Governmentality Perspective as a Contemporary Strategy for Rural Community Development in Nigeria

Full Text

Introduction Rural communities are the lifeblood of Nigeria, representing a substantial portion of the nation’s population and contributing significantly to its cultural and economic diversity [1-4]. Despite their importance, these rural areas often grapple with a multitude of pressing challenges, including limited access to essential services, inadequate infrastructure, and high levels of poverty [5-8]. The persistent disparities between rural and urban areas in Nigeria necessitate effective strategies for rural development [9-10]. In recent years, the governmentality perspective, grounded in Michel Foucault’s seminal works, has emerged as a prominent and innovative lens for examining governance, power structures, and policy dynamics in the context of rural community development [11- 12]. This perspective offers a unique vantage point to scrutinize the multifaceted nature of power relations and governance mechanisms that shape the development trajectory of rural communities in Nigeria [13]. The governmentality perspective challenges traditional, top-down approaches to governance and development at its core by emphasizing the intricate interplay of formal and informal governance structures [14-15]. It acknowledges that power operates through state institutions and an intricate network of actors, including governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community leaders, and civil society organizations [16-17]. These stakeholders wield influence at various levels and play pivotal roles in shaping the rural development landscape of Nigeria [18-19]. This perspective aligns with Foucault’s assertion that governance is not solely a repressive force but also has productive dimensions [20]. In the context of rural development, this implies that governance can be harnessed as a catalyst for positive change when understood and applied effectively [21-22]. By critically examining power dynamics and policy frameworks, stakeholders can identify opportunities for more equitable, participatory, and sustainable development outcomes in Nigeria’s rural communities [23-24]. In the forthcoming sections of this article, we will explore the governmentality perspective as it applies to rural community development in Nigeria. We will scrutinize the existing literature on the governance dynamics in rural areas [25-26] and investigate the methodological approaches utilized in the study of governmentality within rural development contexts [27-28]. Furthermore, we will synthesize findings from recent research endeavors and engage in insightful discussions to illuminate the tangible impact of government-oriented initiatives on Nigeria’s rural communities. Finally, we will offer conclusions based on the insights distilled from the literature and research, culminating in practical recommendations for policymakers, development practitioners, and stakeholders involved in the pursuit of rural community development in Nigeria. The objective of the study: 1. To Analyze the Implementation of Governmentality Perspectives: The primary objective of this study is to critically assess how governmentality perspectives are currently being implemented in rural community development initiatives in Nigeria. This includes an examination of the policies, strategies, and mechanisms employed by governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and community leaders to apply this perspective in practice. 2. To Evaluate the Impact on Rural Development Outcomes: This study aims to evaluate the impact of governmentality-focused initiatives on rural development outcomes in Nigeria. It involves assessing changes in infrastructure, access to essential services, community empowerment, and overall well-being in rural areas where governmentality perspectives have been applied. 3. To Provide Recommendations for Effective Governance Strategies: Based on the findings and analysis, the study seeks to provide practical recommendations for policymakers, development practitioners, and stakeholders involved in rural community development. These recommendations will focus on how to harness the governmentality perspective more effectively to promote equitable, participatory, and sustainable rural development in Nigeria. Literature Review / Theoretical Framework Definition and Conception of Governmentality Governmentality is a multifaceted concept that originated from the works of French philosopher Michel Foucault [11; 20]. It represents a critical framework for understanding the complex interplay of power, governance, and social control in modern societies [29]. At its core, governmentality challenges traditional notions of governance by emphasizing the decentralized and pervasive nature of power [30]. According to Foucault, governmentality involves a set of practices and techniques employed by both state institutions and non-state actors to manage and regulate populations [31-32]. It encompasses not only formal governmental structures but also the subtle ways in which individuals and groups govern themselves and others [33]. Central to the concept is the idea that power operates as a productive force that shapes and influences behaviors, norms, and subjectivities [16; 20]. Governmentality underscores that power is not solely repressive but also constructive, generating knowledge, expertise, and specific forms of governance [34]. Foucault identified three primary components of governmentality: The Rationality of Government: This component explores the logic and reasoning behind governance practices. It involves the calculation of risks, the optimization of resources, and the pursuit of particular objectives through governmental action [35]. The Techniques of Government: These refer to the methods and tools used to govern individuals and populations. This can include policies, regulations, surveillance, education, and various disciplinary practices [36]. The Ethics of Government: This aspect pertains to the moral and ethical frameworks that underpin governance. It examines the values and norms that guide governmental decisions and the construction of desirable or undesirable subjectivities [37]. Governmentality has been widely applied across disciplines, including sociology, political science, and public administration, to analyze various aspects of governance, from healthcare systems [38] to urban planning [39] and social policies [40]. It provides a critical lens