Gender in niGeria report 2012 - Economic Commission for Africa

Gender in Nigeria Report 2012: Improving the Lives of Girls and Women in Nigeria 13
poor. 11 Inequality has historical origins, but the investment decisions by successive
governments have exacerbated income disparities among social groups as well as
between and within regions. 12 Figure 2 shows the Lorenz curve and the deficit share
and its composition. Much of the inequality is explained by differences between
different income groups (those who live in poverty and those who do not), rather than
by differences within them. There is also significant inequality among non-poor groups.
Figure 3. Lorenz curve showing income inequalities in Nigeria.
1
.8
.6
L (p)
.4
.2
Source: Araar and Taiwo (2006: 13).
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Percentiles (p)
Inequality between
groups
Inequality within
the poor group
Inequality within
the non poor group
3.7 Income disparities between and
within income groups
The composite curve above masks huge spatial disparities between North and
South, and between rural and urban areas. Recent data on regional inequality
trends could not be located but table 4 shows the disaggregated data for these
analytical categories up to 2004. What is interesting is that the North-East has the
highest level of poverty, scores lowest on the gender development measure (GDM), has
almost the lowest score on the gender empowerment measure (GEM), and records the
highest increase in Gini inequality (along with the South-West). Apart from the North-
Central and North-West, the data suggest that income inequality has increased overall
since democratisation in 1999. The same point has been made by Oyelere (2007) and
others, who suggest that the democratic dispensation has opened opportunities for
growth but these are skewed in several directions, favouring the South over the North,
urban over rural areas and, as we show later, men over women. The data also indicate
that inequality is greater in the more prosperous regions of the South-West and South-
South, than in poorer regions, confirming the argument (supported by Figure 2) that
inequality among non-poor groups is responsible for a significant proportion of the
inequality in the country.
11 Alabi et al. (2011) for example argue that although between 1981 and 2006 the state generated US$191billion from oil revenue, only 2 and
3% of this was spent on education and health respectively during the same period.
12 See for example Aigbokhan (2008).