Annotation 1

Can you write the Annotation one for me, please? I choose Energy source of Children This is my topic.
You have to put work cited first and after that you have to write 150 words summary and after that you have to write your opinion for gust one to two lines. After that you have to write Two questions about that summery no yes or no. You can choose two questions of How, What,Where, Why, When. this is my order. You have to read this essay I will put to you because you have to read this resoerc.

I took these information from my college website and these are four pages you have to read. You will see the file with work cited and I put some explain to you.

T h e J o u r n a l o f D e v e l o p i n g A r e a s Volume 48 No. 4 Fall 2014

INTERACTIONS AMONG POVERTY, ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY SOURCES, AND GENDER IN NIGERIA
 

 
 
 
Fidelis O. Ogwumike

 
 
 
University of Ibadan, Nigeria

 
Uche M. Ozughalu

 
 
 
University of Nigeria, Nigeria

 
ABSTRACT

 
 
This study examines the interactions among poverty, access to modern energy sources and gender in Nigeria. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression technique are used. The 2010 Nigeria Living Standard Survey data set obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics is used. The findings of the study show, among other things, that contrary to what happens in many countries of the world, both incidences of poverty and lack of access to modern energy sources are more pronounced among male-headed households than among female-headed households. The logistic regression estimates show, among other things, that poverty reduces the odds in favor of having access to modern energy sources and while female headship of household reduces the odds in favor of being in poverty, it increases the odds in favor of having access to modern energy sources. The forgoing should serve as invaluable guide to the Nigerian government and policy makers.

 
JEL Classifications: D10, I32, J16, Q43, R20

Keywords: Poverty, Modern Energy Sources, Gender, Logit Model, Nigeria

Corresponding Author’s Email Address: [email protected]

 
 
 
INTRODUCTION

 
 
A major socio-economic problem plaguing Nigeria is poverty. In recent times poverty has become pervasive in Nigeria. Associated with the poverty problem in Nigeria is the gross inadequacy in access to modern energy sources. Most Nigerian households use inferior/environmentally harmful sources of energy for cooking and lighting (National Bureau of Statistics, 2005). The use of such inferior sources of energy - like firewood, charcoal, crop residue, animal waste and sawdust - causes environmental pollution which ultimately leads to reduction in health status and productivity.

Both poverty and access to energy sources have gender dimension. Women are said to be more vulnerable to poverty than men. Despite the great role women play in nation-building, they do not receive commensurate economic reward. It is noteworthy that the great role women play in the development process is clearly reflected in many time-budget studies. These studies, in general, show that women do not only do heaver work but also work relatively longer hours than men. Unfortunately, women, in general, do not earn adequate income. Women’s income earning potentials are significantly constrained by their exclusive pre-occupation with unremunerated household production, nurturing and social production (Afolabi, 1999). Women constitute a greater proportion 226

 

 
 
of the world’s poor (Olowe, 2002). The number of women living in poverty continues to increase even with the increasing wave of globalization. In analyzing the feminization of poverty it has been observed that various conditions prevailing locally and globally aggravate the vulnerability of women and consequently lead to continuous increase in the number of females within the poverty bracket. These conditions include lack of or limited access to education, discriminatory socio-economic and political practices, outbreak of civil wars, civil strifes/natural disasters, migration of heads of households, death leading to widowhood, and job discrimination (Eghobamien, 2000). There is evidently greater burden of lack of access to modern energy sources among the female population in the world than among the male population. Partly due to limited income earning opportunities/lack of adequate income, an overwhelming proportion of the female population in the world cannot afford modern energy sources (Kohlin et al, 2011; Danielsen, 2012).

There is evidently a strong interaction/correlation between poverty and access to modern energy sources; poverty is a major impediment to access to modern energy sources. Also, both poverty and lack of access to modern energy sources affect men and women differently. Given that gender concerns have not been adequately taken care of in energy studies in Nigeria and interactions among poverty, access to modern energy sources and gender in Nigeria have not been sufficiently studied, this study is motivated to adequately focus on these issues. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 focuses on some conceptual and methodological issues associated with poverty, access to energy sources, and gender while Section 3 contains some theoretical issues and empirical literature. Section 4 contains the methodology of the research while Section 5 deals with empirical analysis of interactions among poverty, access to modern energy sources and gender in Nigeria. And Section 6 contains conclusion.

 
CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Conceptual and Methodological Issues on Poverty

 
 
Poverty is a concept that does not have a universally accepted definition. This is partly because the phenomenon affects virtually all aspects of human condition. However the commonest practice is to conceptualize the phenomenon in absolute terms (Ogwumike, 1991; Ajakaiye & Adeyeye, 2001). Absolute poverty refers to a situation that is characterized by gross inadequacy of income, consumption or expenditure, among other things. In general, it refers to lack of adequate resources to afford a commodity basket1 that guarantees the attainment/maintenance of an objective minimum acceptable standard of living (Olowononi, 1997). It is instructive to note here that it is very difficult to determine what to include in the so-called objective minimum and it is also very difficult to set minimum standards for basic needs such as clothing and transportation which largely depend on taste/preferences as well as on the prevailing socio-economic conditions within a given society (Afonja & Ogwumike, 2003). Despite the foregoing difficulties, conceptualizing poverty in absolute terms could provide a sustainable starting point for policies and programs that are aimed at reducing the phenomenon. Suffice it to say that absolute poverty is evidently the most easily recognizable aspect of poverty. It is indeed the most detestable aspect of poverty for it degrades human dignity most. 227

 
 
Poverty can also be viewed in relative terms. Relative poverty refers to a situation when certain regions, households or individuals in a society do not earn adequate income to satisfy their basic needs like their better off counterparts (UNDP, 1997). A major merit of the relative poverty definition is that it reflects changing perceptions of acceptable minimum standards of living (Odusola, 1997). However, the approach is too much of a moving average and it has been severely criticized for this. As indicated in Afonja & Ogwumike (2003), relative poverty is very difficult to alleviate and it is virtually impossible to access the effectiveness of transfer programs when relative poverty concept is adopted. Besides, the setting of relative poverty line is highly arbitrary.