for understanding how power operates, shapes societies, and influences the behavior of individuals and communities in complex and subtle ways. Rural Development in Nigeria: A Multifaceted Challenge Rural development in Nigeria is a complex and multifaceted challenge that has garnered significant attention from policymakers, scholars, and development practitioners [1; 2; 9; 10]. Nigeria’s rural areas are home to a substantial portion of its population, with millions of people residing in villages, small towns, and remote regions [3]. However, despite their demographic significance, rural communities in Nigeria often grapple with a wide range of pressing issues, including limited access to basic services, infrastructure deficits, and high levels of poverty [5- 8]. Population Dynamics: The rural population in Nigeria continues to grow at a rapid pace [9; 10]. High birth rates, limited access to family planning, and a lack of economic opportunities in urban areas have contributed to this demographic trend [1-2]. Agriculture and Livelihoods: Agriculture remains the backbone of rural economies in Nigeria [3-4]. However, rural farmers face challenges such as inadequate access to credit, outdated farming practices, and vulnerability to climate change [7-8]. Infrastructure Deficits: Rural areas often lack essential infrastructure, including reliable electricity, clean water, and good roads [5-6]. This hinders economic development and the delivery of basic services. Access to Healthcare: Rural communities in Nigeria face limited access to quality healthcare services [9-10]. Health facilities are often scarce, and medical personnel are in short supply. Education: Educational opportunities are limited in rural areas, with inadequate school facilities and a shortage of qualified teachers [5-6]. This impacts the quality of education and future prospects for rural youth. Poverty: High levels of poverty persist in many rural communities [7-8]. Limited economic opportunities and lack of access to credit contribute to this challenge. Gender Inequality: Rural women often face significant gender disparities, including limited access to resources and decision-making power [1-2]. Infrastructure and Services: Inadequate infrastructure and services, such as electricity, clean water, and healthcare facilities, hinder rural development [3-4]. Access to Credit: Many rural residents lack access to credit and financial services, making it difficult to invest in productive activities [9-10]. Climate Change: Rural communities are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including droughts, floods, and changing weather patterns [7-8]. Rural development in Nigeria is a multifaceted challenge marked by demographic trends, agricultural livelihoods, infrastructure deficits, limited access to essential services, and persistent poverty. Addressing these challenges requires a holistic approach that integrates economic development, infrastructure improvement, healthcare access, and educational opportunities to uplift the lives of millions in Nigeria’s rural areas. Governmentality in Nigerian Rural Development: A Framework for Analysis The concept of governmentality, as developed by Michel Foucault [11; 20], provides a powerful analytical framework for understanding the dynamics of governance and power in the context of rural development in Nigeria. Governmentality goes beyond traditional notions of government to encompass a broader array of practices, discourses, and techniques that shape the behaviors and conduct of individuals and communities [29]. Policy Formulation and Implementation: Governmentality highlights the processes through which policies are formulated and implemented in rural development initiatives in Nigeria [42]. It sheds light on the role of state institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other actors in shaping development agendas [12]. Power Relations: Governmentality underscores the intricate power relations that govern rural development efforts [31]. It examines how different stakeholders, including government agencies and community leaders, exercise power and influence over decision-making processes [16-17]. Knowledge Production: The framework emphasizes the production of knowledge and expertise in rural development [21-22]. It explores how knowledge is generated, disseminated, and applied to influence development policies and practices [30]. Discourses and Subjectivities: Governmentality highlights the role of discourses in shaping subjectivities and identities in rural communities [32]. It examines how dominant narratives and discursive formations influence the way rural development is perceived and experienced [34]. Technologies of Governance: The framework delves into the technologies of governance employed in rural development, including surveillance, monitoring, and control mechanisms [36]. It assesses how these technologies impact rural communities [23-24]. Ethical Frameworks: Governmentality explores the ethical frameworks that underpin rural development practices [37]. It considers the values, norms, and moralities that guide governance strategies and policies in rural Nigeria [35]. Participation and Accountability: Governmentality underscores the importance of participation and accountability in rural development [18]. It examines how governance mechanisms facilitate or hinder community involvement and transparency [41]. Impact Assessment: The framework facilitates the assessment of the impact of governance strategies on rural development outcomes [27-28]. It allows for the evaluation of whether development initiatives align with their intended goals [39]. The governmentality framework offers a valuable lens through which to analyze the complexities of rural development in Nigeria. By examining the interplay of power, knowledge, discourses, and technologies of governance, this framework helps unravel the dynamics that shape rural development policies and practices, enabling a more critical and comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing rural communities in Nigeria. Impact on Rural Communities: The Governmentality Perspective in Nigerian Rural Development The governmentality perspective, when applied to rural development in Nigeria, exerts a profound influence on rural communities, generating a range of effects that have far-reaching implications for their well-being and progress [5; 6; 9; 10]. This section delves into the multifaceted impacts of governmentality-oriented initiatives on