introduction-to-livelihood-framework

Right Livelihood Award Winners from India
2008 Krishnammal Jagannathan and Sankaralingam Jagannathan LAFTI
2006 Ruth Manorama
2004 Swami Agnivesh / Asghar Ali Engineer
1996 People's Science Movement of Kerala (Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad
1993 1993
1991 Narmada Bachao Andolan
1986 International Society for Ecology and Culture / Helena Norberg-Hodge
1985 Lokayan / Rajni Kothari
1984 Self-Employed Women's Association / Ela Bhatt
Smt. Krishnammal Jeganathan Right Livelihood Award Winner from Tamilnadu
It has become widely known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’ and there
are now 133 Laureates from 57 countries.
Presented annually in Stockholm at a ceremony in the Swedish
Parliament, the Right Livelihood Award is usually shared by four
Recipients. One of them may receive an Honorary Award, given to a
person or group whose work the Jury wishes to recognize but who is
not primarily in need of monetary support. The others share the prize
money of 2,000,000 Swedish kronor (approx 223,000 EUR / 310,000
USD / 1,43,60,000 INR). The prize money is for ongoing successful
work, never for personal use.

S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
The definition used by Department of Foreign and International
Development (DFID) incorporates these sentiments.
'A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both
material and social resources) and activities required for a
means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with
and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance
its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not
undermining the natural resource base' (Chambers, R. and G.
Conway, 1992).
The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) differentiates
between a job and a livelihood, which are often used
interchangeably.
Jobs
"A job connotes one particular activity or trade that is performed
in exchange for payment. It is also a formal agreement, as
manifested by a contract, between an employer and
employee...... . A job can, however, comprise part of an overall
livelihood, but does so only to complement other aspects of a
livelihood portfolio.
Livelihoods
"A livelihood, on the other hand, is engagement in a number of
activities which, at times, neither require a formal agreement
nor are limited to a particular trade. Livelihoods may or may not
involve money. Jobs invariably do. Livelihoods are self-directing.
.... . Livelihoods are based on income derived from "jobs", but
also on incomes derived from assets and entitlements. "
"a means of living or of supporting life and meeting individual
and community needs"
Introduction to Livelihood Promotion
What is a livelihood?
The definition of ‘livelihood’ has been extensively discussed among academics and
development practitioners (Ellis, 1998, Batterbury, 2001; Chambers and Conway, 1992;
Carney, 1998; Bernstein, 1992; Francis, 2000, 2002; Radoki, 2002).
There is a consensus that livelihood is about the ways and means of ‘making a living’. The
most widely accepted
definition of livelihood stems
from the work of Robert
Chambers and Gordon
Conway: ‘a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living’ (Carney, 1998:4).
Ellis (2000) suggests a
definition of livelihood as
‘the activities, the assets,
and the access that jointly
determine the living gained
by an individual or
household’.
Wallman (1984) who did
research on livelihoods in
London in the early 1980s
approached livelihoods as
always more than just a
matter of finding or
making shelter, transacting
money, and preparing food
to put on the table or
exchange in the market
place. It is equally a matter
of the ownership and
circulation of information,
the management of social
relationships, the
affirmation of personal
significance and group identity, and the inter relation of each of these tasks to the other. All
these productive tasks together constitute a livelihood. For an anthropologist such as
Refer:
http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/?s=A1-Livelihood
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9371e/x9371e00.htm#TopOfPage
The livelihood of a household or individual can be interpreted as their ‘means of living’. Their
means of living is based on their capabilities, assets (financial, physical, human, natural resource
and social) and activities.
Livelihoods consist of both generation of income as well as the ownership of assets that reduces
the vulnerability of marginalized communities.
A livelihood is sustainable when it:
• Can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, and
• Can maintain or build on available capabilities and assets, and
• Does not undermine the natural resource base.

Why Livelihood?
A livelihoods perspective encourages a broader
understanding and examination of factors, institutions
and processes that can explain the differing success
with which rural households make a living.
Consequently, permits a bringing together of more
sectoral approaches which tend to focus on a single
aspect of rural livelihood systems, to create a more
holistic understanding of the options and trade-offs
facing different groups in the face of climate change.
Why Promote Livelihoods?
In the current decade, according to estimates of the Planning Commission for the Tenth Five Year
Plan, more than 10 million people in India will be seeking work every year. Thus, to ensure full
employment within a decade, more than 10 million new livelihoods will have to be generated
every year. Given the magnitude of the problem, and the dearth of resources for livelihood
promotion, the task of promoting livelihoods for the poor becomes all the more urgent. It calls for
organizations to use their resources optimally to achieve maximum scale.
The primary reason to promote livelihoods is the belief in the essential right of all human beings
to equal opportunity. Poor people do not have life choices nor do they have opportunities.
Ensuring that a poor household has a stable livelihood will substantially increase its income, and
over a period of time, asset ownership, self-esteem and social participation.
The second reason for livelihood promotion is to promote economic growth. The ‘bottom of the
pyramid’ comprising nearly 4 billion out of the 6 billion people in the world, who do not have the
purchasing power to buy even the bare necessities of life – food, clothing and shelter. But as
they get steadier incomes through livelihood promotion, they become customers of many goods
and services, which then promote growth. The third reason for promoting livelihoods is to ensure
social and political stability. When people are hungry, they tend to take to violence, crime.
Thus, we see that there are idealistic, utilitarian and plain self-interest based arguments for
livelihood promotion. But whatever be the reason, we need to worry about – how to promote
livelihoods?
Wallman livelihood is an umbrella concept, which suggests that social life is layered and that
these layers overlap (both in the way people talk about them and the way they should be
analyzed). This is an important analytical feature of the notion of livelihoods.
One feature that these definitions and interpretations share in common is that they eloquently
underline the generally accepted idea that ‘livelihood’ deals with people, their resources and
what they do with these. Livelihoods essentially revolve around resources (such as land,
crops, seed, labour, knowledge, cattle, money, social relationships, and so on), but these
resources cannot be disconnected from the issues and problems of access and changing
political, economic and socio-cultural circumstances.
Livelihoods are also about creating and embracing new opportunities. While gaining a
livelihood, or attempting to do so,
people may, at the same time, have to
cope with risks and uncertainties,
such as erratic rainfall, diminishing
resources, pressure on the land,
changing life cycles and kinship
networks, epidemics such as
HIV/AIDS, chaotic markets,
increasing food prices, inflation, and
national and international
competition. These uncertainties,
together with new emerging opportunities, influence how material and social resources are
managed and used, and on the choices people make.
Why Livelihoods?
The study of livelihoods is relevant for understanding poverty and poverty alleviation. It is
well realized that livelihood framework in general provides insights in the many dimensions,

