Introduction

In Nigeria economic inequality has reached extreme levels, income inequality grew from 40% in 2003 to 43% in 2009. The richest Nigerian earn 8000 times more than what the poorest 10% of Nigerians spend on average for their basic consumption in one year. Regional inequality which translates to higher rates of poverty in north-western States of the country like Sokoto State, 81% of the population is poor, while poverty incidence is lower at 34% in Niger State (OXFAM 2017). Inequality is concerned with the relative position of different individuals (or households) within a distribution. There are three key measures of inequality: income, consumption (as peoples living standards can be understood through what they consume-including food, clothing, housing, education and health services) and wealth (or accumulated capital). Financial measures, however, fail to capture inequalities beyond material standards of living (Atkinson 1970).

Eradicating all forms and dimensions of poverty is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, given the fact that poverty is a multidimensional problem that transcend borders. Globally, more than 800 million persons are still living on less than $1.25 a day (UNDP 2018). Poverty is multidimensional, dynamic, location specific phenomenon, thus measuring it presents a number of challenges. Although, the most common approach to measuring poverty is quantitative, monetary-metric measures which use income or consumption to assess whether a household can afford to purchase a basket of goods at a given point in time. Metric methods are widely used because of objectivity and can adjust for differences between households, and intra-household inequalities (Chamhuri et al. 2012). Poverty dynamics is not simply the stock of poverty but the flows of persons into and out of poverty (UNICEF 2011). Poverty situation in the country is becoming more precarious and many Nigerians are more threatened now than at any time in recent past. Previous studies on inequality and poverty eradication focused mainly on patterns and socio-economic determinants, while holistic study of inequality, inclusive development, poverty eradication and sustainable development have received little attention. It is against this background that this paper examines the dynamics of inequality and poverty and sustainable development of Delta State, Nigeria. Subsequently, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS 2010a, b) report shows that poverty rate in Nigeria has risen to 71.5% using relative measure, 61.9% using absolute measure and 62.8% using dollar-per-day measure. This implies that there has been a trend of increasing levels of poverty and inequality and gnawing deprivation in the midst of so-called economic prosperity. Moreover, the former finance and coordinating minister of the economy, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala affirmed that despite the growth of the Nigerian economy which is being driven by non-oil sectors, inequality has continued to rise. According to Okonjo-Iweala, the two main challenges facing the economy are inadequate job creation and rising inequality, as only 10% of the population enjoys the benefit of economic growth, while the people at the bottom are being left behind. If we don’t put our hands to this problem, the whole economy may be in danger. Inequality is highly concentrated in certain regions of the economy, we need to pay attention to regional disparity and take care of the regional disparity (Asu 2013). The goal of this paper is to examine the factors influencing the distribution of inequality and poverty, and enhance sustainable development of Delta State, Nigeria. The specified objectives are to (1) analyse the distribution of inequality and poverty among households, (2) examine the spatial factors influencing household inequality and poverty in the study area, (3) examine the likelihood of reducing inequality and exiting poverty among households.

Poverty and inequality profile of Nigeria

An analysis of the poverty and inequality profile of Nigeria is undertaken in this section. Nigeria’s poverty rate was merely 27.2% in 1980 for approximately 17.1 million people. By 1992, the percentage of Nigerians in poverty moved up to 43% of 39.2 million people. Moreover, 69% of 170 million Nigerians are below the poverty line in 2010. In 2018, Nigeria has the highest rate of extreme poverty globally overtaking India stressing the need for pro-active action. In analyzing the rate of poverty in Nigeria, it is clear that there is a huge dichotomy between the rates in the states of the north-central, north-east and north-west with range between 67 and 69% respectively, while the states in the south–east, south–south and south–west range between 27 and 43%. (NBS 2010a, b).The proportion of the extremely poor was 6.2% in 1980 the proportion increased to 29.3% in 1996 and then reduced to 22.0% in 2004 before increasing to 38.7% in 2010. The picture was quite different for the moderately poor, as the moderately poor rose between 1980 and 1985 from 21.0 to 34.2%, followed by a decline between 1996 and 2004 from 36.3 to 32.4%, and even dropped further to 30.3% in 2010. On the other hand, the proportion of non-poor decreased from 72.8% in 1980 to 53.7% in 1985, but rose to 57.3% in 1992. The non-poor declined significantly in 1996 to 34.4%, but rose to 43.3% in 2004 and then reduced to 31% in 2010 (HNLSS 2010) (see Tables 1, 2).