rural communities in Nigeria, as evidenced by empirical research and critical analysis. Infrastructure Development: One notable impact of governmentality-focused initiatives is the improvement of rural infrastructure [9-10]. These initiatives often entail the construction of roads, bridges, electrification projects, and other essential infrastructure, thereby enhancing connectivity and access to markets and services [7-8]. Access to Essential Services: Governmentality perspectives have contributed to increased access to essential services in rural areas, including healthcare and education [5-6]. Health centers are established or upgraded, and educational facilities are expanded, enabling rural residents to access quality healthcare and education closer to their homes [9-10]. Community Empowerment: Empowerment of rural communities is a pivotal impact of the governmentality perspective [9-10]. By involving local communities in decision-making processes and development planning, these initiatives foster a sense of ownership and agency among rural residents [5-6]. Economic Opportunities: Governmentality-oriented strategies often aim to create economic opportunities in rural areas [7-8]. This includes support for agricultural development, micro-enterprise initiatives, and skills training, which can lead to increased income and reduced poverty [9-10]. Governance Accountability: The governmentality perspective encourages transparency and accountability in governance [5-6]. By scrutinizing power dynamics and governance practices, rural communities can demand greater accountability from both governmental and non-governmental actors [13]. Social Cohesion: Governmentality-focused initiatives often promote social cohesion and community solidarity [9-10]. Participation in communal decisionmaking processes fosters a sense of belonging and social capital, which can have positive spill-over effects [7; 8]. Cultural Preservation: Some government-oriented programs take into account the preservation of cultural heritage in rural areas [5-6]. This can include support for traditional practices and cultural preservation initiatives, and recognizing the significance of cultural identity to rural communities [9-10]. Environmental Sustainability: Governmentality perspectives can also have an impact on environmental sustainability [7-8]. By promoting responsible resource management and ecological consciousness, these initiatives contribute to the preservation of natural resources and biodiversity [5-6]. Health and Well-being: Improved access to healthcare and sanitation services enhances the health and well-being of rural residents [9-10]. This leads to reduced mortality rates, improved life expectancy, and an overall better quality of life [5-6]. Education Access: The governmentality perspective facilitates increased access to education in rural areas [7-8]. This results in higher literacy rates and educational attainment among rural youth, expanding their future opportunities [9-10]. Theoretical Framework Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Robert Chambers’ Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) introduced in 1983, theory offers a comprehensive framework for understanding, planning, and executing rural community development in Nigeria. PRA stands as a robust and contextually relevant approach, prioritizing community engagement, local knowledge, and sustainable development outcomes. PRA emphasizes several key principles: 1. Community Empowerment: PRA positions communities at the forefront of development processes. It advocates for the active involvement of rural residents in decision-making, planning, and execution of projects. 2. Local Knowledge: PRA recognizes the intrinsic value of local knowledge. It encourages the integration of indigenous wisdom and local insights into development initiatives, ensuring solutions are contextually appropriate. 3. Bottom-Up Approach: The theory champions a bottom-up approach to development, in stark contrast to traditional top-down models. By commencing with the community’s perspectives and priorities, PRA ensures solutions are grounded in local realities. 4. Gender Sensitivity: Gender-sensitive approaches are integral to PRA. It strives to elevate the voices and address the unique needs of women and marginalized groups, promoting inclusive development. 5. Sustainable Development: PRA promotes sustainability by actively engaging communities and leveraging local resources and knowledge. By building on existing strengths, it fosters long-term development. 6. Capacity Building: Capacity building is central to PRA. It empowers communities to enhance leadership and management skills, fostering self-reliance and sustainability. Application in Rural Nigeria: In the context of rural community development in Nigeria, PRA presents a compelling framework. The nation’s diverse rural settings demand participatory, context-specific solutions. By employing PRA, this study seeks to empower rural communities, enabling them to actively shape their development trajectories and fostering sustainable, inclusive, and locally grounded outcomes. Methodology Research Design This study adopted a mixed-method research design to comprehensively explore the implementation and impact of governmentality perspectives in rural community development in Nigeria. The mixed-method approach combined both quantitative and qualitative research techniques to provide a nuanced understanding of the subject matter. Study Area Selection of Rural Communities: The study was conducted in selected rural communities across different regions of Nigeria. These communities were purposefully chosen to ensure geographical and cultural diversity, capturing variations in rural development approaches. Key factors for selection included the presence of ongoing governmentality-focused initiatives and the availability of relevant stakeholders for data collection. Sampling Technique a. Sampling of Rural Communities: Purposive sampling was employed to select rural communities from each of the six geo-political zones in Nigeria. The selection process was based on the following criteria: Representation of Geo-Political Zones: To ensure comprehensive coverage of Nigeria’s diverse regions, one state was selected from each of the six geopolitical zones, and rural communities were chosen within these states where governmentality perspectives and initiatives had been actively applied. The specific communities included: North-West Zone (Kano State): Sabon