Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
49
Entrepreneurship Policies and Poverty Reduction in Selected
States of the South-East, Nigeria
Light IKONNE; Ngozi Nwogwugwu*, PhD.
Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Veronica Adeleke School of Social Sciences
Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, Nigeria
Abstract
Entrepreneurship policies and programs have been noted and acknowledged globally as one of the instruments
for achieving poverty reduction. As a result of the widespread poverty in the country, previous government
administrations in Nigeria have at different times initiated policies and programs aimed at poverty reduction.
This study investigated the relationship between entrepreneurship policies and poverty reduction in selected
states of the South-East, Nigeria. Survey design was employed in the study. The population of the study were
three selected states (Abia, Imo and Anambra States). Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed in
analysis of data. The study found that entrepreneurship policies had joint significant effect on poverty reduction
F(1, 133) =117.900, Adj. R
2
=.468, p<0.05 in Abia state. Also, in Imo State, entrepreneurship policies had
significant effect on poverty reduction F(1, 120)=237.008, Adj. R
2
=.663, P<0.05. Entrepreneurship policies had
significant effect on poverty reduction F(1, 140)=501.709, Adj. R
2
=.781, P<0.05 in Anambra state. The study
recommends strong and focused emphasis on youth and women empowerment through the provision of
Entrepreneurship Training Centers in all the local government areas within the three selected states of the South
East as this will enhance employment generation and poverty reduction.
Keywords: Entrepreneurship policies, employment generation, economic development, poverty reductions
DOI: 10.7176/DCS/10-2-06
Publication date: February 29
th
2020
1. Introduction
Poverty as a critical issue has hampered on economic development in Nigeria in particular and Africa at large.
Nigeria as one of the most populous countries in Africa is enormously endowed with human, agricultural and
huge untapped mineral resources. Despite its endowed blessings, the country has not really utilized all its
resources to its advantage rather the country has expiremented through successive governments different policies
aimed at reducing poverty and unemployment among the citizens especially the youths and women. According
to Adagba, et al, (2012) as cited in Ndubuisi-Okolo and Anigbuogu (2019), that the high level of involvement of
Nigerian youths in various violent crimes can be attributed to the level of unemployment and poverty in the
country.
Although, Nigeria is naturally blessed with both material, human and entrepreneurship capabilities but the
realization of the full potentials of these opportunities have been inhibited by the implementation of
inappropriate and unsustainable entrepreneurship policies as these policy interventions would have stimulated
entrepreneurship development but failed. As a result, indigenous entrepreneurs become distribution agents of
imported products as opposed to building internal entrepreneurial capacity for manufacturing and expert services
for the nation (Adebobola, 2014, Ebiringa, 2012, Thaddeus, 2012).
In Idam (2014), entrepreneurship is seen as an emerging field of study and as an area of human endeavor,
which has received increasing interest of researchers and policy makers the world over. It has equally provoked
controversies over its concepts and definitions. Generally, entrepreneurship as a concept is seen not only as an
effective means of combating unemployment, poverty and under-development in the developing nations, but also
as a strategy for rapid economic development in both developed and developing nations (Schumpeter, 1934;
Hamilton, 2000; Praag & Versloot, 2007). Entrepreneurship serves as a source of income generation and poverty
reduction for some major groups both rural and urban inhabitants without recognized paid jobs (Ihugba, Odii, &
Njoku, 2014) and also serves as an element of change and transformation of economic, cultural and societal
development (Moghimi, 2008).
The importance of entrepreneurship policies in several economies globally cannot be overemphasized; as
such majority of countries worldwide have established such policies to support entrepreneurship in their various
countries (Gangi & Timan, 2013). It has been established that entrepreneurship policies are instruments for job
creation as well as economic development (Friedman, 2011). The 2012 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)
empirically identified Nigeria as one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the world. The study shows that 35
out of every 100 Nigerians are engaged in some kind of entrepreneurial activity or the other. The only countries
that have better records in sub-sahara Africa are Malawi (36%), Uganda (36%), Ghana (37%) and Zambia
(41%).
In Nigeria, studies have been carried out to show the positive impacts of entrepreneurship policies on the
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
50
problem of high unemployment rate, high level of poverty and slow economic development rate (Ajiboshin,
Raimi, Raheem, and Igwe, 2013; Salami, 2013; Thaddeus, 2012; Abimbola & Agboola, 2011; Agboli &
Ukaegbu, 2006; Ariyo, 2005; Adejumo, 2001). Government at all levels have come up with several policies
such as National Directorate of Employment , Mass Mobilization for Self-Reliance and Economic Recovery ,
Bank of Industry, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agencies (SMEDAN), Entrepreneurship
Development Centre (EDC) and the Youth Enterprise With Innovation in Nigeria (YOUWIN) designed to
stimulate entrepreneurship to be able to cushion the hostile effects of unemployment, youth restiveness,
terrorism, kidnapping and so many other social vices within our various localities. The negative impact caused
by these vices are more evident in developing countries when compared to developed nations where improved
macro-economic stability had been experienced in the past (Sevastapulo 2014, Adebobola, 2014).
