Background to the Study

Globally, social investment is increasingly metamorphosing from a mere theoretical exposition to a practical reality. This is because the modern world comes with a shift to a knowledge-based economy and thus generates a new set of challenges for individuals and families. Hence, policymakers at both national and sub-national levels come up with programmes to tackle barriers to employment and achieve sustained job outcome [1]. Scandinavian economies for instance, have a wide range of social investments. In Finland for example, the Youth Guarantee programme was implemented to improve access to education and jobs for young adults. Meanwhile, Germany’s MAMBA programme was designed to support migrants, another vulnerable group, to contribute to local labor market. Elsewhere in Italy, Personalized Care Plans programme which aims at guaranteeing autonomy and independent living for people with severe disabilities, is another good example. Meanwhile, ‘Working Well in Greater Manchester’ is another instance of social investment in the UK. In Africa, most social investment programmes centre on free basic education [2]. However, this does not mean other social investment programmes have not been established in the continent. Incidentally, Ghana implemented the National Social Protection Strategy since 2007 as a scheme for the implementation of about forty-four social interventions. In fact, similar policies had been designed and executed in many other African economies, including Kenya, Uganda and Malawi, to mention but a few.

Nigeria in particular, had experienced several social intervention programmes lunched and executed by various administrations. These programmes were categorized into four by the World Bank, viz. protective, preventive, promotive and transformative [3]. The protective measures basically cover social assistance like cash transfer, free food distribution, school subsidy and the likes. While social insurance measures such as health insurance, cooperatives and community basic service provisions are categorized as preventive. Yet, promotive measures include all productive transfers including provision of agricultural tools and fertilizers, productive subsidies, public work programmes, among others. Lastly, transformative measures are mostly in form of social equity policies, such as social justice legislation, equal rights to resources and assets protection. Examples of previous social investment policies in Nigeria could be scanned in the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies, NEEDS (degenerated into SEEDS for states and LEEDS for local governments) document which had specific section dedicated to safety nets in 2004. Another example is the Social Protection Strategy (SPS) proposed in 2004 to serve as framework for social investment in Nigeria. Also, National Working Committee on Social Security (NWCSS) drafted another National Social Protection Bill in 2009, which aimed at empowering the vulnerable citizens. These and the subsequent development strategies enveloped many social programmes which include National Health Insurance Scheme (NHIS), National Pension Commission (NPC), Employers Compensation Bill, Conditional Cash Transfer, among others.

In recognition of the high poverty and unemployment levels in the country, the current administration established what is considered by many as an explicit social intervention policy called the National Social Investment Programmes (N-SIP) since June 2016. This policy is meant to cushion the effect of hardship caused by the prevalent poverty in the polity. The said policy is schemed in four stand-alone programmes that are designed to provide skills, income flow, cheap capital and food security. Specifically, these programmes are: the N-Power Programme, the Conditional Cash Transfer Programme (CCT), the Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme (GEE) and the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme (HGSF).

N-Power programme is created to help young Nigerians acquire and develop life-long skills to become active players in the domestic and global markets. It is targeted at graduates, skilled, unskilled and out-of-school youths between the ages of 18 – 35 years. The stipend is N30,000.00 a month per beneficiary. Already the first and second batches of beneficiaries (about 400,000 beneficiaries) had almost concluded their programme in all the states in the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory including participants from Yobe State. Currently, the third batch of 500,000 beneficiaries is underway. Thus, it is only fair at this juncture that the impact of the programme be analyzed and assessed in relation to its objectives which this research work aims to do.

Problem Statement

Evidences abound on the alarming levels of poverty and unemployment, especially among youth, at both national and subnational levels. According to the NBS [4], the average national unemployment rate was 23.1 percent in 2018Q3. However, unemployment and underemployment rates stood at 23.3 and 28.5 percent in the Northern region during the same period, respectively, [5]. Equally, the level of poverty in the country is not evenly distributed in the country. Although the overall poverty level in the country in 2019 was 40.1 percent, however, most of the northern states had poverty incidence above national average with Sokoto State taking the lead with 87.7 percent [4].

