker of heaven and earth and to all those who believe in the justice, mercy, and love of God towards mankind.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank God for making it possible for me to go through this challenge and make the pursuit of this lofty goal a reality. I wish to sincerely acknowledge the contribution/support of my lovely wife Mrs. Magadaline Damulak in my educational efforts to this day, my little children– Shinkhnan, Deltikhm, and Yana’anret I want to tell you that Daddy loves you very much. My gratitude goes to the most amiable supervisor (Dr. Abdullahi Yamma Mohammed) and Dr. Mohammed Bello. B. who was my Internal Examiner for the fatherly role they have played to see that this piece of academic work becomes a true reference material. I wish to also appreciate my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances most especially my classmates for the role they played, of their critique of the work which has helped in shaping/structuring the body/content of the research work. Finally, my gratitude also goes to the staff and lecturers of the Department of Political Science, Nasarawa State University, Keffi for impacting the requisite knowledge into us (PPA Students). We became a better people than we came into the institution. All thanks to the entire staff for the untiring effort in seeing that you gave us the best. God will continue to enrich you abundantly in Jesus name. Amen.
D. D. Damulak April, 2015
5
ABSTRACT This thesis examines the effect of housing policy as it relates to the growth of urban marginality on the fringes of Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State. Efforts were made to unravel the genesis of the unprecedented growth in human population in Karu and the attending consequences brought about as a result of the population growth. The housing policies embarked upon at various time by the government to ameliorate the housing needs of Nigerians from the pre-independence era to the post independence period was x-rayed and how far these policies have mitigated the housing need of the citizens was explored. In the cause of the study, it was discovered that in spite of the myriad of the housing policies put in place it has not yielded the desired result as housing deficit still remain intractable with over 17 million people are currently without homes with some 2 million added annually. These have led to the demand for housing far beyond the supply of it as many households have to part with over 70 – 75 percent of their disposable income on housing alone. To buttress this, a survey was undertaken on the living/housing condition of the population using the simple random sampling technique. The survey revealed that both quantitative and qualitative housing problems exist with most of the respondents found themselves in such areas best described as deprived areas with the growth of shanty’s, batchers and squalors taking a toll on the landscape of the areas. The study recommended for a proactive action from both the Local and State Government of Nasarawa to focus its attention on the area, as the area has the potential to turn around the revenue fortune of the state and again its close proximity to the FCT should be viewed as a gold mine rather than a curse to the state. Therefore, the state should take the proximity advantage of the area and improve its lots in the face of dwindling revenue.
6
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1
Housing Delivery and the Politics of the Elites
Table 2.2
Percentage of Beneficiaries to the National Housing Fund
Table 2.3
Estimated Housing Needs between 1990 – 2020
Table 3.1
Population of the Study
Table 3.2
Sample Distribution of the Study
Table 3.3.1
Sample Distribution by Area of Resident
Table 33.3.2
Sample Distribution by Sex
Table 3.3.3
Sample Distribution by Age
Table 3.3.4
Sample Distribution by Occupation
Table 4.1
Summary of Respondents Response to the Questionnaire
Table 4.2
Respondents who Suffer Demolition
Table 4.3
Causes of Demolition
Table 4.4
Location Respondents suffers Demolition
Table 4.5
Sanitary condition of Respondents Area of Resident
Table 4.6
Comfortability Living in these Areas
Table 4.7
Description of the Environment
Table 4.8
Rate of Refuse Evacuation
Table 4.9
Disposal of Domestic Waste
Table 4.10
Description of the House Occupied
Table 4.11
House Ownership
Table 4.12
Family Members in a Room Apartment
Table 4.13
Nature of Housing Infrastructures in Karu
7
TABLE OF CONTENT Cover Page
-
i
Declaration
-
ii
Certification
-
iii
Dedication
-
iv
Acknowledgement
-
v
Abstract
-
vi
List of Tables
-
vii
Table of Content
-
viii
Introduction
-
1
1.1
Background of the Study
-
1
1.2
Statement of the Problem
-
4
1.3
Research questions
-
5
1.4
Objectives of the Study
-
6
1.5
Hypothesis
-
6
1.6
Significance of the Study
-
6
1.7
Scope/Limitation of the Study
-
7
1.8
Definition of Terms
-
8
1.9
Organization of the Work
-
9
CHAPTER ONE
CHAPTER TWO 2.1
Literature Review/Theoretical Framework
-
10
2.2
The Pre-Independence Period
-
13
2.3
The Post-Independence Period
-
14
8
2.4
Housing Policy in Nasarawa State
-
27
2.5
The Achievements of Government Housing Delivery in Nigeria
-
29
2.6
Nigeria’s Housing Problems and the Growth of Urban Marginalities-
32
2.7
Theoretical Framework: Elite Theory
-
37
2.8
Relevance of the Theory to the study
-
39
CHAPTER THREE 3.1
Methodology
-
41
3.2
Research Design
-
41
3.3
Population of the Study
-
41
3.4
Sample Distribution of the Study
-
42
3.5
Distribution of the Sample
-
43
3.6
Instrumentation
-
45
3.7
Validity and Reliability of the Instrument
-
46
3.8
Administration of the Instrument
-
47
3.9
Method of Data Analysis
-
47
CHAPTTER FOUR 4.1
Data Presentation
-
48
4.2
Findings of the Study
-
59
4.3
Discussion of the Findings
-
62
CHAPTER FIVE 5.0
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations
-
67
5.1
Summary
-
67
5.2
Conclusion
-
68
5.3
Recommendations
-
69
REFERENCES
-
71
9
APPENDIX I
-
10
76
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1.
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY This research work seeks to analyze the genesis of housing problems/needs in
Nigeria. Housing provision pre – dates Nigeria’s independence in 1960. It is obvious that colonialism in Nigeria opened up towns and cities which hitherto were not explored or accessible. This development, however, becomes a factor for population movement from rural areas to the newly developed urban centers. The pooled effects of the population movement resulted in the geometrical upsurge in human housing needs over the near arithmetic houses available. Housing is critically an essential component of human basic needs. According to Oludayo, (1997); “Shelter represents one of the most basic human needs and has no doubt a profound impact on the health, welfare, and productivity of the individual”. Hence, the importance of housing to the human population cannot be over emphasized, this makes the World Health Organization (WHO) reckon that it is the home, not the clinic that is the key to a better human health (Nwaka, 2005). Because of the increasing urban population there is excessive pressure on the few available housing infrastructures, and government in trying to demonstrate its responsiveness to the needs of the citizens has over the years evolved many housing policies aimed at providing adequate, affordable and conducive houses to the people but along the line these policies and programmes of government on housing has not yielded the much-desired results. Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State, the focus area for this research work was created on the 1st October 1991 out of the former Keffi Local
11
Government Area in the old Plateau State for both political and Administrative conveniences. And with the eventual relocation of the seat of Nigeria’s Government from Lagos to Abuja, Karu local government area began to witness growth and the continuous influx of people. The large influx of people to this area was largely attributed to not only to the movement of the seat of Government from Lagos to Abuja but to the fact that other countries who have diplomatic ties with Nigeria also began relocating their embassies, offices/businesses, with their team of work force also to Abuja. The relocation of the Headquarters of ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) together with the regional Headquarters of OPEC
(organization
of
Petroleum
Exporting
Countries)
also
contributed
(Wikipedia.org). With these developments, there was a population upsurge in the capital city of Abuja. The population of Abuja residents became more than doubled in a short time and was growing at a faster rate with tens of thousands of people migrating from all the federation to the new city of Abuja (Wikipedia.org), some as a result of the relocation of their offices and to some others to seek greener pastures. Karu Local Government Area was also affected as the villages under it experienced rapid growth due to its close proximity to Abuja the city center. This, however, made Karu a ‘suburb’ of Abuja thus becoming one of the fastest growing urban areas in the world, with a growth rate of over 40 percent recorded annually (Abaku, 2006). It was also worthy to know that in early 2000, the population of Abuja grew at a faster rate and as a result, shanty’s and squalor settlements sprang up and the population was becoming a threat to the security of the capital city and the available infrastructures on ground, and in 2003, Mallam Nasir el – Rufai, the then Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) decided to put the population explosion of Abuja
12
which was responsible for the deterioration of infrastructures under control. The Minister started a demolition campaign aimed at restoring the Abuja master plan (Onyekwere, 2006). This campaign was massive with bulldozers bringing down structures and clearing off shanty’s and slums in the Abuja city (Asaju, 2003). The campaign affected hundreds of thousands of residents who were made homeless (COHRE, 2008). The descent accommodation left after the demolition exercise were highly prized (Suleiman, 2010) and lands approved for residential areas were beyond the affordability of the average income earner (Echno, 2011) as a result of Abuja’s status as the Capital of Africa’s oil giant, Nigeria (Anosike, 2009). Middle income and lower income residents affected by the demolition exercise found it difficult to afford the exorbitant land prices and apartment rates for areas approved for residential purposes in a country where the majority of the citizens live on less than US$2 a day (Murray, 2007). The hundreds of thousands homeless Abuja residents found the neighboring satellite towns due to the affordability of residency a relief to their homelessness and by that, the hundreds of thousands relocated to these neighboring satellite towns to start a new life. Karu area, due to its proximity to Abuja received a large number of these migrating Abuja residents made homeless by the FCT administration in its campaign to restore the Abuja Master Olan. As a result, the towns in Karu experience population explosion; with a population of some 2 million people (Frischmen, 2009) this, however, transforms Karu area into an urban area in a short time. Looking at the fringes of Karu Local Government Area, the demand for housing which was as a result of the increasing population has not only become exertive/precarious but has assumed a chaotic dimension. As succinctly posted by Nnanna (2010); in recent years more people migrated to the capital territory in search
13
for housing and economic opportunities to no avail. In this area, the human population concentration is just too much. Houses are overcrowded with people to the extent that these individuals manage to live with 3 to 6 other individuals per room. With no running water or steady electricity supply, the living conditions these individual face are bleak (Nnanna, 2010). In the words of Amdii, (2010) these individuals who are found in the deprived areas of towns and cities are stuck like sardines in room apartments thereby making them become highly susceptible to hazardous consequences of bad/poor sanitation and other injurious environmental related diseases and infections, food and contaminated water and they like (Nwaka, 2005). All these, however, may not be unconnected with the demolition of houses in the FCT which rendered many families homeless and coupled with the out – of reach rental fees in the FCT, largely contributed to the marginality problem currently witness on the urban fringes of Karu (COHRE, 2008; Suleiman, 2010; Echono, 2011).
1.2.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The problem of housing is as old as man itself. Available reports/records
showed that the rate of urban growth/housing challenges in Nigeria today is very alarming. With a housing deficit of over 17 million (NHP, 2012). Human growth and the demand for housing go hand-in-hand and it presents a serious socio-political and economic challenge to the government. Nwaka, (1992), stated that at the turn of the 21st century 43.5 percent of the population of Nigeria will live in urban areas up from 39 percent in 1965, and is projected to reach 50 percent by the year 2010, and 65 percent by 2020. It then means that Nigeria’s urban population has since surpassed the 50 percent projected for 2010. Again, that the rate of urban population growth alone is about 5.5 percent per annum, which is roughly twice the National Population growth rate of 2.9 percent. This impliedly means that the urban population is geometrically 14
higher compared to the arithmetic growth rate in housing provision. The end result is that more urban populations would be without shelter (homes). These startling evidence present the picture at which Karu urban fringes grow, with over 40 percent population growth annually (Abaku, 2006). The precarious influx of people to Karu local government area and how life is faired generally on the fringes and the attending marginality problems becomes apt and appealing for serious attention, hence, the desire and need for this study. Another problem is the uncontrollability of the development of properties in Karu is largely responsible for the marginality problems in the area. As Amdii, (1993) will say ‘‘however, a large number of such population find solace in the uncontrolled areas and unplanned settlements’’. These areas are essentially called the ‘deprived areas’ because hardly are any essential facilities provided. It will suffice to say here that the inchoateness of the authorities of both the Nasarawa State Government and the Karu Local Government Authority was responsible for the growth of marginalities on the fringe of Karu. This could be seen in the way and manner houses/developers raise structures in these areas with no regards or adherence to the building plans/codes. 1:3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS This research work shall look at the following questions: i.
