Public Goods and Public Bads in Nature: From Landscapes to Genomes in South Asia

South Asia Consortium, Syracuse and Cornell Universities

February 23, 2002

Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis:

An Introduction
By

A. Peter Castro
Department of Anthropology
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York 13244

Introduction

This paper contends that sustainable livelihoods analysis (SLA) has much to offer to those interested
in examining human interests – both collective and individual – in nature. It provides a framework for
research and policy that takes into account the complex and multidimensional relationships between
the social and physical environments, especially highlighting the vulnerability context in which
decisions about livelihood strategies take place. SLA does so by linking different types of livelihood
assets to the transforming structures and processes (the market, the state, culture) that give these assets
their meaning and value. It is a mode of analysis that permits one to shift readily from intra-household
to global levels, and from present to past to future.

Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis: An Overview

The term ‘development’ has lost much of its currency. For many the term is too value laden, too fuzzy
and too easily disconnected from the goal of poverty alleviation. Similarly, the concept of poverty has
undergone reexamination, with greater attention given to its complex, diverse and dynamic nature.
Income and consumption thresholds are no longer viewed as the only definitions and measurements
for poverty analysis. Instead, subjective approaches, often drawing on participatory methods, now
document the multidimensional nature of poverty, including its relationship to notions of well-being.
Analysts increasingly seek to understand what the poor have, rather than what they lack, examining
the nature of tangible and intangible assets. More research is focusing on how and why people move
into and out of poverty, reflecting new questions about vulnerability, capabilities and social capital.
Policies and interventions aimed at alleviating poverty increasingly seek to take into account these
new insights and knowledge (for example, see Warner 2000).

SLA has emerged as an alternative way of conceptualizing poverty alleviation, including its context,
objectives and priorities. It focuses on one of the most fundamental aspects of life: the ability of
people to support themselves, both now and into the future. SLA does so in a manner that views
livelihoods within both micro- and macro-contexts, spanning both physical and social environments at
the local to the global levels. The approach is rooted in research on agro-ecology and natural resource
management. It is beyond the scope of this paper to set out in detail the principles of sustainable
livelihoods analysis. Rather, my intent is to provide a quick overview of SLA. My account draws
heavily on the Department for International Development’s Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance
Sheets.1

1
There is a sizable and ever growing literature on sustainable livelihoods, with analysts sometimes differing in
the definitions and frameworks. DFID (1999) contains a detailed thematic bibliography.
A livelihood is the set f capabilities, assets, and activities that furnish the means for people to meet
their basic needs and support their well-being. The building of livelihoods reflects and seeks to fulfill
both material and experiential needs. Livelihoods are not simply a localized phenomenon, but
connected by environmental, economic, political and cultural processes to wider national, regional
and global arenas. The sustainability of a livelihood is ascertained by its sensitivity, hardiness and
resiliency in the face of short- and long-term challenges. Chambers and Conway point out that: “A
livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with, and recover from, shocks and stresses and maintain or
enhance its capabilities and assets both now and into the future, while not undermining the natural
resource base” (quoted in DFID, 1999). The question of a livelihood’s capacity for sustainability
involves evaluating current circumstances and assessing future trends, as well as past conditions and
patterns.

The Framework

Figure 1, taken from DFID’s presents in schematic form the key aspects of SLA. People are shown as
pursuing their livelihoods in a context of vulnerability, including shocks (sudden onset of natural
disasters, conflicts, economic traumas, health problems and crop or livestock distress), trends (in
population, resources, health problems, the economy or governance) and seasonality (cyclic
fluctuations in prices, production, health and employment). This complex array of influences has
direct and indirect impacts on people’s livelihoods, including the options available to them.

Figure 1. Sustainable livelihoods framework

Source: Department of International Development, Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets

The vulnerability context is far from static. Recent research on ecology, natural resource management
and rural economy have converged in finding that rural physical and social environments are
characterized by greater degrees of variability and unpredictability than previously assumed (see
Leach et al., 1999). Vulnerability in urban areas also appears to be diverse and highly complex (see
Moser 1998). Development policies and interventions often underestimate the role and significance of
the vulnerability context, usually with very serious consequences.

Within this context, people draw upon their portfolio of livelihood assets to make a living. SLA takes
into account the range of tangible and intangible assets necessary to build a livelihood, identifying
five types of ‘capital’ or core assets. It bears noting that building a livelihood requires to some extent
inclusion of all five. Human capital denotes skills, knowledge, good health and ability to work.
Knowledge about the properties, use or location of trees, for example, would fall under this category.
Social capital refers to formal and informal social relationships, including their degree of trust,
reliability and adaptability. Natural capital consists of natural resources, including their flows and

2
services. Physical capital refers to producer goods and physical infrastructure. Financial capital
includes financial resources.

As might be expected, those with larger asset portfolios have more livelihood options, as well less
vulnerability, than those with fewer assets. The distribution of livelihood assets in any population –
rural or urban – is always uneven. Gradations of poverty exist even in the poorest communities.
Gender, age and other social differences may significantly affect access to livelihood assets within the
household and other groups (Rocheleau 1999). For example, while a tree may be regarded as a
household’s assets, women’s rights to it may not be the same as men’s. People’s control over core
assets is also dynamic. The “stocks” of both tangible and intangible assets fluctuate seasonally and
through time in response to the contingencies of life.

Policies, institutions and related processes give meaning and value to livelihood assets. DFID’s
approach to sustainable livelihood analysis calls them transforming structures and processes.
Structures refer to the key roles of all levels of government and the private sector in shaping
livelihoods. Processes determine the way in which structures – and individuals – operate and interact.
Policies, laws, institutions and culture furnish the everyday framework, rules and relations for human
interaction. Together, structures and processes effectively determine access to public and private
resources and the terms of trade between different types of livelihood assets. They also influence the
returns (economic or otherwise) to livelihood strategies – the ways people combine and use assets to
meet their objectives. Livelihood outcomes are the results or ‘outcomes’ of the livelihood strategies.
In an ideal world, livelihood incomes would generate more income, increased well-being, reduced
vulnerability, improved food security, and sustained use of natural resources. In the real world, the
outcomes are highly differentiated from the global to the intra-household levels.

The Next Step

The next logical step is to present a case study demonstrating the usefulness and the limitations of
sustainable livelihoods analysis. Unfortunately, it is not possible to do so within the context of this
‘three-pager’. Such a case study will be forthcoming during my presentation at the workshop.

References

Department for International Development (DFID), 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets.
London, Department for International Development.

Leach, Melissa, Mearns, Robin & Scoones, Ian, 1999. Environmental entitlements: dynamics and
institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27 (2): 225-247.

Moser, Caroline, 1998. The asset vulnerability framework: reassessing urban poverty reduction
strategies. World Development 26 (1): 1-19.

Rocheleau, Dianne, 1999. Sustaining what for whom? Differences of interest within and between
households. In: Managed ecosystems, edited by L. Upton Hatch and Marilyn Swisher. Oxford
University Press, New York, 31-47.

Warner, Katherine, 2000. Forestry and sustainable livelihoods. Unasylva.