Although government operates much unlike a profit maximizing enterprise, but given the amount of resources committed for the NSIP in the span of four years, studying its impact (both intended and unintended) becomes imperative, particularly now that the first and second batches of the beneficiaries are/will be disengaged. This is necessary to guide the subsequent engagements. Naturally, the impact of a social investment like N-Power transcends beyond monetary benefits but other socioeconomic and intangible values as well. The skills acquired, employment gained, wealth created and income received need a pragmatic approach to be studied, thus, SROI is the most suitable framework. Moreover, there is virtual absence of empirical research on the impact of the programme to the best of our knowledge, particularly in the Yobe State. The few obtainable studies on NSIP concentrate on either the prospects and challenges of the programmes [6], or policy suggestions and design [3].

Again, these few studies had a national outlook and none of them addressed the sub- national concern. This strengthens the submission of O’Leary et al. [1], that there is lack of empirical research around sub-national impact of social investment programmes. To the researchers’ belief, it is partly lack of documented research on the programme that led to the embroil between the Senate and the Executive in the build-up of the 2018 Federal Fiscal Budget and beyond, when the former rated the performance of the ₦1.5 trillion committed for the programme very low, an allegation that was refuted by the latter. The study is sub-national in nature and limited to Yobe State due to the desire to meet directly with the beneficiaries and source for firsthand information. The choice of the State is not only a coincidence; it is one of the states that are mostly hit by poverty in Nigeria. The poverty rate in the state stood at 72.34 percent as at 2019 which is much higher than the national average [3,4]. Equally, unemployment rate in the state was relatively high at 30.0 percent, despite the fact that its working population was only 44.1 percent of its population [4]. Thus, assessing the impact in the state is justifiable.

Research Questions

This research is anchored on the following questions:

• What is the impact of N-Power programme on youth employability in Yobe State

• To what extent does N-Power programme contribute to skills acquisition among beneficiaries in Yobe State

• What is the impact of N-Power programme on the income generation capacity of the beneficiaries in Yobe State

• To what extent does the N-Power programme enhance the entrepreneurial skills of the beneficiaries in Yobe State

Research Objectives

Generally, this study aims at assessing the impact of N-Power programme on the employability and income generation among its beneficiaries in Yobe State. The specific objectives are to:

• Assess impact of N-Power programme on youth employability in Yobe State

• Determine the contribution of N-Power programme to skills acquisition among beneficiaries in Yobe State

• evaluate the impact of N-Power programme on the income generation capacity of the beneficiaries in Yobe Stat

• analyze the extent to which N-Power programme enhances the entrepreneurial skills of the beneficiaries in Yobe State

Literature Review

Policy of economic statism or interventionism, by and large, got prominence in economic literature since the late 1930s and the 1940s following the Keynesian doctrine. As the name suggests, the policy advocates direct government intervention within the market system which favors provision of public goods and welfare packages to the citizens [7]. The interventions manifest in various forms, including provision of amenities, skills acquisition programmes, direct employment of labor, subsidy, tax incentives, social policy and social benefits, among others. While in most developed countries many interventions are embedded in broader social policy framework, in developing countries direct interventions are increasingly being used [2]. Although the immediate objectives of the policy may vary from one country to another, however, its overall intent is certainly improving the welfare of the citizens, particularly the vulnerable and underprivileged, in all ramifications [8].

Social investment is an explicit form of interventionism which goes beyond passive policies that protect the vulnerable at a particular time and situation, to a more active welfare productive spending. According to Deeming and Smyth [9], social investment is accentuated through investment to strengthen skills and capacities in a competitive knowledge economy which implies policies and interventions that aim at building the productive capacities of citizens.

N-Power Programme

The N-Power programme is grouped into two categories – N-Power graduate and N-Power non- graduate. The N-Power graduate: This category is also known as N-Power volunteers. According to N-Power website, the volunteers are expected to provide teaching, instructional and advisory solutions in 4 key areas (npower.gov.ng). Firstly, N-Power Agro (in which volunteers are to provide advisory services to farmers across the country). They are to assist the federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to disseminate knowledge in the area of extension service.

