Livelihoods Approaches Compared
The early 1990s was a
period of intense questioning of the nature and value of overseas
development assistance. The limited achievements of development aid over
four decades were recognised, and this led to a new way of thinking
about the role of the state in
development, as well as the meaning and nature of poverty. Socioeconomic issues
began to figure much more prominently in people's understanding both of
the nature of poverty and of the processes of poverty reduction (Carney et al. 1999).
Nowadays, several organisations (donors, domestic government
agencies and civil-society organisations) use some or all of the
principles underlying (sustainable) livelihoods approaches, whether or
not they use the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) language.
The
aim of this lesson is to clarify the fundamental
principles behind three different livelihoods approaches used by
different agencies (DFID, CARE and SDC). In spite of
some differences in emphasis between the agencies, their similarities
far outweigh their differences.
All three agencies link their
ideas back to the work of Chambers and Conway in the early 1990s and
adopted their definition (or a slight variant of it) of livelihoods:
"... a livelihood comprises the
capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and
activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is
sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks,
maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide
sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and
which contributes net benefits to their livelihoods at the local and
global levels and in the long and short term." (Chambers 1997)
- Identify (and value) what people are already doing to cope
with risk and uncertainty;
- Make the connections between factors that constrain or enhance
their livelihoods on the one hand, and policies and institutions
in the wider environment;
- Identify measures that can strengthen assets, enhance
capabilities and reduce vulnerability.
One criticism articulated by development practitioners regarding
social-science-based approaches to development studies is that they are
taking rather a long time to produce outcomes, and that development
practice needs reliable and useful insights within quite a short period
of time (see the statements by Robert Chambers in the text).
Therefore, a number of more
practice-oriented approaches to analysing development
problems and opportunities were developed.
|
|
