A review of the literature suggests that the SLA is useful as an analytical tool (Carney, 2003; Chambers & Conway, 1991; Clark & Carney, 2008; DFID, 1999; Zoomers, 2015). It provides a way to order information and understanding of not only the
complexity and substance of poor people’s lives but also the links between different aspects of people’s livelihoods (Clark & Carney, 2008). Carney (2003) in her review identifies 16 positive contributions of SLA to development. For example, SLA helps development practitioners to appreciate the importance of process, engaging poor people in development, and building capacity to be responsive to changing agendas.
The SLA also increases focus on participatory poverty assessments and helps them become more analytical and rigorous. In a broader view, the SLA contributes to a debate about how securing world food production cannot ignore rural households. For example, land grabbing for food production and biofuels removes some land- based livelihoods and creates more inequality (M'Cormack, 2011).
Despite the benefit of the application of Sustainable Livelihood thinking in development, nevertheless, this approach has been subject to criticism. In this regard, this study identifies a number of concerns of SLA as explained as follows. The first concern is regarding the complexity of the SLA (Ashley & Carney, 1999). Many authors view complexity of this approach from different angles. For example, Levine (2014) said the framework is “too complicated to be useful” and further explains that
a livelihoods analysis often “does too little because it tries to do too much”. In Levine’s view, SLA sets out to describe the context of vulnerability and policies, institutions and processes that shape livelihoods, and inevitably end up too superficial to explain how these factors have shaped the livelihoods of different people. Scoones (2015) argues that the terms “capitals” and “assets” in the framework “reduces the complexity of livelihood processes to economic units”, and the five capitals concept is also limiting. Morse and McNamara (2013) also comment that “the [DFID] diagram may be a neat and simple representation but people’s lives are complex”. However, as Cahn (2002) points out, complexity is inevitable as people’s livelihoods are complex.
Therefore, any perspective that seeks to understand something as broad as how people maintain their livelihoods must face a large number of complex questions (Levine, 2014).
The second significant drawback of the livelihood approach is the relative neglect of structural limitations (Zoomers, 2015). It is true that in the context of globalisation, shifts in relationships between classes are inevitable (Scoones, 2015). However, in certain communities, there are limitations for people where positions in social hierarchies are often more important than physical capital. In this case, the framework may not be sufficient. The poor often have limited capital. Even though the assets may be exchanged, in some cases, the inferior position in society will not help people move away from poverty. Here, strategic actions alone are insufficient to leverage the possibility of leaving poverty and achieving sustainable development.
The third critique is that the sustainable livelihood framework is perceived as failing to address an array of development issues, including policy and economic processes, gender relations, environmental sustainability (M'Cormack, 2011), politics and power, as well as violence and conflict (see for example Collinson et al., (2003); Lautze and Raven-Roberts (2003)). Those authors argue that the framework places too much emphasis on material and economic assets. Levine (2014) also argues that the narrow focus on assets and economics may result from a framework mainly developed by and for economic development practitioners.
Another point of criticism is regarding how to translate detailed analysis of the approach into pro-poor policy interventions. The claim that the process is liberating for participants applies only if those people have the same power to bring about change or indeed if they have choices (Morse & McNamara, 2013). The last concern regards the fact that this approach was designed to work across sectors. This can be difficult in practice as sectors typically are managed by different government ministries and departments (Cahn, 2002, p. 5). Regardless of the limitations of the DFID sustainable livelihood framework, it can be argued this framework is still relevant and useful today.
3.9. Chapter Conclusion
This chapter has offered an exploration of the concept of the Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA) in the rural development context. There are three main points that can be concluded. Firstly, a review of the literature suggests that there are relatively strong linkages between poverty reduction, economic growth, smallholder farmers and agricultural productivity. The majority of the rural poor are smallholder farmers; therefore, improving agriculture productivity is one of the critical aspects that contribute to overall economic growth.
Secondly, a sustainable livelihood is an alternative form of development thinking. It is
apparent that the term “sustainable livelihood” has become a buzzword in
development discourse. There is diversity in conceptualising the concept of this approach. Yet, it appears that many authors share similarities in the way they view sustainable livelihoods as a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to development
that has given strong emphasis on a people-centred approach and encourages participation in their implementation. This framework enhances people’s access to
assets and the prevention of further environmental degradation.
Thirdly, the sustainable livelihood framework (SLF) helps development researchers, practitioners and policymakers to understand not only the complexity and substance
of poor people’s lives but also the links between different aspects of people’s
livelihoods. Many authors suggest both SLA and SLF are useful as analytical tools. Nonetheless, many limitations are also acknowledged in the literature, including the complexity of the approach, neglect of structural limitations, and failure to address a broader range of issues. The next chapter will explore the methods employed to