What is the nature of housing in Karu today?
ii.
What is responsible for the population explosion on the fringe of Karu?
iii.
What are the consequences of population explosion on the fringe of Karu?
iv.
What are the necessary organizations and restructuring g plan put in place by the government to take care of the consequences?
15
1:4
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The overall objective of this study is aimed at unraveling certain facts as
regards housing/marginality problems on the fringe of Karu local government area of Nasarawa State since the role housing plays in the life of individuals cannot be overemphasized. As a basic component for a man to have a meaningful existent the study shall look at the following specific objectives: i. To look at the nature of housing in Karu local government area; ii. To look at the factors responsible for the population explosion on the fringe of Karu; iii. To look at the consequences of the population explosion on the fringe of Karu; iv. To look at the control mechanism(s) put in place if any, by both the Local and State Governments
to
regulate housing and infrastructural
development in the area; v. To look at the people's attitude and the role of government on environmental sanitation as a panacea to good, sound and robust healthy living. 1:5
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This piece of academic work would be of importance to both academics and
policy makers. Because this study is unique and different from others in the sense that the focus area of the study is very important and should be largely explored by scholars. Some scholars like Onibokun, (1990), Nubi, (2008), Okupe and Windapo (2000), etc had tried in their own respects as regard housing needs in Nigeria generally which did not seem to address the peculiar problem of Karu. The case of Karu is rather more peculiar and different considering the avalanche of the human 16
population, the demand for housing on the one hand and the costs/rental fees involved and other associated infrastructures available on the other. What the population in this area see/undergo everyday is second to none in any other part of the country. The traffic grid lock alone on the Mararaba – Nyanya road in addition to what the residents pass through in other endeavors calls for serious attention by both academics and policy makers. The area is actually a gold mine as posted by the Nasarawa State government, but it still remains largely untapped. At the end of the study, it is expected that possible areas needing the attention of the authorities would be highlighted for improvement. 1.6
HYPOTHESES The apriori assumptions for this study are to: i.
establish if the FCT demolition exercise was responsible for the population/marginality problem in Karu.
ii.
know whether the marginality problem in Karu was as a result of the neglect of the area by the authorities concern.
1.7
SCOPE/LIMITATION OF THE STUDY The scope of the study centers mainly on Karu with focus on Mararaba,
Kabayi, Aso, Masaka, New – Nyanya settlement areas. These areas largely present a good picture of the area of focus of the study “the growth of urban marginalities on the fringes of Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State 2000 – 2013”. Karu Local Government Area was chosen amongst another suburb of Abuja because of the Following reasons: i.
it has the highest number of human concentration;
ii.
it is the closest to the Abuja city center yet it is the farthest;
iii.
the peculiarity of the marginality related problems inherent in the area; 17
iv.
in spite of the huge potentials, the area portends yet received the least of government attention.
The conduct of the research work was not without some challenges. Being an area largely untapped by scholars, the dared of key materials/relevant information hindered the smooth conduct of the exercise. The research exercise also suffers from finances as one has to travel to and from the state capital several times for information that could be helpful to the research work. 1.8
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS The following terms and much more shall at one point or the other be used in
the body of this research work: i.
Housing Policy:- is a policy of government geared towards improving/increasing housing delivery to its citizens.
ii.
Urban Marginalities:- This refers to the urban poor, mostly found on the fringes of towns and cities.
iii.
Urban Centers:- These are the cities centers, well structured and it housed the rich politicians, business Men/Women, technocrats.
iv.
Migration:- The movement of people from one place to another. For example, movement from rural areas–urban areas
v.
Population:-
This is the total number of people living in a particular
area at a given time. vi.
Overcrowded:-
a situation where the number of people in an
apartment is more than the number of people required. vii.
Hoarding:-
the
deliberate
keeping
information from public consumption.
18
away of
certain
vital
1.9
ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK The organization of the work shall be as follows: Chapter one captures the background of the study, statement of the
problems, objectives of the study. It also covers the research questions, hypotheses the scope/limitations of the study, significance of the study, and the definitions of terms. Chapter two takes cares of the literature review and the theoretical framework. However, chapter three focuses on the methodology/research hypotheses while chapter four deals with the data analysis and the interpretations of the research findings. The summary, conclusion, and recommendations are in chapter five and lastly the bibliography.
19
CHAPTER TWO
2.1
LITERATURE REVIEW/THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Under the literature review, various scholars’ conceptual perception of the
term housing has been reviewed. Housing is recognized worldwide as one of the basic necessities of life and a prerequisite to the survival of man (Onibokun, 1983; United Nations, 1992; Salau, 1990). A house is a place in which one is provided shelter, refuge, comfort, security, and dignity. As a unit of the environment; housing has a profound influence on the health, efficiency, social behaviours, satisfaction and general welfare of the community (Onibokun, 1998). To most people, housing means shelter but to others, it means more, as it serves as one of the best indicators of a person’s standard of living and or his place in the society (Nubi, 2008). A house also provides the physical framework in which human, social, economic, and cultural resources are realized, enriched, and integrated. The position housing occupies in the life of an individual or household cannot be over emphasized; being a very strong indicator in the determination of not only the dignity of man but also his/her standard of living in the society. On that basis the housing provision must be made affordable to all and sundry. Affordable housing is that housing which can be acquired from household income without sacrificing any of the other essential needs of the household. According to Struyk (2005) ‘‘housing affordability is the ability to purchase a dwelling of the appropriate size and minimum physical and sanitary standards and still have sufficient income to enjoy at least the minimum consumption of other essential goods and services’’. By the United Nations, standard-a person is at least to have a minimum intake of 300 calories a day.
20
From the aforementioned, the appropriate size of a household dwelling simply refers that such a dwelling be adequate for the members of the said household. Hence, the provision of adequate housing in any country (especially Nigeria) is very vital as housing is a stimulant of the national economy. Just as portrayed by Onibokun, 1983The housing industry can be a stimulus to the national economy. Housing is a set of durable assets, which accounts for a high proportion of a country’s wealth and on which households spend a substantial part of their income. It is for these reasons that housing has become a regular feature in economic, social and political debates often with highly charged emotional contents (Agbola, 1998). In Nigeria for instance, expenditure on housing alone gulps more than 60-70 percent of households’ total income compared to other notable countries in the world. In Australia, Canada, New-Zealand and the United States of America, a commonly accepted guideline for housing affordability is a housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of a household’s gross income (Struyk, 2005; Wikipedia, 2007). A recent study based on the salary structure of public servants in Nigeria showed that no public servant in Nigeria below salary grade level 13 in the Federal Civil Service can afford a property costing N4.75million on a 25 year mortgage at 6 percent, if he/she devotes 50 percent of its salary per annum to housing (Onyike, 2007). This, however, shows that in the absence of some assistance, adequate housing is unaffordable to most law-abiding Nigerians. This, however, breeds a situation of contempt as the resultant effect is that many people and households’ alike would be left without housing. Housing is capital intensive especially here in Nigeria (where virtually every housing material is imported) this adds to the cost of adequate housing for average Nigerian household thereby making the commodity beyond their reach. The trickle-down effect of these, however, resulted in overcrowded dwellings, slum
21
houses and the development/growth of shanties and ‘batchers’ in virtually every major Nigerian city. This, however, presents not only a challenge but a serious threat to growth and survival of a healthy and robust nation state. It may interest you to know that it is generally estimated that the world needs to house an additional 68 million to 80 million people (Awake, 2005). According to the United Nations Population Fund; (Wikipedia, 2003) the world population has since surpassed 6.1 billion in 2001 and it is expected to reach between 7.9 and 10.9 billion by 2050. Over 90 percent of the growth during the next two decades is forecast to occur in the developing countries (Nigeria Inclusive). It was equally estimated that the population of Nigeria will out-grow 141 million people by 2005, the estimate also predicted that it would reach 289 million by 2050 (Encarta, 2007). In the same vein, the National Population and Housing Census conducted in 2006 by the National Population Commission-puts Nigeria’s population at over 140 million. Today the projection puts the population of Nigeria at over 170 million. These estimates, however, present a formidable housing challenge-considering the fact that a large proportion of the population still lives in substandard and poor houses and in deplorable and unsanitary residential environments. This becomes more serious and worrisome when one considers the fact that housing provision by Government commenced before political independence in 1960. Despite various government interventions and huge investments in housing provision, the inadequacy of housing still remains intractable as many households do not have access to decent, safe and affordable housing. Here, efforts shall be made to x – rays the various housing policies undertaken in Nigeria at various point in time which pre – dates independence in 1960 during
22
which the colonial government was left with no choice than to embark on the construction of houses to accommodate the white minority population. 2.2
THE PRE – INDEPENDENCE PERIOD During the early colonial period, housing policies/activities of government
were focused essentially on the provision of quarters for the expatriate staff and for selected indigenous staff in specialized occupations like railways, police, etc. this period saw the establishment of Government Residential Areas (GRAs) as well as a few “African Quarters” (FRN, 2006). No effort was made by the government to build houses either for sale or rent to the general public and little was done to order the growth of settlements outside the Government Ordinance (Cap. 95). The Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB) was created in 1928 and was charged with the effective planning and development of Lagos (Amdii, 1993; FRN, 2006). The creation of the Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB) was as a result of the outbreak of the ‘bubonic plague’ (an epidemic which kills many people) which ravaged Lagos in the early 1920s (Amdii, 1993). After 1954 and with the approval of the Lagos Central Planning Scheme, the LEDB for the first time attempted to solve the problems of public housing in the metropolis (FRN, 2006). In 1956, the Nigeria Building Society (NBS) was also established to provide mortgage loans. However, their mortgage operations did not achieve much because of limited financial resources and the poor response of the public to the savings scheme operated by the NB (FRN, 2006). During the same year, the colonial government introduced the African Staff Housing Fund which was meant to encourage African Civil Servants to own their own houses. Also prior to independence, various State Housing Corporations were established by the Regional Governments to provide housing for the general public. These corporations were unable to extend their
23
services to the low-income group, but they, however, formed the nucleus of Modern Housing Estates in Nigeria. 2.3
THE POST INDEPENDENCE PERIOD When Nigeria gained her political independence from the colonialist in 1960,
Nigerians were at the helm of affairs at the centre meaning that more Nigerians can participate not only in the day – to – day running of government activities but also in fashioning out policies and programmes that could jump – start the economy on the path of sustainable economic progress and development. The post – independence period saw the development and extension of the GRAs and the introduction of special public housing programmes exclusively for the needs of the new ‘national elites’ in the higher hierarchy of the state. With the aforementioned, many towns and cities in the new Nigeria began to spring up with the number of people increasing by the day thereby putting more pressure on limited housing infrastructures available. As a result of this, many housing programmes aimed at ameliorating the housing needs of Nigerians were embarked upon by the successive government to help solve the housing problems. In 1962, National Development Plans was introduced into the budgeting system of the country instead of the fiscal and sectoral plans, which were previously used. From the first National Development Plan period (1962 – 1968), it was the intention (policy) of government that low, medium and high – income people should benefit from public housing programmes of government. Within this same period of the First National Development Plan, the government targeted to produce 24,000 housing units during the plan period. Unfortunately, only 500 housing units were built by the Federal Government before the outbreak of the Nigerian Civil War in 1967 (Adeleye, et’al 2005).
24
The second National Development Plan (1970 – 1974) was unique because government accepted housing as part of its social and political responsibilities. It emphasizes housing provision for all socials groups whether displaced or not from the competitive housing market. To fulfill the aims and objectives of the housing policy, the Gowon Military Administration announced the following:
i. Immediate construction of housing units by the Federal Military and State Military Governments for rent at affordable prices. ii. Increased in the construction of houses for government workers (though not explicitly spelled out, this favours the senior officials of the administrative mechanism). iii. Development and expansion of loans for private housing (this case favoured the most privileged social group who already had access to the banks through collateral security and employment stability). iv. Increased investment in local production of cement and other necessary building materials (Adeleye, et’al 2005). In accordance with the public housing policy, 54,000 housing units were programmed for immediate construction between 1972 and 1973. 10,000 units were meant for Lagos and 4,000 units in each of the 11 state capitals. The housing volume was distributed in the ratio of 60:25:15. That 60 percent was for the low-income groups, 25 percent for the middle-income and 15 percent for the high-income social group (Onibokun, 1985). Though there was a marginal improvement at the end of that period, it was still far below the housing expectations of Nigerians.