In some developed countries of the world such as the United States of America, Britain and China,
entrepreneurship is considered a formidable instrument for socio-economic empowerment, job creation and
poverty reduction. Such impact of entrepreneurship is also evidently shown in countries which reported declines
in the unemployment levels because they have higher level of increase in entrepreneurial initiative index
(Hussain & Norashidah, 2015).
Entrepreneurship policies have at various times been initiated by government of Nigeria to ensure the
reduction in unemployment and to encourage economic development. Even international bodies such as the
World Bank and IMF have also contributed to the efforts directed at reducing unemployment. For instance, a
Partnership Strategy that covers a four-year period from 2014 to 2017 was approved in April 2014 by the Board
of Executive Directors of the World Bank to assist the Nigerian government. It focused on three key strategies
that aimed to foster entrepreneurship development, reduce poverty and unemployment (The Guardian, 2015).
The study examined the relationship between entrepreneurship policies and poverty reduction in selected states
of South East, Nigeria.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Entrepreneurship policy
Policy is a part of the environmental factors that supports the development of entrepreneurship of any country
world over. Stevenson and Lundström (2001, p. 11) noted that entrepreneurship policy has become an emerging
field of the economic development arena. Global attention in entrepreneurship policy has equally increased ever
since. Lundstrom and Stevenson (2005), define entrepreneurship policy as policy measures taken to stimulate
entrepreneurship; that are aimed at the pre-start, the start-up and post-start-up phases of the entrepreneurial
process; designed and delivered to address the areas of motivation, opportunity and skills; with the principal aim
of encouraging more people to start their own businesses (Storey, 2008). Entrepreneurship policies are the plans
or courses of action, established by government in order to influence and enhance entrepreneurial decisions and
actions (Audretsch, Grilo, & Thurik, 2007; Vesper, 1983; Klapper, Amit, & Guillén, 2010).
Oni & Daniya, (2012), as cited in Margaret, (2018), asserted that governments of most countries especially
developing countries like China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Nigeria have in the past invested efforts and
resources in initiating policies expected to improve entrepreneurship development. For instance, the case of the
Chinese government which has made resolute efforts through policies and resources on the development of high
technology businesses (Obaji & Olugu, 2014). The Brazilian entrepreneurship movement which has improved
greatly as a result of government policies aimed towards developing the low-tech businesses as well as high
technological oriented firms (Etzkowitz, 2009).
However, in Nigeria, different administrations at various periods have initiated programmes and policies
aimed towards developing its entrepreneurship. Several developmental and financial strategies were employed in
this process as well. Despite these efforts by the government, the programme has been unsuccessful as a result of
domineering bureaucratic processes, corruption, insufficient and ineffectual infrastructural amenities (Ihugba,
Odii, and Njoku 2014, Obaji & Olugu, 2014).
However, in the light of the government’s efforts for poverty reduction and to enable the private sector
perform her expected role as the driver of economic development, the government which has a fundamental
responsibility of promoting growth and development came up with policies to encourage private sector
initiatives and participation. According to Idam, (2014), the major anti-poverty policies and programmes by
successive governments in Nigeria include the following;
National Enterprise Development Programme (NEDEP) which is the centrepiece of the Government’s
efforts at poverty reduction and a Federal government initiative launched in 2013. The programme was expected
to provide business development services, entrepreneurship training, access to affordable finance and core craft
skills acquisition. One of the programme’s main objective is to solve the problems of unemployment, through
technical and vocational training and the empowerment of the unemployed by providing access to start-up funds.
The National directorate of employment (NDE) which was established in 1987 by CAP 250 of the law of
Federal Republic of Nigeria (Military decree) and has the main task of creating job opportunities and
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
51
implementing government polices directed at solving the growing unemployment problem of the economy.
Baba, Dickson, & Kromtit (2014), recalled the programme was to address four major areas to combat
unemployment:
i). Small Scale Enterprises programme: This is for the graduate and mature unemployed people. ii).
Vocational / entrepreneurship skills development programme: This is for National Open Apprenticeship, School
on wheels, Waste to Wealth, Resettlement and disabled persons scheme and so forth.
iii). Rural Employment Promotion Programme: Graduate Agriculture Self- Employment Programme. iv).
