تلفن: ۰۴۱۴۲۲۷۳۷۸۱
تلفن: ۰۹۲۱۶۴۲۶۳۸۴

دانلود رایگان مقاله شواهد تجربی فقر و محرومیت کودکان در نیجریه

عنوان فارسی: شواهد تجربی فقر و محرومیت کودکان در نیجریه
عنوان انگلیسی: Empirical evidence of child poverty and deprivation in Nigeria
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی : 10 تعداد صفحات ترجمه فارسی : ترجمه نشده
سال انتشار : 2018 نشریه : الزویر - Elsevier
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی : PDF کد محصول : E5622
محتوای فایل : PDF حجم فایل : Kb500
رشته های مرتبط با این مقاله: علوم اجتماعی
گرایش های مرتبط با این مقاله: جامعه شناسی
مجله: سوء استفاده و نادیده گرفتن کودکان - Child Abuse & Neglect
دانشگاه: Department of Economics - Faculty of the Social Sciences - University of Ibadan - Ibadan - Nigeria
کلمات کلیدی: فقر کودکان، محرومیت، فقر، سطح فقر، شدت فقر، نیجریه
برای سفارش ترجمه این مقاله با کیفیت عالی و در کوتاه ترین زمان ممکن توسط مترجمین مجرب سایت ایران عرضه؛ روی دکمه سبز رنگ کلیک نمایید.
چکیده

ABSTRACT

Development economists and policy makers have in recent times focused attention on child poverty as a crucial aspect of poverty. The importance of the analysis of child poverty partly lies in the fact that children are the most vulnerable group in every society. This study used two poverty lines and the Foster-Greer-Thorbecke index to analyze extreme and overall child poverty headcount, depth and severity in Nigeria. The study also used the headcount ratio to analyze the extent of child deprivation in education, health, nutrition, child protection, water and sanitation. The study was based on the 2010 Harmonized Nigeria Living Standard Survey (HNLSS) and the 2011 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS), obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Abuja, Nigeria. The study revealed that 23.22% of children in Nigeria were in extreme child poverty while 70.31% of children in the country were in overall child poverty. The study further showed that there was pronounced child deprivation in education, health, nutrition, child protection, water and sanitation. Both child poverty and child deprivation were more pronounced in the rural sector than in the urban sector and in Northern Nigeria than in Southern Nigeria. Therefore, the Nigerian government should take adequate steps to eradicate child poverty and obliterate all forms of child deprivation in Nigeria – particularly deprivation in basic needs. In taking such steps, more attention should be focused on rural areas and Northern Nigeria.

نتیجه گیری

4. Recommendations and conclusion

This study has revealed that household poverty and child poverty were highly related in Nigeria. For example, the overall child poverty headcount (70.31%) was very close to household poverty headcount (69.0%), based on the official relative poverty line for the country (National Bureau of Statistics, 2012). The 2010 Harmonized Nigeria Living Standard Survey (HNLSS) and the 2011 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) utilized in this study, though relatively old, are still the most recent of such surveys readily available in Nigeria. The next round of HNLSS is overdue and yet to be carried out while MICS 2016/2017 survey was on-going when this study was carried out. Besides, all the relevant variables for analysis of child poverty and child deprivation are contained in the 2010 HNLSS and 2011 MICS; and the closeness of the two surveys which complement each other makes for better comparison of both the consumption indicators of poverty derived from the 2010 HNLSS and the deprivation indicators derived from the 2011 MICS. This study has shown that the level of child poverty in Nigeria was very high; and that many children in Nigeria were deprived in education, health, nutrition, child protection, water and sanitation. It is evident that many children in Nigeria are apparently neglected and abused; they are deprived of various basic needs and this puts them in precarious situations. Also, the study has shown that areas with less socio-economic infrastructure are more likely to have higher levels of child poverty and child deprivation in various basic needs. For instance, the rural areas that are known to experience greater deficiency in basic socio-economic infrastructure than the urban areas experienced higher levels of child poverty and child deprivation than the urban areas.