25
In 1976, following the military overthrow of the Gowon administration, a reappraisal of the housing policy and the numerical dimension of the construction programmes was made and incorporated into 1975-1980 National Development Plan. A total of N1.83 billion was allocated to housing during this plan period. The rise in the oil economy and local political pressures influenced this reappraisal. The highlights of the programmes under this plan period include: direct construction of low-cost housing units by both the Federal and State governments; increased construction of housing quarters for government officials, expansion of credit facilities to enhance private housing construction and increased investment in domestic production of cement. It was stated that: i.
The Federal Military Government would build 202,000 housing units per year; 46,000 units for Lagos, 12,000 units for Kaduna and 8,000 units for the remaining state capitals. The State Government would be directly involved and the Federal Housing Authority would provide the necessary
infrastructure
(this
marked
the
beginning
of
the
decentralization of FHA to state levels). At the end of the period, a success of 13.3 percent was recorded. ii.
A Ministry of Housing, National Development and Environment with sole responsibility for housing was created-while the Federal Government bought over the shares held by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the Nigeria Building Society and converted it to the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN) with an enlarged capital base from N21 million to N150 million to provide loans to individuals, state housing corporations and private estate development firms.
26
iii.
The additional financing of the Federal Housing Authority in order to directly construct and develop housing estates in various cities of the nation (Adeleye, et’al 2005).
The temporary departure of the military from state power and the installation of the Shagari civilian administration saw another reappraisal of the housing policies and programmes. This was done under the excuse of the huge economic and financial burden of the numerical dimension of the exercise. The Federal Government, during the 1981-1985 plan period embarked on three (3) different schemes: the direct housing construction, under which 2,000 housing units were to be built in each state annually without special attention to the city’s worst pressed by the housing crisis, while the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) was to construct about 143,000 low-cost housing units across the country. Site and services schemes were also to be provided. About N1.6 billion was allocated to housing and at the end of the plan period, a success of 20 percent was recorded. It will equally interest us to recall that in 1979, in an apparent reply to the cancellation of the special housing programme for Lagos, the civilian government of Lagos State announced a State Housing Programme of 50.000 units to be constructed between 1979 and 2983. The 1984 re-arrival of the military witnessed a reappraisal of the housing units to be constructed by the Lagos State Property Development Corporation. Instead of the ongoing exercise of 50,000 units, 8,000 units with new design models were to be constructed between 1983 and 1986 by the State’s Military Government (Adeleye, et’al 2005). With the change of government through a military coup in 1985, the public housing exercise was terminated. With the introduction of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), the Military Government of Babangida claimed to no longer 27
provide housing for Nigerians on grounds of restraining economic situations. Housing ownership was left to those who are not only hard-working but can equally afford it although efforts were made by the Government to reduce costs of building materials and control land speculations. There is no doubt that this policy deviation placed the urban poor and the middle-class in further displacement from the housing market. With the enormity and perpetual nature of housing problems facing the country, the government nonetheless, took another look at housing and thus launched the National Housing Policy in February 1991. This was a comprehensive document aimed at ensuring that all Nigerians own or have access to decent housing accommodation at affordable cost by 2000. This goal is consistent with the United Nations resolution of housing for all by the year 2000 and was required that 700,000 housing units would be constructed annually in order to meet the target of 8 million units by the year 2000 in Nigeria. The policy provides for encouragement and promotion of active participation in housing delivery by all tiers of government; strengthening of institutions within the system to render their operation more responsive to demand; emphasizing housing investment which satisfy basic needs, and encouraging greater participation by the private sector in housing development. The policy also suffered major setbacks in its implementation. During the 1990-1992 rolling plan periods, efforts were intensified on the sites and services scheme. About 2,892 serviced plots were provided in Anambra, Lagos, Imo, Kano, Kwara, Ondo and Rivers States, while the second phase commenced in other states. On the prototype housing schemes, 72 housing units were constructed and allocated in 1990, while the construction of 218 units commenced in Lagos and Abuja. During the plan period, the National Housing Decree No.3 of 1992 was promulgated and Primary Mortgage Institutions (PMIs) was licensed. The Housing
28
Policy Council was also set up to monitor development in the housing sector. The 1993-1995 Rolling Plan period witnessed allocation of about 10,474 plots of the three residential categories to the public. The impact of the FHA was also felt in Lagos and Abuja (Ademiluyi, I. A. 2010). It is, however, important to note that 1994 marked a rethink of the Military Government towards housing provision. Hence, in an address on January 20th, 1994 by the Minister of Works and Housing titled ‘‘The Beginning of a New Dawn’’ unveil a National Housing Programme for 1994-1995 to be executed under the Ministry. During the period, a total of 121,000 housing units of various models were to be built all over the country by the end of 1996. However, by the first quarter of 1997, fewer than 2,000 housing units had been completed. The Federal and State Governments were expected to spend N2 billion on housing provisions during the 1996-1998 National Rolling Plan. Over N3 billion was expected to be spent by the two levels of government during the 1999-2001 National Rolling Plan (The Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1998; Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2000). To ensure proper execution of this programme, the Government formed a 16man committee to study the National Housing Policy in terms of its provision compliance and implementation. The issue of housing finance was addressed through the establishment of the National Housing Fund in 1992 and granted a take-off fund of N250 million. Also, the Federal Mortgage Bank (FMB) put in place three schemes viz: voluntary, mandatory and budgetary allocations and financial transfer schemes to curb the problem of housing finance (Adeleye, et’al 2005). Under the current Democratic dispensation, which started in 1999, the Federal government involvement in housing has been in partnership with the private developers. One initial first step taken by the government was the setting up of a 15-
29
man committee to look into the problem of urban development including housing. The committee recommended an appropriate framework for housing development among other issues (Kwanshie, 2003). In 2002, the Federal Government set up a new Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to deal with housing and urban development. This development demonstrates government commitment to continue to assure a paternalistic approach to housing (Adeleye et al, 2005). Under the National Housing Policy, the Government identified a prototype housing scheme, which was launched in order to increase the national housing stock. The scheme was on a revolving fund basis and ensures that the proceeds from sales of completed units are plough back into the scheme. Again, as part of its continuous efforts to increase houses for the masses in the country, the Federal Government in 2004 pledged to adequately fund research pertaining to the manufacturing and the use of local materials in the sector, with the aim of providing 40,000 houses with at least 1,000 per state before the year 2007. As observed by Ademiluyi and Raji (2008) however, little had been done to meet this target barely two months into the year 2007. It is on record that the Federal Housing Authority, which is responsible for implementing Government housing programmes have started to develop and manage real estate’s on a commercial basis. Within the last two-three years, it has completed 500 housing units in Abuja; it has entered into a partnership with private developers to complete 1,127 units in Abuja and Port Harcourt (Kwanshie, 2003). The recent development in the housing sector shows that government wants greater involvement/participation of private homes developers in the provision of housing to the masses since most of the institution of government could no longer do the needful. One of the major issues for Nigeria’s growing population is adequate housing to meet
30
the needs of urban dwellers. The housing deficit currently stands at 17 million units with additional 2 million units added each year. (Ghosh, 2014). The creation of Mortgage Refinance Company of Nigeria recently by the government was designed to bridge the funding cost of residential mortgages by promoting the availability and affordability of good housing through increased access to liquidity and longer terms funds in the mortgage market. But in spite of these, affordable housing in Nigeria still remains a challenge with the number of people in need of houses increasing by the day. The Housing Policies so far taken to solve the housing needs of Nigerians could be summarized as follows: i.
The establishment in 1928, of the Lagos Executive Development Board (LEDB). The board was empowered to carry out slum clearance, land reclamation, and the development of residential and industrial estates.
ii.
The setting up of Nigeria Building Society (NBS) in 1956 to provide housing loans to both civil servants and the Nigerian public.
iii.
The creation of the National Site and Services Scheme (NSSS) in 1986 to provide land with essential infrastructural facilities, such as roads, drainage and sewage system, water supply and electricity for housing developments in well-planned environments. The schemes are planned to provide well laid-out and serviced plots in each of the 36 state capitals of the Federation, including the FCT Abuja.
iv.
The establishment of the National Prototype Housing Programme (NPHP) by the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing to complement the objectives of the National Site and Services Scheme (NSSS). The
31
project was embarked upon to demonstrate the feasibility of constructing functional, effective and affordable housing units through imaginative designs, the judicious specification of materials and efficient management of construction. v.
The setting up of the State Housing Corporation (SHC) to provide housing to the people at affordable prices.
vi.
The creation of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (FMBN) in 1977 to finance housing loans to prospective house developers at minimal interest rates.
vii.
The setting up of the National Housing Programme (NHP) in 1991 and the National Housing Fund (NHF) Scheme by Decree No. 3 of 1992 to provide soft loans to prospective housing developers and also monitor developments in the housing sector.
viii.
The deconsolidation of the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria through the establishment of the Federal Mortgage Finance Limited (FMFL) to take over retail mortgage portfolios previously handled by the bank and also to facilitate effective management of the National Housing Fund Scheme.
ix.
The setting up of a Housing Policy Council (HPC to monitor development in the housing sector and also to set up the machinery for the review of the 1978 Land Use Decree (LUD) in order to make more land available for large scale land developers.
x.
The creation of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development in June 2003.
32
xi.
The review of the mandate given to the Federal Housing Authority to include provisions of the National Social Housing as part of the strategy towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals. The authority also plans to facilitate the provision of two million housing units within the next few years.
xii.
Others are the formulation of the National Housing Policy (NHP) in 1984, the establishment of the Infrastructural Development Fund (IDF) in 1985, and the Urban Development Bank (UDB) in 1992 (The Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1997).
xiii.
The creation of the Nigeria Mortgage Refinance Company (NMRC) in 2013 was aimed at increasing access to mortgage funds by individuals through the primary mortgage institutions (FGN, 2013).
2:4
HOUSING POLICY IN NASARAWA STATE It is already a known fact that housing/housing need is as old as man, it
therefore, suffices to say that housing policy in Nigeria was as old as the Nigerian State. The overriding goal and objective of the National Housing Policy were to ensure that all Nigerians irrespective of status own or have access to decent, safe, and sanitary housing in a healthy environment with infrastructural services at affordable cost with secure tenure (FGN, 1991). This positioned the housing sector as one of the prime drivers of socio – economic development, including job creation and employment, as well as accelerated national transformation. It was on the strength of these that States were encouraged to key into the national vision of making houses available to Nigerians especially the middle and low-income earners at an affordable cost.