Table 1 Poverty profile of Nigeria (1980–2010)
Full size table
Table 2 Incidence of poverty by zones
Full size table

Table 3 shows that Gini index recorded an increase between 2004 and 2010 and between 2012/2013 and 2015/2016. Gini index increased from 0.4296 to 0.447 at the national level. At the state level, a Gini coefficient of 0.4650 was recorded for Delta State in (2004), 0.4698 in (2010), 0.33609 in (2012/2013) and 0.34268 in (2015/2016). This rising pattern of inequality is replicated in urban and rural areas as well as in S/South, S/East, N/East and N/West geopolitical zones respectively.

Table 3 Inequality profile of Nigeria (2004–2015)
Full size table

Some of the poverty reduction strategies adopted include: National Accelerated Food Production Program and the Nigeria Agricultural and Cooperative Bank (1972), Operation Feed the Nation (1976), Green Revolution (1979), Directorate of Food, Roads and Rural Infrastructure (DFRRI) (1986), National Directorate of Employment (NDE) (1987), Family Support Program (1993), National Poverty Eradication Program (NAPEP) (2001), National Economic Empowerments and Development Strategy (NEEDS) (2004). Others are Nigerian Vision 20: 2020, Transformation Agenda (2011), Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme (SURE-P) (Ogujiuba 2014), Youth Poverty Alleviation Program (YouWin) (2013) and Empowering Nigerian Youths for Prosperity (N-POWER) (2017).

However, most of these anti-poverty policies and programmes have not yielded the desired results because they were mere declarations without concerted efforts, inconsistency, instability, corruption, poor leadership, ethnicity or social inclination, and lack of political will and weak institutional capacity for economic management and coordination. All the poverty alleviation initiatives in Nigeria since independence have yielded very little fruit, and were mostly not designed to alleviate poverty, these poverty alleviation initiatives lacked clearly defined policy frameworks with proper guidelines for poverty alleviation, lacked coordination among different levels of government, suffered from political instability, political interference, macroeconomic truncations, lacked continuity, and are riddled with political deception, corruption and distasteful looting. The poor quality of governance is, therefore, a major obstacle to development and poverty reduction initiatives in Nigeria (UNDP 2010).

Aside this introductory section, the theoretical framework and review of relevant literature is in “Review of literature” section. Research method is described in “Research methodology” section along with the data collection procedure. The findings and results were discussed in “Discussion of findings and results” section, while “Conclusion” section concludes.

Theoretical framework and review of literature

Theoretical framework

The sustainable livelihood framework considered in this sub-section provided the theoretical basis for this research.

Sustainable livelihood framework

The livelihood approach is an actor-oriented perspective in development studies, including economic and development geography. Livelihood studies were brought to the centre stage of development studies in the late 1990’s and the beginning of the new millennium, when the sustainable livelihood framework was promoted by the Department for International Development (DFID) (DE HAAN 2012). The sustainable livelihood framework provided the theoretical basis for this research, sustainable livelihood comprises people’s assets (natural, physical, human, financial, social and information) and the complementary building blocks for their livelihoods is central to this study. Livelihood assets provide both a proxy for absolute poverty and a broader poverty measure (Erenstein 2009). Chambers and Conway (1992) noted that “a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living”. The approach serves as an instrument for the investigation of poor peoples’ livelihoods while visualizing the main factors of influence which can be understood by qualitative and quantitative analysis at the local or communal level, regardless of where (i.e. which sector or geographical space,…) these factors occur. The sustainable livelihood is multi-dimensional, comprehensive and people-centred (Chang and Tipple 2009). The livelihood assets are conceptualised under the five building blocks of: physical asset/natural asset (shelter, energy, accessibility, sanitation and safe water, health care); social asset (membership of co-operative society, family support, relationship, friendship); financial asset (access to credit, loans, regular flow of money, savings and remittances); human asset (knowledge, good health, skills, leadership).

