Infrastructural development has a crucial role to play in rural areas in Nigeria so as to sustain and increase growth in economic production. While there is large variation in the state of rural infrastructure among developing countries, lower-income developing countries suffer severe rural infrastructure deficiencies. Deficiencies in transportation, energy, telecommunication and related infrastructure transform into poorly functioning domestic markets with little spatial and temporal integration, low price transmission and weak international competitiveness. Despite the backbreaking reality that development of rural infrastructure is important to promote growth and poverty alleviation and high economic rates of return to investments in rural infrastructure, neither national governments nor international aid agencies seem to prioritized investments in the construction of new infrastructure and maintenance of existing infrastructure. Much of the required investment is of a public goods nature and thus most of the infrastructure investments must come from public sources, while public-private partnership should be pursued when appropriate. Rural areas also have typical demographic characteristics such as social aspects, basic amenities (infrastructure) as well as economic production scales. Basic infrastructural facilities such as roads, clean water supply and communication are the main keys to the wellbeing of a community, notably those in the rural areas. Since Taraba state is a state left behind in terms of development [1], the government should initiate different efforts to improve the quality of the people’s life, be it those in the urban or rural areas. Nevertheless, there is a huge gap between the population living in the urban and rural areas. Geographical, educational, income, gender and health, are some of the gaps that need to be bridged in Taraba state [2]. The gaps are closely related to accessibility aspects and the level of quality of life of the community, most notably those who live in the rural. Several factors have been identified as causing the said gaps. The main factor is none other than infrastructure development [3]. Urban areas are often synonymous with adequate facilities or fundamental infrastructure unlike rural areas that are still hampered with limited, inadequate infrastructure facilities. According to Inuwa [4]. Nowadays, the relationship between public expenditure and economic growth has continues to generate sense or controversies among scholars in economic literature, the nature of the impact of public expenditure on economic growth is in conclusion, and from the view point of the student researcher is still not incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, while some author or researchers believed that the impact of public expenditure on economic growth is negative or non-significant, others believed that the impact is positive and significant. 

The structure of Nigeria public expenditure can bawdily be categorized into capital and recurrent expenditure. The recurrent expenditure is basically government expenses on administration such as wages, salaries, interest on loans, maintenance cost, etc. However, the expenses on capital project like roads, airports, education, telecommunication, electricity, generator, etc are generally referred to as capital expenditure. Nigeria is currently experiencing an economic downturn due to dwindling oil revenue, upon which the country relies for its sustenance. There is also a high level of corruption. Transparency International’s (2016) corruption perception index (C.P.I.) ranks Nigeria 136th out of 176 countries surveyed. According to Trading Economics (2016), the gross domestic product (G.D.P.) of Nigeria shows a declining trend of -2.06% and -1.5% for 2016 and 2015, respectively, due to falling oil revenue. Nigeria is the third most corrupt country in West Africa.

Governments continue to increase spending on infrastructure with a view toward economic growth to ease the burden of citizens, but that of rural dwellers is not of priority. Specifically, efficient transportation and communication should be available, people should enjoy basic healthcare delivery with minimal effort and there should be food security; but ironically, this is not the case. The problem is that the economic growth recorded has not translated into improved welfare as expected in some nations [5]. This problem is of concern to this study because the trend has to be reversed.

Over two thirds of Nigeria’s population reside in rural areas. Increasingly, poverty in the country is wearing a rural face. From 28.3 % in 1980, poverty among the rural population grew to 51.4 % in 1985, has since risen to 69.8 % in 1996. Poverty tends to affect men and women differently. Women are generally less educated, more vulnerable, deprived and powerless than their male counterparts. [5]. Poor people experience insecurity and vulnerability (drought, desertification, flooding, deforestation, diseases, volatile commodity markets etc.); lack of empowerment to influence public policies according to their priorities; and lack of opportunities for income generation and benefits from markets. Access to education, safe water supply, sanitation, health, modern energy, telecommunications and roads are important in reducing vulnerability and increasing prosperity [5]. The present study fills this gap in that it covers Taraba state, which is a state left far behind in Nigeria when it comes to rural infrastructure. In addition, Raheem, Ayeni and Fashademi [6] find that there is poor implementation of developmental policies when it comes to rural infrastructure.

