Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification

The Journal of Development Studies
ISSN: 0022-0388 (Print) 1743-9140 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjds20
Household strategies and rural livelihood

diversification
Frank Ellis
To cite this article: Frank Ellis (1998) Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification, The
Journal of Development Studies, 35:1, 1-38, DOI: 10.1080/00220389808422553
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389808422553
Published online: 23 Nov 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 15361
View related articles
Citing articles: 208 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fjds20
Survey Article
Household Strategies and Rural

Livelihood Diversification
FRANK ELLIS
This article reviews the recent literature on diversification as a

livelihood strategy of rural households in developing countries,
with particular reference to sub-Saharan Africa. Livelihood
diversification is defined as the process by which rural families
construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support
capabilities in order to survive and to improve their standards of
living. The determinants and effects of diversification in the areas
of poverty, income distribution, farm output and gender are
examined. Some policy inferences are summarised. The conclusion
is reached that removal of constraints to, and expansion of
opportunities for, diversification are desirable policy objectives
because they give individuals and households more capabilities to
improve livelihood security and to raise living standards.
I. INTRODUCTION
The orthodox view of processes of economic change is that they involve

transitions between states of economic structure or performance that can be
distinguished from each other. An important component of this view is that
sectors are compartmentalised. Rural is contrasted with urban, agriculture is
contrasted with industry, and people are interpreted as making complete
transitions from one type of activity to another as development proceeds.1
Frank Ellis, School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
This article results from an ongoing research project on the Policy Implications of Rural
Livelihood Diversification, funded by the Economic and Social Committee for Research
(ESCOR) of the Department for International Development (DFID). The views expressed are
those of the author and not of DFID. The article has benefited from constructive comments by
Neil Adger, Piers Blaikie, Debbie Bryceson, Barbara Harriss-White, Gillian Hart, Catherine
Locke, Carole Rakodi, Ben Rogaly, Jim Sumberg, Steve Tabor and an anonymous referee, and
the author is grateful for the work that each of them put into reading the draft version.
The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.35, No.l, October 1998, pp.1-38
PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON
2 THE JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
This view is buttressed by the not always explicitly stated idea that
specialisation and division of labour are essential ingredients for the
transformation of national economies.2
Diversification as an individual or household level survival strategy
does not fit well into the conventional picture. Many of its attributes stand
in contrast to straitened notions of sectors, specialisation and transition. The
received wisdom is that diversification is merely a transient phenomenon
[e.g., Saith, 1992] or one associated with the desperate struggle for survival
in declining economies. Yet diversification may not be so transient, and it
may be associated with success at achieving livelihood security under
improving economic conditions as well as with livelihood distress in
deteriorating conditions [Collier, 1988; Preston, 1989].
This article undertakes a review of ideas, propositions and policy
inferences surrounding diversification as a livelihood strategy of rural
families in developing countries. A number of recent articles in development
studies journals have examined aspects of diversification, utilising case study
evidence [Reardon et ah, 1992; Chandrasekhar, 1993; Adams, 1994; Bigsten,
1996; Demon andKrishnan, 1996; Taylor and Wyatt, 1996; Carter, 1997], or
have put forward more general interpretations of rural change in which
diversification is regarded as a central feature [Bernstein et ah, 1992;
Bryceson, 1996; Heyer, 1996]. In addition, several researchers have
undertaken comparative reviews of empirical evidence on rural household
income portfolios, derived from household surveys [von Broun and Pandya-
Lorch, 1991; Sahn andSarris, 1991; Sahn, 1994; Reardon, 1997].
Rural livelihood diversification cuts across a number of typically self-
bounded arenas of policy discussion in development studies including rural
poverty [Jazairy et ah, 1992], household risk strategies [Carter, 1997],
household coping strategies [Davies, 1996]; intrahousehold relations [Hart,
1995], rural growth linkages [Hazell and Haggblade, 1993], rural non-farm
activity [Fisher et al, 1997], and rural-urban migration [Stark, 1991].
While overlaps occur between these arenas, they each tend to bring rather
partial insights to bear on the causes, opportunities, effects and policy
implications of diversification.
The fragmentation of insights into diversification means that the
literature abounds with conflicting propositions about its meaning.
Diversification may occur both as a deliberate household strategy [Stark,
1991] or as an involuntary response to crisis [Davies, 1996]. It is found both
to diminish [Adams, 1994] and to accentuate [Evans and Ngau, 1991] rural
inequality. It can act both as a safety valve for the rural poor [Zoomers and
Kleinpenning, 1996] and as a means of accumulation for the rural rich
[Hart, 1994]. It can benefit farm investment and productivity [Carter, 1997]
or impoverish agriculture by withdrawing critical resources [Low, 1986].
HOUSEHOLD STRATEGIES AND RURAL LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION 3
It is not the intention of this article to attempt to resolve conflicting