dynamics and persistence of poverty. For many decades poverty has been central to many
development agencies’ agendas (e.g. World Bank, national governments, etc.). Despite this,
well over a billion people – about a fifth of the world’s population – live in absolute poverty
and poverty remains widespread in both urban and rural areas. Given the nature and extent of
poverty, systematic investigation of poverty and analysis of why some people live in poverty
and others not, is an urgent priority. Current international development targets (the
Millennium Development Goals) include – the aim of halving acute poverty globally by
2015. To achieve this it is necessary to have a set of analytical tools that engage with local
people and policy makers. The livelihoods perspective is perceived as a playing a useful role
in this process.
What is new in Sustainable
Livelihood (SL)?
In many respects, Sustainable
Livelihood approaches are not new at
all. They build upon decades of
thinking about the best ways to
approach development problems, and
incorporate many of the tools and
methods with which we are all
familiar. What makes Sustainable
Livelihood 'new' is that it brings all
these issues together at the same time
and combines them with a core
emphasis on poverty elimination, on
people (rather than on resources or
project outputs, such as numbers of
hospitals built or numbers of teachers
trained) and on the importance of
working simultaneously at local and
higher levels and with both the public
and the private sector. Sustainable
Livelihood approaches recognize the
importance of seeing livelihood
systems holistically and that
concentrating on specific parts of
systems only will not deliver poverty
elimination. The Sustainable
Livelihood framework provides a
structure and focus for thinking about
systemic change.
How does Sustainable Livelihood
differ from Integrated Rural
Development?
Sustainable Livelihood approaches
build upon the positive aspects of
Integrated Rural Development (IRD),
in particular IRD's recognition of the
interlocking nature of needs and the
Frequently asked questions about SLA
SL ...the Basics:
What is a sustainable livelihood?
What are the core principles that underlie SL approaches?
What are we trying to achieve by adopting an SL approach?
What is new?
What difference does SL make?
Who are the partners for SL?
What happens if partners do not follow an SL approach?
Does SL raise too many expectations and demands?
Relationship of SL to Other Approaches:
How do SL approaches relate to the International Development
targets?
How does SL differ from Integrated Rural Development?
How does SL differ from community-based development?
Program
How do SL approaches relate to sector programmes?
How do SL approaches relate to rights?
What does SL have to say about working with the private sector?
What are Transforming Structures and Processes?
Are they things that we need to transform, or things that transform
others ?
About Complexity:
What does it mean to be holistic?
SL claims to be `holistic'. Does this mean we have to do everything?
How can I handle the complexity of SL?
How does SL help to select project activities?
Is SL applicable only for projects and area-based activity?
You say that the SL approach stresses multiple levels of
operation and macro-micro links? Where does this show up in
the SL framework?
SL may help in arriving at an holistic appreciation of the factors
influencing livelihoods of the poor, but does it offer anything new
in suggesting how they may be addressed?
SL and Poverty:
Is SLA pro-poor?
Does the focus on assets mean that richer people are favored?
Does SL target the poorest?
For a field project we've selected a poor community in a poor district.
But there is differentiation in the community. Who should we be
working with?
Poor people are focused on survival and income concerns. Do we
really need all this fancy (and costly) analysis to tell us what we
should be doing?
Poverty is complex, multi-dimensional and the causes are variable.
Does this mean that we all have to become generalists?
Poverty is complex, multidimensional and the causes are variable.
How then can we work out priorities at a national, let alone a
Regional/
or strategic level?
Is SL of any value to fieldworkers?
Analysis with SL:
What is the unit of analysis for livelihoods?
Is it necessary to conduct livelihoods analysis for every group
and situation?

Livelihood is:
A set of economic activities, involving self-employment
and/or wage-employment
by using one’s endowments (human and material)
to generate adequate resources (cash and non-cash)
for meeting the requirements of self and the household,
usually carried out repeatedly and as such become a way of
life.
Ideally,
a livelihood should keep a person meaningfully occupied,
in a sustainable manner,
with dignity
Livelihoods, therefore, go far beyond generating income. A
livelihood is much more than employment.
complementarity’s between various types of development activity. However, Sustainable
Livelihood is more people-focused and participatory than IRDP. It does not attempt to create
integrated 'solutions' or projects and it explicitly addresses issues within the wider policy and
economic environment
How does Sustainable
Livelihood differ from
community-based
development programs?
Sustainable Livelihood builds
on many of the strengths of
community-based
development programs. It is
participatory and works with
local people to understand
their strengths and determine
their priorities (and therefore
enables people to take action).
It tries to avoid sectoral preconceptions. However, a core difference is that it looks beyond
the local environment. It is neither bottom-up, nor top-down, but stresses that all levels
should work together. A primary objective of SL analysis is to understand how wider
policies, institutions and processes affect local livelihoods. This includes thinking about
issues of vulnerability, local power and influence. SL-informed programs then aim to engage
at various levels and to help change this wider environment so that it facilitates sustainable
livelihoods. In some cases SL-guided programs operate primarily at a policy level. Where
this is the case a key objective is to ensure that the policy-making process is adequately
informed about local-level outcomes
How do Sustainable Livelihood approaches relate to sector programs?
Sector-wide approaches and Sustainable Livelihood approaches need not conflict. Sustainable
Livelihood approaches can be effective at both grass roots and policy levels. Sustainable
Livelihood should encourage sector programs to broaden stakeholder participation, to
consider local outcomes when thinking about policy and to establish cross-sectoral links.
Where analysis suggests that activities should be focused in a particular sector, and where
that sector is substantially government-led, a Sustainable Livelihood -guided sector program
might be the most appropriate form of development activity. Like sector programs,
Sustainable Livelihood approaches also aims to build on 'best practice' in public expenditure
and management issues
How do Sustainable Livelihood approaches relate to rights?
In many respects, Sustainable Livelihood approaches encourage users to adopt a rights
perspective. This is because they encourage them to put people, their access to resources, and
their degree of voice and power in the wider political and social context, at the centre of
development. Conversely, rights practitioners can use Sustainable Livelihood approaches to
promote rights-based projects in cases where calling them 'rights based projects' is not
feasible. There is thus a mutually beneficial relationship and mutual feedback between an
Sustainable Livelihood and a rights perspective

The Sustainable Livelihood Framework
helps us think holistically about:
• The things that poor rural households might be
very vulnerable to
• The assets and resources that help them thrive
and survive
• The policies and institutions that impact on their
livelihoods
• How they respond to threats of climate change
• What sort of adaptation strategies is open to
them?
What does Sustainable Livelihood have to say about working with the private sector?
Sustainable Livelihood approaches are very much rooted in current thinking about
public/private partnerships and the need to mobilize all resources in order to combat
entrenched poverty. The need to work in partnership with both the public and the private
sector is stressed as one of the six principles that underlie Sustainable Livelihood approaches.
And the Sustainable Livelihood framework in its more detailed form explicitly mentions the
private sector (within the Policies, Institutions and Processes area). Furthermore, when we
think open-mindedly about the various livelihood strategies that people adopt, we will
inevitably come to consider and support the private sector.
What does it mean to be holistic?
In the Sustainable Livelihood context the word 'holistic' denotes a broad, system-wide
approach to thinking about poverty.
Sustainable Livelihood analysis is holistic
in the sense that it tries to include all
factors that affect livelihoods (whether or
not these are explicitly noted in the
Sustainable Livelihood framework).
Nothing is excluded at the outset (though
things may be eliminated due to judged
lack of importance as analysis proceeds)
and effort is made to understand both the
links between different factors and the
dynamism of the whole
Sustainable Livelihood claims to be 'holistic'. Does this mean we have to do everything?
No. The Sustainable Livelihood approach is holistic in the sense that it tries to take into
account all the major influences on livelihoods. It does not start from a sectoral perspective
but tries to understand in conjunction with local people how livelihoods are 'constructed'.
This does not, however, mean that Sustainable Livelihood -guided programs and projects
must try to do everything. Holistic analysis ideally leads to a more accurate assessment of
where and how to intervene within a strategic program of targeted activities. A useful
analogy is that of the acupuncturist whose diagnosis is holistic but who uses very specific
needles in his/her treatment (rather than covering the body like a pin-cushion).
The origins of the livelihood perspective
The livelihood perspective on rural change and development framework can be viewed as a
critical response to the conceptualization of development as a process that can be managed
from above and one that hinges on intervention and the transfer of exogenous resources. The
dominant development paradigm, often referred to as modernization, takes, as its cornerstone,
the assumption of the process of unilinearity, that there is only one ideal pathway of
development, requiring support and design by an expert system. Many foreign aid programs
and policies have been based on this modernization perspective.
Until recently, the dominant view was that rural residence necessarily implies reliance on
farming as a means of income. Rural areas were seen as primarily the production site for
agriculture and rural development was perceived as derivative of agricultural development.
Policies for the development of rural areas, when recognized as a relevant policy domain,
focused solely on farming, and neglected other rural economic activities. Policy perceptions