Conceptual Literature

In this section, various information from the literature related to public expenditure, rural infrastructure and the aggregate effect of infrastructural development on rural communities in Nigeria are evaluated with the view of providing a better understanding of the subject matter.

Concept of Public Expenditure 

According to Michael and Omodero [7], Public Sector Expenditure refers to government spending both capital and recurrent. For the purpose of this study, we focused on few selected recurrent expenditures sensitive to economic development in our time. These are government spending on education, health, defense and security, agriculture and public debt servicing. The government owes the citizenry protection of lives and properties. The health of people in developing countries as well as illiteracy eradication also stands as important public expenditure items. The issue of external and domestic debt servicing cannot be ruled out in the Nigerian context, since it’s an obligation that must be met.

Public expenditure is the allocation of funds to healthcare, education, national defense and other sectors in the economy in order to supply goods and services to the public sector, redistribute income, support certain industries and improve the economy as a whole. Government infrastructural expenditure is the allocation on the infrastructure like agricultural, healthcare, education sectors etc. which is aimed to boost productivity, output, and wellbeing of the rural dwellers thereby inciting economic growth. Public expenditure in rural infrastructure comprises of expenses on sector policies and programs, construction of flood control, irrigation and drainage systems, operation or support of extension services or veterinary services to farmers, pest control services, crop inspection services, provision of grants and subsidies to farmers, etc. Investing in agriculture is one of the most effective ways of promoting agricultural productivity, raising real incomes, reducing poverty and food insecurity, and enhancing environmental sustainability.

More so, public Expenditure represents the total government spending to attain the predetermined macro-economic objectives. Governments have recorded a continuous increase over time in almost every country. Despite the fact that there is continuous increase in public expenditure and in spite of its growing role and importance in national economies the area of public expenditure remains relatively unexplored unlike the attention on the theory of taxation. However, the classical have unfavorable thinking towards increasing public expenditure, positing that Governments lack capacity to decide and judge economic interests on behalf of others, hence it should limit it spending.

Concept of Infrastructural Development 

According to United Nations Development Programme, infrastructure is a supporting structure, the basic facilities, equipment, services, and installations needed for the growth, development and functioning of a country. Gianpiero defines infrastructure as material, institutional and personal facilities that are available to the economic agents and which contribute to the development of a country. Infrastructural development can be considered as any assets, equipment, structures, basic amenities among others in an economy that serve the purpose for transport service, telecommunications basic needs of a community, local government, state and a country as a whole and serve the functions for transport, buildings and installations of public administration, education, research institutes, healthcare and social welfare of the citizen. Infrastructural development may include economic infrastructure which includes roads, railway, shipping ports and harbours.

Infrastructural development is also the key aspect that is used to measure leader’s performance in a country [8]. Therefore, discussions on the concept and definitions of infrastructure development have to consider the viewpoints of researchers from different backgrounds. Such consideration is vital to facilitate understanding of the concept of infrastructure development. Also, infrastructure development requires investment if such development is to take place in any country.

In the view of Ghafoor [9], infrastructural investment is an investment that can contribute the increase in economic growth. Infrastructure development is none other than a mechanism that increases the living quality of a society. In terms of economy, infrastructure development can impact the employment rate, productivity, and income as well as give an added value. Infrastructure development can also boost political integration and reduce societal geographical gaps. The concept of infrastructure development also refers to the provision of fundamental infrastructure facilities such as the construction of roads and highways, availability of transportation, bridges, and ports and telecommunication systems. The basic physical development mentioned is considered important as it serves as an indicator to the progress and developmental process of a particular country.

