Estate Management Project Topics

Managing Rural Development Through Industrialization

Managing Rural Development Through Industrialization

Managing Rural Development Through Industrialization

Chapter One

Objectives of the study

The objectives of this research include but not limited to;

  1. To evaluate the impact of industrialization on rural development.
  2. To determine if industrialization help in the development of rural communities.



Conceptual Framework on Rural Development

Although policy makers and the development community have widely used the phrase “rural development,” what constitutes rural development seems to have changed significantly over time. How did the concept of “rural development” evolve over time in the past three decades? What does “inclusive rural development” mean? Addressing these two basic interrelated questions is important to put the issues relating to inclusive rural development in perspective. According to Harris (1982); Chambers (1983) and ADB (2000) the concept of rural development has changed significantly during the last three decades. Until the 1970s, rural development was synonymous with agricultural development and, hence, focused on increasing agricultural productivity. This focus seems to have been driven primarily by the interests of industrialization to extract surpluses from the agriculture sector to reinforce industrialization. Francks et al (1999) observed that, with the focus on increasing agricultural production, the stated objective of most countries was to promote smallholder agriculture. Over time, this smallholder agriculture-centric concept of rural development underwent changes.

By the early 1980s, according to Harris (1982), the World Bank defined rural development as “…a strategy designed to improve the economic and social life of a specific group of people—the rural poor.” Four major factors appear to have influenced the change: increased concerns about the persistent and deepening of rural poverty; changing views on the meaning of the concept of development itself; emergence of a more diversified rural economy in which rural nonfarm enterprises play an increasingly important role; and increased recognition of the importance of reducing the non-income dimensions of poverty to achieve sustainable improvements in the socioeconomic well-being of the poor. The establishment of the Millennium Development Goals has significantly reinforced the concerns about non- income poverty. With the paradigm shifts in economic development from growth to broadly defined “development,” the concept of rural development has begun to be used in a broader sense. It is also more specific, as Harris (1982) noted “in the sense that it focuses (in its rhetoric, and in principle) particularly on poverty and inequality.” In more recent years, increased concern on the environmental aspects of economic growth have also influenced the changes.

Harris (1983) added that today’s concept of rural development is fundamentally different from that used about three or four decades ago. The concept now encompasses “concerns that go well beyond improvements in growth, income, and output. The concerns include an assessment of changes in the quality of life, broadly defined to include improvement in health and nutrition, education, environmentally safe living conditions, and reduction in gender and income inequalities.” According to Chino (2000) there seems to be a universal consensus today that the ultimate objective of rural development is to improve the quality of life of rural people. This makes it essential to go beyond the income-related factors such as prices, production, and productivity to a range of non-income factors that influence quality of life and hence inclusiveness of rural development.

Inclusive rural development is a more specific concept than the concept of rural development. In broad terms, inclusive rural development is about improving the quality of life of all members of rural society. More specifically, inclusive rural development covers three different but interrelated dimensions (UNDP, 2005). The first is the economic dimension that encompasses providing both capacity and opportunities for the poor and low income rural households in particular to benefit from the economic growth process in such a way that their average incomes grow at a higher rate than the growth of average incomes in the sector as a whole. The economic dimension also includes measures to reduce intra- and inter-sectoral income inequalities to reasonable levels. Second is the social dimension of supporting development of poor and low-income households and disadvantaged groups, eliminating inequalities in social indicators, promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment, and providing social safety nets for vulnerable groups. Third is the political dimension of improving opportunities for the poor and low-income people in rural areas, including women and ethnic minorities, to effectively and equally participate in the political processes at the village level and beyond compared with any other categories of the population within and outside rural areas.







Research design

The data needed for this study comprised both primary and secondary:

  Primary data.

An inventory of the existing industrialization which included educational infrastructure, commercial infrastructure, administration, public utility (water and electricity), transport and communication infrastructure as well as health and recreational infrastructure.

Access to and patronage of the infrastructure by way of oral interviews and questionnaire administration in order to elicit information from the respondents. Some of the issues the questionnaire addressed include availability, access and usage of the available infrastructure as well as the possible impact of the infrastructure on the well-being of the respondents.

 Secondary data

Data were obtained from unpublished projects, journals, text books, newspapers and websites which were relevant and helpful in generating ideas, facts and issues relating to the study.

Photographs were taken to show the nature of the available infrastructure.



 Background of the Respondents





This study tries to assess the impact of industrialization on rural development in Karu local government area of Nasarawa state. This was done by assessing the available industrialization provided in all the eleven wards of the local government. The categories of industrialization considered in the study are education, commercial, public utility, administration, transport and communication, health and recreation. The result of this analysis shows that there is uneven distribution of industrialization in the study area; the findings show that there are considerable numbers of industrialization in all the wards, although there are variation and differences in their number. For example, there is an overconcentration of these facilities in the two major towns of Karu and Gitata while Karshi ii, Panda, Aso and Kodape wards that are predominantly rural in nature are neglected.

Population size is an important factor in rural development, when government provides social amenities; communities with large populations are usually favoured because it is more economical and viable to establish them in populous communities with large demands for goods and services. More importantly, the emergence or establishment of a service in a locality depends on whether the locality can produce the population threshold for the service.

