|
Both frameworks are people-centred. CARE seeks to understand the
needs of vulnerable people and how these needs are met in order to
improve livelihoods. The main difference between this model and the SLF
is that it lays greater emphasis on the household. CARE's model focuses
around a household's livelihoods strategy. The asset box depicted in the
diagram includes
- the
 capabilities of household
members,
- the assets and resources to which they have access, as well as
- their access to information or to influential individuals, and
- their ability to claim from relatives, the state or other
actors.
In so doing, there is a realisation that production and income
activities are only a means to improve livelihoods and not an end in
themselves. To evaluate what changes are taking place in the livelihood
security status of households requires monitoring of the consumption
status and asset levels of household members (Drinkwater et al. 1999).
There are three major elements in CARE's livelihood framework:
- context,
- livelihood strategy and
- livelihood outcome.
Once again, you can see a strong link between the framework and
the theory of structuration. The context can be seen as structures that
mediate livelihood opportunities, which are also shaped by people's
agency (livelihood strategies).
Contextual factors place the
household and community in a specific perspective. A contextual analysis
aims to produce an understanding of the key contextual factors (natural
resources; infrastructure; economic, cultural and political environment)
that affect livelihoods on the one hand, and to identify the major shock
and stress factors affecting livelihoods on the other.
Analysing livelihood strategies aims
to understand the typical levels of human, social, economic and natural
capital owned by different types of household, and the nature of
production, income and exchange activities that result from them.
Consumption activities for each household member can then be
summarised in terms of the livelihood
outcome status for different areas of livelihood
security (De Haan et al. 2002).
Livelihoods are generally associated with rural livelihoods.
The question arises whether or not livelihood frameworks can be used
within urban contexts. De Haan (2002)
answers this question in the following manner:
"Living in an urban environment is
clearly a distinct experience from life in a rural setting. Yet
despite the contrasts in terms of context, there is one factor
that remains unchanged: people themselves.
Wherever people live, they retain essentially the same human needs, and
the desire for the same entitlements or rights.
They require access to productive resources
such as land, knowledge and capital, and from these an income to
support consumption needs.
They require food, shelter, clothing, access to medical facilities, the ability to
educate children, and the ability to participate, in all senses
(socially, politically, intellectually and spiritually), in the
society of which they are part.
Thus these requirements amount to the entitlement each person has to
lead a life that is fundamentally secure in respect both of the
basic needs and broader social and psychological senses of a
livelihood."
Livelihood frameworks are thus tools to help us understand
livelihoods, both in rural and urban areas.
|
|