Special public works programme: Oyemoni, (2003), stressed that NDE, (1986) has trained more than two million
unemployed and provided business training for not less than 400,000 Nigerians. Since its establishment in 1986,
NDE has been able to record some achievements in the fulfillment of its mandate from designing employment to
generating programmes and training schemes to empower thousands of unemployed persons in our society.
The Small and Medium Enterprises Equity Investment Scheme was approved by the Bankers’ Committee at
its 246th meeting held on 21st December 1999 and was formally launched on August 21, 2001, by former
president Olusegun Obasanjo (Sanusi, 2003). With its objectives as to address some of the factors militating
against the attainment of the full potentials of SMEs. This was a response to government entrepreneurship
policies direction towards improving banks participation in the growth and development of Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) (Sanusi, 2003).
The Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN) was established in 2003,
to facilitate the promotion and development of Micro, Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (MSMEs) sector of
the Nigerian economy (SMEDAN, 2011). The overall objective was reducing poverty through wealth and job
creation to facilitate socio-economic transformation or national economic development, the Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprise are perceived as engine of socio-economic transformation in both developed and developing
countries.Ekwem (2011), listed the functions of SMEDAN as contained in the enabling Act of 2003 which is
summarized as follows: Stimulating, coordinating and monitoring the development of the MSMEs sector,
initiating and articulating policy ideas for micro, small and medium enterprises’ growth and development,
facilitating and promoting development programmes or initiative, support services in other to accelerate the
modernization of MSME operations in the country, serving as vanguard for poverty reduction, rural
industrialization, job creation and enhance sustainable livelihoods.
The YouWiN Programme was established in 2011 with the collaboration of the Ministry of Finance, the
Ministry of Communication Technology (CT), the Ministry of Youth Development and the Ministry of Women
Affairs and Social Development which launched annual Business Plan Competition (BPC) for aspiring young
entrepreneurs to showcase their business expertise, skills and aspirations to business leaders, investors and
mentors in Nigeria (Tende, 2014). A major objective of the Programme is to generate jobs by encouraging
aspiring entrepreneurial youths in Nigeria to develop and execute business ideas that will lead to job creation
(Akpedji, 2015, YouWIN, 2013).
However, some positive achievements have been recorded by the Nigerian government in her efforts at
poverty reduction in the areas of agricultural and industrial development, employment generation and wealth
creation, youth empowerment through skill acquisition training by the Small and Medium Scale Enterprise
development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), the provision of “strategies for the eradication of absolute poverty
in Nigeria” by the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP), The provision of financial assistance for
the establishment of large, medium and small enterprises; as well as expansion, diversification and
modernization of existing enterprises; and rehabilitation of ailing industries by the bank of industry. Despite all
these efforts by the government and its development agaencies, the incidence of poverty in Nigeria remains very
high. A number of factors have been listed as have contributed to the ineffectiveness of the successive
governments’ efforts at poverty reduction. These factors include poor Policy implementation, policy instability
and inconsistency (Osotimehin, Jegede, Akinlabi and Olajide, 2012), Public sector dominance, unstable
governmental system, lack of financial support from relevant agencies, corruption (Ocheni and Gemade,
(2015),Adebisi and Gbegi, 2013), Poor funding; Ihugba, Odii and Njoku (2013) infrastructural decay; Okeke and
Eme (2014), multiple taxation and levies (Gbandi and Amissah, (2014); Agwu and Emeti, (2014); Etuk, Etuk
and Baghebo, (2014); Adebisi and Gbegi, (2013) and the high cost of doing business in Nigeria, Duru (2011)
and World Bank (2008). Atawodi and Ojeka, (2012).
2.2 Poverty reduction
Poverty has currently been seen as “the world’s greatest threat to peace and stability even more than terrorism
and other highly publicized struggles” (Oloyede, 2014; Omoniyi, 2013). According to Sachs (2009) in Omoniyi
(2013), “more than eight million people around the world die each year because they are too poor to stay alive”.
According to Omadjohwoefe (2012) as cited in Anigbogu et al (2016), “Nigerian poverty profile has been on
upward trend over the past decades. For example, “poverty level in Nigeria rose from 28.1% in 1980 to 46.3% in
1985. In 1992 it was 42.7% it rose to 65.6% in 1996 and later came down to 54.4% in 2004. Between 2004 and
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
52
2010, with an estimated population of about One Hundred and Sixty Million people (160million), about One
Hundred and Twenty Million people were reported to be poor”(National Bureau of Statistics, 2012).