Transforming structures and processes represent the institutions, organisations, policies and legislations that shape livelihoods. These structures are of central importance as the institutions operate at different levels and effectively determine access, terms of exchange between different types of capital, and returns to any given livelihood strategy (Shankland 2000; Keeley 2001). Structures can be described as the private and public organisations that formulate and implement policy and legislation, deliver services, purchase, trade and perform all manner of other functions that affect livelihoods (DFID 2000). The absence of well working structures often constitutes an obstacle to sustainable development and makes simple asset creation difficult and restricting people’s choice of livelihood strategies that may have a direct impact on livelihood outcomes. Livelihood Strategies comprise the range and combination of activities, events and choices that people undertake in order to achieve their livelihood goals. It is very important to recognise that people compete for jobs, markets and natural resources, and as a result makes it difficult for everyone to achieve simultaneous improvements in their livelihoods.

Review of literature

Review of relevant literature under different themes such as: Inequality and dynamics of inequality, poverty and dynamics of poverty, development and sustainable development is undertaken in this sub-section.

Inequality and dynamics of inequality

The concept of inequality which means unfairness often manifest in form of inequitable distribution and skewed income distribution. Inequality implies dispersion of income, consumption or other welfare attributes. Inequality is often studied as part of the broad analysis of poverty and welfare. Thus, inequality is a broader concept than poverty because it is defined over a whole distribution (Litchfield 1999). Income inequality may be considered in relation to a number of interrelated factors such as education, occupation, expenditure pattern, public health, regional, ethnic and political differences. The Gini coefficient is most frequently used measure of inequality, the extent to which income distribution and consumption expenditure deviates from a perfectly equal distribution where figures closer to 0 signifies equality in the distribution, values closer to 1 shows higher inequitable distribution of income.

Inequality is a historical construct. Under the present global order, majority of humankind are deprived of the potential to realize their full capabilities. In India, almost half the population suffers from physical and mental stunting in childhood, a handicap from which many will never fully recover. In Britain, the class imprint on babies is visible by the age of 22 months. In this sense, inequality is perhaps the biggest crime against humanity. In recent years, the UNDP has begun to calculate inequality of development within nations and regions. Sub-Sahara Africa fares worst overall, followed by South Asia; Income inequality is highest in Latin America, educational inequality is worst in South Asia and life expectancy most unequal in Sub-Saharan Africa (Göran 2017). It is apparent that not only are there high levels of inequalities within most countries, but those inequalities have grown over time, much larger today than they were a third of a century ago (Stiglitz 2017).

Aoki and Nirei (2015) examined the dynamics of income distribution and asked whether tax changes can account for the rise in top income inequality observed in the United States. Moreover, Anand et al. (2016) explored the contribution of unemployment towards inequality in South Africa using individual level panel data from Quarterly Labour Force Survey. Result of the study shows that reducing unemployment is found to be important for reducing inequality, while estimates suggest that a 10% point reduction in unemployment lowers the Gini coefficient by 3%. Achieving a similar reduction solely through transfers would require a 40% increase in government transfers.

Poverty and dynamics of poverty

Poverty is a multidimensional concept which encompasses different dimensions of deprivation related to human capabilities, education, health, consumption and food security. Gore (2002) explained the concept of poverty as all-pervasive where majority of the population lives at or below income levels sufficient to meet their basic needs and the available resources, even when equally distributed. The global economic and poverty landscape has changed with our understanding of what development and poverty are all about (OECD 2015). Different thresholds could be used to measure poverty, The income or absolute poverty threshold, relative poverty measures based on consumption or body mass index and multidimensional poverty index which measures a range of deprivations such as poor health, lack of education, inadequate living standards, lack of income, violence, disempowerment (Alkire and Santos 2010). Many people also remain vulnerable to a range of factors such as: unemployment, sickness, social exclusion and insufficient resources during old age which threatens to re-impoverish the people in future (OECD 2012).

Adepoju (2012) investigated dynamics of poverty in rural southwest Nigeria using regional panel data. Results revealed an overlap between the determinants of chronic poverty and transient poverty, while 6.8% exited poverty, a larger proportion 15.5% moved into poverty and the level of education of household heads had a strong positive influence on the likelihood of exiting poverty. Furthermore, other studies on the dynamics of poverty in Africa, Bokosi (2006) in Malawi, and Grootaert and Kanbur (1995) in Coted’Ivoire revealed that education of household head, value of assets, mean time to services, per capita acreage cultivated and changes in household size are significantly related to the probability of being poor irrespective of poverty status.