and visions about farming and the development of the agricultural sector have been long
dominated by the paradigm of agricultural modernization, which advocates improving farm
production through the use of more and improved technologies and more financial
investments. This approach is exemplified in the Green Revolution approach.
While farming is certainly an important factor in rural economies, rural areas contain a wide
range of economic activities. It is only in recent years that a new paradigm of rural
development emerged: one that takes a broader view on the rural economy, incorporating
economic activities other than farming, while highlighting the broad diversity of rural
development processes. Generally this is referred to the diversification of the rural economy.
The modernization paradigm has gradually come under increasing criticism for its top-down,
‘blueprint’ model of development, as well as its reliance on a system of expert knowledge
that largely ignores local people’s knowledge and experiences. Reliance on the use of
exogenous resources is one of the key features of The Green Revolution.
The livelihoods approach is not just a response to modernization perspectives. It also
critically engages with the lively debate on development theory and perspectives that has
been ongoing since the early 1980s. Prevailing development theories (e.g. modernization,
Marxism) were challenged and criticized of being structuralist and functionalist in nature.
These theories and approaches were seen as overly prescriptive and strongly influenced by
ideological discourses based either around the free-market model or that of state control and
central planning. These theoretical schools also failed to satisfactorily explain unexpected
development trajectories. For example: both Marxist (although not widely supported) and
modernization perspectives predicted that small scale and peasant farming would gradually
disappear (albeit for different reasons) and would be replaced by large scale, intensive
capitalist farming and that petty forms of commodity
production would dissolve in the process of development,
giving way to capitalist production.
Contemporary agriculture, both in the South and the
North, is still characterized by a co-existence of small-
and large-scale production and peasant and
entrepreneurial forms of organization. In other words
heterogeneity, rather than homogeneity, is the dominant
feature of development. There is not one, but many,
patterns of development.
It was also felt that local people’s capacities should not be
ignored and their voices needed to be heard more in
research and development planning. The 1980s saw the
rise of so-called participatory approaches in (rural)
development projects. This meant that the people for
whom these projects where meant, from now on were (or
should be) actively involved in planning and
implementation of policies and interventions. In a sense, one could also refer to this as a
‘democratization’ of rural development practice. Moreover, a gradual shift in thinking about
social change has led to a greater emphasis on people’s agency, i.e. their capacities to change
their lives (through individual and collective action) and the structures of society. Following
this line of thinking increasing emphasis was given to people’s own activities whereas
Principles of SL Approach
•People-centered: beginning by
understanding peoples’ priorities and
livelihood strategies.
● Responsive and participatory:
responding to the expressed priorities
of poor people.
● Multi-level: ensuring micro-level
realities inform macro-level institutions
and processes.
● Conducted in partnership: working
with public, private and civil society
actors.
● Sustainable: environmentally,
economically, institutionally, and
socially.
● Dynamic: ensuring support is flexible
and process-oriented, responding to
changing livelihoods.
● Holistic: reflecting the integrated
nature of people’s lives and diverse
strategies.
›››› Building on strengths: while
addressing vulnerabilities.

previously the focus of development studies was mostly on macro economic structures and
government policies.
Towards a Livelihood framework
Sustainable Livelihood framework will improve our understanding of the diverse nature, and
the complexity, of social change in rural as well as in urban areas, where there is a wide range
of processes and factors that affect livelihoods. Some operate at the global level, others at the
regional or local level. Climatic change, environmental degradation, global trade, HIV/AIDS,
economic policies such as structural adjustment, the World Trade Organization (WTO),
conflicts about land and labor and so on all influence the way people that are able to construct
and sustain a living. Sustainable Livelihood framework thus needs to accommodate such
processes of social change and how they affect the configuration of available key resources
and what individuals and households can do with such resources. Sustainable Livelihood
framework intends to deepen our understanding of social differentiation and vulnerability. It
aims to be dynamic, by taking into account the capacities of people themselves, the changes
that take place over time and how this affects the variety of ways by which individuals and
households try to adapt and/or cope with the changes in their institutional and physical
environment.
SLA Framework
Livelihoods can only be understood if we take account of, and examine, the locally specific
contexts in which they occur. So we need, for instance, to examine the interrelations between
the processes, which operate at various scale or levels that impinge on livelihoods.
SLA Framework

The figure above -adapted from DFID – schematically presents the various components of an
analytical framework to analyze livelihoods (Carney, 1998; Scoones, 1999; and Ellis, 2000).
Usually, livelihood analysis begins with the taking stock and specifying the key resources
people have at their disposal. Resources are a key component of livelihoods. They may be
tangible resources (such as land or cattle) but many are non-tangible. For examples, one
could think about policies or law as resources around which peoples’ livelihoods revolve. It is
essential to identify these resources in a non-rigid way, particularly as they can have multiple
meanings.
In summary: an analysis of livelihoods needs to take into account the ways in which people
use and organize access to resources, deal and negotiate with institutions, and live and work
in a particular socio-cultural-economic and historical context, which itself is the product of a
particular configuration of global and local processes.
DFID’s Framework

Sustainable Livelihood - Framework & Principles
What is a Livelihood Approach?
The two key components of the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA are:
• a framework that helps in understanding the complexities of poverty
• a set of principles to guide action to address and overcome poverty
There is no single sustainable livelihoods approach, and flexibility in method is a distinctive feature of
sustainable livelihoods. But in most models the main elements are similar and analysis will address all of
these to some degree:
Framework
• Context. The external environment in which poor people live their lives and which is responsible for
many of their hardships/vulnerabilities.
• Assets and capabilities (or ‘capital’). The resources poor people possess or have access to and use to
gain a livelihood.
• Policies, institutions and processes (sometimes called transforming structures and processes). The
institutions, organizations, policies and legislation that determine access to assets and choice of
livelihood strategies.
• Livelihood strategies. The ways in which poor people deploy their assets and capabilities to improve
their livelihoods (i.e., consumption, production, processing, exchange and income-generating activities).
• Outcomes. Successful livelihood strategies should lead to more income and more economically
sustainable livelihoods, increased well-being, reduced vulnerability and more sustainable use of the
natural resource base.
• Livelihoods, increased well-being, reduced vulnerability and more sustainable use of the natural
resource base
Sustainable livelihoods approach represents a positive evolution in thinking around poverty elimination,
and differs from previous approaches to development in that:
Principles
• People Centered: Focus on perspectives, priorities and strengths of people - especially poor and
vulnerable women/girls and men/boys. It puts people at the centre of development. People - rather than
the resources they use or the governments that serve them - are the priority concern.
• Holistic: Recognize that different factors and processes influence the livelihood opportunities and
choices of people and that people have multiple livelihood strategies in pursuit of multiple livelihood
outcomes. It unifies different sectors behind a common framework
• Dynamic: Recognize that poor people’s livelihood strategies can change rapidly. It responds quickly to
changing circumstances. It takes into account how development decisions affect distinct groups of
people, such as women compared to men, differently. It brings together all relevant aspects of people's
lives and livelihoods into development planning, implementation and evaluation.
• Building on Strengths: Start with an analysis of strengths rather than needs. It builds upon people's
strengths rather than their needs
• Macro-Micro Linkages: Consider the linkages between the two levels to inform more supportive policies
and institutions. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the links between policy decisions and
household level activities. It draws in relevant partners whether State, civil or private, local, national,
regional or international.
• Sustainability: Include analysis of environmental, social, economic and institutional sustainability. It
responds quickly to changing circumstances