To World Bank (2013), poverty is being unable to meet basic needs requirements (such as physical: food,
healthcare, education, shelter etc and non-physical: participation, identity etc.) for a meaningful life. Bornstein
and Davis (2010) as cited in Mohammed & Ndulue (2017), “poverty reduction is often used as a short-hand for
promoting economic growth that will permanently lift as many people as possible over a poverty line. Its aims to
improve the quality of life for those individuals currently living in poverty. Poverty reduction refers to efforts
aimed towards reducing the magnitude of poverty defined in terms of the proportion of the individuals living
below the poverty line. Measures intended to permanently lift people out of poverty Prahalad and Hammond
(2012).
The theory of poverty reduction according to Mohammed & Ndulue (2017), can be viewed in three
contrasting definitions namely; the objectivists, constructivists, and mixed perspectives of conceptualizing
poverty reduction.
Objectivist theory of Poverty Reduction describes poverty reduction as a social strategy through a process
of scientific enquiry and values which are geared towards alleviating poverty (Manis, 1976). Here, the process
focuses solely on the strategies of alleviating poverty through investigation, observation and experimentation.
The Constructionists theory of Poverty Reduction views it as the activities of individuals or groups towards
identifying the root causes of poverty and finding a lasting solution to curbing it.While the mixed theory of
poverty reduction views poverty reduction as both strategy highlighted by a process of scientific enquiry and
values which are geared towards alleviating poverty and as the activities of individuals or groups towards
identifying the root causes of poverty and finding a lasting solution to curbing it (Henslin, 2003).
3. Theoretical Framework
The Development Theory of Poverty Reduction.was adopted for the purpose of analysis of the effect of
entrepreneurship policies on poverty reduction. Development Theory of Poverty Reduction holds that “most
countries progress through similar stages of development in an effort to curb poverty (Potterovich, &
Popov,2012, p.14). According to Misango & Ongiti (2013), there are four stages of development. The “pre-
industrial stage which is characterized by high death and birth rates but not much of economic development. The
country begins to develop in stage two where the death rates decline and there is improved food supply and
proper sanitation. Birth rates begin to fall in stage three because people are now able to practice family planning.
There is also urban development, increase in education, and parents begin to invest. This has made it possible for
developed countries to assist the underdeveloped countries so as to free them from persistence donor
dependence. Stage four is characterized by low birth and death rates. There is increased development at this
stage”.
This theory explains the many developmental processes an entrepreneur (a business owner) undertakes in
entreprenurship development in an effort to reduce poverty. The entrepreneur begins with ideas which is
necessary as any business needs a good idea to start. The idea might not necesaaaily have to be unique. Every
business requires finance or start up capital and employment of people in the early months of its existence; the
business owner definitely is one of the workers and finally the business idea needs to be converted into strategy.
4. Methodology
The study employed convergent parallel design, which is a mixed method design. The population of study was
the three selected states (Abia, Anambra and Imo) from South-East, geo-political zone. For the purpose data
collection, six Local governments were purposively selectedfor being the major entrepreneurial hubs of the states
(two from each of the three states). The selected local governments are: Aba North and Aba South, Nnewi South
and Onitsha North, Orlu and Owerri West Local governments.
4.1 Sample size
In determining the sample size, the researcher adopted Taro Yamane (1967) formula. A 95% confidence level
and level of maximum variability (P= 0.5) are assumed. Where n is the sample size, N is the population size, and
e is the level of precision (allowable error) that is 5% or 0.05.
The Taro Yamane formula is stated below as:
n= N
1+N (e)
2
Where n = sample size; N = Total population of the study; e = Error of margin at 5% level or level of precision
@ (0.05), we have
n = 1,514,000
1+514,000 (0.05)
2
.
n = 1,514,000
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
53
1+3780
n = 399.89, therefore n = 400.
5. Results and Discussion
Research question: What is the relationship between entrepreneurship policies and poverty reduction in the
selected states of the south east?
Table 1: Relationship between entrepreneurship policies and poverty reduction
Abia Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree
(%)
Undecided
(%)
Mean SD
NDE reduced poverty through creating of
opportunities in agricultural production sector.
52(38.8) 82(61.2) 4.39 .489
NAPEP reduced poverty through creation of jobs in
agricultural sector.
47(35.1) 87(64.9) 4.35 .479
NDE created jobs for many young graduates
39(29.1)
95(70.9)
Entrepreneurship policies and programmes have
facilitated the growth of the waste –to- wealth
programmes in my state.
39(29.1) 95(70.9) 4.29 .456
Entrepreneurship policies facilitated the success of
NAPEP AND YOU
-
WIN programmes.
32(23.9) 102(76.1) 4.24 .428
Imo Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree
(%)
Undecided
(%)
Mean SD
NDE created jobs for many young graduates
12(9.9)
75(62)
34(28.1)
1.446
NDE reduced poverty through creating of
opportunities in agricultural production sector.