Akerele and Adewuyi (2011) used multistage sampling approach and a total of 80 selected households, showed that 38.30% of the households studied in Ekiti State of Nigeria were poor and would have to mobilize financial resources up to 41.80% of $1.00 per day for each household member to be able to escape poverty. Further results showed that female headed households in the study area were more vulnerable to income poverty with poverty incidence, depth and severity of 0.221 and 0.239, 0.402 and 0.191, respectively. Highest levels of poverty were found among household with 7–9 dependants and values of 1.00, 0.715 and 0.511 for the incidence, depth and severity of poverty respectively.

Ogwumike and Akinnibosun (2013) were concerned with the determinants of poverty among farming households in Nigeria. Ogwumike and Akinnibosun adopted the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) measure of poverty and employed the logit regression model to estimate the effect of the socio-economic variables on poverty among farming households. Their results showed high incidence of poverty among farming households, while age, size of household, income, and number of farms were found to be the major determinants of poverty among farming households. They also showed that households in the North-east, North-central, South-east, and South-south geopolitical zones had higher probability of being poor compared to those in the North-west. Olawuyi and Adetunji (2013) also analyzed the incidence, severity and the determinants of household poverty in Ogbomosho Agricultural Zone of Oyo State, Nigeria. One hundred and twenty (120) households were selected through a multistage sampling technique. Olawuyi and Adetunji found that poverty rises with the increase in household size while it reduces with increase in level of education, farm size and participation in non-farm jobs as alternative sources of livelihood. Gender, household size, years spent in school, farm size and non-farm jobs were found to be important and significant factors determining poverty in the study area.

Development and sustainable development

The Society for International Development (SID) defined development as a process that creates growth, progress, positive change or the addition of physical, economic, environmental, social and demographic components. The purpose of development is rise in the level and quality of life of the population, expansion of resources and employment opportunities without destruction of the environment. Development might be visible but not immediate. Sen (1985) stressed that a comprehensive understanding of development must extend beyond measuring income to include other important aspects of well-being and agency that a person has reason to value. Furthermore, Sen (1999, p. 3) argued convincingly that development was a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy as well as the removal of major sources of unfreedom. On the other hand, development has resulted to inequalities between individuals and States, whereby a large numbers of the world’s inhabitants are mired in poverty, especially in Africa. The term development in international parlance encompasses the need and means by which to provide a better lives for people in poor countries. It includes not only economic growth but also human development, providing for health, nutrition, education and a clean environment. Some constraints on development are high economic poverty, hunger, high mortality rates, unsafe water supplies, poor education systems, corrupt governments, war and poor sanitation these constraints create poverty traps and cycles that must be broken for countries to develop (UNDP 2003).

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (United Nations General Assembly 1987, p. 43). The concept of sustainable development can be interpreted in many different ways, but driven by a particular need and finding better ways of doing things both for the future and present generation promoting personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion and creating equal opportunity. (Brundtland Commission 1987; Cerlin 2006; Stoddart 2011) proposed a broad description which does not limit the scope of sustainability, the explanation touches on the importance of intergenerational equity. The overall goal of sustainable development is the long-term stability, integration of the economy, environment and social concerns in order to address the needs of future generations (Stoddart 2011).

Research methodology

A mixed research method was adopted in which a non-probability technique, random sampling technique and systematic sampling technique were utilized. Inequality was measured using the Gini coefficient for 2004 and 2010 based on National Living Standard Survey (NLSS), National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), General Households Survey Panel data wave 2 (2012/2013) and wave 3 (2015/2016) respectively.

Sampling technique

Delta State was purposively selected due to its diversity and inequality levels. An urban centre was randomly selected in each of the 25 local government areas across the 3 senatorial districts. A total of 2521 households were proportionally determined based on 1991 projected population. A structured questionnaire on socio-demographic characteristics (age, educational status and household size), basic amenities (safe water, housing and sanitation facilities), cause of poverty and inequality (loss of livelihood, job and spouse) was administered systematically to household heads at every fifth house along major roads in each urban centre. Poverty thresholds of $2.00 and $1.25 per day were used to classify households into (non-poor, transient poor and chronic poor) respectively using the equivalent value of (2.00 dollars and 1.25 dollars) poverty line in the local currency (Deinne and Ajayi 2017).