Secondly, N-Power Health (which is targeted at pregnant women and children as well as other vulnerable members of society). Volunteers are expected to help promote preventive healthcare among these target groups in their communities. Thirdly, N-Power Teach. Here, volunteers are deployed as teachers across primary schools in the country. This will help to improve basic education delivery particularly in the rural communities.

Lastly, N-Tax: under this area, volunteers are to work as community tax liaison officers in their states of residence with the state tax authorities. They are to assist in creating awareness of tax compliance, answering online enquires, among other things.

N-Power Non-Graduate programme provides training and certifications in two key areas. N-Power Knowledge which provides incubation and acceleration of the technology and creative industries. It is primarily aimed at ensuring that participants can get engaged in market place in an outsourcing capacity, as freelancers and as entrepreneurs. On the other hand, N-Power Build engages and trains young unemployed Nigerians so as to build a new crop of skilled and highly competent workforce of technicians, artisans and service professionals.

Empirical Literature

There are a number of studies which dwelt on the impact of social investment. For instance, O’Leary et al. [1], studied the sub-national social investment programmes in 10 EU member countries. They found that, social investment at the local level although effective but it portrays nuanced and complex picture than nationally focused programme.

Here in Africa, Brenyah [2], considered free basic education programmes in Ghana, Kenya, Malawi and Uganda. He conducted content analysis of 37 published documents on the programmes based on which he concluded that the programmes had increased school enrolment rate but failed to reduce educational expenditure in such countries.

In Nigerian context, most recent studies considered the prospects and challenges of the social investment programmes [6,10,11]. The prospects mostly lie in the ability of the programmes to alleviate poverty through jobs creation and skills acquisitions. The challenges enumerated include low funding, poor coordination, politicization and mismanagement. However, these are subjective conclusions as most of them lack empirical backings.

Elsewhere, Aminu [12], concluded that N-Power programme had improved the standard of living of business education graduates in Kano State. Yet, this study is quite limited in scope/context, coverage and method.

However, none of these studies had considered the case of Yobe State in isolation, particularly on N-Power programme as it affects the youth in the State in terms of their employability, entrepreneurial skills and income generation. This research works fills such void by investigating the impact of the said policy among its beneficiaries in Yobe State.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework to be used for the study is the Social Return of Investment (SROI) theory. This theory is used to evaluate projects and programmes which involve such values/benefits that are not traditionally reflected in corporate financial statements. It measures social, economic and even environmental values created by a project to the society in addition to traditional financial flows of the project. SROI has been successfully applied to evaluate the impact of government social programmes and is widely used as a criterion for accessing aid and grants from global donor agencies.

Study Area

Yobe State came into being on 27 August 1991. It was carved out of the old Borno State. The state borders Bauchi, Borno, Gombe and Jigawa States. It also borders to the north Diffa and Zinder Regions of Niger Republic. Presently, the State has seventeen (17) Local Government areas— Bade, Bursari, Damaturu, Geidam, Gujba, Gulani, Fika, Fune, Jakusko, Karasuwa, Machina, Nangere, Nguru, Potiskum, Tarmuwa, Yunusari and Yusufari. 

During the 2006 Nigerian Population Census, the National Population Commission had reported the population of Yobe State as 2,321,339. By 2011, the estimated population of the State stands at 2,757,000 with average growth rate of 3.56% annually. If we assume the same population growth rate over the period of 2011 – 2020, by the year 2020 the population of Yobe State would have reached 3,789,212 people (Unofficially calculated by Population. City). The demographic features in the State show that majority citizens are younger people with 52.6% below the age of 15 years. However, the aging population of 65 years and above is meager 3.2% [4]. These figures combine made the dependency ratio very high in the State; as such social security programmes such as N-Power should be encouraged so as to ease the burden off the working class.

Type of Data

Primary data will be sourced through questionnaire and focus group discussions (FGD) with selected beneficiaries of the programme. The use of primary data became necessary to tap the needed and firsthand in.