33
Nasarawa State was created on the 1st October 1996 out of the old Plateau State by the Late General Sani Abacha Military Government. From its creation, the State was under Military supervision until May 29th, 1999 when the fourth republic began in Nigeria up to this present day. Nasarawa State in its 18 years of existence, apart from the dotted/scattered Shagari low cost housing estates and some few low cost houses inherited from the old Plateau, the State was yet to evolve or come up with any concrete, viable and formidable housing programmes or policies targeted at ameliorated the housing challenges of its growing workforce and teeming population. Recent development in the State housing sector is worthy of mention. On the 1st May 2014 during the Workers’ Day Celebration otherwise called ‘May Day’ the Executive Governor Alhaji Tanko Al – Makura commissioned 300 housing units in Lafia, the Nasarawa State Capital. It was the first phase of the 500 housing units proposed to be constructed under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement (NIPDC, 2014). The agreement was for a period of 5 years. As already opined above, the State doesn’t have any enforceable housing law before the coming of the present administration even where it existed, enforcement was decimal. This further collaborated when the Governor stated that “our proximity to Abuja is a goldmine. The land is the same. The only difference between Abuja and Nasarawa State is measured by just a step into Karu, from Abuja: while Abuja is planned and development is controlled in the implementation of the master plan, Karu is where anybody who has a block to lay comes and begins construction without any plan to guide the activity”. However, the government in trying to turn around the landscape of Nasarawa State especially the Local Government Headquarters concluded and commissioned the Nasarawa Geographic Information System (NAGIS) and the strengthening of the Nasarawa Urban Development Board (NUBD). The
34
NUDB serve as the state police in enforcing compliance with the State Housing Code. That is to say that all buildings must pass the certification code of the State Government. But how effective is the enforcement still left much to be desired? The Sites and Services scheme was yet another alternative explored by the State Government, thus the Governor stated was to make Karu and Keffi the attracted of Nigerians because of their proximity to Abuja, they deserve to have such facilities and infrastructures like those found in the FCT. The Sites and Services scheme developed in Keffi is provided with tarred road, electricity, water, school and security and is now open for sale to members of the public at N3,500 per square metre of the plot (NIDP, 2014). On the other hand is the public private partnership agreements entered with estate developers, saw the construction of housing estates along the Karu – Keffi express way. Notable among them are the Unity Village Estate situated at Angwan Tofa; MTN Housing Estate, Mararaba; Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps Housing Estate, Ado; Nigerian Labour Congress Mass Housing Scheme, Uke and scores of others. In view of all these, Nasarawa State and especially Karu needed to be given more attention because it is a goldmine as it possesses a potential revenue hub for the State Government. 2.5
THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF GOVERNMENT HOUSING DELIVERY
IN NIGERIA As already mentioned earlier, there was little effort made in the field of housing during the pre-independent era and up to the time of the second national development plan period; except for the central Lagos Slum Clearance Programme and the establishment of Government Reservation Areas, Housing Programmes was low in the priority list of the government.
35
The Central Lagos Slum Clearance Programme displaced about 30,000 people despite the 66.6 percent subsidy on the housing provided for the displaced, very few if any of the displaced went to live in the houses because of the high cost. In concrete terms, during the First National Development Plan period, only N39.2 million representing 47 percent of the N84 million allocated to Urban and Regional Planning was disbursed. Furthermore, the public sector was only able to produce 1.06 percent of the 24,000 housing units planned for this period. It is imperative to mention that the former regional governments could not undertake housing scheme on a large scale, even with the establishment of regional housing corporations, because of the inadequacy of technical personnel. The actual achievement of the Second National Development Plan in relation to housing was rather low. The plan was only successful in providing: a. Ninety staff quarters of various sizes in Lagos area. b. Four blocks of flats as transit residence for officials of the Ministry of External Affairs. c. The establishment of the Federal Housing Authority in 1973 charged with the provision of low-cost housing across the country and d. The reduction of the interest rate of the Nigerian Building Society from 8 ½ to 6 ½ percent (Adeleye, et’al 2005). Essentially, it needed to be stated that government effort in the provision of low-cost housing in the second national development plan period just like in the first was concentrated in Lagos area. The houses themselves were prestigious houses which could not be tagged public or low-income housing as such. In the Third National Development Plan period, the following achievements were recorded: 36
a. The promulgation of the Rent Control Edict and the subsequent establishment of the Rent Control Panel charged with the fixing of minimum rent payable on different types of houses. b. In 1975, the anti-inflationary task-force was established to examine the causes and consequences of inflation as it pertains to housing. c. The promulgation of the Land Use Decree to allow for ease of implementing the public housing programme (Adeleye, et’al 2005). Nevertheless, between the period 1974 and 1980, there was the plan to deliver 202,000 housing units to the public, but only 28,500 units representing 14.1 percent were delivered. Also, out of the 200,000 housing units planned to be delivered between 1981 and 1985 only 47,200 (i.e. about 23.6 percent) were constructed (Ademiluyi, I. A. 2010). Not much was achieved in the Fourth National Development Plan either. The available data shows that 26,334 one-bedroom units and 3,449 three bedrooms units had actually been completed. The same survey shows that 3,924 and 443 units of two categories respectively were in progress. Under the National Housing Fund programme initiated in 1994 to produce 121,000 housing units, it was reported that less than 5 percent was achieved. In terms of physical manifestation of the entire numbers of houses that were delivered during the plan periods, from 1973-1979 only 10,000 housing units were constructed in the Lagos area. About 24,000 units were constructed in the rest of the states. The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) admitted in 1980 that 19 percent of the programme was completed in Lagos and 13 percent in the rest of the country (Kwanshie, 2003). The civilian administration before the 1983 Military Coup claimed it executed 20 percent of its housing programme (which is about 30,000 housing 37
units). The Lagos State Civilian Government alone constructed 10,428 housing units out of the planned 50,000 units, where as the completed 70 percent of the housing units were meant for the high-income groups. This again cast doubt as to the genuineness of the policy intention if it was truly pro-low-income group. In spite of series of government policies towards improved housing delivery; one thing that is clear is that successive governments in this country have failed to match their words with action. In fact, the situation in Nigerian remains like that of a child to whom much was promised but little was delivered (Ademiluyi, 2010). It is not a surprise, therefore, that there exists a wide gap between housing supply and demand. In the interim, the housing demand/deficit stands at 17 million with supply, on the other hand, less than 1,000 units per annum. This gross inadequacy however prompted government re – launched its focus on mortgage financing in partnership with the private sector by injection over USD300 million credit facilities from the International Development Association (IDA) for private mortgage institutions to access and develop 75,000 homes a year for low – to – middle income earners (Ibukun, 2014). 2.6
NIGERIA’S HOUSING PROBLEMS AND THE GROWTH OF URBAN
MARGINALITIES Even though there are no accurate data on the nation’s housing needs, earlier studies and observations strongly suggest that there are both qualitative and quantitative housing problems across the length and breadth of the country (Onibokun, 1983; Abumere, 1987; Federal Office of Statistics, 1997; Agbola, 1998; Egunjobi, 1999; Adeagbo, 1997; Olatubara, 2008; Mabogunje, 2003; Ademiluyi & Raji, 2008). Thus, while Fadahunsi (1985) observed that policymakers in Nigeria are not really aware of the magnitude of the housing problems facing the low-income
38
earners in the country. Olateju (1990) was of the view that the increasing high rent is a pointer to the fact that there is a decrease in the housing stock. In Nigeria, like in many other developing countries, housing problems are multi-dimensional. Apart from the problems of population explosion, the continuous influx of people from the rural to the urban centres, and the lack of basic infrastructures required for good standard of living have compounded housing problems over the years. A study by Onibokun (1990) estimated that the nation’s housing needs for 1990 were 8,413,980; 7,770,005 and 7,624,230 units for the low, medium and high-income groups, respectively. The same study projected the year 2000 housing needs to be 14,372,900; 13,273,291 and 12,419,068, while the estimates for the year 2020 stands at 39,989,286; 33,570,900; and 28,548,633 housing units for the low, medium and high income groups respectively (Agbola, 1998; Olokesusi & Okunfuluse, 2000).the summary can view as presented as below. Table 1: ESTIMATED HOUSING NEEDS BETWEEN 1990-2020 INCOME
1990
2000
2020
Low-income
8,413,980
14,372,293
39,980,286
Middle-income
7,770,005
13,273,291
33,573,900
High-income
7,624,230
12,419,068
28,548,633
GROUPS
Source: Onibokun, 1990 The figures as presented in the table above presents a startling picture that many Nigerian masses are without shelter. These housing shortages are in both quantitative and qualitative terms, and it is, however, more acute in the urban centres and especially on the urban fringes of Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State. This equally goes a long way to confirm the statement of the immediate past
39
Minister of Housing and Urban Development in a media chat with a journalist; ‘‘that more than 16 million Nigerians especially the urban poor are in dear need of housing’’. Again, the National Rolling Plan of 1990-1992 estimated the housing deficit to increase between 4.8 million to 5.9 million by the year 2000. The 1991 housing policy estimated that 700,000 housing units needed to be built each year if the housing deficit was to be canceled. The document, in fact, indicated that no fewer than 60 percent of new housing units were to be built in the urban centres (Ogu & Ogbuozobe, 2001; Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1991). The pooled effect of high population upsurge and urbanization in a declining economy has thrown Nigeria into serious housing problems. Ironically, the lowincome groups who constitute the majority in the country are the worst affected. In other words, accessibility to housing finance still posed a serious challenge. Ogieto (1987) has observed that the disparity between the price and quantity of housing on the one hand, and the number of households and the money available to them to pay these prices on the other, constitutes the central problem of housing. Where the unit cost of a house is abnormally high, only a few people will be able to afford the houses. According to Okupe & Windapo (2000), ‘‘the gap between income and shelter cost in Nigeria is very wide’’. For example, consider a situation where a worker who earns less than N18,000 per month which is equivalent to less than N216,000 per annum will have pay a whole lot of N250,000 t0 N300,000 to rent sizable two bedroom flat around the fringes of Karu Local Government Area. This has almost if not completely eliminated the low-income earners who are the worst affected in the housing market.
40
High construction cost is yet another problem for the rapid growth of marginalities especially in the urban fringes of Karu. This, however, is seen in the high cost of construction and building materials. For instance, the current market price for a 9 inches cement block goes for N150, and the 6 inches block goes for N120. The cost of a bag of Dangote Cement presently goes for N2, 000 there was a time in (2011) precisely between March-April, that a bag of cement was sold for N3,000. Therefore, it then meant that to build a sizable house of 3000 (6inches) blocks, the cost of buying the blocks alone will be N360,000 only outside other essential materials that can guarantee somebody a house. On the average, it will cost over 3-4 million naira to successfully build and complete a sizable structure that can accommodate a household. Housing conditions, especially those portrayed by the availability and efficiency of facilities and utilities, have been worsening since 1980 (Olokesusi & Okunfulure, 2000). This is all as a result of the ‘hydra-headed’ corruption prevalent in the system. Corruption in the Nigeria housing sector is the ‘microcosm’ of the urban marginality problems today. Looking at the infenistimal level of achievements recorded in government past housing policies, it is a clear indication that more than 70-80 percent of the resources meant for housing development ends in private pockets. The diversion of these resources is critical to the housing problems facing Nigerians in this 21st century. The fundamentals for the growth of urban marginalities in Nigeria are summarized as follows: i.
The problem of plan implementation. There is often a wide gap between what is on paper and what has actually happened on the ground. For example, only 13.3 percent achievement was recorded in
41
the Federal Government’s Housing Programme in the Third National Development Plan (Mabogunje, 2002). ii.
Lack of adequate data relating to the magnitude of the problem due partly to the absence of a national data bank on housing.
iv.
Inconsistency in government policies and programmes, including frequent changes of policies with a change of government and without proper assessment of the existing ones.
v.
Lack of efficient and sustainable credit facility to the housing sector.
vi.
People’s incomes are relatively low in comparison with the market cost of houses, resulting in an affordability problem.
vii.
The high cost of building materials is another critical factor. For example, a recent survey shows that a 50kg bag of Dangote Cement has risen from N650 in 2000 to about N2,500 today.
viii.
The rapid annual growth rate of the Nigerian population, which was estimated at 3.3 percent on the basis of the annual birth rate of 49.3 percent
per
1,000.
Coupled
with
the
rapid
population
growth/urbanization is the problem of an increasing poverty level among the citizenry, which has risen from 65 percent in 1996 to over 70 percent in 2007, according to the UNDP and World Bank estimates. ix.
Lack of effective coordination among Housing Agencies. While all the three tiers of government are involved in one way or the other in housing matters, their activities are hardly coordinated.
x.
Politicization of housing issues, including government involvement in what Onibokun (1983) referred to as the ‘game of number’.