The State of Rural Infrastructure in Nigeria 

From the literature, Alabi and Ocholi [10] have described the state of infrastructure in Nigeria as poor and grossly inadequate. In their article titled “the state of infrastructure in Kogi State Nigeria found that the Nigeria’s infrastructure in term of quality and quantity is grossly inferior to that existing in other parts of the world. Alabi and Ocholi further observed that in most rural areas of Nigeria there are insufficient or lack of provision of pipe borne or portable drinking water, where more than 85% of the rural dwellers lack access, as a result, 10% of households have their own private deep wells and very many rely on water vendors whose high prices amount to more than 30% of the household income for the poorest, as a result, large proportion of households have resorted to drawing water from unhygienic sources. They also observed the prevalence of poor road network. According to them, Nigeria roads have been found to be the lowest in density in Africa, where only 31% of the roads are paved as compared to 50% in the middle-income countries, and even where roads are provided only 40 percent of these roads can be said to be in good condition. Their findings also revealed that electricity supply in Nigeria, and particularly in rural areas is deficient. According to them, only 10 percent of rural households have access to electricity.

Furthermore, Adewole described the state of health infrastructures in rural communities in Nigeria as inadequate. The report noted that the quality of health service delivery was low particularly in the rural areas of Oyo and Osun States where the research was conducted. He observed that most of the health centres and maternity homes lacked necessary equipment and drugs that could bring about improvement in health service delivery. According to him, the risk for maternal death in rural areas is 100 times higher than in urban areas and risk for pregnancy-related illness and negative consequences after birth is higher.

Health centres in rural communities have been noted for lack of basic drugs and required personnel, which invariably affect negatively the operation of the centres. In the work of Ajayi [11] titled” The role of Community Health Workers in Rural Health Service Delivery” it was revealed that most rural communities do not have functional health centres nor maternity. Ajayi maintained that there is death of health infrastructures in rural communities of Nigeria. In his report, out of 120 communities surveyed in Nigeria, only 20 communities have functioning health centres, while 12 have maternity homes. He described the situation as “death trap” for the rural communities as most rural residents tends to rely on herbs, and traditional birth attendants for the pregnant women. It is evident from the foregoing that rural infrastructure delivery in Nigeria is still deficient as most rural communities have continued to lack basic amenities needed to achieve qualitative life.

According to Ale, Abisuwa and Ologunagba [12] Rural infrastructure in Nigeria is poor and nasty. Scholars in Nigeria rural development studies attest to the clear fact that the status of rural infrastructure in Nigeria is so weak that it cannot support the realization of enhanced economic life, and improved standard of living of the rural people. By basic infrastructure the paper looks at those amenities that are fundamentally needed as a necessity to enhance the living condition of the people and restore the dignity of man.

The Impact of Infrastructure Development on Rural Communities

Several policies have been advocated and implemented to ensure that the much- needed development takes place. One of the most recent policies is the National Key Result Areas (NKRA). The six key thrusts of the NKRA include reducing crime rates, implementing anti-corruption, expanding access to quality and affordable education, upgrading the low-income citizen’s standard of living, improving infrastructure in the rural areas, and providing better public transport in moderate time frame [13]. Subsistence agriculture, commercial agriculture, husbandry, fishing, paddy planting and many others are some of the activities included in the agricultural sector. The infrastructure development in the rural areas is also evidence of the government commitment in bridging the gaps between the rural and urban areas. The Concept of Infrastructure Development Today, infrastructure development has become a much-debated topic since scholars from various countries have utilised the aspect of infrastructure development as a parameter and index to measure the ability of each country to complete globally [14]. This is mainly because, access to basic, adequate facilities is viewed as strongly related to the wellbeing of general population in any country.

The Needs and Impact of Infrastructure development in Rural Communities Nigeria is a slowly developing which is contributing to poverty and insecurity. Nevertheless, exclusion and isolation still exist among the communities resulted from the geographical locality that involves the inequality of infrastructure development in urban and rural areas. In some rural areas in Nigeria, infrastructures are not as well developed as compared to the urban or outskirts areas. This has affected the quality of life of the community that lives in the rural areas in the country. Therefore, this study analysed the impact of public expenditure on rural infrastructure in Taraba state, Nigeria.