90(74.4) 31(25.6) 3.23 1.315
NAPEP reduced poverty through creation of jobs in
agricultural sector.
87(71.9) 3(2.5) 31(25.6) 3.21 1.310
Entrepreneurship policies and programmes have
facilitated the growth of the waste –to- wealth
programmes in my state.
84(69.4) 6(5) 31(25.6) 3.18 1.304
Entrepreneurship policies facilitated the success of
NAPEP AND YOU
-
WIN programmes.
9(7.4) 73(60.3) 39(32.2) 3.11 1.482
Anambra Strongly
Agree (%)
Agree
(%)
Undecided
(%)
Mean SD
Entrepreneurship policies and programmes have
facilitated the growth of the waste –to- wealth
programmes in my state.
13(9.2) 95(67.4) 33(23.4) 3.39 1.356
NDE reduced poverty through creating of
opportunities in agricultural production sector.
18(12.8) 86(61) 37(26.2) 3.34 1.438
Entrepreneurship policies facilitated the success of
NAPEP AND YOU
-
WIN programmes.
16(11.3) 88(62.4) 37(26.2) 3.33 1.427
NDE created jobs for many young graduates
16(11.3)
88(62.4)
37(26.2)
1.427
NAPEP reduced poverty through creation of jobs in
agricultural sector.
9(6.4) 95(67.4) 37(26.2) 3.28 1.384
Source: Field survey (2019)
The result in table above explains the relationship between entrepreneurship policies and poverty reduction
in the selected states of the south east. The analysis shows that in Abia state, NDE reduced poverty through
creating of opportunities in agricultural production sector (mean=4.39) and NAPEP reduced poverty through
creation of jobs in agricultural sector (mean=4.35). In Imo state, NDE created jobs for many young graduates
(mean=3.26) and reduced poverty through creating of opportunities in agricultural production sector
(Mean=3.23).
However, in Anambra state, the relationship between entrepreneurship policies and poverty reduction is that
entrepreneurship policies and programmes have facilitated the growth of the waste –to- wealth programmes
(mean=3.39) and that NDE reduced poverty through creating of opportunities in agricultural production sector
(mean=3.34).
Our findings revealed that on the average, the respondents in all three states agreed that entrepreneurship
policies and programs of the Nigerian government have contributed to poverty reduction through creating of
opportunities in agricultural production sector, NAPEP reduced poverty through creation of jobs in agricultural
sector. In Imo state, NDE reduced poverty through creation wealth creation opportunities for many young
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
54
graduates. In Anambra state, entrepreneurship policies reduced poverty through the facilitation of the growth of
the waste to wealth programs.
The study also found that there is a significant effect of entrepreneurship policies on poverty reduction in
the selected states of South East. Entrepreneurship policies facilitated the creation of conducive environment for
people to access the various opportunities for wealth creation, thereby overcoming poverty. The findings as
corroborated in earlier studies by Edobor (2013) that entrepreneurship has proven to be a solution for poverty
reduction through employment generation and wealth creation.
This study identified entrepreneurship policies as one of the major backbones of the Nigerian economic
development especially in the South East region of the country. The contributions of the small and medium scale
enterprises in industrial sector to the Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are valued at about 37%, thereby
making it the second largest contributor to the Nation’s GDP after the oil sector (SMEDAN, 2009).
The study discovered that the federal government of Nigeria through its developmental agencies initiated
entrepreneurship policies to tackle unemployment and poverty. Some of these policies include: National
Enterprise Development Programme (NEDEP), National Directorate of Employment (NDE), Small and Medium
Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), Small and medium industries equity investment
scheme (SMEIS), Youth enterprise with innovation in Nigeria (YOUWIN), Rural Finance Institution Building
Programme (RUFIN), and National Industrial Revolution Plan (NIRP).
These policies no doubt have laudable objectives to make impactful contributions towards job creation and
poverty reduction by providing the needed training, financial assistance, which are considered relevant to
entrepreneurship development of the citizens.