CARE Livelihood Model-1
CARE Livelihood Model
Khanya & IFAD Framework

IFAD Approach
IFAD Approach
• Poor not central enough – easily “lost” from vision
• Key “processes” – gender, age, ethnic group, class/caste – not explicitly highlighted
• “Tradeability” of livelihood assets not indicated
• Linkages between different elements not sufficiently highlighted
• Too sequential – left-to-right
• Aspirations and opportunities missing
• Little assistance in dealing practically with “PIP box”
Placing the poor firnly at the “centre”
Identifying key “processes” that define who “ the poor” are and how they relate to everything else
in the framework. This emphasises the importance of thorough stakeholder analysis as a starting
point for SL analysis.
Key processes include gender, age, class or caste, ethnic group, and ability (the poorest are often
found among the physically or mentally less able, or among those suffering from chronic illnesses)
Unpacking the “Policies, Institutions and Processes (PIP) box” into “practical” elements –
• “enabling agencies” – macro, policy, national/state level
• “service delivery agencies” – meso, implementation, state/district/local level
• Incorporates the idea of “governance” – a political concept, involving setting the rules for the
exercise of power and resolving conflicts over those rules
• This “hub”model encourages to ask questions about the relationships between the key actors:
• How do enabling agencies (policy makers) interact with service providers – is the relationship
a contract , what measurement and supervision is there, what are the interests
involved, what are the incentives governing this relationship enabling agencies, how do
resources flow and who makes decisions about them
• How do service providers relate to their “clients” or users, including the poor – is there any
contract involved, what mechanisms are there for accountability, do clients have access to
legal redress, how much do users participate in determining the types of services that are
made available to them
• How do enabling agencies and clients or users interact – is there representation, is there
accountability and transparency, does knowledge and information about the poor and
the conditions they face get to policy makers, how does the policy process reflect the interests
of users, how decentralised are decision and policy-making processes
• Emphasising “enabling” (or “hindering”) role of policy
Key processes and power relations (gender, age, caste/class, ethnic group) already highlighted
• Introducing other key “processes” and more “normative”, less “tangible” institutions
• “Mediators” of relations between enabling agencies, service providers and users (and the poor
as users)
• Highlighting importance of markets – most service providers are usually provate sector. How is
the private sector articulated, what rules govern it, who sets the rules, how are they enforced
• Specifically recognising “politics” – representation, power relations, rights, and political
processes that influence strongly the relations between enabling agencies, service providers and
users.
• Culture is liable to play a critical role in defining the “rules of the game” – attitudes to legal
process, money, property, the distribution of power, the roles of gender/age/class/ethnic
group/ability in affecting people’s access to services and to the policy process and the social
“norms” or customs that are common throughout society or for particular groups within society
• Rights – what rights are recognised, to what extent are “universal human rights” recognised or
underwritten, who checks on these.

Fig 6. IMM Sustainable Livelihood Enhancement and Diversification Model
IMM - SLED Model

Livelihood Assets
Human Assets
• Health
• Nutrition
• Education
• Knowledge and
skills (including
traditional or
indigenous
knowledge)
• Capacity to work
Physical Assets
Infrastructure
• transport - roads, vehicles, etc.
• secure shelter & buildings
• water supply & sanitation
• energy
• communications
Tools and techology
tools and equipment for production
• seed, fertiliser, pesticides
traditional technology
Natural Assets
• Land and produce
• Water & aquatic
resources
• Trees and forest products
• Wildlife
• Wild foods & fibres
• Biodiversity
• Environmental services
• Access to all of these
Financial Assets
• Savings
• Credit/debt - formal,
informal, NGOs
• Remittances
• Pensions
• Wages
“Personal” assets
• People’s perceptions of themselves
• Motivations
• Self-esteem
• Self-confidence
• Emotional well-being
• Spritiual dimensions (several
workshop participants felt that
livelihood assets should include
“spiritual” or “religious” assets)
• People’s capacity, and will, to assert
themselves and claim their rights
(linking with social assets, in the
form of mechanisms of
representation and political action).
The Asset Mix
Different households with
different access to
livelihood “assets”
Livelihoods affected by:
o diversity of assets
o amount of assets
o balance between assets
Livelihood assets are
“tradeable” &
exchangeable – natural
assets can be converted into
financial assets, social
assets can help to support
personal assets, strong
human assets can
contribute to stronger
social assets, etc.

Livelihood Assets - What is Capital?
What is Capital?
In traditional economic systems, capital, or wealth, is based on human-produced assets, goods and
services that can be assigned monetary value and some of which can be consumed. Historically,
economic development has attempted to maximize monetary capital, but has tended to ignore
non-monetary assets, such as human health and well-being, social networks, clean air and water,
and biological diversity. As a result, economic development has often occurred to the detriment
of both human and natural resources. These are clearly valuable to human society, but are usually
not included in economic accounting systems. Livestock, and thus livestock development, have
an obvious and strong relationship to natural capital.
In order to achieve sustainability, the traditional definition of capital needs be expanded to
include natural and social, as well as economic resources. Five types of capital have been
identified:
Natural
Capital
This produces nature's goods and services, and comprises food (both farmed and
harvested or caught from the wild), wood and fibre; water supply and regulation;
treatment, assimilation and decomposition of wastes; nutrient cycling and fixation;
soil formation; biological control of pests; climate regulation; wildlife habitats;
storm protection and flood control; carbon sequestration; pollination; and
recreation and leisure.
Social
Capital
Social capital yields a flow of mutually beneficial collective action, contributing
to the cohesiveness of people in their societies. The social assets comprising social
capital include norms, values and attitudes that predispose people to cooperate;
relations of trust, reciprocity and obligations; and common rules and sanctions
mutually-agreed or handed-down. These are connected and structured in networks
and groups.
Human
Capital
Human capital is the total capability residing in individuals, based on their stock
of knowledge skills, health and nutrition. It is enhanced by their access to services
that provide these, such as schools, medical services, and adult training. People's
productivity is increased by their capacity to interact with productive technologies
and with other people. Leadership and organizational skills are particularly
important in making other resources more valuable.
Physical
Capital
Physical capital is the store of human-made material resources, and comprises
buildings (e.g. houses, factories), market infrastructure, irrigation facilities, roads
and bridges, manual and mechanized tools, communications, as well as energy
production and transportation systems, that make labour more productive.
Financial
Capital
Financial capital is defined as the financial resources that are available to people
and which provide them with different livelihood options. These include savings,
credit, insurance and pensions, remittances, welfare payments, grants and
subsidies.