42
2.7
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.7.1 THE ELITIST THEORY The theoretical framework adopted for this analysis stems from the arguments of the elite theorists. The proponents of the theory are Laswell, Pareto, Michel, and host of others. Elite means ‘‘chosen few’’ – those who decide who gets what, when and how (Laswell as cited by Argawal, 2008). They are those people who come at the top because of their superior quality. Those chosen few generally exist in all facet of human endeavours-as defined by Pareto (1848-1923) and cited by Agarwal, 2008, ‘‘Elite consists of those successful persons who rise to the top in every occupation and stratum of the society; there is an elite of lawyers, an elite of teachers, mechanics and even an elite of thieves’’. To Michel (1876-1936), elite consists of those ‘‘few persons who are able to control the apathetic, indolent and slavish people who are susceptible to flattering and obsequious (Sevier obedient) in the presence of strength’’. However, in the same line of argument, Laswell as cited by Agarwal, 2008, defines that ‘‘Elites are the power holders of a body politic’’. Corroborating that definition Mills (1956) look at elites as ‘‘those who hold the leading position in the strategic hierarchies’’. From the foregoing few definitions’ of the term elite, it is evident that in any hitherto given society two class of people exist. In other words, the society is divided into the class of those who have power and those who do not have. That is, those of the haves and the have not. Or better still, as portrayed by Agarwal (2008), the Elite Theory consists of the idea that there are two groups: i.
The selected few who govern the society because of their superior ability, and
43
ii.
The vast masses that are governed because they are destined to be ruled.
As clearly argued by Mosca (1858-1941); in all societies from societies that are meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawning’s of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies-two classes of people appear; a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all Political functions monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, now more arbitrary and violent and supplies the first, in an appearance at least, with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism’’. It is the belief of the elites that every affair of the society should be controlled, manipulated and directed by the privileged few present in that line of profession. They, however contend that policy is supposed to flow downward from the elite to the masses. The theory also contends that in terms of policy-making and policy implementation, it is only the elites that will be able to act in an environment characterized by apathy and information distortion and still yet be able to govern a largely passive mass. Deducing from the definitions of Pareto, Laswell and C. Wright Mills above, the elites like in the words of Marx (1818-1883) are the Capitalists. They control the means of production, distribution, and exchange of any given society. It is the elites who operated and controlled the State apparatus, the Bureaucracy, the Judiciary and even in the worst scenario there is also the elites of drunkards, the elites of thieves and even the elites of prostitutes. They have the capacity to hire the services of others for a wage bill.
44
It is worthy to note that the differentiation of these elites is only in the nomenclature-but elites share common values and disposition of an interest in all sectors. This is always evident in all the prevailing public policies which often reflects elite values and interest, which may be summed up as: ‘‘preserve the status quo (Henry, 1980)’’. 2.7.2 RELEVANCE OF THE THEORY TO THE STUDY The role of the elites and the politics behind housing delivery in Nigeria are two sides of the same coin. Just like in the words of C. Wright Mills as already stated above, ‘‘elites are those who hold the leading position in the strategic hierarchies’’, it then means that housing policy and housing delivery falls equally within the ambit of the elite manipulation and control. That is, they are the ones (elites) who hold the decision making power. As furthered by Gasset (1883-1955) ‘‘a nation is an organized human mass, given structure by a minority of select individuals”. This, however, became glaring in the myriad of housing policies embarked upon by various governments in Nigeria. To continue to maintain the existing status quo-the housing policies in Nigeria from the pre-independence era to post-independence period shows how segregated and lopsided are the policies implementations. They are anti-masses. As already reported, the housing policy in the 1920s during the colonial domination of Nigeria especially during the bubonic plague-the housing policy was exclusively directed towards the provision of houses to the white colonial minorities housed in Government Reserve Areas to the utter neglect of the majority of Nigerians needing the houses. The trend continued even after independence when it was perceived that Nigerians were at the helm of governance and it was expected that things would begin to get better-but rather the post independence period saw the development and extension of the GRAs and the introduction of special housing
45
programmes exclusively for the housing needs of the new national elites in the higher hierarchy of the State. These consistently make public housing programmes which would benefit mass Nigerians very low in the priority list of government. To maintain the existing status quo we can see that the elites in the manipulation of the policy apparatus available to them ensure that only 1.06 percent of the 24,000 housing units were achieved during the planned period of the First National Development Plan of 1962-1968. The story was also the same during the Second National Development 1970-1974, when the so-called low-cost houses built for the masses were said to be too prestigious to be called low-income/low-cost houses as such; all this are the elites at work-because at the end of the day the poor masses were alienated from having/acquiring the houses. During the plan period 1974-1980, only 14.1 percent of the 202,000 which is about 28,500 housing units were delivered. Also, out of the 200,000 housing units planned for delivery between the periods 1981-1985, only 47,200, that is about 23.5 percent were constructed and delivered. The politics of the elite class goes unabated even beyond the 1990s. Under the National Housing Fund Programme, initiated in 1994 to produce 121,000 housing units, less than 5 percent was achieved. Under the current democratic dispensation, the elites devise another strategy to continue to deny the needy from having access to adequate and affordable housing; they succeeded in bringing in the private developers who are both ‘birds of the same feathers’. The involvement of this Private Housing Developers only compounds the existing housing problems facing Nigerians. Instead of ameliorating the housing needs of the masses, today the housing market is far beyond the reach of average households in the country-talked more of the ‘dreaded’ poor and the aged. The elites together with their collaborators (the private developers)
46
make sure that the average Nigerian household has to part with more than 70-75 percent of their income to have a rented apartment to house its household and properties if any. Table: 2. HOUSING DELIVERY AND THE POLITICS OF THE ELITES PLAN PERIODS
PLANNED
ACTUAL
PERCENTAGE %
HOUSING
HOUSING
OF
DELIVERY
DELIVERY
DELIVERY
1962-1968
24,000
254
1.06
1970-1980
202,000
28,500
14,1
1981-1985
200,000
47,200
23.5
1990-1999
121,000
6,050
5
2000-2010
700,000
2013 - Date
1,000,000
Less than 100,000
In progress
Less than 14
In progress
SOURCES: Curled from Onibokun, 2008 Edwin E., 2013 Adetayo O., 2013 The table above clearly demonstrated the desperation of the elite class to render the masses inchoate and without housing. It is interesting to know that out of these few houses constructed and delivered out of the many intended; only less than 10 percent of the total actually got to the poor urban masses. The extravagance of the elites in the area of housing delivery is primarily responsible for the wide gap both in terms of the quality and quantity of the houses available and the income differentiation. As clearly put by Henry (1980), elites have
47
higher incomes from whichever sector they are, more education and hence more status than the masses. The inchoateness of the masses all as a result of the tactics of the elites was responsible for their confinement to the urban fringes of towns most especially around major city centers and the elite class strategically located in the heart of towns-having all infrastructures like pipe-borne water supply, constant electricity, tarred roads and serene environment to themselves. This, however, goes a long way to confirmed Laswell position; ‘‘Consequently, elites are those who make decisions and hold the highest position of power in the political system’’ (Agarwal, 2008). This position then agrees to what Omojinmi (2000) observed; that the numbers of people who sleep in indecent houses in urban Nigeria are more than the number of people who sleep in decent houses. Therefore, due to the ‘precariousity’ of the elite class, housing policy in Nigeria is largely an instrument in the hands of the privileged few (Damulak, 2010). Another angle where the elites downplay the masses is in the area of having access to finance. The mortgage finance institutions are always asking for collateral securities that cannot be provided for by the masses all in an attempt to render them perpetual tenants on the housing properties of the elites. Again, the contributions towards the National Housing Fund which is largely contributed by the masses less than 1 (one) percent of the total contributors ever benefited from such a contribution as can be seen in the table below.
48
Table: 3. PERCENTAGE OF BENEFICIARIES TO THE NATIONAL HOUSING FUND YEAR
NO. OF
NO. OF
PERCENTAGE (%) OF
CONTRIBUTORS
BENEFICIARIES
NO. OF BENEFICIARIES
1992-2009
3,447,482
44,788
1.30
2010 Above
3,772,031
73,676
1.9
SOURCES: FMBN Status Report (2010) Daily Independent (2013) The above table presented a clear picture of the operations of the elite class in the continuous perpetuation and sustenance of their suppressing motives of the masses. From the available data as presented or can be seen above, the masses who contributed or who make up the bulk of the contributors, less than 1 percent of them ever benefited from the said housing contributions. All thanks to the elites manipulations.
49
CHAPTER THREE 3.0
METHODOLOGY The methodology used to put this piece of academic work together involved
both primary and secondary sources. The secondary source consists of the works/opinions of scholars, for example, text books, magazines, journals, newspapers and other related/relevant information gotten from the internet. On the other hand, the primary source chiefly highlights the research design and methods employed in the survey of the growth of urban marginalities on the fringes of Karu Local Government Area. The chapter, however, discusses the research design, population sample, and the sampling procedures. Other discussions are the instrumentation, reliability, and validity of the instruments; and explains the method of data collection and analysis. 3.1
RESEARCH DESIGN The survey technique (i.e. questionnaire) is adopted for the study. This is a
convenient way of obtaining information about the population by gathering data on the opinions of the selected sample and then generalizing the findings because it is an economical way of conducting research covering a relatively wide area (Osuala, 2001; Adekoga and Adetoro, 2007). 3.2
POPULATION OF THE STUDY The population for the study is a total of 1,000 families residents of Karu
Local Government Area of Nasarawa State. This represents only a small fraction (about 0.49 percent) of the over 205,477 estimated population of Karu Local Government of Nasarawa State (National Population Commission census results, 2006).
50
Table 3.1 STATE
Population of the study PROPORTION
PROPORTION OF
PERCENTAGE (%)
OF STATE
KARU L.G.A.
OF L.G.A. POP. TO
POPULATION
POPULATION
STATE POP.
205,477
10.99
NASARAWA 1,869,377
Source:
3.3
National Population Commission (2006 Census Result)
SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY The sample size of the study is 1,000 respondents drawn from the five (5)
major settlements of Karu Local Government Area. The figure realized from the returned questionnaires after administration was 950. All the major residential areas of Karu Local Government area are covered by the study. These areas in alphabetical order are: i.
Aso;
ii.
Kabayi;
iii.
New - Nyanya;
iv.
Mararaba;
v.
Masaka.
In each of these areas, 200 respondents were selected and the questionnaire administered on the basis of stratified random sampling. The table below shows the sample distribution of the study. Table 3.2 STUDY AREA
Sample Distribution of the Study STUDY
SAMPLE SIZE
POPULATION
Karu Sources:
ACTUAL
PERCETAGE (%) OF
SAMPLE
205,477
1,000
ACTUAL SAMPLE
950
National Population Commission (2006 Census Result) Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
51
95
3.4
DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE The distribution of the sample of the study was presented in four (4) tables.
This was done on the basis of area of resident, sex, age, and occupation. Table 3.3
Sample Distribution by Area of Resident (N=950)
AREA OF
SAMPLE
TOTAL
RESIDENT
PERCENTAGE (%) OF TOTAL
Aso
184
19.4
Kabayi
190
20 950
New – Nyanya
194
20.4
Mararaba
185
19.5
Masaka
197
20.7
Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
The table above shows the sample distribution by area of the resident. Out of a total of 950 household and individuals sampled for the study; Masaka, New – Nyanya and Kabayi recorded the highest number of returned respondents recording above 20 percent each of the totals, while Aso and Mararaba recorded the lowest with a little above 19 percent of the total respondents. Details of the sample by area of residents as indicated in the table above. Table 3.4
Source:
Sample Distribution by Sex (N=950) SEX
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE (%)
Male
600
63.2
Female
350
36.8
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014).
52
Table 3.4 above shows the sample distribution by sex. A total of 600 males (63.2 percent) constituted part of the sample of the study. The males were in the majority as against 350 females (36.8 percent). The reason was that more of the male were eager to respond to the questionnaire as against the females who were either shy to answer the questionnaire or are constraint by other factors like religion or even too busy with domestic chaos to pay attention. These somehow make them inaccessible, hence, the low percentage of the female respondents. Table 3.5
Sample Distribution by Age (N=950) AGE
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE (%)
300
31.6
35-49 years
400
42.1
25-34 years
200
21.1
50
5.3
50 years and above
Less than 25 years Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
Table 3.5 above shows the sample distribution by age. Respondents aged 3549 years are in the majority. They made up 42.1 percent of the total sample size. That category was followed by 50 years and above which has 31.6 percent of the study sample to its credit. However, those within the age bracket of fewer than 25 years are in the minority. They made up only 5.3 percent of the sample. This category was low because they were of the school going age and mostly dependents and or applicants or the unemployed. Again, as at the time of administering these questionnaires, the majority of the age bracket had gone back to school and above all, they were yet to make a household of their own.