Table 2: Influence of demographic variables on poverty reduction
Influence of demographic variables on
poverty reduction in Abia state
Demographic variables
(Independent)
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
Gender
Marital Status
Educational Qualifications
Age
20.384
1.000
20.383
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.095
F = 1. 191. Adjusted R
2
= .006
Influence of demographic variables on poverty reduction in Imo state
Demographic variables Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
Gender
Marital Status
Educational Qualifications
Age
20.531
2.762
7.434
-
5.021
1.161
-
-
4.323
3.575
1.573
2.273
-
1.251
-
-
1.780
-
-
-
F=6.166, Adjusted R
2
=.147
Influence of demographic variables on poverty reduction in Anambra state
Demographic variables Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
Gender
Marital Status
Educational Qualifications
Age
-
2.078
4.239
-
-
1.236
-
-
1.031
2.544
3.629
3.337
1.108
3.011
F(4, 140)=6.797, Adj. R
2
=.142
Dependent Variable: Poverty Reduction
As shown in table above, demographic variables had no joint significant effect on poverty reduction F(4,
133)=1.191, Adj. R2=.006, p>0.05. Age (β=.186, t(133)=2.095. p<.05) had a significant influence on poverty
reduction in Abia state; whereas, gender (β=-.009, t(133)=-.099, p>.05), marital status (β=-.039, t(133)=-.454,
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
55
p>.05), and educational qualification (β=.043, t(133)=.496, p>.05) had no significant influence on poverty
reduction in the state. The result for Imo State shows that demographic variables had a joint significant effect
poverty reduction F(4, 120)=6.166, Adjusted R2=.147, P<0.05. Gender (β=-.379, t= -4.323, p<.05) had a
negative influence while marital status (β=.296, t=2.273, p<.05) had significant influence on poverty reduction;
educational qualification (β=-.176, t=-1.780, p>.05) and age (β=-.017, t=-.122, p>.05) were found to have no
significant influence on poverty reduction in Imo state. In the case of Anambra State, demographic variables had
a joint significant effect on poverty reduction F(4, 140)=6.797, Adj. R2=.142, p<0.05. Gender (β=-.054, t=-.589,
p>.05) and marital status (β=.010, t=.118, p>.05) were found to have no significant influence on poverty
reduction in Anambra state; while educational qualification (β=.341, t=3.629, p<.05) and age (β=.248, t=3.011,
p<.05) had significant influence on poverty reduction and could account for 34.1% and 24.8% respectively of the
variations in poverty reduction in Anambra state.
Table 3: Effect of entrepreneurship policies on poverty reduction
S/N
Hypotheses
N
B
Adj. R
2
F
Sig
Abia State
Effect of Entrepreneurship policies on poverty reduction
133
117. 910
Imo State
Effect of
Entrepreneurship policies on poverty reduction
120
237.008
Anambra State
Effect of Entrepreneurship policies on poverty reduction
140
501.709
0.000
Dependent variable: poverty reduction
Predictor variables: Entrepreneurship policies
Source: Field survey (2019)
The results on table 3 above reveal that entrepreneurship policies had a joints significant effect on poverty
reduction F(1, 133) =117.900, Adj. R
2
=.468, p<0.05 in Abia state. Also, in Imo State, entrepreneurship policies
had significant effect on poverty reduction F(1, 120)=237.008, Adj. R
2
=.663, P<0.05. In the same vein,
entrepreneurship policies had a significant effect on poverty reduction F(1, 140)=501.709, Adj. R
2
=.781, P<0.05
in Anambra state. This implies that, formulation and implementation of strategically planned entrepreneurship
policies would lead to higher rate of poverty reduction in the three selected states of the South-East, Nigeria.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and is hereby restated that entrepreneurship policies has a significant
effect on poverty reduction in the three selected states of South-East, Nigeria.
Conclusion and recommendation
The study concludes that entreprenurship policies plays a major role in poverty reduction in the selected states in
South-East, Nigeria. Entrepreneurship policies when well implemented result in poverty reduction, and by
extension facilitate the attainment of economic development. The different entrepreneurship programmes of the
federal government such as; National Enterprise Development Programme (NEDEP), National Directorate of
Employment (NDE), Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), Small and
medium industries equity investment scheme (SMEIS), Youth enterprise with innovation in Nigeria (YOUWIN),
Rural Finance Institution Building Programme (RUFIN), and National Industrial Revolution Plan (NIRP) had
different impact on the selected states. The level of commitment of the various state governments to particularly
programmes to a large extent determined the effectiveness of the implementation of such programmes in their
State.
The study however recommends the following:
i) There is the need for strong and focused emphasis on self-reliance and self-employment of individuals
especially the youths and women through the provision of entrepreneurship training centers in all the local
government areas within the three selected states of the South East as this will enhance employment generation
and poverty reduction.
ii) The government should create an enabling business environment for the needed industrialization base that is
required to diversify her economy as it is a vital area to consider in the evaluation of entrepreneurship
performance. Private individuals and other stake holders must equally help the government in her efforts in
diversifying the economy.
References
Abimbola, O. H. & Agboola, G. M. (2011), “Environmental factors and entrepreneurship development in
Nigeria” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(4), 166-176.