interpretations of diversification. There is no need to do so because the
causes and consequences of diversification are differentiated in practice by
location, assets, income, opportunity and social relations; and it is not
therefore surprising that these manifest themselves in different ways under
differing circumstances. Nevertheless a useful purpose is served by
disentangling different strands in the arguments and evidence concerning
diversification. In many sub-Saharan African countries structural
adjustment has initiated the widespread dismantling of the sectoral layer of
state intervention (for example, agricultural policies) that used to act as an
interface between the macro-economy and rural household decision-
making. With the phasing out of these so-called meso-level policies, the
only way of connecting macroeconomic policies with micro-level
interventions is through a better understanding of household strategies
[Berry, 1986; Lipton andRavallion, 1995].
The article has several aims. The first aim is to pull together into a single
discussion a moderately inclusive cross-section of the literature that
examines aspects of diversification as a central or major theme. The let-out
clause 'moderately inclusive' is inserted here because livelihood
diversification crosses so many boundaries of development discussion that
its pursuit at the margins could make its treatment quite intractable.3 The
second aim is to set out the different and sometimes contradictory
interpretations of livelihood diversification in the areas of its determinants
and its implications for poverty, income distribution, agricultural
performance and gender relations. The third is to summarise the
implications for policy that have been advanced in studies of livelihood
diversification.
It is appropriate to remark in passing that livelihood diversification is
neither just a rural nor only a developing country phenomenon. It is well-
documented as a survival strategy of urban dwellers in developing countries
[Baker andPedersen, 1992; Maxwell, 1995; Rakodi, 1995;deHaan, 1997;
Moser, 1998]; and is becoming increasingly prevalent amongst farm
families in developed countries as agricultural price and other supports to
farming are removed [Benjamin, 1994; Kelly andllbery, 1995; Hearn et ah,
1996]. It is also an emerging feature of labour markets more generally in the
industrialised countries, being associated with the rise of part-time and
home-based working patterns. This article restricts its scope, however, to
diversification in the rural economy of developing countries, and
particularly to the experience of sub-Saharan Africa on which much of the
recent literature is focused.
The article proceeds in the following way. The next section elaborates
the concept of livelihood diversification, its social dimensions, and the
income categories that are utilised in economic studies of income portfolios.
The third section briefly reviews the empirical investigation of livelihood
diversification, including sources that contain evidence on rural income
portfolios in sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s and 1990s. The fourth section
considers approaches to, and explanations of, the determinants of livelihood
diversification. The fifth, sixth, and seventh sections examine, respectively,
the relationships of livelihood diversification to poverty and income
distribution; farm technology and agricultural performance; and gender
dimensions. The eighth section briefly reviews some policy implications of
diversification.
II. CONCEPTS OF LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION

In this article livelihood diversification is defined as the process by which
rural families construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support
capabilities in their struggle for survival and in order to improve their
standards of living.
Several components of this definition merit elaboration. First, a
livelihood is more than just income [Lipton and Maxwell, 1992]. Income
refers to the cash earnings of the household plus payments in kind that can
be valued at market prices. The cash earnings component of income include
items like crop or livestock sales, wages, rents, and remittances. The in-kind
component of income refers to consumption of own farm produce,
payments in kind (for example, in food), and transfers or exchanges of
consumption items that occur between households in rural communities.
A livelihood encompasses income, both cash and in kind, as well as the
social institutions (kin, family, compound, village and so on), gender
relations, and property rights required to support and to sustain a given
standard of living. Social and kinship networks are important for facilitating
and sustaining diverse income portfolios [Berry, 1989; 1993: Ch.7; Hart,
1995; Bryceson, 1996]. Social institutions are also critical for interpreting
the constraints and options of individuals and families distinguished by
gender, income, wealth, access and assets. For example, differential access
rights to land are often the key determinant of distinct livelihood strategies
pursued by poor compared to better-off rural households. Likewise, social
proscriptions on permissible courses of action of women can make big
differences to the livelihood options available for women compared to men
[Dwyer and Bruce, 1988; Davies and Hossain, 1997].
A livelihood also includes access to, and benefits derived from, social
and public services provided by the state such as education, health services,
roads, water supplies and so on [Lipton and van der Gaag, 1993; Blackwood
and Lynch, 1994]. An oft-stated finding of poverty research is the tendency
for public service provision to be biased towards the better off and more
accessible locations, communities, and social groups, thus exacerbating the
material deprivation already experienced by the poor as a result of
inadequate levels of assets and income [World Bank, 1990; Lipton, 1996].
Livelihood diversification is therefore not synonymous with income
diversification.4 Nevertheless, many, but not all, economic studies of
diversification focus on different income sources and their relationship to
income levels, income distribution, assets, farm output and other variables
[e.g., Reardon et al, 1992; Adams and He, 1995]. The term income
diversity refers to the composition of household incomes at a given instant
in time; diversification, on the other hand, interprets this as an active social
process whereby households are observed to engage in increasingly
intricate portfolios of activities over time. Lack of comparable evidence
across intervals of time means that it is rarely possible to state firmly
whether household livelihoods are more diverse now than they were, say,
ten or twenty years ago [Heyer, 1996; Reardon, 1997]; nevertheless, and
certainly for sub-Saharan Africa, there seems to be an informed consensus
that diversity has been increasing in recent history [Bryceson, 1996], and a
few intertemporal case studies seem to bear out this contention [Valentine,
1993].
Economic studies distinguish between several different categories and
sub-categories of income source when referring to diverse income
portfolios. Such distinctions are not arbitrary; they refer to different labour
markets with different features of seasonally, sustainability, barriers to
entry, location, potential income growth and so on [Reardon, 1997].
Different individuals and families are likely to possess different potential
access to different income sources, and, therefore, participation in these
sources will have different impacts on poverty and income distribution.
The primary categories are farm, off-farm, and non-farm income sources
[Saith, 1992]. Farm income includes livestock as well as crop income and
comprises both consumption-in-kind of own farm output and cash income
from output sold.3 Off-farm income typically refers to wage or exchange
labour on other farms (i.e. within agriculture). It also includes labour
payments in kind, such as the harvest share systems and other non-wage
labour contracts that remain prevalent in many parts of the developing
world.6 Non-farm income refers to non-agricultural income sources. Several
secondary categories of non-farm income are commonly identified. These
are (i) non-farm rural wage employment, (ii) non-farm rural self-
employment,7 (iii) property income (rents, etc.), (iv) urban-to-rural
remittances arising from within national boundaries, and (v) international
remittances arising from cross-border and overseas migration.
Not all investigators follow the same conventions for categorising
income sources. In a detailed study in rural Pakistan, for example, Adams