53
The sample distribution by occupation in table 3.6 below shows the highest number of respondents on which the questionnaire was administered to be the civil servants, constituting 57.9 percent of the total respondents. It was closely followed by the traders/businessmen and women who made up 31.6 percent. The least of them all were the applicants/the unemployed-they constitute 10.5 percent of the total respondents. Table 3.6
Source:
3.5
Sample Distribution by Occupation (N=950)
OCCUPATION
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE (%)
Traders/Business
300
31.6
Civil Servants
550
57.9
Students’/Applicants
100
10.5
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
INSTRUMENTATION The instrumentation developed for this study is a questionnaire develops on
the housing condition/growth of marginality on the urban fringes of Karu Local Government. The questionnaire was chosen as the research instrument because it facilitates research in a relatively wide area and is highly recommended for surveys such as a survey on the marginality problem (Osuala, 2001). The instrument contains a total of 17 items, divided into two distinct sections (section A and section B). Section A seeks information on the bio-data of the respondents and it contains 5 items (i.e. Name, Area of Resident, Sex, Age, and Occupation). Section B, on the other hand, is made up of 12 items which carry the people perception of their living condition in the urban fringes of Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State.
54
For the purpose of clarity, the 12 items of the questionnaire in section B can best be sub-divided into environmental consciousness, housing condition and the demolition of houses all aimed at thriving to ascertain the core fundamentals for the sudden urban growth of Karu local government especially in the last decade. Environmental Consciousness:- five (5) items were covered; they dwelled on the sanitary condition of the environment, how domestic/other wastes are disposed, whether or not government and other relevant authorities evacuate refuse/dirt’s in the environment, and whether or not these families and individuals are comfortable living in these areas. Housing Condition:- housing condition which forms one of the cruces of this analysis also has 4 items. It seeks to elicit respondent’s opinion on the decency of the housing they are occupying, and whether or not these houses they are occupying are owned by themselves (i.e. the house ownership) or by the rent seeking landlords? Above all, it also seeks to elicit respondents perception on the general housing infrastructures around their neighbourhoods and whether or not the government has been able to come in, in terms of provision of facilities like water (i.e. public water supply), tarred roads, electricity and they like. Demolition:- there are only 3 items on demolition. They included items such as; whether the respondents ever suffered any kind of demolition be it natural or manmade and the location where the respondent suffered the demolition. 3.6
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE INSTRUMENT The items of the questionnaire were subjected to a face validity assessment to
ascertain whether or not the items were related to the research problem under investigation. The validity of the questionnaire has to do with whether indeed it measures the conceptually defined problems it is intended to measure (Runkel and
55
McGrath, 1972). Thus to validate the research instrument, the researcher subjected the questionnaire to a face validity test. He also assessed the questionnaire for construct validity and appropriateness of items. 3.7
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INSTRUMENT Administering the questionnaire was the sole responsibility of the researcher.
The questionnaires, however, were administered on respondents who could read and write in the English language, since it is the language used in the research. Out of a total of 1,000 questionnaires administered, 950 were completed and returned. 3.8
METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS The statistical method adopted for the data analysis is the simple percentage.
The simple percent was chosen because it was found convenient for surveys such as surveys on the housing condition of individuals and families. Moreover, there is no empirical way to measure the parameters and or the extent to which individuals and families housing condition could be determined. The simple percentage, therefore, became necessary to be adopted in a survey such as this.
56
CHAPTER FOUR 4.0
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1
DATA PRESENTATION The data for the study were analyzed in line with the research questions (see
appendix I). The results are presented on the basis of the growth of marginalities on the urban fringes of Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa State. The tables show the results of the people’s perception of the marginality problems in the urban fringes in simple percentages. The numbers of total samples in an analysis are presented as N in brackets on the top of each table. Table 4.1 below shows the summary of respondents’ responds to the questionnaire. Table 4.1
Summary of Respondents Response to the Questionnaire
AREA OF
TARGET
NO. OF
PERCENTAGE
RESIDENTS
RESPONDENTS
RETURN
(%)
RESPONSES Aso
200
183
19.5
Kabayi
200
190
20
New – Nyanya
200
195
20.4
Mararaba
200
185
19.5
Masaka
200
197
20.7
Total
1,000
950
95
Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
57
From the above table, a total of 1,000 respondents were targeted to be administered the questionnaire, 200 each for the 5 major residential areas covered in the study. Out of the number, 950 successfully responded to the questionnaire and had actually returned same. This, however, brought the response rate to 95 percent. Deducing from the responses of the above respondents, we can conveniently analyze their responses as presented below. Research Question 1: From the 950 number of respondents, a handful majority responded in the affirmative-meaning that they have ever suffered demolition.
Table 4.2.1
AREA of
Respondents who suffered Demolition (N=950) NO. OF RETURN
NO. of
PERCENTAGE
RESPONDENTS
(%)
142
15
190
154
16.2
194
160
16.8
185
147
15.5
RESIDENTS RESPONDENTS
Aso
Kabayi New – Nyanya
Mararaba
184
Masaka
197
170
17.9
Total
950
773
81.4
Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
58
It is crystal clear from the above table that virtually almost all the respondents have suffered demolition. About 81.4 percent of the total respondents suffered demolition. Research Question 2: Table 4.3.1
Causes of Demolition (N=950)
AREA of
NO. of
NATURAL PERCENT
HUMAN
RESIDENTS
RESPONDE
FACTORS
FACTORS
NTS
AGE
PERCENTAG E (%)
(%)
Aso
184
10
1.05
132
13.9
Kabayi
190
12
1.3
142
14.9
New - Nyanya
194
8
0.8
152
16
Mararaba
185
20
2.1
127
13.4
Masaka
197
25
2.6
145
15.3
75
7.9
Total
950
698
73.5
Source: Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014) From table 4.3.1 above, it is clear that majority of the respondents suffered a man-made kind of demolition with about 73.5 percent as against the 7.9 percent who suffered their own demolition through natural phenomenon.
59
Research Question 3: This research question, however, was asked to ascertain the exact location as to where these individuals suffer the demolition. The data is presented in line with the answers provided for in the questionnaire. Table 4.4
NO. OF
Location Respondents Suffer Demolition (N=950) FCT
RESPONDENTS
PERCENTA
HOME TOWN
PERCENTA
NOT AT
PERCENTAGE
GE (%)
(individual’s
GE (%)
ALL
(%)
7.9
177
18.6
villages)
950
698
Source:
73.5
75
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
Just like table 4.3.1 above, 73.5 percent of the total respondents suffered the El-Rufai Federal Capital Territory (FCT) led demolition exercise. This, however, was largely responsible for the unprecedented increase in human concentration on the fringes of Karu. On the other hand, 75 out of the total respondents’ equivalent to 7.9 percent though suffer demolition but it was through the natural means and it occurred in their own respective home towns/villages. Some were from the remote villages of Benue, Plateau, Nasarawa, etc. The remaining 18.6 percent totaling 177 respondents are said to have not yet suffered or experienced any kind of demolition.
60
Research Question 4: Table 4.5
Sanitary Condition of Respondents Area of Resident (N=950) SANITARY CONDITION Very Good
NO. OF RESPONDENTS 10
PERCENTAGE (%) 1.1
Good
30
3.2
Very Poor
910
95.7
Total Source:
950 Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
100
Table 4.5 above shows that 95.7 percent of the total respondents perceived or rather are of the believed that the sanitary condition of their area was very poor, while, only 3.2 percent believed that it was good and 1.1 percent only believed that their sanitary condition was very good-which is highly insignificant a ratio. Amdii, 1993 in his analysis of government housing policy in Nigeria clearly stated that”there is no doubt that large numbers of urban marginals are undergoing very social decay”. Such environmental decay has become inevitable as a large number of such population find solace in the uncontrolled areas and unplanned settlements. They are essentially called the “deprived areas” because hardly are essential facilities provided.
61
Research Question 5: Table 4.6
Comfortability Living in these Areas (N=950)
COMFORTABILITY Very Comfortable
NO. of RESPONDENTS 30
PERCENTAGE (%) 3.1
Comfortable
70
7.4
Not Comfortable
850
89.5
Total Source:
950 Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
100
Before delving into the analysis of the above table, it is important to explain what comfort or comfortability is all about. Comfortability, or being comfort is a sense of physical or psychological ease, often characterized as a lack of hardship Wikipedia, (2014). Persons who are lacking in comfort are uncomfortable or experiencing discomfort.
In this light, the above table shows that 89.5 percent
equivalent to 850 respondents says they are not comfortable living in their present area of abode. Confirming the words of Ingrid Munro as cited by Amdii, (1993) “a quarter of the worlds’ population live in absolute poverty and are either literally homeless or live in an extremely bad shelter and unhealthy environment. With this huge housing incidence, the resultant effect is that of discomfort. 7.4 percent saying they are comfortable and only 3.1 percent are very comfortable.
62
Research Question 6: Table 4.7
Description of the Environment (N=950)
DESCRIPTION
NO. of
PERCENTAGE
OF THE
RESPONDENTS
(%)
60
6.3
120
12.6
ENVIRONMENT Very Good Good
Very Bad
Total
Source:
770
950
81.1
100
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
From the data of the table above 81.1 percent which is about 770 respondents’ felt that the environment in which they were was bad, only 12.6 percent and 6.3 percent feel the environment in which they were was good and very good respectively.
63
Research Question 7: Table 4.8
Rate of Refuse Evacuation (N=950) REFUSE
NO. of
PERCENTAGE
EVACUATION
RESPONDENTS
(%)
Very Often
_
_
Occasionally
200
21.1
Not at All
750
78.9
Total
950
100
Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
It is clear from the above table that refuses evacuation was not a ritual practice in the neighbourhoods of Karu as only 21.1 percent of the sample populations has their refuse evacuated from the neighbourhood occasionally, and a woping 78.9 percent have to contend living with their refuse always exuding unpleasant odor into the entire neighbourhood. Research question 8: Table 4.9
Disposal of Domestic Waste (N=950)
DISPOSAL OF
NO. of
PERCENTAGE
WASTE
RESPONDENTS
(%)
Open Dumped Site
650
68,4
Refuse Bin
100
10.5
Water Drainage
200
21.1
Total
950
100
Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
64
Of the total respondents covered in this analysis, 650 amounting to about 68.4 percent of the total respondents had no special way of disposing of their refuse other than the open dumped site. This could be any available space/place that presented itself in the neighbourhood with 10.5 percent and 21.1 percent using the refuse bin and water drainages respectively. Research Question 9: Table 4.10
Description of the house occupied (N=950) NO. of
HOUSE
PERCENTAGE
OCCUPIED
RESPONDENTS
(%)
Very Decent
150
15.8
Decent
300
31.6
Very Poor
500
52.6
Total
950
100
Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
Table 4.10 above shows that 52.6 percent of the total respondents’ equivalent to 500 describes the house they were occupying as very poor. That is they were simply managing it, while, about 31.6 percent and 15.8 percent described theirs as decent and being very decent respectively.