This threshold is the minimum population size required to support the existence of a service. This is further confirmed by the result of the analysis conducted using location quotients (LQ) in which wards with large populations but small number of infrastructure recorded LQ of less than 1.0 and so are disadvantaged. While those wards with small populations but large number of infrastructure recorded LQ greater than 1.0, implying that the wards have achieved a comparatively more significant level of development.

Also, the result for multiple regression shows a strong relationship between industrialization and development. This implies that, availability of industrialization has impact on the level of development of the study area. This finding is further conformed when the information obtained was tabulated, where the summary provided evidence that the available industrialization have greatly impacted on their social life.


industrialization is central to development. Improved infrastructure not only expands opportunities for growth but also help ensure that such growth is more diffused and equitable. Many developing countries, especially in Africa, still have woefully inadequate levels of industrialization, and this is a major constraint to their socio-economic development. This study has tried to assess the impact of industrialization on rural development, the infrastructure considered in the study are educational facilities, commercial facilities, administrative facilities, public utilities (electricity and water supply), transport and communication facilities, health facilities and recreation facilities. The nature of this study entails the use of social indicators as this would give the research a proper structure as well as sense of direction, moreover, the social indicators also served as the independent or x variables while scores for level of development served as the dependent or y variable.  The result of the analysis conducted using Location Quotient (LQ) shows that there is uneven distribution of industrialization in the study area. The findings have shown that most of the wards particularly those that are highly populated have inadequate facilities. Also, multiple regression was used to determine the relationship between industrialization and development in the study area, the result of the analysis which is expressed as the coefficient of determination R2 shows a strong and positive relationship. Therefore, it can be clearly stated that the provision of industrialization do have great impact on the development of the study area. On the other hand, the contribution of the individual x variables towards development varies, the most significant variable is public utilities (electricity and water supply) followed by transport and communication facilities and then recreational facilities. The contribution of education and commercial facilities seem to be of little or no significance in the regression analysis. This in on surprising looking at the fact that there are inadequate schools in the study area, secondary schools in particular. That is why a large number of students have to travel long distance before getting to school, also the study area has a population of over 200,000 people, but have only two banks which are all located in the local government headquarters; this has definitely reduced access and patronage of the facilities thus making their impact insignificant.

Finally, this study concludes by suggesting that future researches should examine in more detail the role of industrialization on rural development of rural areas by laying emphasis on the quality of the infrastructure rather than quantity, so as to be able to figure out the true dimension of the development.


The study shows that industrialization are very crucial to the socioeconomic development of rural areas. Access to infrastructure such as education, transport and communication, health and recreational facilities greatly improve the welfare of rural dwellers. Additionally, the supply of these basic amenities will go a long way in improving the social life of rural areas. This study reveals that attention to industrialization is highly indispensable for high level of development in the study area and Nigeria as a whole.

Based on the study, it is recommended that:

More schools should be constructed in order to reduce the distance students have to travel to school, and more facilities should be provided for qualitative education also, More banks should open branches in the study area not only in the local government headquarters but also in the predominantly rural wards as this would help farmers to have access to various services offered by the banks.

Rural areas are generally characterized with lack of accessibility due to bad roads conditions. The provision of motorable roads therefore will help not only farmers in transporting their produce to markets but also, students who have to travel long distance every day.

Deliberate efforts should be made by government to change the policies concerning the provision of infrastructural facilities in the study area by focusing more on adequacy and even distribution. It is believed that if this is done the facilities so provided will have a greater impact on the local communities.

There is also a greater need for the involvement of the private sector  and nongovernmental organizations in the provision of such facilities. The private sector can invest substantial capital in providing for example, recreational facilities, health and communication as well as commercial infrastructure such as banks and super markets etc.


  • Adebanjo, A.A, and Oladeji, S.I. (2006). Health Human Capital Condition: Analysis of the   Determinants in Nigeria, in Falola T and Heaton MM (eds) Traditional and   Modern Health Systems in Nigeria, Africa World Press; Trenton and Asmara:   pp. 381-398.
  • Adefolalu, A.A (1982) “Infrastructure as Crux of Overall Development in Nigeria”,
  • Proceedings of the Silver Jubilee Conference of the NGA,University of Ibadan, April.
  •  Adereti,F.O and Adeokun, O.A (2005) “Rural Women’s Access to Infrastructural facilities in Rural Areas of Osun State, Nigeria”. Journal of Social science, 10(3), 165-170.
  •  Africon, ( 2004) “Feasibility Study for the Improvement of the Feeder Road Network on the Copperbelt: Final Report”. December 2004.
  • Africon, (2006). Socio-Economic Stakeholder Consultation Report for the Feasibility Study  for the Thaba Tseka-Taung-Mokhotlong-Sani Pass Road Project. March 2006.
  • Agénor, P. R., & Moreno-Dodson, B. (2006). Public Infrastructure and Growth: New  Channels and Policy Implications. The World Bank Policy Research Working  Paper 4064.
  • Ajala,O.A and Adeyinka, S.A (2005) “Accessibility to Healthcare Facilities: A Panacea for Sustainable Rural Development in Osun State Southeastern Nigeria”. Journal of Human Ecology,18(2), 121-128.
  • Akinwunmi, J.A and Olawoye, J.E. (1999). “Quantitative Poverty Assessment Studies, Initiatives of the Poor and Informal Safety Nets”. Osun State Final Report.



WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!