Differences between CARE-DFID-Oxfam- UNDP Approaches
Origins and use of SL approaches
Agency CARE DFID Oxfam UNDP
Originsof
SL
approach
CARE Long-range
Strategic Plan as
program thrust
White Paper
commitment to
supporting policies &
actions that promote SL
Overall aim of poverty
elimination
Need to link
environmental change
with poverty issues
Strategic planning
exercise looking for
unifying concepts
Part of overall sustainable
human development
agenda
When
introduced
1994 1998 1993 1995
Change
from
what...
Primarily a sectoral
focus
Resource-focused
activity (within former
natural resource
division) sectoral focus
Primary environmental
care
Partly a reaction against
economic- and
employment-focused
initiatives
Statusof
SLwithin
theagency
Primary organization
wide framework for
programming
Support from the top
but still associated with
rural side
One approach for
achieving poverty
eradication
One of five strategic
change objectives
One of five corporate
mandates
An approach for achieving
sustainable human
development
Current
uses
Relief through
development
Urban & rural
Started rural, now more
interest from urban
side
Various uses through
development project
cycle
Across development
emergency & advocacy
Mostly rural
Used for strategic
planning purposes,
seldom at field level
Rural and urban
Country program planning
Small and micro enterprise
activity
Typesof
activity
Livelihood protection
Livelihood promotion
Livelihood provisioning
Various to meet
international
development targets
(including poverty
elimination)
Link to rights and
sector approach
Strategic planning
activities
Conceptual and
programming framework
Strengths
emphasized
Comprehensive yet
flexible
Improves sectoral
coordination
Increases multiplier
effects
Builds upon existing
experience and lessons
Offers a practical way
forward in a complex
environment
Participatory analysis
Enables links to social
and human rights
approaches
Links micro-macro
Integrates poverty,
environment & governance
issues
Gets the most out of
communities and donors
Coreideas/
organizing
principles
Household livelihood
security
People-centered
People-centered
Multilevel partnership
Various types of
sustainability
Dynamic
Poverty-focused
People-centered
Multilevel partnership
Various types of
sustainability
Dynamic
Adaptive strategies
Conditioning factors (shocks
and stresses that affect
asset use)

Operational issues
Agency CARE DFID Oxfam UNDP
Starting
point
Possession of human
capabilities
Access to tangible &
intangible assets
Existence of economic
activities
Basic needs addressed:
income/employment
food security,water supply
basic education.basic health
& family planning
community participation
Anal
ysis
proc
edur
es
Identify potential
geographic area
Identify vulnerable
groups and livelihood
constraints
Collect baseline data
and identify indicators
Select communities (taking
into account similarity and
absorptive capacity)
Understa
ndingof
sustainab
ility
Partnerships,
institution/ capacity-
building
Environmental Social/gender equity Emphasis on secure rather
than sustainable
Asset
categories
Human
Social
Economic
Human
Social
Natural
Physical
Financial
Human
Social
Natural
Physical
Financial
Human
Social
Natural
Physical
Economic
Sometimes political
Distinguish
ing
featuresof
agency's
approach
Distinguishes between
private natural assets
& common property
assets
Stress on household
level
Personal and social
empowerment
emphasized
Stress on underlying
principles and a variety of
SL approaches

What is a Livelihood Intervention?
Livelihood interventions are conscious efforts by an agency or an organization to promote
and support livelihood opportunities for a large number of people (other than those directly or
indirectly employed by them). Government of India has been one of the largest agency
involved in such livelihood promotion efforts. However, the cooperative sector, the
corporate sector as also the NGO sector has also contributed to promoting livelihoods.
Examples include:
• Government program for development of irrigation. India has added over 40 million
hectares of irrigation since independence; largest in human history. This has generated or
stabilized the livelihoods of millions of people.
• In agriculture, the predominant livelihood interventions covered irrigation through large
dams and canal systems till the 1960s, followed by the introduction of the high yielding
varieties package during the Green Revolution, impacting the livelihoods of over 40
million farmers and a similar number of landless laborers.
• Government programs such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee program to
guarantee wage-employment to the poor in the lean season through public works such as
road building. Part of the wages are paid in kind as food grains, which is a carryover from
the erstwhile “food for work” program
• Government programs such as the erstwhile Integrated Rural Development Program
(IRDP), refashioned as the Swarna Jayanti Grameen Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY), to
promote self-employment among the poor through acquisition of an income generating
asset with the help of a bank loan and a government subsidy
• Special government programs, run in specific states, to promote both wage employment,
and to promote self-employment through highly subsidized asset acquisition, such as the
World Bank sponsored District Poverty Initiatives Program (DPIP) in AP, MP and
Rajasthan.
• Programs run by sectoral institutions such as the
National Dairy Development Board, the Central
Silk Board, the Coir Board, the National
Horticultural Board, and the Development
Commissioners for Handloom and Handicrafts
• Programs run by non-governmental agencies,
for promoting livelihoods in different regions
and sectors, such as by SEWA, BAIF, MYRADA,
AKRSP, PRADAN, RGVN and BASIX.
• The Self Employed Women’s Association
(SEWA) works with over 750,000 self-employed
women of low-income households
• Bharatiya Agro-Industries Foundation’s (BAIF)
program supporting one million livelihoods,
comprising cattle cross-breeding, pasture development, horticulture, etc.
• Venkateswara Hatcheries intervention to develop the poultry sector, culminating in the
National Egg Coordination Council, which serves over 200,000 poultry producers.
• Various micro-finance interventions by banks and NGOs have influenced the livelihoods
of more than twelve million people.
Efforts of agri-business companies or co-operatives to sell inputs such as the Indian Framers’
Fertiliser Cooperative (IFFCO) selling though the network of primary agricultural cooperative
societies; and Tata Chemicals’ Kisan Kendras to sell fertilizers and offer extension services

