Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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.
There is a consensus that livelihood is about the ways and means of ‘making a living’. The
most widely accepted
Refer:
definition of livelihood stems http://www.livelihood.wur.nl/?s=A1-Livelihood
from the work of Robert http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x9371e/x9371e00.htm#TopOfPage
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).
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 Why Livelihood?
cope with risks and uncertainties, A livelihoods perspective encourages a broader
such as erratic rainfall, diminishing understanding and examination of factors, institutions
resources, pressure on the land, and processes that can explain the differing success
with which rural households make a living.
changing life cycles and kinship Consequently, permits a bringing together of more
networks, epidemics such as sectoral approaches which tend to focus on a single
HIV/AIDS, chaotic markets, aspect of rural livelihood systems, to create a more
increasing food prices, inflation, and holistic understanding of the options and trade-offs
national and international facing different groups in the face of climate change.
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 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.
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
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
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.
addressing vulnerabilities.
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
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
previously the focus of development studies was mostly on macro economic structures and
government policies.
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.
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
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
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
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.
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
Livelihood Assets
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.
Natural This produces nature's goods and services, and comprises food (both farmed and
Capital 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 Social capital yields a flow of mutually beneficial collective action, contributing
Capital 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 Human capital is the total capability residing in individuals, based on their stock
Capital 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 Physical capital is the store of human-made material resources, and comprises
Capital 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 Financial capital is defined as the financial resources that are available to people
Capital and which provide them with different livelihood options. These include savings,
credit, insurance and pensions, remittances, welfare payments, grants and
subsidies.
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
what...
wide framework for but still associated with change objectives mandates
programming rural side An approach for achieving
One approach for sustainable human
achieving poverty development
eradication
Relief through Started rural, now more Across development Rural and urban
development interest from urban emergency & advocacy Country program planning
Current
uses
Urban & rural side Mostly rural Small and micro enterprise
Various uses through Used for strategic activity
development project planning purposes,
cycle seldom at field level
Livelihood protection Various to meet Strategic planning Conceptual and
Livelihood promotion international activities programming framework
Types of
activity
Improves sectoral Offers a practical way and human rights environment & governance
coordination forward in a complex approaches issues
Increases multiplier environment Gets the most out of
effects communities and donors
Household livelihood People-centered People-centered Adaptive strategies
Core ideas/
Operational issues
Agency CARE DFID Oxfam UNDP
Possession of human Access to tangible & Existence of economic Basic needs addressed:
capabilities intangible assets activities income/employment
Starting
proc
ysis
geographic area groups and livelihood and identify indicators into account similarity and
es
building
ility
features of
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.
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.
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.
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.
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
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.
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.
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
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.
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".
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.
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
The above understanding is captured and refined in the definition of vulnerability - "Risk is
Vulnerability Framework
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.
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?
• 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.
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
.
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
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
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.
S.Rengasamy-Introduction to Livelihood Promotion-Madurai Institute of Social Sciences
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).