and He [1995] have the six major income categories of agricultural, non-
farm, livestock, rental, domestic remittances and international remittances.
In this scheme, wage labour in agriculture is included with own-farm
income in the agricultural category; livestock is taken separately from crop
income; and non-farm income covers wages, salaries and self-employment
outside agriculture, but excludes rents and remittances that are assigned
their own categories.8
The social and economic characteristics of non-farm income sources
tend to be examined in separate literatures. Thus the rural non-farm
literature [e.g., Saith, 1992; Fisher et al, 1997] has different preoccupations
from the migration and remittance literature [e.g., Stark, 1991]. The former
is concerned with stimulating non-agricultural activities in rural areas with
a variety of social and economic goals in view. The latter tends to be
preoccupied with the motives underlying migration, the rate of urbanisation,
and the amount and effects of the remittances sent home.
Most research into income diversification utilises the household as the
unit for empirical investigation. The household may be conceived as the
social group which resides in the same place, shares the same meals, and
makes joint or coordinated decisions over resource allocation and income
pooling [Meillassoux, 1981; Ellis, 1993: Ch.l]. Alternatively, some version
of the idea that the household represents a coalition of players committed by
choice or custom to act as one unit vis-a-vis the rest of the world can be
invoked [Stark, 1991; Preston, 1994]. There are many instances where these
definitions fail to capture important attributes of individual and collective
welfare, including spheres of individual decision-making, power relations
in the social unit, and constraints on permissible courses of action by gender
[Folbre, 1986; Guyer and Peters, 1987; Bruce, 1989].
The farm household economic model treats the household as a single
decision-making unit maximising its welfare subject to a range of income-
earning opportunities, and a set of resource constraints [Hymer and Resnick,
1969; Nakajima, 1970; 1986; Singh et al, 1986; Ellis, 1993]. This yields a
baseline economic proposition, ignoring social institutions and risk factors,
that the household will allocate its labour time so that the marginal returns
per unit of labour are the same across different activities, whether on-farm,
off-farm or non-farm. Intra-household economic approaches based on
bargaining theory do not necessarily yield different predictions about
patterns of engagement by household members in different labour markets
[Haddad et al, 1997: Ch.l].
Many researchers recognise that the study of livelihood diversification
requires a more spatially extended understanding of the household than the
conventional definition. The role of non-resident family members in
contributing to the well-being of the resident group requires explicit