Nonetheless, the importance of the infrastructure development for the rural communities is more focused on the growth of agriculture sectors which is synonymous with the rural community’s major economic resources. The advancement in the aspect of basic infrastructure for rural communities is seen as an accelerator for the growth of the rural communities’ economy which in turn will give a positive impact for the quality of life for the community as a whole [12]. At the same time, the development of the infrastructure such as road infrastructure is seen as the key for the development in the rural areas because by having these developments, basic amenities such as clean water, electricity and communication network will be brought into the rural areas as well [15].

The importance of infrastructure for rural areas has also been discussed by Adeyoye, Yusuf, Balogun & Carim-sanni, [16]. The lack of basic amenities is the main factor that can affect the quality of life of rural communities as well as the factor that can undermine the effort in enhancing the rural communities’ economic transformation which generally rely on the agricultural resources. Aziz [17] who did a study on the relationship between the infrastructure and the economic growth in India revealed that the basic infrastructure is essential for a good quality of life especially in the socioeconomic aspect. The lack of basic amenities in the rural areas has direct negative impacts on the village residents such as increasing the rate of poverty, declining the agricultural products and hindering the ability to continue living a good life. All these negative impacts will definitely affect health services and halt access to education for the village communities.

The need to develop the basic amenities for rural areas should be considered as a part of an overall development which needs to include the economic growth, the increase in the health services, access to education and the community development itself. The provisions of sufficient and good quality of infrastructure can maintain the balance in the quality of life between rural and urban areas [18]. The development of efficient basic infrastructure will enhance the access for social communication devices, the growth in economy and the environment sustainability. Authors also emphasize the importance of the infrastructure development towards the village communities which is to change the policy of isolation and seclusion. This can be realized with the availability of road network that allows contact to other people. In addition, there is need for access to communication devices such as telephones which will enhance the rural community’s communication with the outside world, including borderless world.

Apart from this, electricity supply is also vital in ensuring the quality of life among rural communities. This is in line with previous studies done in this area, for example a study by Bose, Uddin and Mondal [19], who examined the impact of the development of electric facilities for rural communities in Bangladesh. They found that the villages that are selected to be supplied with electricity demonstrated positive results in the aspects of production, profit margin, development and business modernisation, women empowerment, quality of life and human capital development. On the other hand, Waeli & Mahdi [20] felt that the use of alternative power resources that is environmentally friendly such as solar power is a good and effective way to help the rural communities in Malaysia to have access to the electricity supplies in substitute with the use of electric generators that are costly and could cause air pollution. The use of environmental-friendly solar power is more beneficial as the resource is renewable. Through his report in the Global Energy Network Institute 2014, Fong [21] explained that most of the rural communities that do not have access to electricity supplies are among those in the developing countries. The rural communities with no access to electricity supplies is seen as having a low quality of life compared to their counterparts in the urban areas because electricity supply is a necessity for everyday life.

Empirical Literature

According to the general consensus established by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for a nation (developed or emerging) to progress in its sustainable development goals. Robust growth in national income, quality infrastructural development and economic growth is the fundamental prerequisite. Aregbeyeni and Kolawole, [22]; Babalola, [23] maintained that public expenditure improves production and stimulate economic growth and development. Edame and Fonta [24] examined the impact of public expenditure on infrastructure in Nigeria based on a co-integration and error correction specification. The study analysed the results but failed to give an interpretation of the implication of the results, which is necessary for policy formulation and decision-making. Furthermore, Siyan and Adegoriola investigate the nexus between infrastructural development and economic growth in Nigeria. Employing annualized data from 1981 to 2014 along with the co-integration, and Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) as the prime method of analysis. Findings show that, there is long run relationship between infrastructure development and economic growth in Nigeria. VECM have the expected negative sign, and is between the accepted region of less than unity. It also shows a low-speed adjustment towards equilibrium. More so, Ekpung examined the trends of public expenditure on infrastructure, and economic growth in Nigeria between 1970 to 2010. The VEC technique was employed. The VEC result revealed that public expenditure on telecommunication, water supply, transport, housing/environment, road construction and electricity supply is very low especially in the short-run and long-run; equilibrium is static and showed weak adjustment. Infrastructural development on road and communication show a positive relationship with economic growth, while private investment, degree of openness and education produced negative relationship with economic growth. The study recommended that, government ought to beef commitment on infrastructural development, in the manufacturing sector to harness the advantages of trade openness, improve and monitor budgetary allocation to education and encourage the private sector with series of incentives to increase their participation in investment to drive economic growth.