have also influenced the livelihoods of large numbers, though they can not be strictly called a
livelihood intervention. Other companies work to strengthen their supply chain such as the
ITC Agri Business Division, which runs the e-choupal network for procurement of
commodities such as soybean, prawns and coffee; Hindustan Lever’s erstwhile milk
procurement and processing business at Etah; and that of Nestle at Verka in Punjab; and the
Rallis India projects for contract farming of wheat and rice, and by Pepsi for tomatoes also
have had impact on the livelihoods of the rural people.
Evolution of Livelihood Promotion Efforts in India
Early Efforts – Human and Institutional Development
Thinking on livelihood promotion evolved a great deal since the early days, with
contributions from people like Rabindranath Tagore, conceiver of the Sriniketan Experiment,
Spencer Hatch, of YMCA, Martandam, Fr. Brayane of the Gurgaon Project and Albert Meyer
of the Etah project, all initiated livelihood promotion in their own ways.
Mahatma Gandhi, one of the early livelihood thinkers of 20th
century, had a holistic vision of
livelihoods, with a deep concern for both, the poor and for sustainability. Gandhiji suggested
developing local economies by promoting inter-dependant activities, as a member of a
mutually supportive community, eventually leading to “gram swaraj”.
During this period, the emphasis was on building human capital and imparting knowledge.
It was thought that people were not getting good remuneration because they lacked the know-
how to do better. To address this gap, efforts to impart knowledge were made.
Even in the years after independence, government policies and strategies were based on
similar principles. Many educational institutes and research organizations were started
during the first five-year plan. The Community Development Program of the Government of
India was also designed on these lines. The Second Five Year Plan attempted to
institutionalize this through the concept of Panchayat Raj, to ensure that local decentralized
institutions were built for development.
However, the limitation of this approach became apparent by late 1940’s when they realized
that just the know-how was not enough, a variety of services to enhance livelihoods were also
necessary. Therefore, an alternative strategy was evolved, which tried to integrate various
services like building market linkages, technology transfer and building physical and social
infrastructure, all in one fold, built around a sector, such as wheat, paddy, milk or soybean.
Integrated Sectoral Strategies
The first two decades after independence rightly focused on development and stabilization of
agriculture through irrigation. The large number of irrigation development projects set up by
various state governments – such as the Western Yamuna Canal system in western Uttar
Pradesh; the Bhakra Nangal dam and canal system in Punjab; the Indira Gandhi Canal and
the Chambal dams in Rajasthan; the Nagrajuna Sagar and Sriram Sagar in Andhra Pradesh
and the Tungabhadra and Krishna dams in Karnataka, stabilized and enhanced incomes and
generated wage employment for the landless farmers.

Some examples of livelihood intervention based on integrated sectoral strategies, covering
the entire value chain, endeavors like, KVIC, NDDB and the Green Revolution started
emerging during the ‘50s–60s.
Khadi and Village Industries Commission is the largest livelihood promotion efforts based on
Gandhian thinking. Setup in the 1950s, KVIC is an example of integrated sectoral livelihood
intervention. It can also be called the first government intervention in the non- agriculture
sector. The KVIC selected nearly 20 activities, from gur (jaggery) making to khadi (hand
spun, hand woven cloth), and promoted a network of training centers, production units,
common processing facilities and marketing outlets. For, the rural producers to really benefit,
they not only need training, but working capital and access to market, as well.
Similarly, the Green Revolution was another example of integrated sectoral livelihood
promotion. Though Green Revolution started with introduction of high yielding variety seeds,
infrastructure support was provided in the form of irrigation facilities, roads, warehouses
market yards etc. This was supplemented with development of agricultural credit delivery
system, support to fertilizer and other agri-input companies, and investments in agricultural
universities for research and training. The Green Revolution was essentially confined to
wheat and later paddy, and much later soybean.
National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) set up in 1969 to replicate the Anand model of
co-operative milk marketing in the entire country. It created systems of milk procurement,
processing and marketing across the country under Operation Flood programs. Further,
NDDB made infrastructure investments in chilling centres, feeder-balancing dairy plants,
cattle-feed plants, veterinary medicine and vaccine plants, among others. It also invested in
research and development projects related to dairy science and processing of milk products.
Strategies for the Vulnerable Segments of the Population
Though all the above interventions based on the principle of integrated sectoral support could
influence the livelihoods of millions of people, they needed heavy investments, and still left
out the poor, the landless, the marginal farmers, women, tribals and people living in remote
areas.
By the ‘70s, despite this kind of livelihood development approach, the gap between the rich
and the poor was growing. Deep dissatisfaction with the prevailing inequities saw the rise of
Leftist, especially the Naxalite Movement in the country.
While the Naxalites chose the path of armed struggle, others who were also dissatisfied with
the state of affairs decided to join the voluntary sector. The leading figure in the voluntary
development movement in India was JP (Jaya Prakash Narayan). Many voluntary agencies
later became larger and professional Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and became
an integral part of development scenario.
The efforts concentrated on those who were left out of the benefits of mainstream
development. Some took this even further to work with the poorest or what was called the
‘sarvahara varga’. However, this idea got politicized into the slogan of “garibi hatao” and
bureaucratized through the launch of the nationwide program for poverty alleviation – the
IRDP.

Minimalist Credit
However, all these efforts were based on an integrated approach where the intervention
would all services necessary for supporting livelihoods of the poor. They required perpetual
ongoing subsidies and still did not generate sustainable livelihoods. All this gave rise to a
new thinking, which said, the poor know how to manage their livelihoods, all they need is
access to capital. Ela Bhatt had started the SEWA Bank in India as a cooperative bank of self-
employed poor women, in 1974. Prof. Mohammad Yunus began the experiment of the
Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1976. In Latin America, large number of NGOs began
micro-credit programs through solidarity groups.
These efforts quickly multiplied and their unique feature, in contrast to the IRDP type of
loans was the high repayment rates, often over 95 percent. The 1990s saw millions of
households being covered by micro-credit programs, all over the world. In Bangladesh alone,
the Grameen bank, BRAC, ASA and Proshika reached out to over 2 to 3 million borrowers
each.
The debate between minimalist credit and integrated sectoral promotion approaches began to
converge in the 1990s. A number of the integrated programs dropped many of their offerings
and became more focused on credit. On the other hand, a number of the minimalist credit
programs, started providing a lot of other inputs. An example of the synthesis is The Self
Employed Women’s Association, SEWA, Ahmedabad. While the SEWA Bank can be seen
as providing only savings and credit, it was embedded in a larger system. SEWA itself was a
trade union, which provided the organizational base, the credit reference checks and the
extension network of the Bank. The Mahila SEWA Trust provided a range of training and
support services to members and staff. Another arm provided healthcare and health insurance
services. Over 80 occupational cooperatives provided inputs, production facilities and market
linkages.
Contingency Approach to Livelihood Promotion
In 1989, Vijay Mahajan and Thomas Dichter, proposed an alternate livelihood promotion
strategy through a paper: ‘A Contingency Approach to Enterprise Promotion’. They argued
that promoting enterprises was complex and a better approach was to identify the bottleneck
and work on that. In many cases, credit could be the only constraint. In such cases,
minimalist credit was right and does work well. In other cases, credit is needed but is not the
main constraint, what is needed could be skills, inputs or markets. Their argument was,
though a large variety of services are required, all of them are not required at the same time
and in every case. Thus the offering should be contingent upon what is needed in the
situation. They also asserted that only a specialised type of organisation could do it. And as it
is difficult to build competencies to address all these factors in-house, collaboration become
necessary.
This approach can be graphically explained. A barrel is made of planks of different heights.
The planks of different heights represent different factor conditions. Maximum livelihoods
that can be supported are determined by the weakest factor (credit in the figure 1 here). The
livelihood intervention agency needs to identify the bottleneck and provide services to
overcome them. At any point in time, one deficient factor is addressed, till, in comparison,
another factor become deficient and needs attention. Thus, various inputs become critical at
various times and need to be addressed.