recognition. Households with members working away in urban centres or
abroad are often referred to as 'split families', and their livelihood strategies
are described as 'straddling' the rural and urban sectors [Rempel and
Lobdell, 1978; Murray, 1981; Stichter, 1982; Heyer, 1996]. Urban migrants
are commonly observed to continue to maintain strong rural family
connections, even after several generations of urban residence [Lucas and
Stark, 1985; Stark and Bloom, 1985; Valentine, 1993; Hoddinott, 1994].
Circular migration, in which family members work for periods in the urban
economy then return to their family farms, is noted in several studies
[Bigsten, 1988; 1996; Lageman, 1989; Andrae, 1992]. Seasonal migration
related to cyclical work opportunities in different locations is also common
[Agarwal, 1990; Breman, 1996].
The extended definition of the household can be used to capture
diversity of social interactions as well as diversity of location. The
household or family social unit has been described as a 'multipurpose unit'
[Bryceson, 1996], the members of which have 'multiple social identities'
[Bangura, 1994], and the livelihoods of which involve continual processes
of renegotiation and redefinition of family, gender, power, and property
relations [Berry, 1993; 1997; Hart, 1995].
Reviewing the literature, there is a temptation to draw up typologies of
diversification. In particular, some branches of the literature are
predominantly concerned with diversification as a matter of survival,
emphasising the reasons for diversification born of desperation (poverty,
lack of assets, vulnerability, disaster). Other branches of the literature focus,
by contrast, on diversification as a matter of choice and opportunity,
involving proactive household strategies for improving living standards.
Along these lines, for example, 'diversification for survival' has been
contrasted with 'diversification for accumulation' [Hart, 1994: 48].
While such typologies are superficially attractive as a means of
distinguishing different motives and opportunities to diversify, they also
lend themselves to inaccurate and misplaced generality that fails to engage
with the complexity of local circumstances. For example, in some societies
income-generating options for women are more socially circumscribed in
better-off than in poorer households. More generally, diversification obeys
a continuum of causes and motivations that vary across families at a
particular point in time, and for the same families at different points in time.
Some causes may be location-specific (semi-arid zones highly prone to
drought) or disaster-specific (droughts, cyclones, floods, earthquakes), and
thus warrant special sets of concepts in order to formulate appropriate
policy responses.
An interesting distinction has been made between families within which
each member is involved in many different part-time income generating
activities; and those for which individual family members are able to engage
in full-time specialised occupations [Unni, 1996]. Again this points in the
direction of a typology of diversification, this time along the lines of types
of work - that is, full-time, part-time, seasonal, casual - rather than the
preceding focus on proximity of the household to minimum survival.
However, again here, in practice there are infinite gradations and variations
in the mixtures of these different types of income sources for households of
different total income levels, so that typifying households by type of ofF-
farm or non-farm work is unlikely to prove very insightful for policy
purposes.
III. EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF INCOME DIVERSITY

While remaining aware that a rural livelihood is described not only by its
income dimensions, this section of the article is concerned with the
availability and adequacy of data on household income portfolios, and it
therefore puts to one side social aspects for the moment.
The composition of rural household incomes is relatively poorly
researched compared to other aspects of rural livelihoods in many
developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa [Ravallion, 1992]. In
particular, there is an almost total lack of data sets that are comparable
across time intervals greater than two or three years, and most available
evidence is from small-scale, location specific, sample surveys that are not
representative of aggregate populations. Added to this, there appears to be
little consensus across surveys concerning the definitional categories of
income components, so that individual income streams may be assigned to
different sub-categories in the data analysis of different surveys.
There are plenty of reasons for this state of affairs. National level income
and expenditure surveys have been infrequent in most sub-Saharan African
countries, sometimes with such long intervals between their occurrence that
definitions and sampling frames are radically altered across surveys. Due to
inadequate resourcing or low prioritisation in government statistical offices,
some of the surveys that actually get undertaken fail to be subsequently data
processed or receive cursory treatment in data analysis and publication.'
In parallel with these problems, the emphasis of much living standards
research has been on expenditure rather than income data. Indeed some
recent large-scale, donor-assisted, household surveys in African countries
have chosen to exclude income data collection altogether and concentrate
solely on expenditure data and other proxies of household well-being.10 This
follows in part from the well-known axiom in poverty research that material
wellbeing is best measured by household expenditure per capita adjusted for
the age and gender composition of the household [World Bank, 1990;
Glewwe and van der Gaag, 1990, Greeley, 1996; Lipton, 1996].
Household income as a welfare indicator is considered prone to several
flaws [Glewwe and van der Gaag, 1988; 1990; Lipton and Ravallion,
1995]. Income in rural households varies from year to year depending on
the outcome of farm production and the prices obtained for output sales.
Income also varies seasonally, causing practical difficulties for the timing of
sample surveys and the accuracy of recall of crop sales and prices. Problems
of recall apply more generally to irregular and intermittent income sources
over time periods preceding survey interviews. Problems of measurement
occur with respect to both farm activities and non-farm self-employment for
which the derivation of net income requires data on costs as well as on
output and prices.
The upshot of these problems of measurement is that in the absence of
first-hand knowledge of individual case-study data sets, most published
information on the composition of rural household incomes needs to be
treated with circumspection. Reardon [1997] reviews data from 31 different
surveys in 18 sub-Saharan African countries. The share of non-farm income
in total income in these surveys varies from 15 per cent to 93 per cent. This
wide variation between survey averages is superimposed, of course, on high
inter-household variation in the underlying data sets from which the sample
averages were originally calculated.
The wide variations in farm-non-farm income shares for sub-Saharan
Africa are corroborated by an earlier comparative review of 15 surveys
across eight sub-Saharan African countries by Haggblade, Hazell and
Brown [1989] and by evidence on 15 surveys across nine sub-Saharan
African countries compiled by Sahn [1994]. The results cited by Sahn
display large differences across surveys in the income shares of individual
non-farm sources (such as wages, remittances and so on), but less variability
for non-farm income taken in aggregate. Another source of comparative
evidence, as well as individual country income surveys, is von Braun and
Pandya-Lorch [1991] which examines income composition in relation to
proneness to malnutrition across 16 surveys in 12 countries, of which two
are in Latin America, five are in Asia, and five in sub-Saharan Africa. There
is some overlap of coverage between the surveys compiled and compared in
these different sources.
These comparative reviews do reveal some discernable patterns. Within
sub-Saharan Africa, the role of remittances and transfers is notably higher
in countries bordering South Africa than elsewhere on the continent. Rural
households in Asia appear to exhibit a greater reliance on non-farm income
sources than is generally true in Africa; perhaps in the average order of a
40:60 per cent farm:non-farm income split as compared to the reverse
proportions on average in Africa." This difference is consistent with other

