ABSTRACT The focus of this research “An Evaluation of the Impact of NAPEP on Entrepreneurship development in Nigeria” was to access the impact of entrepreneurship activities in Nigeria, a case study of Imo State. The programme was designed by the government to cater for unemployed youth and jobless person all over the country. To arrive at my conclusion, I administered a questionnaire with some primary and secondary data on different categories to know the percentage of the response to my analysis. There were 33 questions altogether which were split into different categories. Appendix I, Section A, the questionnaire was administered to both male and female which the response was low (25) in Section B, those that were aware were just 18 and majority were aware through friends or relations, a few benefited in kind, a few in cash. In section C, assessing the impact, out of 25 people, 21 saw it effective while 4 saw it ineffective. In conclusion here it was discovered that there is no enough money to meet their challenges which causes poverty / laziness. Under policy implementation majority agreed that the policy does not address multidimensional problems. 66.7% agreed that government and NGOs are needed, while 33.3% disagreed and 5.6% agree that there are sufficient fund available. From my Chi-square table, the chi- square (x2c calculated is (2.4994) and the chi-square (X2t) tabulated is (15.5): if the X2c < X2t, we conclude that there is no positive relationship between NAPEP and Entrepreneurship development which is accepting the null hypothesis (Ho). In enhancing entrepreneurship development in Imo State, we finally recommended that government should monitor funds being allocated to different sectors of the economy for improved activities of NEPEP so that they further assist the beneficiaries for greater and effective participation in the programme for the interest of the Nigerian economy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page—————————————————————————i Certification ———————————————————————–ii Dedication————————————————————————–iii Acknowledgement—————————————————————iv Abstract—————————————————————————–v Table of Content —————————————————————–vi List of Table ———————————————————————–ix List of Figures———————————————————————x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ————————————————-1 1.2 Statement of the Problem————————————————-4 1.3 Objectives of the Study—————————————————-6 1.4 Significance of the Study————————————————–6 1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study————————————–7 1.6 Hypothesis——————————————————————–8 1.7 Outline of the Study——————————————————–9 1.8 Definition of Terms——————————————————–10
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW———————————————————12 Introduction 2.1 Conceptual literature —————————————————–12 2.2 Theoretical Literature —————————————————-17 2.3 Empirical Literature Review———————————————20 2.4 Case Study Review ——————————————————22 2.5 Poverty and Economic Development———————————24

2.6 Economic Perspective on Entrepreneurship———————–27 2.7 Nigeria Poverty Alleviation in Enhancing Entrepreneurship —29 2.8 Overview: The Entrepreneurship Challenge in Nigeria——–31 2.9 Brief History of NAPEP————————————————–33 2.10 Constraints on NAPEP in Enhancing Entrepreneurship———35 2.11 Summary——————————————————————–36
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY———————————————–37 Introduction 3.1 Research Design———————————————————-37 3.2 Sample Size and Sample Technique———————————38 3.3 Data Collection————————————————————-39 3.3.1 Primary Sources———————————————————–40 3.3.2 Secondary Sources ——————————————————40 3.4 Method of Data Collection ———————————————40 3.5 Data analysis Technique ———————————————–35 3.6 Justification of Method Used ——————————————43 3.7 Presentation of Data——————————————————43
CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA——————–44 4.1 Distribution of Questionnaires to Beneficiaries and Agencies——————————————————-45 4.2 Analysis of he Responses on the Questionnaires Administered to Beneficiaries ———————————-47 4.3 Analysis of Questionnaire Administered to Agencies —-53 4.4 Test of Hypothesis————————————————-58 4.5 Findings of the Research—————————————-62

CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary of Findings—————————————————–64 5.2 Conclusions —————————————————————-65 5.3 Recommendations——————————————————–66 BIBLIOGRAPHY ———————————————————68 APPENDIX I—————————————————————-70 APPENDIX II—————————————————————73

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.5.1: Selected Micro -Economic Indicators (1980-2000)——–26 Table 4:1 Distribution of Questionnaires to Beneficiaries And Agencies———————————————————–45 Table 4.2 Analysis of the Response on the Questionnaires Administered to Beneficiaries ——————————–45 Table 4.2.2 Distribution of Bio-date——————————————46 Table 4.2.3 NAPEP Awareness and Benefits—————————–47 Table 4.2.4 What did you benefit, Number of time———————–48 Table 4.2.5 Accessing the Impacts of NAPEP—————————-49 Table 4.2.6 Is the Credit Enough to Meet your Challenges and factors that causes poverty in your area—————–50 Table 4.3.1 Organization and Responsibility —————————–51 Table 4.3.2 Is Collateral Demanded, what Kind and Any difficulties in Loan Recovery———————————————–53 Table 4.3.3 Policy Implementation ——————————————54 Table 4.3.4 Involvement of Government and NGOs, Sufficient Funds————————————————–55 Table 4.3.5: Poverty Reduction not Consistence and Positive Relationship Between Entrepreneurship and NAPEP–56 Table 4.3.6: NAPEP is Better than Other Poverty Alleviation Programme in the country—————————————57 Table 4.4.1 Observed Frequency Table (beneficiaries and agencies) In your own view, how can you access NAPEP/how Can you access the impact of NAPEP on entrepreneurship development?———————————————————–59 Table 4.4.2 Expected Frequency Table——————————————60 Table 4.4.3 Chi-Square Computation for Hypothesis————————61

