TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page i
Approval page ii
Table of contents V
List of table – vii
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 2
1.3 Objectives of the Study 3
1.4 Research Questions 3
1.5 Hypotheses of the Study 4
1.6 Significance of the Study 4
1.7 Scope of the Study 4
1.8 Definition of Terms 5
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Conceptual Review 6
2.l The Concept of Policy 6
2.2 The Concept of Public Policy 7
2.3 Features of Public Policy 10
2.4 Policy Implementation 12
2.5 The Concept of Development 13
2.6 The Concept of Grass-root Development 14
2.7 The Policy Process 17
2.8 Perceived Reasons Why Government Policy Fails 20
2.9 Empirical Review 24
2.10 Theoretical Framework 29
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design 30
3.2 Population of the 30
3.3 Sample Size Determination 31
3.4 Sampling Technique 32
3.5 Instrumentation 32
3 .6Reliability of the Instrument 32
3.7 Validity of Instrument 33
3.8 Data Collection technique 33
3.9 Method of Data Analysis 33
CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
4.0 Introduction 35
4.1 Response Rate Analysis 35
4.2 Demographic Analysis 36
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary of Findings 48
5.2 Conclusion 48
5.3 Recommendations 49
Appendix I 55
1.1 Background of the Study
The primary desire and goal of any community at the local, state or national level is to generate and sustain development. Development entails better welfare, better attitude towards life and positive radical multidimensional changes. However, the attainment and activation of development is intentional. Development does not just happen; it is strategically planned, organized and executed through the instrumentality of public policy.
Publiê policies in an ordinary parlance are those definite acts or actions of government geared towards the fulfillment of the obligation of government on the citizens, which are the maintenance of law and order, the provision of social and economic facilities needed for an enhanced standard of living of the people (lyoha, 2000)
Nigeria gained independence in 1960 from the British colonial government. Ever since then, grassroot governance and development have been declared one of the major priorities by the successive governments, be it civilian or military. In this regard, several organizations, institutions and agencies have been set up to undertake and monitor the complicated process of nation-building, development and integration.
This post colonial orientation is a deviation from the erstwhilecolonial arrangement whereby development efforts in all spheres were concentrated in the urbanareas to the neglect of grassroot and rural areas. Hence, projects such as the construction of roads, bridges,schools, railway lines, air trip, ports and marketing boards, among others, were all aimed atopening the rural areas as a link for the easy exploitation of export of raw materials (Hilary, 2009)
In Nigeria, over the years the stated objectives and strategies of grassroot development have been pronounced by policy makers and those concerned with• the issue of development. But there still exist enormous gap between public policy formulation and implementation and the reality of the level of the development of the grassroot sphere.
For example, several approaches in terms of grassroot development planning and execution have been adopted. Some of these included the creation of states, local government areas, mobilization of people for local participation in planning and implementation of community development projects in order tocreate new centres of deelopment, and thus stem the drift from rural to urban areas. On the part of government therefore there is the realization that there is need to bring the neglected grassroot areas into the mainstream of national development (Michael, 2012).
2.0 Conceptual Review
2.l The Concept of Policy
Forman (2008) asserts that the concept of policy has two distinct meanings in the field of public administration. First, policy is seen as a way of doing things or decision rule. Secondly, he posits policy as substantive programmes referring specifically to the context of what is being done and not necessarily how it is being done.
Ross (2009) suggested that policy should be seen as “a long series of more or less related activities and their consequences for those concerned• rather than as a discrete decision”. Lasswell and Kaplan (2001) had given a systematic definition of the concept which appear more applicable and relevant to many area or fields of the social and behavioural sciences. In their words: “Policy is a projected programme of goal, values and practices; policy process is the formulation, promulgation and application of identifications, demand and expectations concerning the future interpersonal relations of the self”
Also contributing to the understanding of the concept of policy, Lowi (2000) emphasized the importance of the concept of coercion in thinking about policy. According to him, policy, involves deliberate coercion or in other words statements intended to delineate the purpose, means, subject and objects of the exercise of coercion within the context of power relationships in organizational structure. Gergan (2008) described policy as a “course-setting involving decisions of widest ramifications and longest time perspective in the sight of an organization”.
Friedrich (2003) perceives policy as an attempt to overcome and or utilize environment” obstacles and or opportunities in order to achieve a given goal or objective. Continuing he added that policy is directed towards the accomplishment of some purpose or goal.