evidence suggesting that the roots of rural poverty differ between Asia and
Africa [Heyer, 1996]. Whereas in Asia, a prevalent feature of rural poverty
is near or actual landlessness so that poor households must rely on oiF-farm
and non-farm income sources for survival; in Africa, the main factors
contributing to rural poverty are locational and reflect not so much lack of
access to land, but location-specific lack of access to an array of services
and opportunities (roads, schools, market services, input supplies, power,
non-farm activities), as well as environmental constraints.
Various points emerge from these comparative reviews of available
evidence. First, non-farm income sources are beyond doubt critical for
describing the living standards of farm households in developing countries.
In sub-Saharan Africa it would appear that 30-50 per cent reliance on non-
farm incomes is commonplace, and in some instances the average
proportion is much greater.12 Second, data collection on income sources
needs to converge towards an accepted set of categories and definitions; the
surveys reviewed in the sources cited appear to vary tremendously in their
coverage and assignment of income sources. A particular problem is the
assignment of off-farm agricultural wage earnings to farm income in some
surveys and to non-farm income in others. Third, it is not possible to infer
trends in income diversification from the available household-level
evidence; at least not for sub-Saharan Africa, with rare exceptions.13
Bryceson [1996; 1997] takes a different approach to capturing inter-
temporal changes in rural livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa by examining
time-series data on the sectoral composition of national income. The
evidence appears to support the hypothesis, entitled deagrarianisation, that
rural SSA is becoming steadily less agrarian as manifested by rising reliance
on non-farm income sources in rural areas. The review by Reardon [1997]
concludes that non-farm wage labour predominates over agricultural wage
labour, non-farm self-employment, and remittances as income sources in
many African settings. However, southern African countries, including
South Africa itself, differ markedly in this regard with remittance and
transfer incomes typically dominating over other off-farm or non-farm
income sources [May, 1996; Baber, 1996].
IV. DETERMINANTS OF DIVERSIFICATION

In what follows, the emphasis is placed on the economic logic of household
strategies, utilising the unitary concept of the household described earlier
which is the approach most often encountered in this literature. This has
some disadvantages, not the least of which is the fondness of economists to
consider almost all decision-making as a matter of freely-made choices,
albeit subject to economic constraints (resources, assets, skills, incomes and

so on). Social and familial constraints also, of course, apply, and not only
what people do, but their capability to change what they do, is influenced
by their social context (family, kin, caste, ethnic group, community, belief
systems and so on). For example, the social institutions through which
livelihoods are mediated may act to suppress opportunities for some
members of a community (for example, landless, women, low caste) while
enhancing those of other members [Davies and Hossain, 1997]. This
'social-embeddedness' [Rogaly, 1997] of individual or household actions
needs to be kept in mind in interpreting economic propositions in this area.
The literature identifies a range of different motives and pressures that
contribute to explaining why diversification occurs and the patterns of
diversity that are observed. Some main determinants of diversification are
seasonality, differentiated labour markets, risk strategies, coping behaviour,
credit market imperfections, and intertemporal savings and investment
strategies.
All rural households confront seasonality as an inherent feature of their
livelihoods [Chambers, Longhurst and Pacey, 1981; Chambers, 1982;
Sahn, 1989; Agarwal, 1990]. Seasonality on its own explains many of the
patterns of diversity in rural household incomes, especially those involving
on-farm diversity and off-farm agricultural wage earnings. In economic
terms, seasonality means that returns to labour in both on-farm activities
and off-farm labour markets vary during the year, causing seasonal changes
in occupation as labour time is switched from lower to higher return
activities [Alderman and Sahn, 1989]. Note that this can occur without
having to invoke risk as a consideration. While in practice risk and
seasonality are closely related, conceptually it is useful for some purposes
to separate them, and diversification that obeys different opportunities in
different seasonal labour markets does not require risk as an explanatory
argument for its occurrence.
Seasonality means that continuous household consumption needs are
mismatched with uneven income flows. Leaving aside risk and market
imperfections, this would not constitute a problem provided that total
income was sufficient to cover annual consumption requirements.14 Crop
storage, output sales and savings could be used to convert unstable income
into stable consumption. In practice, of course both risk and market
imperfections abound in the rural economy [Alderman and Paxson, 1992].
Income instability and consumption smoothing are real problems
confronted by households, and therefore an important motive for income
diversification associated with seasonality is to reduce income instability
This requires income earning opportunities the seasonal cycles of which are
not synchronised with the farm's own seasons. Seasonal migration to other
agricultural zones may be one option, circular or permanent migration of