In addition, Edame, and Fonta [24] investigate public expenditure on infrastructure in Nigeria, by means of co integration and error correction Specifications. The error correction mechanism (ECM) indicates feedback of about 99. 38 percent of previous year’s disequilibrium from long-run elasticity of rate of urbanization, openness, government revenue, external reserves, population density and type of government. The results of the show test revealed that public expenditure on infrastructure were stable and did not change over time as evidenced by F* value of 1.8214 against F-critical value of 2.580 at the 5% level during the period. The supply of treated clean water is one of the necessary facilities for rural communities. An observation study conducted by Taylor, Kahawita, Cairncross & Hensick, [25] revealed that the provision of basic amenities such as clean water supply is essential as it will determine the communities’ health level. The consumption of untreated water can cause users to be infected with cholera which is an infectious disease that is brought by a bacterium called Vibrio choler.

Moreover, Olugbenga and Owoye [26] examined the relationships between public expenditure and economic growth for a group of 30 OECD countries within the period of 1970 to 2005. The regression results indicated the existence of a long-run relationship between public expenditure and economic growth. In addition, the authors observed a unidirectional causality from public expenditure to growth for 16 out of the countries, which is in line with the Keynesian hypothesis. However, causality runs from economic growth to public expenditure in 10 out of the countries, confirming the Wagner’s law. Finally, the authors found the existence of feedback relationship between public expenditure and economic growth for a group of four countries. Likewise, Okoro [7] who studied the causal relationship between GDP and public expenditure for the US data between 1947- 2002. The causality results showed that total public expenditure could cause growth of GDP. On the contrast, growth of GDP does not lead to an increase in public expenditure. Moreover, the estimation results revealed that public expenditure improves the US economic growth. The authors therefore concluded that, judging from the causality test Keynesian hypothesis exerts more influence than the Wagner’s law in US.

Nevertheless, Abu and Abdullahi [27] did a short-run analysis of recurrent and capital expenditures, as well as government spending on agriculture, education, defense, health, transport and communication sectors as it affects the Nigerian economy. The results of the study revealed that government total capital expenditure, total recurrent expenditure, and public expenditure have negative effects on economic growth. On the contrary, the rising public expenditure on transport, communication, and health results to an increase in economic growth. Also, Tajudeen and Ismail [28] studied the impact of public expenditure on economic growth in Nigeria during the period 1970 to 2010 making use of annual time series data. The work made use of the bounds testing (ARDL) approach to determine the long run and short run relationships between public expenditure and economic growth in Nigeria. The bounds test showed that the in the long run the variables of interest put in the framework are bound together. The associated equilibrium correction was also significant confirming the existence of long-run relationships. The study revealed that a negative impact of total public spending on growth which is consistent with other past studies. Recurrent expenditure however was found to have little significant positive impact on growth. They concluded that government should increase its spending on infrastructure, social and economic activities.

More so, Okoro [7] investigated the impact of government spending on the Nigerian economic growth. Ordinary least square multiple regression analysis was the statistical tool used to estimate the model specified. Real Gross Domestic Product (RGDP) was adopted as the dependent variable while government capital expenditure (GCEXP) and government recurrent expenditure (GREXP) represents the independent variables. With the application of Granger Causality test, Johansen Co-integration Test and Error Correction Mechanism, the result indicated that a long-run equilibrium relationship exists between government spending and economic growth in Nigeria. The short-run dynamics adjusts to the long-run equilibrium at the rate of 60% per annum. Robinson et al. [29] studied the empirical relationship between public expenditure and economic growth. Public expenditure was disaggregated unto, total expenditure, public debt expenditure, expenditure on health and public expenditure on Education. The ordinary least square (OLS) was employed to assess the short-run relationship between variables, however, the Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) test, was used to ascertain the long-run relationship between variables in the equation. Results revealed that there is an inverse relationship between public expenditures on health and economic growth; while public expenditure on education sector is seen to be inadequate considering the demands of the sector.