There are also material and subjective poverty. Material poverty refers to lack of ownership and control of physical assets such as land, machinery, and animal husbandry (UNDP, 1997). Subjective poverty conceptualization, on the other hand, requires individuals (the poor inclusive) to define what they consider to be a decent or minimally adequate standard of living. As noted in Afonja & Ogwnmike (2003), the concept of subjective poverty is difficult to apply because of the divergence in responses due to differences in individual utility functions and circumstances.

Poverty can be chronic (structural) or transient. Transient poverty refers to the contribution of consumption variability to expected poverty over time whereas chronic poverty is the poverty that remains after inter-temporal variability in consumption has been smoothed out (Ravallion, 1988; Jalan & Ravallion, 2000). Chronic poverty means persistent or permanent socio-economic deprivation and is linked to various factors such as limited productive resources, lack of education/skills for gainful employment and endemic socio-political and cultural factors. Transient poverty, on the other hand, is transitory or temporary and is linked to natural or man-made disasters such as wars, flood, conflagration, ill-health and loss of jobs (Ajakaiye & Adeyeye, 2001; Ozughalu, 2010).

To analyze poverty, it is customary for economists to begin by choosing an indicator of well-being. This may be based on consumption, expenditure or income (Ravallion, 1996). Thereafter a cut-off point, called "the poverty line," will be set. This is a measure of the minimum acceptable standard of living or welfare and it separates the poor from the non-poor (Anyanwu, 1997). Poverty lines can posses the attributes of specificity (or relevance) and comparability (or consistency). Specificity (or relevance) of a poverty line across space at a particular time implies that the poverty line reflects the specific characters of a region/place under study. A poverty line should take into account various aspects of human condition in a region/place such as life pattern, culture, social condition and norms prevailing in the region/place (Asra & Santos-Francisco, 2001). Consistency (or comparability) of poverty lines, on the other hand, refers to when poverty lines indicate the same standard of living. (Wodon, 1997; Asra & Santos-Francisco, 2001).

The construction of poverty lines is relatively subjective and depends to a large extent on the individual researchers’ preferences and dispositions. Nevertheless, the literature reveals that there are basically four approaches used in the setting of poverty lines; these are Direct Calorie Intake (DCI) method, Food-Energy-Intake (FEI) method, Cost-of-Basic Needs (CBN) approach and Arbitrary- Choice-of-Index (ACI) method (Onah, 1996; Ravallion,1998; Asra & Santos-Francisco, 2001). 228

 

 
 
After the setting of poverty line(s), the next line of action will be to measure poverty. There are certain axioms that a good and desirable poverty measure must satisfy. These include monotonicity, transfer and focus axioms (Sen, 1976; Anyanwu, 1997). The monotonicity axiom states that given other things, a reduction in income (or expenditure) of a person/household that is below the poverty line must increase the poverty measure. The transfer axiom states that given other things, a pure transfer of income (or expenditure) from a person that is below the poverty line to anyone that is richer must increase the poverty measure. The focus axiom requires that the poverty measure be dependent only on the incomes (or expenditures) of the poor; thus the incomes (or expenditures) of the non-poor and any changes therein are irreverent.

 
There are many poverty measures but four of them are commonly used namely: the Head Count Ratio, the Poverty Gap Index, the Sen Index and the Foster-Greer- Thorbecke (FGT) Index. The Head Count Ratio is simply the proportion of poor people/households in a population. It is the commonest and simplest of all existing poverty measures. It pinpoints variations in the percentage of the people living in poverty. However, it is not sensitive to the severity of poverty and to changes below the poverty line. The Poverty Gap Index measures the difference between the poverty line and the mean income or expenditure of the poor expressed as a ratio of the poverty line. It takes account of the extent to which households fall below the poverty line thus it is a good measure of the depth of poverty. However, it is not sensitive to the distribution of standard of living among the poor. The Sen Index is a composite measure of poverty. It shows the degree of impoverishment and the distribution of income among the poor as well as the number of the poor. It incorporates the Head Count Ratio, the Poverty Gap and the Gini Coefficient2. The Sen Index satisfies the monotonicity, transfer and focus axioms. But a major demerit of the index is that it is more responsive to improvements in the Headcount than it is to reductions in the Income Gap or to improvements in the distribution of income among the poor; thus it gives the impression that the best way to reduce poverty is to help the least needy first and the neediest last. This is repugnant to equity and good conscience; it is not in line with moral justice. The FGT index is apparently the most popular/most widely used poverty measure because apart from satisfying the major axioms for a desirable poverty measure, it has an added advantage of being additively decomposable among population subgroups. The index is a composite measure that contains the Headcount Ratio, the Poverty Gap Index and a measure for poverty severity. The FGT index ( )is based on the following formula. P

Can you work that?

Dua date is today after 10 hours

Annotation 1