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.2.1 shows the relationship between entrepreneurship and poverty————————————————————————-19
Figure 2.5.1: selected micro- economic indicators (1980-2000) —–26

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Poverty and unemployment represent the biggest challenges
to government in Nigeria. Unemployment rate continue to rise
alarmingly, poverty has economic, social and political ramifications.
Basically, Poverty has been conceptualized in the following ways;
1. Lack of access to basic needs/goods.
2. Lack of or impaired access to productive resources
3. Lack of job opportunities e.t.c.
The level of poverty since the implementation of SAP in the
1980s has tremendously increased [UNDP Nigeria, 1998; FOS, 1999;
World Bank,1999].The poverty profile has shown that poverty
increased from 28.1% in 1980 to 43.6% in 1985 but declined to
42.7% in 1992 and rose again to 65.6% in 1996.since 1990,the
country has been classified as a poor nation.
In recent years, there has been a semblance of continuity of
liberal tradition in Nigeria; attitudes towards the system of welfare that
supports the poor are rooted in our different cultural settings. The
normative tradition approach to liberalism in the Nigerian society

function to promote social cohesion, solidarity and citizenship. The
duty to share among Nigerians in our diversity is intuitive. This duty
rests on the consideration of human worth. In this context, we reason
that others have human souls as we do and so we always choose to
be indifferent to the needs of others (FEAP, 2001). Apparently,
Nigerians always choose to care for others. This duty comes from a
sympathetic concern that others be able to make life. In mitigation,
however, it has, over time, introduced several macro-economic
measures and initiations to address unemployment questions and
also promoting entrepreneurship in the country. There was a
structural adjustment programme (SAP) in 1986, which preached the
liberalized economic approach, Directorate of food, roads and rural
infrastructure (DFFRI), which was devoted to rural infrastructural
projects and more recently, the national poverty eradication program
(NAPEP) but of more relevance to the youth were such initiatives as
the national Directorate of employment (NDE) programs, which
targeted skills development and job creation among the youths.
Thus the difference between NAPEP and poverty reduction
agencies is that it is not a sector project implementation agency but a
co-ordination facility that ensures that core poverty eradication

ministries are effective. It would only intervene when necessary,
under its secondary mandate which gives it the right to provide
complementary assistance to the implementing ministries and
Parastatals nationwide. The importance of both small and large
enterprise growth and, more broadly, of sustainable private sector
development and expansion as principal sources of economic growth
and employment cannot be overstated. Economic growth is fueled,
first and foremost, by the creativity and hard work of entrepreneurs
and workers. Driven by the quest for profit, private sector enterprises
innovate, invest and generate employment and wage income. They
typically represent not only a majority of the total stock of enterprises
but also a significant proportion of the national production system.
They also are largely responsible for the vitality of local markets and
make a major contribution to the improvement of living standard. The
promotion of sustainable entrepreneur activity both large and small
and of the national private sectors that contain them, is “ a broad and
wide ranging subject, because entrepreneur takes many forms, not
just in terms of size, sector and spatial dimension but also in terms of
how an entrepreneur is managed and governed and its legal status
and operational objectives”. (Google).

A careful study of the entire poverty alleviation program already
put in place in Nigeria shows that there is a drive in the direction of
making more people to work by encouraging entrepreneurship and
small and medium scale business.

1.2 Statement Of The Problem
It has been known in Nigeria that every government embarks
on one form of poverty reduction strategy or the other in promoting
entrepreneur activities. However, what has remained unanswered is
the extent to which these programme have impacted on business or
the entrepreneurs. Today, poverty has been addressed as a
global problem, especially in places like Africa, Asia, and Latin
America. On the average 45-50 percent of sub-Saharan Americans
live below the poverty line. In Nigeria, about 43% of the population
was living below the poverty line of N305 a year in 1985 prices. To
this effect, the United Nations declared 1996 the international year of
eradication of poverty and 1997-2006 a decade of poverty
eradication. So many times on assumption of office in 1999, president
Obasanjo indicated that the poverty situation in which over 60% of
Nigerians live below the poverty line, requires more effort to prevent it

from getting worse. All these resulted to the introduction of NAPEP in
Nigeria in the year 2001. Recently, studied in (OECD;2000) on
poverty alleviation and its agencies as well as programs indicate that
considerable gap exist between the target objectives and
achievements. Despite all the efforts being made, poverty has still
been in an increasing rate in the country, efforts of various
government policies are ineffective and therefore not much has been
done to actualize the benefits. Thus, the alleviation of poverty in
Nigeria is not an intractable problem. This problem is first and
foremost a political and ideological challenge requiring a recruitment
effort for entrepreneur sustainability (ALIYU; 2001). Also, the lack of
continuity in the programs from one administration to the other in one
of the problems in the development of entrepreneurship. This study
thus, attempts to answer the following questions;
1. In which way can NAPEP promote entrepreneurship activities in
Imo state?
2. Are there any relationship between NAPEP and
entrepreneurship development?
3. Is poverty eradication program appropriate for Nigeria?
4. How has government concept of NAPEP affected its success?