Likewise, Micheal and Cordelia empirically examined the impact of public expenditure on the growth of the Nigerian economy between 1980 and 2013. Multiple regression of least square estimate was used to analyze the data. Their study revealed that causal relationship between public expenditure and economic growth does not exist and that and that public expenditure has a zero effect on economic growth. It was also discovered that GDP and education expenditure exerted negative influence on both the public expenditure and economic growth while the health care expenditure, standard of living and unemployment rate had a positive influence and were significant on the public expenditure.

The instruments employed to gather information for this study is self-structured questionnaire and interview. The researcher himself administers the questionnaire, meeting the respondents physically to issue the questionnaires, interview the respondents and returned within a period of one day. The sample population will include all rural dwellers in Taraba state which will be narrowed to three local government areas of the state, selecting one each from the northern, central and southern senatorial zones of Taraba state. This group of subjects are selected because of their knowledge about the subject matter, which makes them the most likely source of accurate and reliable information. The study has targeted a sample of 300 rural dwellers, out of the total number of rural dwellers in the three senatorial zones mentioned. To analyse the data collected, a descriptive method of analysis is utilised which includes the table and the simple percentage.

In this section, data collected from the respondents across the 3 senatorial zones are analysed using the tables and simple percentage with explanation following each table based on the respondents to each questionnaire item. Respondent views are presented and analysed.

From Table 1, record shows if there is any relationship between public expenditure and rural infrastructure in Taraba State, 248 respondents with 82.7% said yes and 52 respondents with 17.3% said no. This implies the existence of a significant relationship between public expenditure and rural infrastructure in Taraba State.

Table 1: Is There Any Relationship Between Public Expenditure and Rural Infrastructure?

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Information from Table 2 evaluates the effect of Taraba state government budgetary allocation on capital expenditure to rural infrastructure, 90 respondents with 30% said yes and 210 respondents with 70% said no. This shows that budgetary allocation in the state have no effect on capital project that are link to rural infrastructure. It was found out that the Taraba state government budgetary allocation has little effect on capital expenditure to rural infrastructure, showing negative results; as 30% said yes to the question raised and 70% said no. therefore the government should increase or find more possible ways to increase spending on rural infrastructure.

Table 2: Does The Taraba State Government Budgetary Allocation Have Any Effect on Capital Expenditure to Rural Infrastructure?

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Available information from Table 3 shows problem hampering public expenditure on rural infrastructure, 88 respondents with 29.3% said Lack of political will, 60 respondents representing 20% said Communal conflict/ Insecurity, 46 respondents representing 15.3% said poverty, 50 respondents representing 16,7% said poor maintenance culture and 56 respondents with 18.7% said corruption. By implication, lack of political will is the major problem bedevilling public expenditure on rural infrastructure in Taraba state. Furthermore, it was discovered that all the items mention played a significant role in reducing government spending on rural infrastructure, lack of political will, communal/insecurity, poverty, poor maintenance culture and corruption. Therefore, the government should enact policies that will improve its spending on rural infrastructure.

Table 3: What Are the Problems Hampering Public Expenditure on Rural Infrastructure?

Source: Field Survey, 2022

In the aforementioned Table 4, the responses on what are the benefits of rural infrastructural development to Taraba state economy shows 174 respondents representing 58% said increase in agricultural production, 60 respondents representing 20% said acceleration of industrial growth, 36 respondents with 12% said inflow of foreign capital, and 30 respondents with 10% said it will bring industrial development. This implies that, rural infrastructural development in Taraba state largely increases agricultural production.

Table 4: What Are the Benefits of Rural Infrastructural Development to Taraba State Economy?