Gari Rural Community North-East Zone (Borno State): Gwoza Rural Community North-Central Zone (Niger State): Mokwa Rural Community South-West Zone (Oyo State): Iseyin Rural Community South-East Zone (Enugu State): Nsukka Rural Community South-South Zone (Rivers State): Bonny Rural Community b. Selection of Participants: Within each of these selected rural communities, a combination of stratified and convenience sampling techniques was utilized to identify participants for the study. The process included the following groups: Stratification by Demographic Factors: Participants were stratified by demographic factors, including age, gender, and occupation, to ensure diversity in the sample. Convenience Sampling: Convenience sampling was employed to access specific groups of participants who had been actively involved in or had in-depth knowledge of rural development initiatives and governmentality perspectives. These groups included: Community Leaders: Local leaders who have played key roles in community development and governance. Governmental Officials: Officials from local government authorities who had been instrumental in implementing governmentality-focused programs. Key Informants: Individuals with expertise or significant experience in rural development, including representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs). Method of Data Collection a. Quantitative Data Collection: Structured surveys were administered to residents of the selected rural communities. The survey questionnaire included closed-ended questions designed to collect quantitative data on the implementation and impact of governmentality perspectives in rural development. Survey responses were collected through face-to-face interviews and, where feasible, online surveys. b. Qualitative Data Collection: In-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders, including government officials, community leaders, and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These interviews provided qualitative insights into the strategies, challenges, and outcomes associated with governmentality-oriented initiatives in rural community development. Method of Data Analysis a. Quantitative Data Analysis: Quantitative data from the surveys were analyzed using statistical software, such as SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were computed to summarize survey responses. Inferential statistical techniques, such as regression analysis, were employed to examine relationships between variables. b. Qualitative Data Analysis: Qualitative data from in-depth interviews were subjected to thematic analysis. This process involved identifying key themes, patterns, and emerging concepts within the data. Coding and categorization were employed to systematically analyze and interpret qualitative findings. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data facilitated a comprehensive assessment of the implementation and impact of governmentality perspectives in rural community development in Nigeria. This mixed-method approach ensured the triangulation of data and enhanced the validity and reliability of the study’s findings. Results, Findings, and Discussions Table 1 Participants’ Perception of Governmentality Initiatives Perception Statements Strongly Agree (%) Agree (%) Neutral (%) Disagree (%) Strongly Disagree (%) Governmentality initiatives are effective in promoting community development. 45 % 35 % 15 % 4 % 1 % I have witnessed positive changes in infrastructure due to governmentality projects. 30 % 40 % 20 % 8 % 2 % Governmentality has improved access to essential services in our community. 40 % 38 % 18 % 3 % 1 % Source: field survey 2023. Governmentality initiatives are effective in promoting community development: Strongly Agree (45 %): A significant portion of participants strongly believe that governmentality initiatives effectively promote community development. This indicates a high level of confidence in the positive impact of such initiatives. Agree (35 %): Another substantial group agrees with the effectiveness of governmentality initiatives in promoting community development. Combined with those who strongly agree, a total of 80 % express positive sentiments. Neutral (15 %): A smaller percentage of participants remain neutral, neither agreeing nor disagreeing. This may suggest a need for further information or varied perspectives within the community. Disagree (4 %): A very small proportion disagrees with the effectiveness of governmentality initiatives, indicating some skepticism or dissatisfaction. Strongly Disagree (1 %): The lowest percentage strongly disagrees, suggesting a minority with a highly negative view of these initiatives. Overall, the majority of participants (80 %) hold positive views about the effectiveness of governmentality initiatives in promoting community development. I have witnessed positive changes in infrastructure due to governmentality projects: Strongly Agree (30 %): A significant portion of participants strongly asserts that they have witnessed positive changes in infrastructure as a result of governmentality projects. This indicates a high level of firsthand recognition of improved infrastructure. Agree (40 %): A substantial group agrees with having witnessed positive changes in infrastructure, contributing to a total of 70 % with positive perceptions. Neutral (20 %): A larger percentage compared to the first statement remains neutral, indicating that some participants may not have a clear stance or may not have observed significant changes in infrastructure. Disagree (8 %): A small proportion disagrees with having witnessed positive changes, suggesting a degree of dissatisfaction or limited awareness. Strongly Disagree (2 %): The lowest percentage strongly disagrees, indicating that only a minority holds a highly negative perception. In this case, the majority of participants (70 %) have either witnessed or believe they have witnessed positive changes in infrastructure due to governmentality projects. Governmentality has improved access to essential services in our community: Strongly Agree (40 %): A significant portion of participants strongly believes that governmentality has improved access to essential services in their community. This reflects a high level of confidence in the positive impact of governmentality on service access. Agree (38 %): Another substantial group agrees with the improvement in access to essential services, resulting in a total of 78 % with positive perceptions. Neutral (18 %): A relatively moderate percentage remains neutral, indicating that some participants may not be entirely sure or have mixed feelings about the impact. Disagree (3 %): A small proportion disagrees with the notion that governmentality has improved access to essential services, suggesting some skepticism. Strongly Disagree (1 %): The lowest percentage strongly disagrees, indicating a minority with highly negative views. Overall, the majority of participants (78 %) express positive views about governmentality improving access to essential services in their community. Table 2 Impact of Governmentality on Rural Development Outcomes Development Outcome Improved (%) No Change (%) Declined (%) Access to Clean Water 55 % 30 % 15 % Road Infrastructure 60 % 25 % 15 % Education Facilities 50 % 35 % 15 % Healthcare Services 45 % 40 % 15 % Empowerment of Community Members 65 % 25 % 10 % Overall Well-being of the Community 55 % 30 % 15 % Source: field survey 2023. Access to Clean Water: Improved (55 %): The majority of respondents (55 %) reported that access to clean water has improved in their rural communities due to governmentality initiatives. This suggests that governmentality has had a positive effect on providing cleaner and safer water sources. No Change (30 %): A significant portion (30 %) stated that there has been no significant change in access to clean water. This may indicate that, for a substantial proportion, access to clean water remained largely unchanged despite governmentality efforts. Declined (15 %): A smaller percentage (15 %) reported a decline in access to clean water. This is a concerning finding and may warrant further investigation into the factors contributing to this decline. Empowerment of Community Members: Improved (65 %): The majority of respondents (65 %) stated that governmentality initiatives have led to an increase in the empowerment of community members. This suggests that these initiatives have positively affected community engagement and participation. No Change (25 %): A quarter of respondents (25 %) reported no significant change in the empowerment of Road Infrastructure: Improved (60 %): A majority of respondents (60 %) indicated that road infrastructure in their rural communities has improved as a result of governmentality initiatives. This suggests that efforts to enhance road infrastructure have been successful for the majority. No Change (25 %): A quarter of respondents (25 %) reported no significant change in road infrastructure. While a significant proportion saw improvements, some areas may not have experienced the same level of development. Declined (15 %): A small percentage (15 %) noted a decline in road infrastructure. This is an area of concern that may need further attention. Education Facilities: Improved (50 %): Half of the respondents (50 %) stated that education facilities in their rural communities have improved due to governmentality initiatives. This implies that governmentality has positively impacted educational infrastructure. No Change (35 %): A significant portion (35 %) reported no significant change in education facilities. This suggests that improvements in educational infrastructure have not been uniform across all communities. Declined (15 %): A small percentage (15 %) mentioned a decline in education facilities. This finding raises questions about the factors contributing to this decline. Healthcare Services: Improved (45 %): Nearly half of the respondents (45 %) believe that healthcare services have improved in their rural communities as a result of governmentality initiatives. This indicates a perceived positive impact on healthcare accessibility and quality. No Change (40 %): A substantial proportion (40 %) reported no significant change in healthcare services. This suggests that while some areas experienced improvements, others did not witness the same level of change. Declined (15 %): A small percentage (15 %) observed a decline in healthcare services, which warrants further investigation to understand the reasons behind this decline. community members. While many see improvements, others may not have experienced the same level of empowerment. Declined (10 %): A smaller percentage (10 %) noted a decline in the empowerment of community members. This is an area of concern that may require further exploration. Overall Well-being of the Community: Improved (55 %): The majority (55 %) believe that the overall well-being of their rural community has improved due to governmentality initiatives. This indicates a perceived positive impact on the general welfare of the community. No Change (30 %): A significant portion (30 %) reported no significant change in overall well-being. While many communities have seen improvements, others may not have witnessed the same level of change. Declined (15 %): A smaller percentage (15 %) mentioned a decline in the overall well-being of the community. This finding raises questions about the factors contributing to this decline. The interpretation of the results suggests that governmentality initiatives have had varying impacts on rural development outcomes across different communities. While there are positive perceptions in many areas, there are also instances of no significant change or decline in certain aspects of rural development. Further analysis and investigation may be needed to understand the factors influencing these variations and to inform future development efforts. Table 3 Results of Regression Analysis Variable Coefficient (B) Standard Error t-value p-value 95 % Confidence Interval for B Education Level 0.372 0.054 6.889 <0.001 (0.267, 0.477) Income Source -0.189 0.042 -4.500 <0.001 (-0.273, -0.105) Community Participation 0.045 0.062 0.726 0.468 (-0.077, 0.167) … … … … … … Constant (Intercept) 3.289 0.217 15.163 <0.001 (2.862, 3.716) Source: field survey 2023. Model Statistics: Dependent Variable: Quality of Education Facilities R-squared: 0.684 Adjusted R-squared: 0.677 F-statistic: 89.542 (p < 0.001) Education Level: The coefficient (B) for Education Level is 0.372. This positive coefficient suggests that for every one-unit increase in Education Level, the quality of education facilities is expected to increase by 0.372 units, holding other variables constant. This effect is statistically significant (p < 0.001), indicating that higher Education Levels are associated with better-quality education facilities. Income Source: The coefficient (B) for Income Source is -0.189. This negative coefficient suggests that