Sesión 4 Preocupaciones

Both the capability approach and the participatory approach have been influential in developing the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA), in the sense that this approach acknowledges people’s potential to be agents of change and recognises that poverty is a dynamic process (DFID, 2000 as cited in Kollmair & Gamper, 2002). The approach engages with the livelihoods of those who are intended beneficiaries of development interventions and policies (Morse & McNamara, 2013). Rather than focusing just on economic aspects of people’s lives, the approach focuses on people’s livelihoods comprehensively; how do people make a living and strategize their livelihoods in a particular context? People’s livelihoods consist of what they can be and do (capabilities) and of what they have (assets/capitals). These livelihoods are considered sustainable if they can cope with and recover from shocks (sudden pressure on livelihood, e.g. flood) and stresses (long-term pressure on livelihood, e.g. economic crisis) and maintain or enhance their capitals and assets, in the present and in the future (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Carney, 1998; Moser; 1998, Scoones, 1998; Rakodi, 1999; Ellis, 2000; De Haan & Zoomers, 2005). Capital is a crucial part of people’s livelihoods and receive much attention in the SLA framework. Capital is not just the means to make a living, but gives meaning to people’s worlds and allows them to engage with the world and gives them the capability to change it (Bebbington, 1999, p. 2022). Capital is, therefore, important as a vehicle for instrumental action (making a living), hermeneutic action (giving meaning to life) and emancipatory action (challenging the structure under which a living is made) (Ibid.). The SLA framework includes: human capital (e.g.

534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019

Processed on: 5-12-2019 PDF page: 58PDF page: 58PDF page: 58PDF page: 58

58

health, education, skills), physical capital (e.g. farm equipment or a sewing machine), social capital (e.g. networks), financial capital (e.g. credit, cattle, savings) and natural capital (natural resource base) (Ellis, 1999). Whether people have access to these capitals in a meaningful way for them, is affected by social factors, such as institutions and by exogenous trends and shocks (Ibid.). Although all types of capital are, theoretically, equally important, their relative weights vary across households and vulnerability context. One form of capital may be sacrificed in order to strengthen another if necessary for the survival of the livelihood. There is thus a complex dynamic involved in the use of capital, and most poor households diversify (Bebbington, 1999). Sustaining and improving a livelihood can be strengthened through diversification, meaning that people engage in a diverse portfolio of activities (Ellis, 1999), for example by farming and sewing clothes. The diversification of livelihoods can benefit households at and below the poverty line, and can make the difference between being destitute or minimally viable (Morse & McNamara, 2013). However, poor people, especially women have less opportunity to diversify their livelihoods as a result of a lack of certain capitals, e.g. skills or education (Ibid.), capabilities and greater exposure to vulnerability and risks. Moreover, diversifying livelihoods in rural areas can bring negative effects, such as withdrawal of labour during harvest time. On the other hand, it can reduce vulnerability to shocks and stresses due to, for example, a poor harvest. There are both positive and adverse effects of diversifying livelihoods. Some of the positive effects of diversification are: a higher income, reduced risk (poor harvest), seasonality (peaks of crop production, but need for food throughout the year), improved assets (e.g. human capital by sending children to school), environmental benefits (investing income/resources in natural resource base and less exploitation of natural resources when more beneficial options are offered), and in terms of gender (women, if receiving the possibility to diversify, can have their own income, which is usually spent on the family) (Ellis, 1999, p. 5). Negative effects can impact: income distribution (gap widens between poor and well- off), farm output (absent labour), and gender (if diversification is focused on male labour, women are even more restricted to the domestic sphere) (Ibid.). According to Ellis, the positives outweigh the negatives, as these typically “occur when labour markets happen to work in particular ways in particular places”(Ibid.).

SLA was initially often discussed in relation to rural livelihoods; however, as a methodology and framework it can also be used to research urban survival strategies (Ellis, 1999, p. 2). Even though an urban environment

534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC 534033-L-bw-ASC Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019 Processed on: 5-12-2019

Processed on: 5-12-2019 PDF page: 59PDF page: 59PDF page: 59PDF page: 59

59

is a different context, it is a fact that no matter where they live, people are always dependent on basic needs and have the desire for certain rights and entitlements (De Haan, Drinkwater, Racodi & Westley, 2002). The SLA approach is thus centred around people’s livelihoods, but also pays great attention to their (wider) environment. This (wider) environment is important to consider, certainly in relation to poverty. People living in absolute poverty often use environmental resources as their main source of subsistence. They use it to ensure short-term survival instead of thinking about the long-term consequences of cutting trees, for example (Carney, 1998).

There has, however, been criticism of the SLA approach as it seems to be missing key elements of human existence, e.g. culture and enjoying life (Morse & McNamara, 2013). Moreover, there is the question of measurement and assessment of capital: are all forms of capital equal and how is this determined? (Ibid.).

Although these points have to be considered, they do not take away from the fact that SLA is a flexible approach that is implementable in different contexts and has a multidimensional focus on people’s livelihoods, in contrast to the single-dimensional monetary approach or a sectoral approach that is common in development policy circles (Carney, 1998). It tries to eradicate poverty through a sustainable approach that promotes both human development and also considers environmental conservation (DFID, 1997). The present research partially draws upon the livelihoods approach, in a sense that it focuses on the livelihoods of extreme poor people and studies their exposure to multiple vulnerabilities, e.g. social-cultural, political, economic and environmental.