Source: Field Survey, 2022

From Table 5 above, showing the possible ways, rural infrastructures can be financed, 98 respondents with 32.7% said central planning system, 108 respondents representing 36% said public private partnership, while 94 respondents with 31.3% said loan scheme. This implies that the possible option for financing rural infrastructure in Taraba state remains the partnership system between the public and the private. This is because, majority of the respondents with 36% on the views of public private partnership, therefore the effort public expenditure does lies with both the government and the private individual, where payment of tax, forming associations to gather little resources to complement the government spending on rural infrastructure.

Table 5: What are the possible ways to finance rural infrastructure?

Source: Field Survey, 2022

From Table 6 above, showing if respondents enjoy electricity, water supply, and healthcare service in your community, 52 respondents with 17.3% said yes, 248 respondents with 82.7% said no. This indicates that basic amenities for quality life are not available in the rural areas, hence reduce their welfare and poor standard of living.

Table 6: Do you enjoy electricity, water supply, and healthcare service in your community?

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Information from Table 7 on the question of accessibility of motorable road linking the urban area to your community indicate by the respondents that, 65 respondents with 31.7% said yes and 205 respondents with 68.3% said no. This shows that large numbers of communities in Taraba state are not accessible by road from urban areas, indicating the extent of infrastructural decay and poor governing system in the region.

Table 7: Do You Have Access to Motorable Road Linking the Urban Area to Your Community?

Source: Field Survey, 2022

From Table 8, responses by the respondents indicate 65 respondents with 31.7% said yes and 205 respondents with 68.3% said no. It was found out that majority of the respondents does not pay their tax regularly. This also reduces public expenditure on rural infrastructure.

Table 8: Do You Pay Your Tax Regularly?

Source: Field Survey, 2022

Public expenditureis the fastest and a strategy that can upgrade rural infrastructure. Taraba state government is relaxed over development or investment on rural development by providing social amenities. There is an urgent need; programmes that were created like DFRRI, RBRDA are not in existence or operating in a very low key. There is laxity by rural dwellers and government agency that are responsible in collecting tax; this is seriously affecting rural development. Therefore, things should be made right. In view of the aforementioned, this study examines the impact of public expenditure on rural infrastructure in Taraba State using a sample of 300 respondents via questionnaire administration and interview. Indeed, rural infrastructure brings economic growth, increase in agricultural production, which benefits both government and the rural dwellers, it was found out that problems associated with public expenditure ranges from lack of political will, poverty, and corruption. It also discovered that the best way to finance expenditure on rural infrastructure.

Recommendations

As a matter of recommendations, the Taraba state government should increase their expenditure on rural infrastructure to bring economic growth and development. Financial institutions should help in providing loans to small and medium scale farmers, so as to boost agriculture. An efficient, vibrant and robust regulation should be enacted on public fund embezzlement and anyone caught in that act should be dealt with accordingly. Furthermore, the public private partnership is of paramount importance as it will go a long way in fostering rural development, thereby providing electricity, healthcare service, education and good road networks from rural areas to the urban areas in the state and country in general.

1. Yusof, N. “Pelaburan langsung asing dan pembangunan industri barangan elektrik dan elektronik di Negeri Pulau Pinang, 1970–2007.” Jurnal Kemanusiaan, vol. 18, no. 2, 2016, pp. 43–74.

2. Mohamed, H. et al. “Bridging digital divide: A study on ICT literacy among students in Malaysian rural Areas.” Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 6, no. 7, 2017, pp. 39–45.

3. Olufemi, E.A. et al. “Infrastructure development and its effect on economic growth: The Nigerian perspective.” European Scientific Journal, vol. 9, no. 31, 2017, pp. 431–452.

4. Iwuchukwu, J.C. and E.M. Igbokwe. “Lessons from agricultural policies and programmes in Nigeria.” Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, vol. 5, 2016, pp. 11–21.

5. Babatunde. “Effects of internal control system deficiency on contractors’ infrastructural development capability in the nigerian public sector.” Chinese Business Review, vol. 14, no. 12, 2016, pp. 573–582.