Understanding Vulnerability
The meaning of vulnerability and risks in the context of livelihood systems
What does living in a state of vulnerability mean? To a farming family in coastal
Tamilnadu, it could mean being unable to cope with tidal floods. To a slum dweller in
Mumbai, it could mean being helplessly exposed to violence and corruption.
Vulnerability stands for a crucial dimension of livelihoods in poverty, and, therefore, the term
needs to be clarified for an application for poverty reduction measures.
Towards a clarifications of terms and definitions
The dictionary meaning of vulnerability is "the capacity to be physically or emotionally
wounded or hurt." Vulnerability is thus susceptibility to physical or emotional harm or injury.
In other words, vulnerability emerges when human beings, as individuals or as a social unit,
have to face a harmful threat or shock with an inadequate capacity to respond effectively.
This understanding is reflected in the two examples above, namely exposure to tidal floods
Vulnerability
without access to a flood shelter in coastal Tamilnadu or exposure to violence and corruption
in Mumbai slum without recourse to effective protection by the rule of law. Obviously, mere
threat or risk alone is not a sufficient cause for vulnerability - not even if the threat has a high
probability of occurrence. It is, ultimately, the combination of risk and inadequate capabilities
to respond that leads to a state of vulnerability.
Vulnerability derives from the Latin word vulnerare (to be
wounded) and describes the potential to be harmed
physically and/or psychologically. Vulnerability is often
understood as the counterpart of resilience.
Vulnerability is a condition of being laid open to
something undesirable or injurious
Vulnerability is the susceptibility to physical or
emotional injury or attack. It also means to have one's
guard down, open to censure or criticism; assailable.
Vulnerability refers to a person's state of being liable to
succumb, as to persuasion or temptation.
Social vulnerability refers to the inability of people,
organizations, and societies to withstand adverse impacts
from multiple stressors to which they are exposed. These
impacts are due in part to characteristics inherent in
social interactions, institutions, and systems of cultural
values.
Social vulnerability is a pre-existing condition that affects
a society’s ability to prepare for and recover from a
disruptive event.
Social vulnerability is created through the interaction of social forces and multiple stressors, and
resolved through social (as opposed to individual) means. While individuals within a socially
vulnerable context may break through the “vicious cycle,” social vulnerability itself can persist
because of structural—i.e. social and political—influences that reinforce vulnerability.
Resilience is the positive capacity of people to cope with stress and catastrophe. It is also
used to indicate a characteristic of resistance to future negative events. In this sense
"resilience" corresponds to cumulative "protective factors" and is used in opposition to
cumulative "risk factors". Commonly used terms, which are essentially synonymous are
"resilience","psychological resilience", "emotional resilience", "hardiness", and
"resourcefulness".

Vulnerability Framework
The above understanding is captured and refined in the definition of vulnerability - "Risk is
defined as the likelihood of occurrence of (external) shocks and stresses plus their
potential severity, whereas vulnerability is the degree of exposure to risk (hazard,
shock) and uncertainty, and the capacity of households or individuals to prevent,
mitigate or cope with risk." This differentiation of the term "vulnerability" is of crucial
relevance for assessing causes of poverty and for conceiving poverty reduction measures.
Capturing vulnerability and poverty in the context of livelihood systems
A livelihood system is perceived as vulnerable if it lacks the capacity and the capability to
cope with forces and factors threatening its sustainable existence. Poverty thus reflects lack or
loss of sustainable livelihood. Indeed, the generally accepted definition of sustainable
livelihood precisely reflects this understanding: "A livelihood system is sustainable when it
can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its
capabilities and assets both in present and future, without undermining the natural
resource base" (DFID Glossary, Sustainable Livelihoods). The definition also refers to the fact that
livelihood as such becomes vulnerable when unsuitable strategies undermine the natural
resource base.
Effective livelihood approaches must, therefore, prove their capacity to analyze the nature
and extent of vulnerability in order to conceive effective poverty reduction measures. This
task encompasses the analysis of risks (frequency, magnitude, probability) in the context of
livelihoods and the exploration of crucial dimensions of coping capacities in the core of
livelihoods. As far as vulnerability and risks are concerned, livelihood approaches should
provide answers to questions such as: Should poverty reduction focus on preventing or
mitigating the risks to which a livelihood is exposed? Is it more effective to increase the
coping capacity of the livelihood concerned? Or, at the end, is a combination of all required?
Risks can be categorized along four main dimensions:
• Harmful trends, such as increasing soil erosion, frequent droughts, increasing incidence of
HIV/AIDS, unfavorable development of commodity or input prices, etc.

• Shocks, such as earthquakes, floods, disease, loss of jobs, violent conflicts, destruction of
physical infrastructure (such as roads, bridges), etc.
• Harmful seasonal fluctuations, such as price fluctuations in crop and livestock markets,
fluctuations in food availability due to seasonal climatic changes, etc.
• Unfavorable socio-political environments, characterized by absence of rule of law,
deprivation of rights, gender related discrimination, etc.
Types of Vulnerability
n adequate assessment of response capacities of livelihood systems to risks requires more
than just a stocktaking of assets. People's reactions to risks are guided by their worldviews
and experience and are informed by gender related decision-making as well as modes of
cooperation in a given social system. When conceiving poverty reduction measures, it might
be also appropriate to distinguish between interventions that favor coping or promote
adaptation. Coping strategies are generally understood as shorter-term and direct reactions to
a specific shock such as drought or flood. On the other hand, adaptive strategies entail a
longer-term change in behavior patterns as a response to a shock or stress.

Analyzing Core and Context of Livelihoods

Approaching livelihoods with a threefold focus
Focus I is on the four key elements in the context of a livelihood system.
Focus II and III concentrate on the core of a livelihood system.
Focus II is on the asset portfolio,
Focus III concentrates on the decision making space in which people develop and/or adapt
their livelihood strategies and strive for outcomes with their own perception of inner and
outer realities of their livelihoods. External support becomes meaningful, if they succeed in
improving their livelihood strategies towards more sustainability.
.
Livelihood strategies
Livelihoods are diverse and change over time. Livelihood strategies comprise the range and
combination of activities and choices that people undertake and make in order to achieve
their livelihood outcomes and objectives.
Livelihood outcomes
Livelihood outcomes are the achievements of livelihood strategies. DFID's SL framework
lists five 'categories' of livelihood outcomes: (1) more income, (2) increased well-being, (3)
reduced vulnerability, (4) improved food security, (5) more sustainable use of the natural
resource base.
Yet, above all, through livelihood strategies people strive to give meaning to their lives, both
individually and within the social unit to which individuals may belong. Livelihood ceases to
be sustainable when it loses meaning.
Meaning has its vital roots in the inner realities of a livelihood system, in personal experience
and orientations, in emotions and people's perceptions of themselves. These elements of inner

Focus I: Analyzing the context of a livelihood system
Risks and Vulnerability: What renders people's livelihoods vulnerable?
Risks and shocks, adverse trends and seasonality have a bearing on people's livelihood. Yet, a
livelihood becomes truly vulnerable when it lacks adequate coping or adapting capacities on
the micro-level of livelihood. The level of these capacities is explored with Focus II (asset
portfolio) and Focus III (livelihood strategies). These two focuses help to clarify the
following question: "Should the poverty reduction measures tackle an observed risk and
reduce an assessed vulnerability in the context of poor people's livelihood, or should they
target the core of livelihood and aim to increase people's coping capacity?"
Opportunities: What opportunities offer potential for improving livelihood?
Opportunities are as much part of the context of a livelihood as risks and threats. They may
take the form of markets, credit facilities, education, social networks, etc. The task here,
however, is to identify constraining reasons explaining why these opportunities are outside
the reach of poor people's livelihood strategies.