one or more family members to non-farm occupations, another [Alderman
andSahn, 1989].
Seasonality is one particular instance of rural labour markets that are
differentiated by location, time, skills, gender and cultural proscriptions.
The economic motivation for diversification cited in relation to seasonality
applies more generally; when the marginal return to labour time in farming
for any individual falls below the wage rate or the return to self-employment
attainable off the farm, then the household is better off switching that
individual into off-farm or non-farm activities. Work opportunities vary
according to skills (for example, in trading, vehicle repair, brick making),
education (for example, for salaried jobs), and by gender (for example, male
wage work in construction or mines vs. female opportunities in trading or
textile factories). Economic considerations of labour allocation may be
overlaid and modified by social rules of access both within the family and
in the community, and these rules may result in the 'social exclusion' of
individuals and households from particular income streams [Davies and
Hossain, 1997].
Aside from considerations of static comparative advantage in the
deployment of labour time, rural households are observed to take a longer
term strategic view of future income sources. Investment in social networks
is one manifestation of this [Berry, 1989]. Investment in education, often
linked to migration and remittance behaviour, is another [Stark, 1982; Stark
and Bloom, 1985].
Risk is often cited in the literature as the primary motive for income
diversification [e.g. Bryceson, 1996]. However, there are many different
strands to the risk argument, and there is a lot of room for confusing risk
arguments with coping arguments, and voluntary decisions with involuntary
actions [Dercon andKrishnan, 1996].
Risk is the subjective probability attached by individuals or by the
household towards the outcomes of the various income generating activities
in which they are engaged [Anderson et ah, 1977]. When definite outcomes
in relation to income streams are replaced by probabilities of occurrence,
the social unit diversifies its portfolio of activities in order to anticipate and
to mitigate the threat to its welfare of failure in individual activities
[Alderman and Paxson, 1992]. In terms of the static allocation of labour
time across different activities, it is then the risk-discounted marginal
returns to labour that determine the patterns of engagement and
specialisation by household members.
Income diversification as a risk strategy is usually taken to imply a
trade-off between a higher total income involving greater probability of
income failure, and a lower total income involving smaller probability of
income failure [Roumasset et al, 1979]. In other words, households are risk
averse, and they are prepared to accept lower income for greater security.
Research into on-farm diversity has sometimes demonstrated that this is not
strictly true; that diverse on-farm cropping systems such as mixed cropping
and field fragmentation take advantage of complementarities between
crops, variations in soil types and differences in micro-climates that ensure
risk spreading with little loss in total income [Norman, 1974; 1977; Walker
and Ryan, 1990; Blarel et al, 1992].
Whether or not risk spreading involves a fall in income, one of the
critical features of income diversification for risk reasons is the achievement
of a portfolio with low covariate risk between its components. A
characteristic of rural livelihoods in developing countries is that most of the
income earning opportunities open to poor households, that is, own farm
production and agricultural wage labour, exhibit high correlations between
risks attached to alternative income streams; in other words, if there is a
drought or flood in a particular locality, all income streams are adversely
affected simultaneously. While on-farm diversity can take some advantage
of differences in the risk-proneness of crops or crop mixes to adverse
natural events, the protection this affords is only partial. Diversification into
non-farm incomes, by contrast, can result in low risk correlations between
livelihood components.
Household risk strategies are prone to confusion with coping behaviour
since some researchers treat coping as an aspect of risk behaviour, as in the
phrase 'risk coping strategies' [World Bank, 1990: 90-91; Alderman and
Paxson, 1992: 2]. This blurring of risk and coping is imprecise as a guide
to policy in areas such as poverty reduction or famine prevention [Davies,
1996]. It confuses voluntary with involuntary actions; planned responses to
potential threats to household wellbeing with unplanned reactions to
unexpected livelihood failure.
The distinction between risk and coping as determinants of
diversification can be resolved by distinguishing ex-ante risk management
from ex-post coping with crisis [Webb et al., 1992; Carter, 1997]. Risk
management is then interpreted as a deliberate household strategy to
anticipate failures in individual income streams by maintaining a spread of
activities [Walker and Jodha, 1986]; while coping is the involuntary
response to disaster or unanticipated failure in major sources of survival. A
complementary way that risk and coping have been distinguished is to
interpret risk as ex-ante income management and coping as ex-post
consumption management in the wake of crisis [Carter, 1997].
Following this distinction, coping includes tactics for maintaining
consumption such as drawing down on savings, using up food stocks, gifts
from relatives, community transfers, sales of livestock, other asset sales,
and so on. Several researchers have described the sequential phases which
characterise coping behaviour as the adverse impacts of a disaster such as
drought intensify [e.g., Corbett, 1988]. These sequences typically seek first
to protect the future income generating capability of the household, even if
current consumption is compromised. It is only as a last resort that assets
critical for future survival are sold or abandoned to stave off starvation.
This interpretation may seem to exclude coping as a determinant of
income diversification; however, unplanned responses to crisis may involve
searches for new income sources in the early stages, and, at a later stage,
enforced asset sales may irrevocably alter the future livelihood patterns of
the family. Therefore, the term coping can be used to encompass distress
and crisis reasons for the emergence of new livelihood patterns, and these
differ conceptually and in practice from risk management determinants of
livelihood patterns.
A literature pertinent to the concept of coping is that concerned with the
vulnerability of rural families to livelihood collapse in the face of disaster
such as drought, floods, cyclones and so on [Blaikie et ah, 1994]. The focus
in this is especially on human interactions with natural resource systems,
and on ways of describing the robustness of livelihoods confronted by
erosion of the natural resource base or sudden shocks [Campbell, 1990].
Vulnerability is defined in this context as a high degree of exposure to risk,
shocks and stress; and proneness to food insecurity [Chambers, 1989;
Davies, 1996]}'
The notion of vulnerability is further captured by reference to the
resilience and sensitivity of the livelihood system, where resilience means the
ability of the system to absorb change or even utilise change to advantage;
while sensitivity refers to the susceptibility of the natural resource base to
change following human interference [Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987].
According to these ideas the most robust livelihood system is one displaying
high resilience and low sensitivity; while the most vulnerable displays low
resilience and high sensitivity. For example, livelihood systems in the Sahel
in West Africa are highly sensitive, that is, prone to natural resource changes,
but surprisingly resilient due to the ability of human populations to adapt to
their natural environments [Davies, 1996].
A further concept that arises in the context of coping behaviour is that of
adaptation. Livelihood adaptation has been defined as the continuous
process of 'changes to livelihoods which either enhance existing security
and wealth or try to reduce vulnerability and poverty' [Davies andHossain,
1997: 5]. Adaptation may be positive or negative: positive if it is by choice,
reversible, and increases security; negative if it is of necessity, irreversible,
and fails to reduce vulnerability [ibid.]. Negative adaptation occurs when
the poor can no longer cope with adverse shocks.
Adaptation is evidently closely related to diversification but the two are