Adebisi, J. F. & Gbegi, D. O. (2013). “Effects of tax avoidance and tax evasion on personal income tax
administration in Nigeria”, American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 125 – 134.
Adejumo, G. (2001), “Indigenous entrepreneurship development in Nigeria: Characteristics, problems and
prospects”. Advances in Management 2(1), 112-122.
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
56
Agboli, M. & Ukaegbu, C. C. (2006), “Business environment and entrepreneurial activity in Nigeria:
Implications for industrial development”, Journal of Modern African Studies. 44(1), 1-30.
Agwu, M. O. & Emeti, C. I. (2014), “Issues, challenges and prospects of small and medium scale enterprises
(SMEs) in Port Harcourt City, Nigeria”. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1), 101 – 114.
Akpedji, G. (2015), “YouWin awardees protest non-payment of second third trenches”, Guardian newspaper,
November 7, Accessed from http://www.ngrguardiannews.com.
Ashmore, M., C. (1989), “The Power of Entrepreneurship Vision,” Vocational Education Journal. (64) 186.
Anigbogu, T.U, Edoko, T.D, Okoli, I. M. (2016), “Foreign Direct Investment and Poverty Reduction in Nigeria”,
International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 5(6), 19-28.
Ariyo, D. (2005), “Small firms are the backbone of the Nigerian economy”. Accessed from
http://www.africaeconomicanalysis.org.
Atawodi, O. W. & Ojeka, S. A. (2012), “Factors that affect tax compliance among small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) in north central Nigeria” International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7(12), 87-96.
Audretsch, D. B., Grilo, I., & Thurik, A. R. (2007), “Explaining entrepreneurship and the role of policy: A
framework”. In Audretsch, D. B., Grilo, I., & Thurik, A. R. (eds.), The handbook of research on
entrepreneurship policy (pp. 1–17). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Baba S, Dickson V, Kromtit M. (2014), “Entrepreneurship and employment generation in Nigeria a case study,
National Directorate of Employment (NDE)”. 6(2), 40-58.
Bornstein, A. F. & Davis, O. (2010), “Innovation to address social challenges”. Workshop proceeding,
http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/47861327
Bula, H.O. (2012), “Evolution and theories of entrepreneurship: A critical review on the Kenyan perspective”,
International Journal of Business and Commerce, 1(7), 81-96.
Duru, M. (2011), “Entrepreneurship opportunities and challenges in Nigeria”. Business and Management Review
1(1), 41-48.
Ekwem, I. (2011), “Small and Medium Scale Enterprises Development in Nigeria: Constraints and Policy
Options”, (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University).
Etuk, R. U, Etuk, G. R. and Baghebo, M. (2014), “Small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) and Nigeria’s
economic development”. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(7), 656 -662
Friedman, B. A., (2011), “The Relationship between Governance Effectiveness and Entrepreneurship”.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(17), 221.
Gangi, Y.A. and Timan, E. (2013), “An Empirical Investigation of Entrepreneurial Environment in Sudan”,
World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development. 9(2/3), pp. 168-177.
Gbandi, E. C. & Amissah, G. (2014), “Financing options for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria”.
European Scientific Journal, 10 (1), 327-340
Hamilton, B. H. (2000), “Does entrepreneurship pay? An empirical analysis of the returns to self-employment”,
Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 601 - 631.
Henslin, J. M. (2003), Social problems (sixth edition). USA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hussain, A. & Norashida, D. (2015). Impact of entrepeurial intention of Pakistan students, Journal of
entrepreneurship and business innovation, 2(1), 43-53.
Idam, L.E. (2014), “Entrepreneurship development in Nigeria: A review”. Journal of Business and Management,
16(1), 01-07.
Ihugba, O. A; Odii, A. & Njoku, A. C. (2013), “Challenges and prospects of entrepreneurship in Nigeria”,
Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 25 – 26.
Ihugba, O.A., Odii, A., and Njoku, A., (2014), “Theoretical Analysis of Entrepreneurship Challenges and
Prospects in Nigeria”, International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 5, 21-34.
Manis, J. G. (1976), “Social protection in Nigeria: Mapping Programmes and Their Effectiveness”.
ODI/UNICEF Nigeria.
Misango & Ongiti (2013), “Do Women Entrepreneurs Play a Role in Reducing Poverty? ACase in Kenya”,
International Review of Management and Business Research, 2 (1),
Mohammed, U. D. & Ndulue, I. (2017), “Impact of Social Entrepreneurship on Poverty Reduction in Nigeria: a
Study of Wecyclers Social Entrepreneurship Ltd”, International Journal of Development Strategies in
Humanities, Management and Social Sciences, 7(3), 63-73.