Population of the Study

The population of the study includes all beneficiaries of N-Power programme across the seventeen (17) Local Government areas of Yobe State—Bade, Bursari, Damaturu, Geidam, Gujba, Gulani, Fika, Fune, Jakusko, Karasuwa, Machina, Nangere, Nguru, Potiskum, Tarmuwa, Yunusari and Yusufari. However, only three local governments are considered in this study to form the sample frame. These three local governments were selected randomly as explain in the next sub-section. The total number of beneficiaries in these local government areas was two thousand three hundred and twenty-four (2324).

Sample Size and Sampling Technique

Sampling technique used in the study is multi-stage sampling method. In the first stage, three local governments were selected randomly from among the seventeen local governments. The selected local governments are Bade, Geidam and Yunusari. The three LGAs were used as clusters for the study and appropriate sample will be drawn. In the second stage, purposive sampling was used to select two hundred and thirty-three 233 respondents which represent 10 percent of the entire population. This is considered adequate particularly that the researcher was not able to lay his hands on the sample frame of the study. The respondents were spread across the three local government clusters.

Method of Data Collection

As mentioned earlier, both self-administered questionnaire and focus group discussion were used to source for the necessary information that would help the researcher to answer the research questions. This became imperative because the beneficiaries are in better position to indicate the benefits or otherwise of the programme. Three research assistants/enumerators (one for each local government) were hired and adequately remunerated to help in the process of the data collection. The questionnaire was divided into three different sections to include the demographic information of the respondents, information about the programme and lastly the impact of the programme on the employability and income of the respondents.

Method of Data Analysis

The methods of analysis used were both descriptive and inferential statistics. For the descriptive method, frequency counts and percentages of the responses were first recorded to ascertain the spread of the responses. Subsequently, discrete models such logistic regression was employed to see the influence of such responses on the employability and income generation capacities of the respondents as presented in the next section of this work.

This section presents and discusses the results obtained through the data generating process. The section begins with the presentation of the demographic information of the respondents followed by the specific responses on the various impacts of the programme.

Figure1: Yobe State Map

Response Rate

Out of the 233 distributed copies of questionnaire, 230 were completed and returned which represent 98.7 percent response. This is considered adequate for meaningful analyses.

Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

This subsection presents the demographic information of the respondents as in Table 1.

Table 1 presents the demographic distribution of the respondents. About more than two- third of the respondents, or 67 percent, are male beneficiaries, whereas the remaining one-third represents female beneficiaries. This is an indication that majority of the respondents are male beneficiaries though with fair representation of the female beneficiaries.

Age wise, majority of the respondents (64.3 percent) fall within the age bracket of 26 to 35 with 34.3 percent between the age of 18 and 25. Although the programme is meant for those within these two-age bracket, however, three of the respondents claimed to be older than 35 years of age which is a clear violation of the selection process of the programme.

The respondents were fairly spread over the three selected local government areas even though respondents from Geidam represent greater percentage of 41 percent followed by Yunusari with little above 31 percent and lastly Bade which has the remaining 27 percent of the respondents. This spread indicates adequate representation from each of the local government areas.

As regards to the academic status of the respondents, 117 which represents 50.9 percent of the respondents claimed to be graduates having at least a bachelor degree or its equivalent, whereas the remaining 49.1 percent of the respondents are non-graduates. This indicates that both graduates and non-graduates’ benefit from the programme.

Programme Information

This subsection presents information about N-Power programme as expressed by the respondents.

It is clear from Table 2 that majority (42.6 percent) of the respondents have gotten information on the programme through media outlets, being it traditional media or contemporary social media platforms. This is followed by the information through community leaders and associations. Government agencies and politicians had done little in informing potential beneficiaries of the programme.

Table 3 presents the responses regarding the areas of engagement of the beneficiaries. It is evident that N-Teach is the area with the highest number of participants which accommodates almost 44 percent of the respondents. This is followed by N-Health and N-Agro, respectively. Contrarily, N-Tax has the least number of participants which is expected ab initio, perhaps because not many people would be engaged in tax administration.

As regards to the information of whether the respondents had collected their earmarked monthly stipend, the responses are summarized in Table 4.

Majority of the respondents (70.4 percent) had indicated that all their monthly allowances had been paid, whereas the remaining 29.6 percent claimed that not all of their allowances were paid. This means that a sizeable of the beneficiaries had not received part of their monthly stipends.