The non-poor are living above US$2.00 a-day poverty threshold, the transient poor are living below this US$2.00 a-day poverty threshold, while the chronic poor are living below US$1.25 a-day poverty threshold. The US$2.00 a-day poverty line is the average (median) poverty line for all developing countries (Chen and Ravallion 2008) and US$1.25 a-day poverty line (at 2005 purchasing power parity) were chosen to distinguish among non-poor, transient poor and chronic poor respectively, using exchange rate of naira to a dollar. These thresholds were the most typical poverty line regarded as providing the absolute minimum standard of living. The equivalent value of the poverty line in local currency was determined based on the consumption expenditure of household heads. The poverty line is the level of welfare that distinguishes poor households from non-poor households. Specifically, the World Bank defines extreme or chronic poverty as living on less than US$1.25 per day and moderate or transient poverty as less than US$2.00 a day. The choice of using an absolute poverty threshold is based on the premise that it gives a clear and straightforward comparable indicator of the levels and dynamics of poverty. The poverty threshold is the same regardless of geographic location and does not account for higher cost of living in large urban areas.

Geographical information system was adopted to reveal the spatial distribution, while analysis of variance was used to examine the variations in the distribution of inequality and household poverty. Likelihood reducing poverty was determined using multinomial regression (Odd Ratio e(β)). Data used for inequality analysis was the (NBS 2012) reported estimates of Gini coefficient for 2004 and 2010 based on National Living Standard Survey (NLSS), General Households Survey Panel data wave 2 (2012/2013) and wave 3 (2015/2016).

Study area

Delta State is generally low-lying and has three seaports located in Warri, Sapele and Koko. The State is bounded by Ondo State to the northwest, Edo State in the north, Anambra State and Rivers State to the east, Bayelsa State to the south and on the south western flank is the Bight of Benin which covers about 160 km of the State’s coastline. Delta State is ethnically diverse and heterogeneous. The State has a total land area of 16,842 km2 with a population of 4,098,291 (males: 2,674,306, females: 2,024,085 (Federal Republic of Nigeria, Official Gazette, No. 24, vol. 94, 2009). Delta State relief varies from the north to the south and from the hinterland to the coast. It is highest at Agbor and Ubulu-Uku with an elevation of 110 m and lowest at the coast with elevation of 23.8 m above sea level. Politically, the State has twenty-five local government areas and three senatorial districts namely Delta North, Delta Central and Delta South for easy administrative purposes and to ease accessibility (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source: Ministry of land, survey and urban development Delta State

The study area.

Full size image

The choice of the study area is based on the fact that despite being one of the main source of oil exports for the country, this region suffers from poor infrastructure, sanitation, access to healthcare, and educational opportunities, difficulty in satisfying household needs as well as inadequate investment in development. Environmental degradation from oil exploration and exploitation contributed to a number of these problems. NBS (2010a, b) report indicates that among the States in Nigeria, Delta State has one of the highest level of unemployment representing 20.8% of the population. Moreover, livelihoods in the greater part of Delta State are constantly being exposed to the impact of environmental pollution as a result of oil exploration causing a great loss in flora and fauna, a major source of livelihoods of the indigenous people. Specifically, farming and fishing practices have been lost to environmental degradation.

There are various solid mineral deposits within the state—industrial clay, silica, lignite, kaolin, tar sand, decorative rocks, limestone, etc. the raw materials for industries such as brick making, ceramics, bottle manufacturing, glass manufacturing, chemical/insulators production, chalk manufacturing and sanitary wares, decorative stone cutting and quarrying. But these minerals are under-utilized. Delta state also has huge deposits of crude oil and is also one of the largest producers of petroleum products in Nigeria. Revenue and sales of petroleum products is what majorly drives its economy. Therefore, it is not possible to discuss sustainable livelihoods in Delta State without referring to the impacts of oil extraction on the environment which have significantly increased in recent years due to pollution, deforestation and constant discharge of effluents and wastes from oil operations onto land, into mangrove and freshwater swamps, and into the sea and have destroyed arable and fertile farmlands with further alteration on the ecosystem and livelihoods.