Moghimi, M. (2008), “Stimulating entrepreneurial development” Entrepreneur Magazine.1 (2), 4-8.
National Directorate of Employment (1986), “National directorate of employment program of action, an
information bulletin”. Abuja Nigeria.
National Bureau of Statistics (2012), Annual Abstract of Statistics. www.Nigeriastate, gov.ng.
Ndubuisi-Okolo P. U, and Anigbuogu, T. (2019), “Insecurity in Nigeria: the Implications for Industrialization
and Sustainable Development”. International Journal of Research in Business Studies and Management,
6(4), 7-16.
Developing Country Studies www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online)
Vol.10, No.2, 2020
57
National Entrepreneurship Development Programme (NEDEP) (2014). National entrepreneurship development
programme: NEDEP- Release 1.0.http://www.nac.org.ng/NEDEP.pdf.
National Industrial Revolution Plan (NIRP) (2014), National industrial revolution plan: NIRP-Release 1.0.
http://www.nac.org.ng/NIRP.pdf.
Obaji, N. O. & Olugu, M. U. (2014), “The role of government policy in entrepreneurship development”, Science
Journal of Business and Management 2(4), 109–115. http://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjbm.20140204.12.
Ocheni, S. I. & Gemade, T. I. (2015), “Effects of multiple taxation on the performance of small and medium
scale business enterprises in Benue State”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 5(3), 345 – 364.
Okeke, M. I. & Eme O. I. (2014), “Challenges facing entrepreneurs in Nigeria”, Singaporean Journal of
Business Economics and Management Studies, 3(5), 18-34
Olajide, O. T. (2004), The Theories of Economic development and Planning. Pumark Nigeria Ltd.
Oloyede, B. B. (2014), “Effect of Poverty Reduction Programmes on Economic Development Evidence from
Nigeria”, Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 4(1), 26-37.
Omoniyi, M. B. I. (2013), “The Role of Education in Poverty Alleviation and Economic Development: A
Theoretical Perspective and Counselling Implications”, British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 15(2),
176-185.
Osotimehin, K. O; Jegede, C. A; Akinlabi, B. H. & Olajide, O. T. (2012), “An evaluation of the challenges and
prospects of micro and small scale enterprises development in Nigeria”. American International Journal of
Contemporary Research, 2(4), 174 - 185.
Potterovich, V. & Popov, V. (2012), Stages of Development, Economic Policies and a New World Economic
Order. MPRA Paper 20055, University Library of Munich, Germany
Praag, C.M.V. & Versloot, P.H. (2007), “What is the value of entrepreneurship?” IZA Discussion Paper No.
3014. Retrieved from ftp.iza.org/dp3014pd.
Prahalad, N. & Hammond, K. (2002), “Growth, inequality and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries:
recent global evidence”. OECD Development Centre, Background Paper for the Global Development
Outlook 2010 Shifting Wealth: Implications for Development
Sachs, J. D. (2009), The end of poverty, Economic Possibilities of our time. New York: The Penguin Press.
Sanusi, J. O. (2003), “Overview of Government’s Efforts in the Development of SMEs and the Emergence of
Small and Medium Industries Equity Investment Scheme (SMIEIS)”. Being a paper presented at The
National Summit On Smieis Organised by the Bankers’ Committee and Lagos Chambers Of Commerce
And Industry (LCCI), Lagos On 10th June, 2003. Accessed from
https://www.cbn.gov.ng/OUT/SPEECHES/2003/GOVADD-10BJUNE.PDF
Salami, C.G.E. (2013), “Youth unemployment in Nigeria: A time for creative intervention”, International
Journal of Business and Marketing Management, 1 (2), 18-26.
Schumpeter, J. A., (1989), The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1961), The Theory of Economic Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scherer, F. M. (1999), New perspectives on economic growth and technological innovation. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Stevenson, l. & Lundström, A. (2001), Patterns and trends in entrepreneurship/SME policy and practice in ten
economies. Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research.
Storey, D. J. (2008), Entrepreneurship and SMEs Policies. Warwick Business School: World Entrepreneurship
Forum.
Tende, S. B. A. (2014), Government Initiatives toward Entrepreneurship Development in Nigeria, Global
Journal of Business Research, 8(1), 109–120.
Thaddeus, E. (2012), Perspectives: entrepreneurship development & growth of enterprises in Nigeria.
Entrepreneurial Practice Review, 2(2), 31-35.
Today, Ng News Bulletin retrieved online from https://www.today.ng/tag/government-enterprise-
andempowerment-programme.
World Bank (2017), Migration and Remittances. Accessed from
www.worldbank.org/en/topic/labormarkets/brief/migration-and-remittances.