N-Power and Enhancement of Employability

In this subsection, responses about enhancement in the employability of the beneficiaries are presented as obtained from them.

It is evidently clear from Table 5 that we do not have sufficient information to conclude on whether the programme enhances beneficiaries’ employability status or not. This is because the responses were evenly spread with 50 percent for both yes and no options, which gives a 0 value of chi- square.

N-Power and Skills Acquisition

Skills acquisition is certainly one of the benefits envisaged by N-Power programme. Thus, this subsection presents findings on the role it plays in improving job skills of beneficiaries.

Table 6 indicates that majority of the beneficiaries are of the view that the programme does not emphasize on learning new techniques in the workplace. Only 39 percent of the respondents indicate that the programme gives emphasis to learning new job skills.

However, overwhelming majority of the respondents (83 percent) had indicated that their working skills had either improved or highly improved as a result of N-Power programme that were engaged in. This is to say that, although there is no deliberate effort to enhance their skills, beneficiaries acquire new skills by simple practice of the work they were engaged to do.

Table 1: Demographic Information

Source: Researchers Computation, 2021

Table 2: How Did You Know About N-Power?

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 3: Area of Engagement

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 4: Have You Been Paid for All the Months?

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 5: Whether N-Power Engagement Enhances One's Chances of Being Employed

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 6: N-Power Emphasizes on Learning New Job Techniques

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 7: Skills Improvement as a Result of Engagement in N-Power

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

N-Power and Income Generation

Another area of anticipated importance of the programme is that of income generation. This subsection reviews and presents the results obtained on that.

When asked whether the N30,000 monthly is sufficient as income, majority of the respondents’ answers were of the affirmative. However, 40.4 percent of the respondents objected to it and proposed various amounts as the monthly stipends as in Table 9. Some 17.8 percent of the respondents proposed N50,000 as sufficient amount while 12.2 percent mentioned N60,000. Other amounts are quite insignificant.

Although majority (52.6 percent) had agreed that their income generating capacity had improved since their engagement in N-Power programme, however, a sizeable number (47.4 percent) objected that. As a result, a chi-square test is conducted to ascertain the right decision. The chi- square statistic is found to be statistically insignificant with a probability value of 0.429, thus, we cannot conclude on whether the programme had improved the income generating capacity of the respondents or not.

N-Power and Entrepreneurial Activities

This subsection presents the results obtained regarding the contribution of N–Power programme to the entrepreneurial activities of the beneficiaries.

Table 8: Sufficiency of N-Power Monthly Stipend

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 9: Sufficient Amount If the Monthly Stipend Is Not Sufficient

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 10: Whether Income Generating Capacity of the Beneficiary Has Improved Since N-Power Engagement

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 11: Whether a Beneficiary Has Ever Been Trained/Lectured on Entrepreneurial Skills By N-Power Programme

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

It is apparent from Table 11 that 136 or more than 59 percent of the respondents had never received any lecture or training specifically on entrepreneurship. However, the remaining 40.9 percent affirmed that they had received it. It can thus be said that majority had not received such training.

Consequent to the responses in Table 11, majority of the respondents are still not ready to take any business risks as 124 or 53.9 percent of them indicated in Table 12. The remaining 106 are willing to take such risks which is still remarkable even though insufficient.

Interestingly, majority of the respondents have possessed business or investment ventures after their engagement with N-Power. This is indeed remarkable as 122 of the respondents or 53 percent of them affirmed that they owned personal businesses in the aftermath of the programme. It can be inferred perhaps here that these beneficiaries might have gotten the capital from the proceeds of the programme. However, the remaining 47 percent of the respondents had not owned any business after the programme.

This study assessed the impact of N-Power programme on the employability and income generation among its beneficiaries in Yobe State. 

Table 12: Willingness To Take Business Risk Due To the Training A Beneficiary Acquired From N-Power Proramme

Source: Researcher’s Computation, 2021

Table 13: Ownership of Any Business/Investment After Engagement In N-Power Programme

Source: Researcher’s computation, 2021

Specifically, the study gives emphasis to the employability, income generating capacity as well as entrepreneurial skill acquisition of the beneficiaries of N-Power programme in the State, with focus on three sampled local government areas viz: Bade, Geidam and Yunusari. Primary data was collected from the sampled 230 beneficiaries in the three local government areas on the basis of which analysis was conducted.