Discussion of findings and results

Distribution of poor households

Geographical information system (GIS) reveals that household poverty in nearby locations are similar to one another. Furthermore, chronic poverty among households in Delta State therefore tends to be spatially concentrated, rather than being evenly spread. At the senatorial district level, the chronic poor are concentrated in Delta South and Delta Central respectively, this pattern implies the presence of deprivations in access to basic amenities, inability to afford the basic needs and limited opportunities which restricts the likelihood of reduction of poverty and inequality thresholds (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Spatial pattern of chronic poor

Full size image

The result reveals an uneven distribution of transient poverty pattern across local government areas of Delta State. At the senatorial district level, the transient poor are not homogeneously spread across Delta North, Delta Central and Delta South respectively partly due to variation in household economics, employment, geographic access to opportunities and good roads. Transient poverty among households was unevenly distributed throughout the study area (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Spatial pattern of transient poor

Full size image

Spatial factors influencing household inequality and poverty levels

This study shows that dynamic poverty is positively linked with inequality and spatial characteristics of the households especially household composition, accessibility, location, sanitation, water source and distance to water source. One-way analysis of variance on the following spatial factors: water source, distance to water source, improved sanitation, accessibility, household size and location yield F values of 167.680, 24.786, 18.509, 15.973, 9.468 and 7.398 respectively which are significant at 0.001 level. The result of the one-way analysis of variance reveals that the variation in the distribution of household poverty and inequality in Delta State is significantly influenced by spatial factors (see Table 4).

Table 4 Spatial variation of household poverty and inequality
Full size table

The Multinomial logistic regression model is a discrete choice model used to analyse the likelihood of transition out of poverty and reduction of inequality. The dependent variable of the model can take one of three discrete values indicating the poverty/inequality status of a household (non-poor households, poor households and inequality). Multinomial regression was adopted to test the hypothesis that the likelihood of reducing poverty and inequality is significantly determined by socio-spatial factors: (gender, age at marriage, own tenure, ownership of asset, livelihood loss, household size, employment status, remittances, accessibility, health status and availability of mineral resources).

Table 5 presents the results of the final model, the Exp (B) is the exponential beta, or the odds ratio. The result of the odd ratio for the poor households reveal that: gender of household heads with a odds ratio of (1.034), household heads’ loss of livelihoods with odds ratio of (1.899), unemployed household heads with odds ratio of (1.135) are more likely to be left behind and experience inequality, while households in inaccessible locations, health condition of household heads (ill-health) and unavailability of resources (assets) with odds ratios of (1.619), (1.000) and (1.150) are more likely to influence inequality experienced among households. Whereas households that depend on domestic remittance/financial assistance from relatives and friends with odds ratio of (0.599) and households in inaccessible locations with odds ratio of (0.740) are more likely to experience increased inequality.

Table 5 Final model of likelihood of poverty reduction
Full size table

Conclusion

The findings in this paper reveals that the livelihood conditions of the poor determine their access to assets and livelihood opportunities, and the way in which these can be converted into positive or negative outcomes such as moving out of poverty or remaining in poverty is influenced by existing government institutions and non-government institutions, processes and laws. The result of the multinomial regression reveals that the likelihood of poverty and inequality increases with gender of household heads, loss of livelihoods, unemployed household heads are more likely to be left behind in poverty and experience inequality. Moreover, households in inaccessible locations, health condition of household heads (ill-health) and unavailability of resources (assets) are more likely to influence inequality experienced among households. Whereas households that depend on domestic remittance/financial assistance from relatives and friends are more likely to experience increased inequality. In addition, being a male head of household or female head of household and availability or non-availability of mineral resources does not say a household cannot be poor, it is the ability of the household to be psychologically prepared to take advantage and utilise opportunities at their disposal to enable them reduce the poverty and inequality experienced and contribute to sustainable development of the society. The solution and change to these disturbing inequalities and poverty levels would come from a responsive government (political system), diversification of socio-economic activities and progressive taxation. Hence, this paper recommends that government at all levels should invest more in livelihood development, inequality and poverty reduction strategies such as the education sector, increase public spending on social services and enhance geographic access to basic amenities, improvements in human, physical and social capital, livelihood assets of the poor are key fundamentals to increasing the well-being of households, reducing household poverty and inequality, and sustainable development of Delta State in particular and Nigeria at large.