Series temporales de temperatura y humedad relativa

The sustainable livelihood approach (SLA) suggest a different approach to the implementation of developmental programs by emphasizing a people-centred approach (Scoones, 1998). The SLA framework assumes that in strategizing their livelihoods outcomes, the poor thinks and acts in rational ways by carefully selecting amongst a range of locally available options. Therefore, the SLA framework argues that development initiatives should place the poor at the centre of their own development. Toner (2003) argue that this view of the poor in misleading as the poor do not always make rational choices in strategizing their livelihoods. The author also criticizes the SLA framework for stressing that interventions aimed at poverty reduction should focus on livelihoods which tends to imply that only the poor have livelihoods which they attempt to sustain throughout their life whilst the non-poor have lifestyles which changes over the course of their life.

The SLA framework has also been criticized for having too many components that make an in-depth analysis of them difficult, thus making the framework too broad and superficial to aid the design and analysis of outcomes (Clark & Carney, 2008). The authors also argued that since the implementation stages of interventions often require a focus on specific areas, the ambiguity created by too many components in the SLA framework can impede the quality implementation outcome. In addition, they stress that the SLA framework does not provide a clear guideline on how it should be applied. However, proponents of the SLA framework (Krantz, 2001; Scoones & Wolmer, 2003) have contended that the framework provides a holistic perspective of poverty which identifies all the factors that should be considered in any development program and how other components are critical when analyzing these poverty factors. Advocates of the SLA argue that the framework is an analytical toolbox that analyst and scholars can draw from to examine the complex livelihood challenges faced by the poor, the resources and combination of resources needed to exit poverty.

86 | P a g e The SLA has been criticized for focusing too much on the micro level (local communities and households) instead of macro levels such as the government and international organization. Scoones (2010) described this as the “lack of attention to power and politics and the failure to link livelihoods and governance debate”. The underlying issue is that because most micro level programs are affected by macro-level activities like regulations, government policies and often finance, the long-term sustainability of intervention programs may be undermined when they are disconnected from macro-level factors. As mentioned above, sustainable livelihoods in the view of the SLA framework implies coping or recovering from immediate shocks and stresses with available local capitals. However, with growing data in support of climate change and the resultant effect on even countries where these poverty intervention programs are implemented, Scoones (2010) argue that it is an imperative challenge for SLA to link livelihood discourse and strategies with global environmental change mandate. Despite the criticism, Claeys (2017) argue that SLA continues to offer a valuable and holistic approach for analyzing highly dynamic and complex contexts. The SLA framework have been widely adapted to analyze situations ranging from exploring livelihood strategies for poverty reduction (Coulthard, et al., 2011; Soltani, et al., 2012) to explaining the relationship between HIV/AIDS and poverty in rural communities (Masanjala, 2006) and to analyzing the impact of tourism on the livelihoods of the poor (Tao & Wall, 2008). Similarly, Wrenn (2007) used the sustainable livelihood framework to assess the impact of microfinance intervention on the livelihood capitals of service users. The SLA framework can serve a variety of applications; however, the SLA framework has been increasingly applied to examine the root cause of rural poverty and develop effective interventions for poverty reduction (Fang, et al., 2014). Acre (2003) contends that the SLA framework is unique for its ideological shift from the conventional top-bottom approach to community and individual development to a bottom-up approach which analysis the livelihoods of the poor and deprived people from their own perspectives. In this sense, the SLA framework is a more realistic framework for analyzing the socio-economic impact of interventions aimed at poverty reduction since it focuses on assessing the direct and indirect effects on the living conditions of the poor (Krantz, 2001). In summary, this study intends to employ the sustainable livelihood approach for studying the livelihoods of the poor women in Nigeria and evaluating the impact of microfinance intervention on women service users. In order to mitigate the effect of ambiguity that may ensue by analyzing all the capitals mentioned above, the study will focus on those capitals that are relevant to the scope of this study. Focusing on relevant capitals will enable the

87 | P a g e researcher to provide the depth of knowledge that may help enhance the quality of the study (Clark & Carney, 2008). Therefore, natural capital will not be considered in this study as their importance is not significantly relevant to the context of this study. This study will examine microfinance outcomes based on improved levels of Financial, Human, Physical and social capital accumulation by women service users.

In the present study, financial capital is measured by assessing changes in women income, savings, business profit, business networks and access to credit after participation in microfinance. Physical capital is measured in terms of increase in business assets such as raw materials, machinery and equipment. Human capital is measured in terms of increased entrepreneurial skills knowledge and skills such as communications skills, self-confidence, financial planning and business record keeping skills. The social capital component is measured in terms of improved social networks, social solidarity, ability to make decisions, control of resources and active political participation. These capitals will be explored in the context of women entrepreneurial development and empowerment. Figure 3.2. Below provides a graphical representation of the above discussion.

Figure 3. 2 Schematic representation of Variables and linkages for the sustainable livelihood framework

Source: Adapted from Quandt et al., (2018)

Livelihood Capitals Physical Capital Social Capital Human Capital Financia l Capital Infrastructure , raw materials, machinery and equipment communicati ons skills, self- confidence, financial planning and business record social networks, solidarity, ability to make decisions, control of resources income, savings, business profit, business networks and access to credit

88 | P a g e