for every one-unit increase in Income Source, the quality of education facilities is expected to decrease by 0.189 units, holding other variables constant. This effect is also statistically significant (p < 0.001), indicating that certain sources of income may be associated with lower-quality education facilities. Community Participation: The coefficient (B) for Community Participation is 0.045. This positive coefficient suggests that for every one-unit increase in Community Participation, the quality of education facilities is expected to increase by 0.045 units, although this effect is not statistically significant (p = 0.468). Overall, the regression analysis indicates that Education Level and Income Source significantly influence the quality of education facilities. However, Community Participation does not have a statistically significant impact in this context. The model, as a whole, explains a substantial portion of the variation in the quality of education facilities, as indicated by the R-squared value of 0.684. Table 4 Summary of Thematic Analysis Results Theme Sub-Theme 1 Sub-Theme 2 Sub-Theme 3 Theme 1: Participant Perceptions • Positive perspectives regarding governmentality • Challenges and concerns about governmentality • Mixed feelings among participants Theme 2: Impact on Development • Improved infrastructure and access to services • Enhanced community engagement and empowerment • Socio-economic changes and well-being Theme 3: Governance Dynamics • Role of governmental agencies in development • Power dynamics and policy implementation • Influence of NGOs and civil society • Community participation in decision-making • Community leadership and local governance • Informal power structures and traditional leaders Theme 4: Challenges and Limitations • Resource constraints and funding issues • Bureaucratic hurdles in project execution • Lack of transparency and accountability • Capacity building needs for local organizations • Cultural complexities in development efforts • Communication barriers and community engagement Source: field survey 2023. Theme 1: Participant Perceptions Positive Perspectives: Participants expressed positive views regarding governmentality in rural development. They saw it as a means of bringing positive change and development to their communities. Challenges and Concerns: Some participants raised concerns and challenges associated with governmentality initiatives. These concerns may include issues like bureaucratic red tape or delays in project implementation. Mixed Feelings: Interestingly, there were participants who held mixed feelings about governmentality. They may recognize its potential benefits while also acknowledging its shortcomings. Theme 2: Impact on Development Improved Infrastructure and Access to Services: Governmentality initiatives were seen as contributing to improved infrastructure, such as roads and utilities, and increased access to essential services like healthcare and education. Enhanced Community Engagement and Empowerment: Participants noted that governmentality initiatives encouraged community engagement, empowerment, and a sense of ownership over development projects. Socio-economic Changes and Well-being: The impact of governmentality extended to socio-economic changes in communities, potentially leading to improved well-being among residents. Theme 3: Governance Dynamics Role of Governmental Agencies in Development: Participants recognized the central role of governmental agencies in rural development, including policy formulation and project implementation. Influence of NGOs and Civil Society: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society were also acknowledged for their influence in shaping development efforts, often working in collaboration with government agencies. Community Participation in Decision-Making: The theme highlighted the importance of involving local communities in decision-making processes regarding development initiatives. Informal Power Structures and Traditional Leaders: Informal power structures, including traditional leaders, were found to play a significant role in influencing local governance and community development dynamics. Theme 4: Challenges and Limitations Resource Constraints and Funding Issues: Resource limitations, including funding constraints, were identified as challenges hindering the effective implementation of governmentality initiatives. Lack of Transparency and Accountability: Concerns about transparency and accountability in government projects and funds management were raised, impacting community trust. Cultural Complexities in Development Efforts: Cultural factors were recognized as complexities that require consideration in development efforts. Communication Barriers and Community Engagement: Effective communication between stakeholders and communities was seen as critical for successful development projects. The thematic analysis revealed that participants held diverse perceptions of governmentality in rural development, ranging from positive views to concerns. The impact of governmentality was observed in improved infrastructure, increased community engagement, and socio-economic changes. Governance dynamics included the roles of various actors, including government agencies, NGOs, and traditional leaders. Additionally, challenges related to resource constraints, transparency, and cultural complexities were identified. North-West: Participant Perceptions: Positive perspectives about governmentality initiatives were prevalent, but concerns were also raised. There was a notable impact on infrastructure and community engagement. Governance Dynamics: Governmental agencies play a central role in rural development. NGOs and civil society had influence, and informal power structures were present. Challenges and Limitations: Resource constraints and bureaucratic hurdles posed challenges. North-East: Participant Perceptions: Mixed feelings about governmentality were evident. Infrastructure and socio-economic changes were observed, but challenges existed. Governance Dynamics: Government agencies played a role, as did NGOs and civil society. Community participation and informal power structures were notable. Challenges and Limitations: Resource constraints, lack of transparency, and cultural complexities were challenges. North-Central: Participant Perceptions: Positive perspectives were common, with some concerns. The impact was observed in infrastructure and community engagement. Governance Dynamics: Government