1. Department of Geography,
The Geography of Poverty in Nigeria: Patterns, Determinants and Policy Implications
Tolulope O. Osayomi
Department of Geography,
University of Ibadan,
Ibadan, Nigeria.

2. Background
Minot and Baulch(2005) ‘s study of spatial pattern of poverty in Vietnam employed the two indices: poverty incidence and poverty density.
The mapping revealed two distinct spatial patterns.
The interpretation of these was : “the most poor people do not live in the poor areas…”(Minot and Baulch, 2005). The import of this is that a balance must struck in alleviating ‘poor people’ and ‘poor areas’.
However, the study was silent on the possible factors influencing the two different spatial patterns.

3. The Research Problem
In Nigeria, the national poverty incidence rate is 78.3 %(National Bureau of Statistics, 2009).
There are noticeable high levels of poverty concentration in 21 states (out of the 36 states in Nigeria) whose rates exceed the national average.
Attention needs to be drawn to the need for a more detailed research to unravel the factors behind spatial heterogeneity.

4. Research Questions
The paper therefore attempts to answer the following questions using Minot and Baulch (2005) approach:
Can these two indices of poverty: poverty incidence and poverty density generate contrasting spatial patterns of poverty in Nigeria?
What are the significant determinants of these contrasting patterns if any?
What is the specific contribution of structural factors to poverty in Nigeria?
What are the policy implications of the findings?

5. Methodology
Employed the stepwise regression method to identify the significant predictors of poverty at three geographical scales of analysis: national, urban and rural.
Three sets of variables: demographic/household; social and political/economic factors.
Previous research on poverty in Nigeria is silent on the contribution of structural factors.
Poverty incidence based on the poverty headcount of year poverty density derived by multiplying the poverty incidence by the population of the state and dividing by the areal size of the state. Measured as number of poor people per square kilometre.

6. Spatial pattern of poverty in Nigeria

7. Spatial pattern of poverty in Nigeria (2)
Poverty incidence is highest in Ekiti, Bayelsa, Borno, Ebonyi, Kwara and lowest in Jigawa, Oyo, Osun.
Poverty density is highest in Lagos, Kano, Ekiti, Imo, Enugu, Abia and lowest in Zamfara, Yobe, Niger, Kwara.
Generally, areas of high poverty incidence do not coincide with areas of high poverty density.
This is confirmed by the Spearman’s Rho (r= ; p>0.05).
In the language of Minot and Baulch(2005), some areas would record high poverty incidence because of the low population sizes.
Two distinct geographies of poverty.

8. Study variables
Demographic and household: household (average number of persons per household), number of children (percent of children under the age of 15), number of elderly persons (percent of elderly 65 years and above), household income ( percent of low income households), unemployment ( percent of unemployed persons), percentage ownership of radio, television and mobile phone.
Political and economic: legislative representation( number of seats in the Federal House of Representatives), budgetary allocation( allocations from the Federal government from January- June, 2007)
Geographic: distance from the Federal capital, Abuja, urbanization( population density as a surrogate).
Social: social capital ( surrogate: percent of voters’ turnout at the 2003 presidential election), access to social services (the number of health facilities)

9. Results (National) Poverty incidence:
Legislative representation (-0.445)
R2= 20%; p < 0.05
Poverty density
Urbanization (0.976)
Number of children (-0.047)
R2= 99.3%; p < 0.05

10. Results (Urban) Poverty incidence Legislative representation (-0.503)
R2= 25%; p < 0.05.
Poverty density
Legislative representation (0.754)
Number of children (-0.57)
R2= 58%; p < 0.05

11. Results (Rural) Poverty incidence Low income households (0.625)
Household size (-0487)
R2= 55%; p < 0.05
Poverty density
Legislative representation(1.524)
Budgetary allocation (-1.189)
R2= 58%; p < 0.05.

12. Conclusion and Policy Implications
Poverty in Nigeria is largely structural in nature. Future poverty reduction efforts must appreciate this.
Given the distinct geographies of poverty, there is a need for place based poverty alleviation policies which would take into the consideration the uniqueness of certain locations.
Poverty density index should be considered in poverty mapping so as to have a full and richer understanding of the poverty situation.

13. THANK YOU!