65
Research Question 10: Table 4.11
House Ownership
HOUSE OWNERSHIP
(N=950) NO. of RESPONDENTS
PERCENTAGE (%)
I Own it
98
10.3
Rented
700
73.7
Squatting
152
16
Total
950
100
Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
From the table above, 700 out of the total respondents which are equivalent to 73.7 percent constituting the majority were in a rented apartment. 16 percent were squatting with either friends or relatives while, out of the total number, only 98 respondents making up 10.3 percent were said to be proud owners of their own homes. Research question 11: Table 4.12
Family Members in a Room Apartment
NO. OF PERSONS IN A ROOM APARTMENT Less than Two
(N=950) NO. of RESPONDENTS
PERCENTAGE (%)
_
_
Two
350
36.8
More than Two
600
63.2
Total 950 Source: Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
66
100
Table 4.12 above indicated that, of the 950 respondents, 63.2 percent had more than two people occupying a room apartment while about 36.8 percent had two people occupying an apartment. In a similar study, Igwe, 1984 revealed that in the Idiroko area of Lagos, it is the ratio of 8 persons per room apartment. Research Question 12: Table 4.13
Nature of Housing Infrastructures in Karu (N=950) HOUSING
NO. of
PERCENTAGE
INFRASTRUCTURES
RESPONDENTS
(%)
Very Good
113
11.9
Good
300
31.6
Very Poor
537
56.5
Total
950
100
Source:
Researcher’s Field Work (November 2014)
The table above shows that 56.5 percent of the respondents were saying that the housing infrastructures around their neighbourhood were very poor while 31.6 percent others believed that it was good and 11.9 percent still perceived that the housing infrastructures were very good. 4.2
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY From the study as presented in the tables above, from research question 1 it
was established that 81.3 percent of the total respondents suffer demolition in life. Just as 73.5 percent were said to have suffered the demolition as a result of the human factor, 7.9 percent through natural means, a percentage highly insignificant to negate the plausibility or the reliability of the result. From question 3, the study had been 67
able to establish that about 73.5 percent of the total respondents presently on the fringes of Karu local government suffered in the FCT; El-Rufai led demolition, 7.9 percent in their respective home towns and villages while only 18.6 percent of the total respondents did not suffer any form of demolition. The study had also revealed that the sanitary conditions of these areas under investigation were very bad. From research question 4, the study showed 95.7 percent of the respondents describing the environment as very poor. Those respondents were those found in Mararaba, Kabayi, Masaka, etc. However, 3.2 percent described it good and 1.1 percent said the environment was very good. It is in the light of this that the respondents, about 89.5 percent said they were not in any way comfortable living in their present area of abode. That is to say, they were simply living in those areas because they had no other alternative. 7.4 percent were relatively comfortable living in the areas. Those categories of persons were mostly found to be the indigenes of Karu local government area. However, about 3.1 percent of the respondents said they were very comfortable living in their areas. In line with the general opinion of the respondents in question 5 above, 81.3 percent described the environment as bad for human habitation. This, however, might not be unconnected with the desolate sanitary condition of these areas. As revealed by this finding, the poor sanitary environment was the second name in these settlements. 12.6 percent described it as good with 6.3 percent describing it as very good. The inability of the relevant authorities to consistently evacuate the refuse generated/accumulated by households and businesses was believed to be responsible for the unhealthy look of the environment, 78.9 percent of respondents said government and relevant authorities did not evacuate the refuse at all, with only about 21.1 percent of the respondents saying that they occasionally evacuated the refuse in their own neighbourhoods. However, one of the 68
major catalysts for the disgusting environmental condition of the urban fringes of Karu was the fact that an overwhelming majority of the people and households and businesses dispose of their waste in the open dump site most often around the backyard of houses or by the road side. 68.4 percent of the total respondents used the open dump site for their refuse disposal, 21.1 percent, unfortunately, still uses the water drainages or channels and only an insignificant 10.5 percent of the respondents who used the refuse bin which ended up being taken to the open dump site. From research question 9, an overwhelming majority of 52.6 percent described the houses they were occupying as very poor, 31.6 percent as decent with 15.8 percent saying it is very decent. In research question 10, the finding revealed that 73.7 percent were in a rented apartment. That is, they were simply occupying those houses that were not built to their taste and again, only what their income could afford them at that material moment. Considering the bulk of the people living on the fringes of Karu, only 10.3 percent of the total respondents were said to own the houses they were occupying. On the other hand, 16 percent were squatting either with friends or relatives, with 73.7 percent living in rented apartments. The most disturbing of all these was the fact that most of these people were found to be overcrowded in room apartments. 63.2 percent of the total respondents were more than two in a room apartment a condition considered to be unhealthy for humans. However, 36.8 had at least two persons in a room apartment. On the housing infrastructures around the various settlements, majority described it as very poor (56.5 percent), to some other persons (31.6 percent) described the housing infrastructures as good and to others still, 11.9 percent as very good.
69
The findings of this study realized that the government of Nasarawa State was yet to make its presence/impact to be felt among and around the people on the fringes of Karu local government. Places like Mararaba, Masaka, and Kabayi were seriously lacking in both access and good motorable roads. As opined earlier, the public water supply was none existent but depend on rivers. Electricity was only present in areas where they had been connected with many other areas yet to be connected to the electricity grid. 4.3
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS The first major finding of this study was the fact that the unprecedented
growth on the urban fringes of Karu local government area of Nasarawa State might not be unconnected with the former Minister of Federal Capital Territory, Nasir ElRufai led demolition in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) where many people especially Civil Servants, artisans’ were the worst affected. It was discovered that before the FCT demolition (i.e. prior to 2003-2006), Karu was sparsely populated and largely cohabited by its locals and some few settlers who were predominantly traders. With the demolition exercise, many were left with no other choice rather than to move to other safe areas like Karu as man must survive. It was in the aftermath of the aforementioned disposition of Government (separating the poor from among the rich) that Karu which is not part of the FCT by geographical mapping become the safe-heaven. This, however, was largely responsible for the major sanitary problems as it is inherent within the vicinity of Karu. From the findings above, 95.7 percent of the respondents describe the sanitary condition of Karu urban fringes as very poor. The researcher, however, found out that even in areas where refuse is occasionally evacuated, the rates at which these refuse 70
re-surfaces still left much to be desired. The main road (express way) has become the refuse dumped site for many families and businesses alike, as it was the only area or way that the authorities found it expediently convenient to evacuate the dirt’s generated by the business, households, eateries, etc. Taking the whole stretch from Mararaba to Auta-Balefi in Nasarawa State, the road sides were littered with dirt. However, the World Bank came in to assist by contracting the refuse evacuation project to some private companies. The authorities of the local government and the state government were not doing anything much about the dirt’s and refuse, hence compounding the environmental related marginality problems of the area. In the cause of this investigation; places like Mararaba, Kabayi, Aso, and Masaka had become more of a slum than a suburban area. This, however, goes a long way to confirm Nwaka’s position which says that ‘‘most urban fringes of towns and cities are largely characterized by slums and squatter settlements’’, general sanitation and unpleasant noise pollution becoming the order of the day (Nwaka, 2005). All these (indiscriminate dumping of refuse, noise pollution, crimes, etc) however were responsible for the people and households to expressly declare that they were not comfortable living in those areas and hence describing the general environment as bad for living. Within the same areas under investigation, research has shown that in spite of the environmental problems cum the harsh weather condition Karu is known for-with temperature ranging between 300C-450C , over 63.2 percent of the households had more than two people occupying a room apartment. A condition of overcrowding arising there from. Hence, 52.6 percent of the total respondents said the house they 71
were occupying was not descent (i.e. very poor). Just as observed by Nwaka, (2005), the vast majority of the houses especially those in the peripheries like Karu were very crowded, structurally defective, and sometimes located in areas that do not provide adequate defenses against diseases and other health problems. In the urban marginality of Karu, the environmental conditions had progressively become appalling and life threatening, especially with the unprecedented growth, resulted from the Abuja demolition and the ever increasing daily influx of people into the city. In these areas, water supply and sanitation were grossly inadequate for domestic and personal hygiene, leading to high incidence of diarrhea, cholera and other diseases. Commercial and domestic wastes were not properly disposed of, with large volumes of rubbish left to litter the streets and to accumulate in open dumps where flies and other disease carrying insects and rodents proliferate. The open drains where they even existed were often clogged with dirt and hence exuding unpleasant odor unto the neighbourhood. Pools of stagnant water have become miniature streams, and more dreadfully, the waste water gushing from bathrooms and kitchens provided safe breeding sites for mosquitoes, flies and other vectors. Food contamination and poisoning were yet another major issue that poses a serious challenge to the inhabitants of these areas, air pollution, especially from exposure to toxic fumes from open cooking fires and stoves in poorly ventilated homes, generating sets, were however responsible for a wide variety of respiratory infections among the entire population. The investigation also revealed that most of the old/traditional houses in Mararaba, Kabayi, Aso, and Masaka were build with mud walls with only few having concrete walls.
72
Housing affordability was another major problem encountered in these marginalities of Karu local government. 700 individuals and households out of the 950 total respondents were in rented apartments. As captured above, housing alone (i.e. Rent) took more than 70-75 percent of households disposable income. Today, within these areas under review, a single room apartment safe content goes for as much as N130,000-N150,000 per annum and as low as N80,000-N110,000 per annum. As a result, still, a greater percentage were either squatting with friends or with relatives or are found occupying uncompleted buildings, thereby becoming ‘‘per time landlords’’. Immediately the real owner of the house comes around to resume work or to complete his/her building, they moved to another available uncompleted building around or can change location entirely. The unpleasant part of it all was that some of these persons were with their wives and sometimes children inclusive. This however confirmed the Ingrid Munro reports which said that ‘‘one billion people-i.e. a quarter of the World’s Population lived in absolute poverty, they are either literally homeless or live in an extremely bad shelter and unhealthy environment’’ (Olarewaju, 1987). The highest height of the state government total neglect of Karu could be conspicuously seen in the total absence of good tarred/access roads connecting the streets. If you can take a walk within the streets of Mararaba, Kabayi and Masaka for instance, then you could appreciate the fact that these areas are in total incommunicado with its relevant authorities. The worst of it is when these areas were to be navigated in the rainy season. Only the motor bicycle popularly called “Okada” who can sometimes maneuver their ways often at high cost to the people. Public water supply was completely absent. It was the private individuals, those who could afford to drill water boreholes, they were the major providers of water and who in turn made 73
bricks business out of the sales of the water to the general public. The ‘‘Mai Ruwa’’ (water Hawker) business has also become lucrative. This could be seen where the many “Mai Ruwas’” migrated from the far north sometimes as far as the Niger Republic to trade in the business as many households patronized them to meet their daily water needs. Our investigation had also shown that a household averaging 3-4 persons spend not less than N30,000-N40,000 per annum on water alone. At scattered intervals, one can see public (over-head) water tanks and boreholes, it was found that none of them had ever lived to serve the purpose for which it was built. The people, however, had made the researcher understand that such projects (over-head tanks and boreholes) were used by agents of the authorities as a conduit pipe to siphon public funds at the expense of the poor masses. Electricity was epileptic in the areas covered in this research and was completely absent in many other areas as they were yet to be connected to the electricity grid. In the final analysis, however, it was evidently clear that the marginality problems of Karu local government were enormous and largely responsible for the aforementioned marginality related issues, all thanks to the total neglect of the authorities in coming to the plight of the citizens but chooses to play politics with them.
74
CHAPTER FIVE 5.0
SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
SUMMARY The study of urban marginality problems on the fringe of Karu Local
Government Area of Nasarawa State was very revealing as it brought to bear the enormity and vagaries of the various challenges people face in this area. Though the area (Karu), is critical to the economy of Nasarawa State and very strategic to the FCT, not only of its proximity but because the bulk of the FCT workforce are housed in this area. In this study, it was discovered that the unprecedented growth of Karu was largely as a result of the FCT demolition of illegal houses of 2003 – 2006 which led to the migration of hundreds of thousand households/families into Karu LGA. The inchoateness of the authorities responsible for growth and development of towns and cities, the houses built were not properly monitored or guided during construction as people/individuals who could afford to buy and lay blocks raise structures the way it was pleasing to them. This singular act today had made a large chunk of the towns completely unplanned and therefore not befitting of an urban city. The demonstration effect of the above challenges cum problems today contributed to the ills the town suffers. The crime rate is on the increase and even prostitution is prominent, poverty and unemployment are increasing as the number is unprecedented. Noise pollution from sound systems in the street and corners of towns is enough to cause ear problem to people. The dirt generated from the neighbourhood and the ordourful water gushing out from houses into blocked drainages clogged with refuse and into the roads were responsible for many diseases and growth of vectors.