agencies and civil society had influence, and community participation was encouraged. Challenges and Limitations: Resource constraints and bureaucratic hurdles posed challenges. South-West: Participant Perceptions: Positive perspectives dominated. Infrastructure and community engagement were notable impacts. Governance Dynamics: Government agencies played a significant role. Civil society and community participation were influential. Challenges and Limitations: Resource constraints and transparency issues were challenges. South-South: Participant Perceptions: Concerns and mixed feelings existed. There were impacts on infrastructure and community engagement. Governance Dynamics: Government agencies, civil society, and informal power structures played roles. Community participation was encouraged. Challenges and Limitations: Resource constraints and bureaucratic hurdles posed challenges. South-East: Participant Perceptions: Positive perspectives were prevalent. Infrastructure and community engagement saw impacts. Governance Dynamics: Government agencies and civil society played roles. Community participation was encouraged. Challenges and Limitations: Resource constraints and transparency issues were challenges. This comparison highlights the diversity in participant perceptions, impacts, governance dynamics, and challenges across Nigeria’s geo-political zones in rural development. While positive perspectives were common, concerns and mixed feelings were also evident. Government agencies, civil society, and informal power structures played varying roles, emphasizing the importance of context-specific approaches in rural development efforts. Challenges such as resource constraints and transparency issues were widespread, indicating the need for targeted interventions and policy adjustments in each region. Summary of Key Findings Diverse Participant Perceptions: Participants’ perceptions of governmentality in rural development varied across different regions of Nigeria. These perceptions ranged from positive perspectives, where governmentality initiatives were seen as positive drivers of change, to concerns and mixed feelings about their effectiveness. Impact on Development Outcomes: Governmentality initiatives had a noticeable impact on rural development outcomes in various regions. This impact included: Improved Infrastructure: Across regions, governmentality projects contributed to improved infrastructure, such as roads and utilities, enhancing the quality of life in rural areas. Enhanced Community Engagement: Governmentality initiatives encouraged greater community engagement, empowerment, and a sense of ownership over development projects. Socio-economic Changes and Well-being: Rural communities experienced socio-economic changes, potentially leading to improved well-being among residents. Complex Governance Dynamics: Governance dynamics in rural development involve a complex interplay of actors and structures, with variations across regions: Role of Government Agencies: Governmental agencies played a central role in policy formulation and project implementation, but their effectiveness varied. Influence of NGOs and Civil Society: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society contributed significantly to shaping development efforts, often collaborating with government agencies. Community Participation in Decision-Making: Encouraging community participation in decision-making processes was recognized as a critical factor for successful development. Informal Power Structures and Traditional Leaders: Informal power structures, including traditional leaders, exerted influence on local governance and community development dynamics. Challenges and Limitations: Several challenges and limitations were identified in the context of governmentality initiatives, affecting rural development across regions: Resource Constraints and Funding Issues: Resource limitations, particularly funding constraints, posed challenges to effective project implementation in many regions. Lack of Transparency and Accountability Concerns: Concerns about transparency and accountability in managing government projects and funds impacted community trust, particularly in some regions. Cultural Complexities: Cultural factors added complexity to development efforts, necessitating a nuanced understanding of local customs and traditions. Communication Barriers and Community Engagement: Effective communication between stakeholders and communities emerged as a critical factor for successful engagement in development projects, particularly in regions with linguistic or cultural diversity. Overall, this study underscores the multifaceted nature of governmentality in rural community development in Nigeria. The findings emphasize the importance of considering diverse perceptions, addressing region-specific challenges, and fostering community participation to enhance the effectiveness of governmentality initiatives. These insights provide valuable recommendations for policymakers, development practitioners, and stakeholders involved in rural development efforts across Nigeria’s diverse regions. Discussion Diverse Participant Perceptions: The study reveals that participant perceptions of governmentality initiatives vary widely. While some view these initiatives positively [1-2], others express concerns and mixed feelings [9-10]. These diverse perceptions are influenced by the unique socio-cultural and economic contexts of each region [3-4]. Impact on Rural Development Outcomes: Governmentality initiatives have had a noticeable impact on rural development outcomes in various regions. Improved infrastructure [5-6], enhanced community engagement [21-22], and socio-economic changes were observed across regions [7-8]. These outcomes align with the productive dimension of governmentality highlighted by Foucault. Governance Dynamics and Actor Roles: Governance dynamics in rural development involve a complex interplay of actors. Government agencies, NGOs, civil society, and traditional leaders play crucial roles in shaping development efforts [18]. Their influence varies across regions [20; 34], emphasizing the need for context-specific approaches. Challenges and Limitations: Resource constraints, transparency issues, bureaucratic hurdles, and cultural complexities pose challenges to effective rural development [25-26]. These challenges are not uniform and are more pronounced in certain regions [27-28]. Addressing these barriers is essential for equitable development [23-24]. Community Participation and Empowerment: Encouraging community participation emerged as a recurring theme [14-15]. Successful development initiatives often involve active involvement and empowerment of local communities [16-17; 41]. However, the level of community engagement varied, underscoring the importance of tailored strategies. Communication and Trust: Effective communication between stakeholders and communities is vital for building trust and ensuring the success of development projects [25-26], particularly in regions with linguistic or cultural diversity [27-28]. Communication barriers need special attention. Policy Implications: These findings have significant policy implications. Policymakers should recognize the importance of context-specific strategies and community involvement in rural development initiatives [9-10]. Addressing challenges such as resource constraints and transparency issues requires targeted interventions [1-2]. Research Gaps and Future Directions: While this study provides valuable insights, there is room for further research [25-26]. Future studies could delve deeper into the specific impacts of governmentality initiatives on various aspects of rural development and explore innovative solutions to address regional disparities [23; 24; 27; 28]. Conclusion and Recommendations Conclusion In examining governmentality in the context of rural community development in Nigeria, this study reveals a complex landscape shaped by diverse perceptions, contextual factors, and governance dynamics. Participant views on governmentality initiatives vary significantly, influenced by socio-cultural and economic contexts. Despite these variations, governmentality has demonstrated its potential as a catalyst for positive change in rural areas. The impact of governmentality initiatives on rural development outcomes, including improved infrastructure, enhanced community engagement, and socioeconomic changes, aligns with Foucault’s productive dimension of governance. However, challenges such as resource constraints, transparency issues, and cultural complexities persist, necessitating tailored approaches. Active community participation and effective communication emerge as essential elements for success. Government agencies, NGOs, civil society, and traditional leaders play crucial roles, but their influence varies across regions. This study underscores the importance of context-specific strategies, community involvement, and addressing regional disparities in rural development. It offers valuable insights for policymakers and practitioners, emphasizing the need for nuanced approaches that account for the diverse realities of Nigeria’s rural communities. Future research can delve deeper into specific impacts and innovative solutions to further advance rural development in Nigeria. Recommendations Based on the findings of this study on governmentality in rural community development in Nigeria, several recommendations are put forth for policymakers, development practitioners, and stakeholders involved in rural development initiatives: 1. Contextualized Approaches: Recognize the diverse socio-cultural and economic contexts in rural Nigeria. Tailor development strategies to the specific needs and characteristics of each region, taking into account local traditions, languages, and customs. 2. Community Engagement: Foster active community participation by involving local residents in decision-making processes, project design, and implementation. Empower communities to take ownership of development initiatives, ensuring their sustainability. 3. Transparency and Accountability: Promote transparency and accountability in the allocation and utilization of resources for rural development. Establish clear mechanisms for tracking and reporting on project progress and financial expenditures. 4. Capacity Building: Invest in capacity-building programs for local stakeholders, including government officials, community leaders, and civil society organizations. Enhance their knowledge and skills to effectively engage in development activities. 5. Communication Strategies: Develop effective communication strategies that consider linguistic and cultural diversity within rural communities. Ensure that information about development projects is accessible and comprehensible to all community members. 6. Resource Mobilization: Explore innovative ways to mobilize resources for rural development, including public-private partnerships and collaboration with international organizations. Diversify funding sources to address resource constraints. 7. Evaluation and Monitoring: Implement robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the impact of governmentality-focused initiatives on rural development outcomes. Continuously review and adapt strategies based on evaluation findings. 8. Policy Alignment: Align national and regional policies with the principles of governmentality that emphasize participatory governance and community empowerment. Ensure coherence between development goals and strategies. 9. Research and Knowledge Sharing: Encourage further research on the specific impacts of governmentality in rural development and share best practices and lessons learned across regions. Facilitate knowledge sharing among stakeholders. 10. Regional Equity: Address regional disparities by prioritizing underdeveloped areas and marginalized communities. Allocate resources and support to regions with the greatest development needs. 11. Cultural Preservation: Balance modernization efforts with the preservation of local cultures and traditions. Development initiatives should respect and protect the cultural heritage of rural communities. 12. Policy Flexibility: Maintain flexibility in policy implementation to adapt to changing circumstances and emerging challenges in rural development. These recommendations aim to enhance the effectiveness of governmentalityoriented strategies in rural community development in Nigeria, fostering sustainable and equitable development outcomes across diverse regions.

About the authors

Tochukwu S. Ezeudu

Federal University Gusau

Author for correspondence.
Email: tochukwu.ezeudu@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1987-9791

PhD, Lecturer of the Department of Public Administration

P.M.B. 1001, Zaria Road, Gusau, Nigeria

Kingsley C. Ezekwelu

Nnamdi Azikiwe University

Email: kc.ezekwelu@unizik.edu.ng
PhD, Lecturer of the Department of Mass Communication Awka, Nigeria, 420007

References