Policies: How do policies support or constrain people's livelihood?
Exploration of the policy context and the way policies are implemented is crucial and highly
livelihood specific. Do we address the problems of marginal farmers, or urban slum dwellers,
or dalits? Are we inquiring into the effects of an overarching policy, such as pro poor growth,
or of measures targeting poverty more directly, e.g., services like ration schemes? It can be
beneficial to review both supporting and constraining policies.
Institutions: How do institutions favor or constrain livelihood?
In livelihood frameworks "institutions" embrace two important elements: on one hand, the
rules and normative frame conditions that govern social interactions; on the other hand, the
way that organizations operate in both the public and private sector, on the background of
explicit and implicit values. Political participation, market systems, concepts of social orders
(such as castes, clans, etc.) belong to this field of investigation
Asset Base of Defaulters
Analyze the diagram after understanding Focus II

Focus II: Analyzing the assets of a livelihood system
Tribal peoples living in a remote forest area may have strong ties
of kinship and mutual exchange (social capital), ample access to
rich forest resources (natural capital) and an intimate knowledge
of their local environment (human capital), but practically no
financial or physical capital and limited access to formal
education. The livelihood strategies they adopt will reflect this.
They will use their knowledge to exploit a wide range of different
natural resources in different ways, ensuring a supply of food,
clothing, fuel and shelter through the year. Their ties of kinships
and mutual exchange within their community will ensure that
they are usually able to overcome episodes of vulnerability, such
as sickness or the deaths in the family, without reliance on help
from “outside”. But the physical capital available to them may be
very specialized and appropriate to their local circumstances
only. As a result they may have difficulty in adapting to any
changes, such a those brought about by destruction of their
forest environment or intrusion by outside influences. Similarly,
their complete unfamiliarity with financial capital may leave them
at a disadvantage if they find themselves involved in market
transactions, even if they have products of potentially high
market value.
Poor people in rural areas may have only their labor capacity (human capital) and the financial capital they can
generate through their labor, but very limited direct access to natural capital, low levels of education and
knowledge, and a very low social status that weakens their social capital base. The poorest households may
have extremely reduced “livelihood pentagons” with extremely limited livelihood assets of any kind at their
disposal.

Framework for assessing core and context of livelihood systems

Nine Square RLS Mandala
Focus III: Analyzing strategy development and decision-making in a livelihood
Livelihood strategies reflect the range and combinations of activities and choices that people
make in order to achieve livelihood outcomes and goals.
Livelihood strategies evolve from implicit and/or explicit decision-making, which is
informed by inner and outer realities of livelihood.
Livelihood strategies are diverse and in a constant process of change and adaptation.
RLS Mandala
To capture the holistic understanding of sustainability, the RLS researchers used a
combination of a (rural) house as a metaphor for livelihoods and the ninesquared mandala as
a symbol of wholeness and a centred universe (Figure 1). The mandala describes both
material and non-
material realities and
symbolizes connections
between the micro and
the macro cosmos.
The house in the centre
of the nine-squared
mandala represents the
household or family
itself. The mandala is
composed of a
foundation –
representing the
material and non-
material resource base
of a livelihood. The
walls separate the three
‘spaces’ – inner human
space, family space and
socioeconomic space.
Finally, the roof
represents three
orientations of a
livelihood, which is
composed of the individual orientation, the family orientation and the collective orientation.
The RLS offers a heuristic tool or a framework not only for exploring and understanding the
material aspects of livelihood strategies, but also to draw our attention to immaterial aspects,
such as worldviews, spiritual orientations and other reasoning that guides people in
developing livelihood strategies to achieve livelihood outcomes. It draws specific attention to
the decision making process where strategies evolve.

The RLS-Mandala in the context of Nomadic Tribes
The RLS-Mandala in the context of Nomadic Tribes
9. Individual Orientation 8. Family Orientation
- Lambanis have their roots in
West India's nomadic tribes.
They have always been
migrating.
7. Collective Orientation
- migration is organized in
groups from one village
- the migration groups decide
on a "Banta" (leader)
- no food security without
migration
6. Inner Human Space
- responsibility is taken at
young age, also by the children
who stay back
5. Family Space
- family decides who goes for
migration
- men and women both migrate
4. Socio-Economic Space
- this watershed does not
provide enough work & income
for all
3. Emotional Base
- they are brave women who
will speak out when mistreated
- they are high energy women,
ready to take risks
2. Knowledge and Activity
Base
- know where which labor is
available
- migration is their way of life,
they know all about it
1. Physical base
- degraded common land
- 3rd drought season

The RLS-Mandala in the context of cotton farms
The RLS-Mandala in the context of cotton farms
9. Individual Orientation
-Visions, Aspirations
-Fears, Hopes
-Self image/respect
-‘Gurus’, models
-Reasons / obstacles for
conversion
-Satisfaction from work
-Personal beliefs, ethics
8. Family Orientation
-Caste, social status
-Aspirations to wealth,
education,
social mobility
-Subsistence vs. cash income
-Reasons / obstacles for
conversion
-Aspirations for future of
children
-Utilisation of income
7. Collective Orientation
Influence on / from:
-Traditions, religion
-Attitude to innovations
-Agricultural policies
-Market liberalisation
-Reaction on droughts
-Food security
-Water use rights
6. Inner Human Space
-Integrity, identity
-Awareness
-Selfishness, compassion
-Responsibility
-Affection
-Curiosity, courage
-Leisure preference
5. Family Space
-Gender relations
-Work distribution
-Health
-Food quantity and quality
-Family planning
-Solidarity
-Conflicts
4. Socio-economic Space
-Community organisations
-Govt. institutions
-Relation with buyers
-Land / labour markets
-Image in the village
-Input supply chains
-Product markets
3. Emotional Base
-Memories
-Attachments
-Relations to soil, animals,
environment etc.
-Feelings
-Anxieties
-Boredom
2. Knowledge and Activity Base
-Technology base
-Agricultural patterns
-Experiences, skills
-Traditional knowledge
-Labour, crafts, services
-Training, education
-Work load
-Risks
1. Physical Base
-Natural resources and
environment
-Land, livestock, equipment
-Water availability
-Income, production costs
-Fertility, yields
-Accumulated wealth
-Indebtedness

Choosing options for poverty reduction
The livelihood framework as platform for choosing options for poverty reduction
The illustration above demonstrates how a livelihood framework provides a platform for a
clearer distinction between five alternative options or entry points for interventions for
poverty relevant development measures. On an abstract level these options are:
1. Promoting and implementing poverty oriented policies (pro-poor growth, favorable labor
markets, etc.).
2. Initiating pro-poor institutional change (e.g., increased organizational efficiency and
effectiveness of public and private service providers, political participation, etc.).
3. Improving coping capacities of poor people, enhancing their capabilities for pursuing
more sustainable livelihood strategies (e.g., negotiations skills, education, crop insurance,
etc.).
4. Facilitating access to existing opportunities for people constrained in their access to such
opportunities (e.g., access to credit systems, markets, new technologies, etc).
5. Reducing exposure to risks by tackling them directly and thus reducing poor people's
vulnerabilities (e.g., vulnerabilities resulting from natural hazards such as floods, or caused
by seasonal price fluctuations).
In actual development practice, an engagement in one of the five options may call for
complementary support in one or several fields of the other four options. For example,
access to micro-credit (option 4) might first require establishing adequate lending rules on the
side of the banks (2), supplemented by empowering small farmers to handle credits (3) and,
on top of that, changing re-financing policies of the national bank of the country (1).

introduction-to-livelihood-framework

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to introduction-to-livelihood-framework (20)

More from Venu Goud (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

introduction-to-livelihood-framework