not synonymous. Diversification explicitly draws attention to a variety of
dissimilar income sources (farm, non-farm, remittances etc.) as its chief
characteristic. This is one potential outcome of adaptation but not the only
one; new ways of trying to sustain the existing income portfolio are also
forms of adaptation. Adaptation may result in the adoption of successively
more vulnerable livelihood systems over time [Davies, 1996]. By contrast,
the prime motive and consequence of successful diversification by the poor
is to reduce vulnerability.
Some researchers have linked income diversification with credit market
failures in the rural economy of developing countries [Binswanger, 1983;
Reardon, 1997]. These failures include low credit availability in African
rural settings [Bigsten and Kayizzi-Mugerwa, 1995], and personalised
lending associated with interlocked transactions in Asian rural settings
[Bell, 1988]. Governments and NGOs have, of course, for years tried to
overcome these market failures [Johnson and Rogaly, 1997], but their
success at doing so has tended to be intermittent and uneven. By engaging
in non-farm activities, farm households can generate cash income to
substitute for the absence or high cost of credit, thus permitting them to
purchase cash inputs into production, or to make farm investments. Credit
market considerations also illustrate how closely interrelated in practice are
the different determinants of diversification. Cash generated to overcome a
credit squeeze also contributes to mitigating the seasonality problem of
managing unstable income, and this in turn may help to reduce risk-aversion
in farm production decisions [Eswaran and Kotwal, 1989; 1990].
Interestingly enough the basic farm household economic model
[Barnum and Squire, 1979; Singh, Squire and Strauss, 1986] separates
production from consumption decisions in such a way that non-farm income
can only enter the household as an increase in income available for
consumption, not as an investment in farm production leading to higher
farm productivity in the future [Taylor and Wyatt, 1996].
Clearly not all diversification represents the unrelenting struggle for
survival of the poor, and households that are on an upward path away from
poverty, or that are already somewhat better off, may have other motives for
diversification than those already cited. In particular, above a certain
standard of living, it is likely to become ambiguous whether savings and
investment are for farm or for non-farm accumulation, and the spatial locus
of household activity may shift to small towns or to cities, even while a farm
component is kept in the livelihood portfolio. As noted earlier, Hart [1994:
48] makes the distinction that larger landowners diversify to accumulate,
while the landless and near-landless diversify to survive. Accumulation may
become the motive of diversification once survival and risk loom less large
on the horizon of the rural household.