5. How has NAPEP activities impacted on poverty reduction as a
boost to economic development?

1.3 Objectives of the Study
The overall objectives of the study are to asses the various
strategies of policies for the development of entrepreneurship.
Generally the objectives are;
To asses the relevance of NAPEP as poverty alleviation policy.
To examine the effectiveness of NAPEP on entrepreneurship
development in the country.
To identify and analyze challenges of the program.
To proffer some policy recommendations based on the findings of the
study.

1.4 Significance of the Study
It is a well known fact that the present administration had
attached much emphasis on poverty alleviation program amongst its
people basically in the area of entrepreneurship, job creation and
economic empowerment. It therefore requires concerted efforts by all
to contribute to the success of all important but elusive goals.

It is hoped that the relevance of this study serves as a ready
made tool for government to apply strategic ways in promoting
entrepreneur activities and also to check the youth involvement in
anti-social vices such as fraud, prostitution, armed robbery etc. which
could be minimized.
This study also provides an opportunity for others of
government, to accept the reality that entrepreneurship development
stimulates economic growth.
The study would also provide information on the role of poverty
alleviation program in sustaining entrepreneurship activities.
Nonetheless, this research will be of benefit to the government
research and social scientist around at projecting or developing
means to enhance the living standard of the entire society.

1.5 Scope and Limitation Of The Study
The study of poverty alleviation program in the
performance of entrepreneurship development is a broad project to
embark on due to the lack of the continuity of some policies that have
been implemented earlier on in fighting the problem of unemployment
and the creation of jobs and also in the promotion of some

enterprises such as the small and medium and also for other social
entrepreneurs. Therefore, the research wishes to limit the scope of
this study to “an evaluation on the impact of NAPEP on
entrepreneurship development”. A case study of Imo state. The
period of study cover from 2001-2009. Perhaps, the most
debilitating limitation of this study is the inadequacy of data. The most
available data was not sufficient enough and some of the data
available in the NAPEP office in Imo state were outdated.
There was also a limitation in terms of library facilities as it is
only the World Bank, British council, United Nations and Central bank
of Nigeria libraries that have materials related to the study. The
researcher being a full time student had no enough time to make
extensive research. However, the above limitations could not hinder
effective and meaningful research work. Rather they motivated the
research to try to summon them all.

1.6 Hypothesis
This attempt shall test two hypotheses; hypothesis could be
alternative or null hypothesis. Null hypothesis (Ho) is a negative
declaration, while alternative hypothesis (Hi) is a positive declaration.

The study will test the hypothesis below;
Ho: NAPEP has no profound effect on the development of
entrepreneurship.
Hi: NAPEP has a profound effect on the development of
entrepreneurship.

1.7 Organization of the Study
The entire research project consist of these chapters. Chapter
one consist of a brief introduction on the background of the study,
statement of the problem, research questions, objectives of the study,
significance of the study, scopes and limitations of the study,
hypothesis, outline of the study and the definition of terms. Chapter 2
would cover the literature review, comprises of conceptual ,theoretical
framework and the empirical literature, case study review,
entrepreneurship challenge in Nigeria, economic perspective on
entrepreneurship, Nigerian poverty alleviation in enhancing
entrepreneurship, brief history of NAPEP, constraint, on NAPEP in
enhancing entrepreneurship, and summary of the chapter.
Chapter 3 deals with research methodology; such as research
design, sample size and sample technique, data collection and

methods, data analysis techniques, presentation of data, justification
of the method used and the summary of the chapter. While chapter 4
will cover data presentation and analysis, test of hypothesis, finding
of the research and summary of the chapter.
Finally chapter five will contain the summary of the whole study,
conclusion and recommendation and bibliography.

1.8 Definition Of Terms
Poverty: Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount if
material possessions or money. It could also be the deprivation of
basic human needs such as; food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter,
health care and education.
Entrepreneur: An entrepreneur is a person who develops a new
idea and takes the risk of setting up an enterprise to produce a
product or service, which satisfies customer’s needs.
NAPEP: National poverty eradication program responsible for
alleviating poverty in the country.
SAP: State poverty alleviation program responsible for eradicating
poverty within the state.

YES: Youth empowerment scheme, which deals with capacity
acquisition, productivity, technology development and enterprise
promotion.
UNDP: United Nations development program. This is the United
Nations organ for development purposes.
HDI: Human development index. This is a criterion used by United
Nations in making and positioning a country in terms of standard of
living.