75
However, this research work was divided into five chapters. Chapter one is the introduction which looked into the background of the study, statement of the problem, the research questions, objectives of the study, proposition and the organization of the work. In chapter two is the literature review with relevant scholarly works explored. Furthermore, various housing policies attempted at one point in time or the other were looked at and analyzed: the pre – independence and post – independence housing policies, the National Development Plans etc. the achievements of government housing delivery in the country and the growth of urban marginalities which is the crux of the study were also reviewed. The efforts of the Nasarawa State Government evolved to ameliorate the housing plight of its citizens were also looked at. The elite theory or school of thought was adopted for the theoretical framework, on which the study derived its argument and the basis upon which majority of Nigerians are without homes today. The research methodology is in chapter three. The research design, research population, and method of data analysis are therein. The data presentation and analysis is in chapter four and chapter five is the summary, conclusion, and recommendations. 5.2
CONCLUSION Having analysed the urban marginality problems inherent of the urban fringe
of Karu Local Government Area of Nasarawa state, it is the responsibility of the authorities of both the state and Local Governments to rise up to the challenge of modern urban growth and planning and to take advantage of its proximity to the FCT and make the place (Karu) the economic hub of the state. The Karu urban fringe is truly “a goldmine” as confirmed in the words of the Executive Governor of the State but the reverse is the case in terms of the economic benefits derivable therein. Hence, Karu is a mere spectator in the whole game. Tenement rates alone if fully explored is
76
capable of generating a huge amount of revenue in return for the state in addition to those that will be generated if households would be made to pay a token for the evacuation and disposal of its domestic wastes/refuse. 5.3
RECOMMENDATIONS Following the research findings above, I wish to make the following
recommendations: i.
The Government of Nasarawa State should step up the enforcement of the implementation of the Greater Karu Urban Area Master Plan.
ii.
The haphazard raising of building structures without obtaining the requisite building approval should be discouraged by ensuring that every building should have “Government Approval”. Defaulters should be severely punished. This would also serve as a source of revenue to the government.
iii.
From the findings above, putting the infrastructural development of the area under checked has become imperative as this will help to curb the unprecedented growth of the shanties and squalors.
iv.
The campaign on the evacuation of dirt and refuse in the open dumps should be step up. This has consistently become an eyesore, especially on the expressway.
v.
The high cost of building/building materials is another factor responsible for the high cost of the rents and the inability of most low and middle-income earners to own houses. Therefore, the government needs to subsidize the cost of building materials or alternatively provide low and middle-income earners with loans/mortgages to
77
enable them to build and owned houses as this will go a long way to reduce the overcrowded number of persons per room. vi.
The government should improve access to housing finance for the lowincome earners must especially to enable them own houses.
vii.
The role of the primary mortgage re – finance institution should be streamlined to favour the low and middle-income group.
viii.
The corruption in the housing sector must be tackled to ensure transparency and accountability in the sector.
ix.
The government is strongly advised not to play politics with the problem of housing as it has a negative impact on the socio – economic life of the country. The qualitative and quantitative housing challenge of the challenge of the urban marginality of Karu LGA is intractable; it therefore, calls for serious attention.
78
BIBLIOGRAPHY Abaku, T. (2006). “Nearer to peace” Academic associates Peace Work. Retrieved 4th May, 2011. Abumere, S. (1987). Urbanization and Urban Decay in Nigeria. NISER, Ibadan. Adeagbo, D. (1997). Nigerian Housing. NISER, Ibadan. Adekoya, S. O. A. and Adetoro, J. A. (2007).
Fundamentals of statistics and
research methodology. Lagos: University of Lagos Press. Adeleye, et al (2005). Public Housing Delivery in Nigeria: Problems and Challenges. World Congress on Housing, Transforming Housing Environments through the Design; September 27th-30th. Ademiluyi, I. A. (2010)
Public Housing Delivery Strategies in Nigeria: A
Historical Perspective of Policies and Programmes. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa. Vol. 12, No. 6. Ademiluyi, I. A. & Raji, B. A. (2008).
Public and Private Developers as
agents in Urban Housing Delivery in Sub-saharan Africa: The situation in Lagos State. Humanity and Social Sciences Journal. Agarwal, R. C. (2008).
Political Theory: Principles of Political Science.
Chand Company Ltd, New-Delhi. Agbola, T. (1998). The Housing of Nigerian. NISER, Ibadan. Amdii, I. E. S. (2010). Lecture note on Urban Politics delivered to M.Sc class of 2010, Nasarawa State University, Keffi. Amdii, I. E. S. (1993).
Analysis of Government Housing Policy in Nigeria. A.
B. U. Press, Zaria. Anosike, F. (2009). “1st October,; the best of Nigeria”. Retrieved 4th May, 2011. Asaju, T. (2003).
“Fear
of
the
Bulldozers”.
Newswatch.
Newswatch
Communications. Retrieved 4th May, 2011. COHRE, (2008).
“Nigeria: The myth of the Abuja Master Plan”. Reliefweb.
Retrieved 4th May, 2011. Daily Independent, (2013). “NHF: Nigerian workers and an uninspiring Housing Scheme”. http://dailyindependentnig.com/2013. retrieved 4th April, 2014. Damulak, D. D. (2010).
The Relevance of Marxian Theory to Housing
Policy in Nigeria. A term paper presented to the 2009/2010 M.Sc class 79
of Public Policy Analysis. Echono, A. (2011). “Nigeria: Why is House Rent High in the FCT?”. Leadership (Abuja). Allafrica.com “Housing the Homeless Nigerians”. Sahara Reporters.
Edwin, E. (2013).
http://saharareporters.com/article/housing-homeless-nigerians. retrieved 27th March, 2014. Egunjobi, L. (1999). Our Gasping Cities, An inaugural Lecture. University of Ibadan, U. I. press. Encarta, (2007). Housing (Shelter): A Computer-Based Microsoft software. Fadahunsi,S. O. (1985).
Fifty years of Housing in Nigeria. NISER, Ibadan.
Federal Office of Statistics (1997). Annual Abstract of Statistics. Lagos, Nigeria. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1991).
National Housing Policy. Federal
Ministry of Works and Housing, Abuja. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1998).
First National Rolling Plan, 1990
1992. National Planning Commission. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2000).
Seventh National Rolling Plan, 1996
1998. National Planning Commission. Frischmen, (2009). “Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Ltd”. British Expertise. Retrieved 5th May, 2011. Gasset, O. Y. (1883-1955). Theory of the Masses. In: Agarwal, R. C. (2008) Political Theory: Principles of Political Science. Chand Company Ltd, New-Delhi. Ghost, P. (2014).
“Nigerians Set up Government Mortgage Firm to help solve
Massive Housing Shortage”. http://www.ibtimes.com/Nigeria. Henry, C. (1980). Public Administration and Public Affairs. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs. Ibukun, Y. et’al (2013).
“Nigeria
Housing
Shortage
rising
with
Demolition: Mortgages”. http://www.bloomberg.com Karl, M. (1818-1883).
Das Capital. A selected works. Vol. 1, Moscow.
Kwanshie (2003). Housing and Urban Development. www. Nigeriafirst.org Mabogunje, A. (2002).
At Lagos Housing Fair, Mabogunje Lists Delivery
Problems. The Punch. Wednesday, May, 2002. Mabogunje, A. (2003).
Welcome Address at the Stakeholders Forum on 80
Slum
Strategies for Enhancing Domestic Production of Building Materials for Mass Housing Development in Nigeria. Held at NICON Hilton Hotel, Abuja. 24th September, 2003. Mosca (1858-1941). The Organizational Approach. In: Agarwal, R. C. (2008) Political Theory: Principles of Political Science. Chand Company Ltd, New-Delhi. Murray, S. (2007). “Life of poverty in Abuja’s wealth”. BBC Home. National Population Census Result, (2006). Nnanna, U. J. (2010).
“Housing Crisis: A Theoretical Study of the Home
Building Industry in Nigeria. International Business Research. Retrieved 27th March, 2014 on http://www.ccsenet.org/ibr Nubi, O. T. (2008). Affordable Housing Delivery in Nigeria. The South African Foundation, International Conference and Exhibition. Cape Town. Nwaka, G. I. (2005).
The Urban informal Sector in Nigeria: Towards
Economic Development, Environmental Health and Social Harmony. Nwaka, G. I. (1992). “Development Control and Shelter Provision in Nigerian Cities”. Habitat International, Vol. 16, No. 1 Ogieto, Y. I. (1987).
Shelter Provision in Nigeria: Some Thoughts on
Housing Subsidies. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Journal. Ogu, V. I. & Ogbuzobe, J. E. (2001).
Housing Policy in Nigeria: Towards
Enablement of Private Housing Development. Habitat Internationals. Okupe, L. & Windapo, C. (2000). The Role of Private Sector in Housing Delivery in Nigeria. A Seminar Paper on Effective Approach to Housing Delivery in Nigeria organized by the Nigerian Institute of Building, Ibadan. Olateju, B. (1990). Innovating Building Materials: Application for Cooperative Housing Development. A paper presented at the National Workshop on Housing Cooperative for Nigeria. Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, 17th-18th December. Oludayo, A. (1997). “The Role of the Judiciary in the Administration of Rent Control and Recovery of Residential Premises Edict No. 6 of 1997. Report of a workshop edited by Prof. E. N. U. Uzodike. Olatubara, C. O. (2008). The Dynamics of Households. Residential Choice 81
in Nigeria: The Fifteenth Faculty Lecture. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Olokesusi, F. & Okunfulure, O. J. (2000). Strategic issues in Housing. NISER, Ibadan. Omojinmi, I. O. (2000).
SINA Technical Workshop on housing
Cooperatives, Nairobi 6th-17th October. Onibokun, A. G. (1983).
Housing Needs and Responses: A Planners view.
Journal of the Nigeria Institute of Town Planners. Onibokun, P. (1990).
Urban Housing in Nigeria. NISER, Ibadan.
Onibokun, P. (1985).
Housing in Nigeria. NISER, Ibadan.
Onibokun, R. C. (2008).
Housing in Nigeria. NISER, Ibadan.
Onyekwwere, J. (2006).
“FCT: The El-Rufai Revolution”. Newswatch.
Newswatch Communications Ltd. Onyike, J. A. (2007).
An Assessment of the Affordability Question in the
Mortgage Market-A case study of the National Housing Fund (NHF). Paper Presented at a Workshop on Sustainable Mortgage Market for Effective Home Ownership. Abuja, Nigeria. Osuala, E. C. (2001). Introduction to research methodology: Onitsha
African-FEP
Publishers Limited. Pareto, V. (1848-1923).
‘The Mind and Society’. In: Agarwal, R. C. (2008)
Political Theory: Principles of Political Science. Chand Company Ltd, New-Delhi. Researcher’s field work (2014). Robert, M. (1876-1936). The Organisational Approach. In: Agarwal, R. C. (2008) Political Theory: Principles of Political Science. Chand Company Ltd, New-Delhi. Runkel, P. S. and McGrath, J. E. (1972). Research
on
human
behavior:
systematic guide to method. New-York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Salau, A. T. (1990).
The Environmental context of Urban Housing
Public Services and Infrastructural Facilities in Nigerian Urban Centres. In: Onibokun, P. (ed.). Urban Housing in Nigeria. NISER, Ibadan. Struyk, R. J. (2005).
Home Purchase Affordability and Mortgage
Finance. In Housing Finance: New and Old Models in Central Europe, Russia and Kazakhstan. Jozsef Hegedus & Raymond, J. Struyk, Editors. 82
A
Budapest: Open Society Institute. Suleiman, M. (2010). “Nigeria: High Cost of Abuja Accommodation Worrisome”. Allafrica.com United Nations (1992).
Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement
Development. Earth Summit Agenda 21, The United Nations Programmes of Action from Rio. UN Department of Public Information, New-York. Wikipedia, (2007). Public Housing. Retrieved December 5, 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/publichousing. Wikipedia, (2012).
Greater
Karu
Urban
Area.
Retrieved
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/karu_urban_area World Bank Report, (1990). http://ssm.com/abstract=1122303
83
June,
2012.