6. Raheem, S. et al. “Easing the ‘disease’ of poverty in Nigeria.” Developing Country Studies, vol. 4, no. 19, 2016, pp. 55–66.

7. Okoro, A.S. “Government spending and economic growth in Nigeria (1980–2011).” Global Journal of Management and Business Research: Economics and Commerce, vol. 13, no. 5, 2016.

8. Oyedele, O.A. “The challenges of infrastructure development in democratic governance.” Proceedings of the Construction Economics and Management, vol. 1, 2016, pp. 1–15.

9. Ghafoor, A. Public Infrastructure in Developing Countries: The Case of Electric Power and Telecommunications Industries in Pakistan. Ashgate Publishing, 2017.

10. Iheanacho, E. “The contribution of government expenditure on economic growth of Nigeria: Disaggregated Approach.” International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, vol. 5, no. 5, 2016, pp. 1–9.

11. Kolawole, O.M. et al. “Assessment of water quality in asa river, nigeria and its indigenous clarias gariepinus fish.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 8, no. 11, 2017, pp. 4332–4352.

12. Ale, M.O. et al. “Rural infrastructural development, food security and city congestion in Nigeria.” Journal of Research in National Development (JORIND), vol. 1, no. 9, 2017, pp. 124–130.

13. Jabatan Perdana Menteri. Program Transformasi Ekonomi: Laporan Tahunan ETP (2011), 2017.

14. Opawole, A. et al. “Evaluation of the contribution of construction professionals in budgeting for infrastructure development in Nigeria.” International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, vol. 3, no. 2, 2015, pp. 83–95.

15. Straka, J. and M. Tuzova. “Factors affecting development of rural areas in the czech republic: A literature review.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 220, 2016, pp. 496–505.

16. Adeoye, A. et al. “Rural infrastructure development and profitability of farmers under fadama-ii project in oyo state, Nigeria.” World Rural Observation, vol. 3, no. 2, 2017, pp. 1–10.

17. Aziz, A. “Infrastructure for economic development in rural India.” The International Journal Research Publications, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015, pp. 15–21.

18. Bulus, J.S. and J.O. Adefila. “The study of rural infrastructural facilities in kajuru area, kaduna state of Nigeria: A spatial analysis for planning.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 4, no. 2, 2014, pp. 286–295.

19. Bose, T.K., et al. “Impact of electricity access to rural SMEs.” International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains, vol. 4, no. 4, 2016, pp. 17–28.

20. Waeli, A.H. and H.F. Mahdi. “Standalone PV systems for rural areas in sabah, Malaysia.” 2017.

21. Fong, D. Sustainable Energy Solutions for Rural Areas and Application for Groundwater Extraction. Global Network Institute, 2015.

22. Kolawole, B.O. “Government spending, road infrastructure and west African development.” Yobe Journal of Economics (YOJE), vol. 5, no. 2, 2019, pp. 1–20.

23. Babalola, A. I. “Fiscal Policy and Economic Development in Nigeria.” Journal of Economic and Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 7, 2015, pp. 150–160.

24. Edame, G.E. and W. M. Fonta. “The impact of government expenditure on infrastructure in Nigeria: A co-integration and error correction specification.” International Journal of African and Asian Studies, vol. 3, 2016, pp. 50–63.

25. Taylor, D.L. et al. “The Impact of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Interventions to Control Cholera: A Systematic Review.” PLOS One, vol. 10, no. 8, 2015, pp. 1–19.

26. Olugbenga, A.O. and O. Owoye. “Public expenditure and economic growth: New evidence from OECD ountries.” 2017.

27. Abu, N. and U. Abdullahi. “Government expenditure and economic growth in Nigeria, 1970–2008: A disaggregated analysis.” Business and Economics Journal, 2010, pp. 1–7.

28. Tajudeen, E. and O.F. Ismail. “Public expenditure and economic growth in Nigeria: Evidence from auto-regressive distributed lag specification.” Zagreb International Review of Economics and Business, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016, pp. 79–92.

29. Robinson, M.O. et al. “Government expenditure and economic growth: The Nigerian experience.” 2015