Based on the findings of the study we conclude that majority of the beneficiaries are male between the age of 26 and 35 who are graduates, majority of whom got information about the programme through the media and community leaders. Most of them are engaged in N-Power Teach and a number of them have not received their full allowances for some months.

As regards to the impact of the programme on the employability of the beneficiaries, we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that generally the programme had any impact on that; so, we may safely conclude that the management of the programme must have to devise means through which the employability potentials and capacities of the beneficiaries will be enhanced. However, the skills of the beneficiaries in their working places had improved since their engagement with the programme.

Moreover, N-Power programme enhanced the income generating capacity of most of the beneficiaries and majority of them considered the current monthly remuneration of N30,000 sufficient. In addition, a number of them owned businesses after their engagement in N-Power programme, an indication that the programme enhances their entrepreneurial skills.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusion drawn above, the following recommendations are proffered with the view of improving the desirable impact of the programme on the employability, skills and income generating capacity of the beneficiaries:

• The management of N-Power programme should ensure prompt payment of beneficiaries’ monthly allowance. This is to ensure that one of the purposes of the programme (income generation) is fulfilled. Delays or default in payments negate the purpose of the programme

• N-Power programme should give emphasis to on-job training and lectures with the view of teaching the beneficiaries new skills and techniques. A periodic training that can be organized quarterly of biannually should be inserted into the programme, which is to be conducted by experts and should focus on enhancement of job-related skills and techniques. This will go a long way in enhancing the employability of the beneficiaries

• The management of the programme should look into the current N30,000 monthly stipend to see the possibility of its review to reflect the inflation dynamics in the country. It may be grossly insufficient for a graduate to be earning such amount

• The programme should provide incentives for the beneficiaries to establish own business ventures. The incentives in form of capital, company registration, tax waver, as well as extension services

With these recommendations implemented, certainly N-Power programme would have a far-reaching benefit in Yobe State and beyond.

1. O’Leary, C. et al. "Innovation and Social Investment Programs in Europe." European Policy Analysis, vol. 0, no. 0, 2018.

2. Brenyah, J. "Implementation of social protection interventions in Africa: the trend in the outcomes of free basic education in Ghana, Malawi, Kenya and Uganda." ResearchGate, 2018.

3. World Bank. Advancing Social Protection in a Dynamic Nigeria: Main Report. World Bank, 2019.

4. Nigeria Living Standards Survey. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), July 2020.

5. Rewane, B. Economic Management: State Government Imperatives 2019/21. Paper presented at the Induction of New and Returning Governors, The Banquet Hall, Presidential Villa, Organized by the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, Abuja, Nigeria, 2019.

6. Onah, R. and C.N. Olise. "National Social Investment Programme (NSIP) and sustainable poverty reduction in nigeria: challenges and prospects." IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), vol. 24, no. 10, ser. 11, October 2019, pp. 20–31.

7. Von Mises, L. Interventionism: An Economic Analysis. Edited by B.B. Greaves, Mises Institute, 1998.

8. Karagiannis, N. "Key economic and politico-institutional elements of modern interventionism." Social and Economic Studies, vol. 50, no. 4, 2001, pp. 17–47.

9. Deeming, C. and P. Smyth. "Social investment after neoliberalism: policy paradigms and political platforms." Journal of Social Policy, vol. 44, no. 2, 2015, pp. 297–318.

10. Holmes, R. et al. Social Policy in Nigeria: Mapping Programmes and Their Effectiveness. Research Reports and Studies, February 2012.

11. Adegbenle, S.A. Social Investment and Governance in Nigeria: An Appraisal of Poverty Alleviation and Youth Empowerment Schemes in the Fourth Republic (1999–2019). 2019.

12. Aminu, M.S. "Effects of social investment programme (N-power) on standard of living of business education graduates in Kano State." European Scientific Journal, vol. 15, no. 22, 2019, pp. 250–261.