A danger of seeking to isolate separate determinants of diversification is
that a rather one-dimensional view of the forces shaping rural livelihoods is
conveyed. These determinants - seasonality, labour markets, risk, coping,
credit, accumulation - may be conceptually distinct but are rarely separable
in practice. All such determinants are mediated through social institutions,
including ties of community and kinship [Berry, 1989; 1993], property
rights and obligations [Berry, 1997; Bromley, 1989; 1991; Platteau, 1992],
and gender relations within the household [Hart, 1995]. In addition, they are
shaped by interactions with the physical environment, and by changes over
time in the larger economy, including the impact on income-earning
opportunities of structural adjustment and market liberalisation policies.
Finally, some interesting insights into the determinants of livelihood
diversification are obtained from the literature on migration. Migration
decisions have been viewed variously as individual choices [Todaro, 1969;
Harris and Todaro, 1970] and as intertemporal family contracts [Stark,
1980; Stark and Bloom, 1985; Stark and Lucas, 1988]. The former
interpretation focuses on income differentials adjusted for job search
probabilities as the prime determinant of migration, and this version
continues to receive support [Bigsten, 1996; Larson and Mundlak, 1997].
The latter interpretation emphasises risk spreading [Stark and Levari, 1982;
Katz and Stark, 1986] and imperfections in rural capital markets [Stark,
1980; Collier and Lai, 1986] as reasons to migrate. Remittance income
exhibits the key attribute that it is uncorrelated with both seasonal cycles
and risk factors in agriculture.
Critical to these propositions is that migrants maintain a flow of
remittances to their families, and several reasons of migrant self-interest are
advanced to explain why this occurs; namely, the need for a fall back
position if urban income sources collapse, and the protection of land and
other assets to which the migrant has claim back home, including assets
expected at inheritance [Lucas and Stark, 1985; Hoddinott, 1994].
Empirical studies generally show that the majority of migrants (between 80
and 90 per cent) do indeed send remittances home, although the proportion
of income sent and its frequency display wide variation across individual
migrants [Rempel and Lobdell, 1978; Hoddinott, 1994]. In the family
contract model, remittances are part of a long-term implicit contract
between parents and children that includes investment in education,
migration, remittances and inheritance [Hoddinott, 1994].
The migration literature has dwelt on both 'pull' and 'push' reasons for
migration to occur. Income differentials are seen as the major 'pull' factor;
while seasonality, risk, market failures, erosion of assets (for example, land
subdivision at inheritance), landlessness, and disasters leading to livelihood
collapse are seen as 'push' factors. Evidence supporting both forces are
found in the literature, for example, Bigsten [1996] finds that the pull of
high wages is more important than the push of land scarcity in explaining
migration decisions in Kenya; while Adams [1993] finds precisely the
reverse in a study of the factors explaining international migration from
rural Egypt.
The notions of push and pull are similar in descriptive intent to the
earlier juxtapositions of involuntary versus voluntary and desperation
versus choice as ways of broadly categorising alternative sets of
circumstances resulting in livelihood diversification. While it is on
occasions useful to dichotomise cause and effect in this way, the ease of so
doing should not be confused with the accuracy of the description thus
achieved. In practice, individuals and households are influenced by a
multiplicity of factors determining the livelihood changes they undeigo.
While on occasions a single factor may dominate over all others for an
entire community or location, more often a cumulative combination of
factors will represent variable pressures and opportunities for different
individuals and households within the community.
V. DIVERSIFICATION, POVERTY AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION

The relationships between diverse income portfolios, levels of income, and
income distribution are fairly complicated, and like many other facets of
livelihood diversification they are somewhat prone to unhelpful
generalisation rather than being placed in specified contexts.
Some of the more straightforward effects of diversification on incomes
follow from the preceding discussion of its determinants. Diversification
might be expected (a) to reduce the risk of income failure overall, by
diluting the impact of failure in any single income source; (b) to reduce
intra-year income variability, by diluting the effect of seasonality in farm-
based income streams; and (c) to reduce inter-year income variability
resulting from instability in agricultural production and markets. These
effects must be regarded as broadly beneficial for poor and rich alike,
subject to the caveat that the desperation-led diversification of the very poor
may sometimes result from the accumulation-led diversification of the rich
(such as might occur, for example, with land consolidation by the rich in
order to use capital-intensive methods in new branches of agricultural
production). Nevertheless, capability to diversify is likely to be particularly
important for poor families that have little or no margin to withstand
unexpected shortfalls in the annual level of income required for survival.
These effects have been noted in empirical studies [e.g., Reardon et ah,
1992]. They play a significant food security role at household level, by
enabling the household to maintain food consumption in the deficit season

before the harvest. Clearly different income sources will achieve these ends
with variable effectiveness. Off-farm wage income is likely to be correlated
with the same seasonal and risk factors as own-farm production, and is
therefore less able to play a role in smoothing unstable income streams.
Local non-farm wage employment and some types of non-farm self-
employment will also exhibit seasonal patterns similar to those experienced
in agriculture; for example, marketing, food processing, input supply, farm
machinery repair and so on. On the other hand rural small-scale industries
[Kilby and Liedholm, 1986; Islam, 1987] may be able to play a counter-
cyclical role, and remittances from urban areas are likely to be independent
of seasonal cycles in agriculture.
A number of sources concur that the capability to diversify incomes is
critical for the survival capabilities of the rural poor [Motion, 1979;
Haggblade et al, 1989; Hazell and Haggblade, 1993]. This is partly
because poor households are more vulnerable to seasonal and risk factors
than better off households. It is also because poor households lack assets;
they may be landless or near landless, and possess few or no livestock.
Without the capability to produce enough food on own account, the poor
must diversify income sources in order to survive [Zoomers and
Kleinpenning, 1996].
Increasing the survival options of the rural poor is the major reason that
rural sector diversification is regarded by many researchers as an important
goal of development policy. One strand of thinking which is examined more
fully in the next section of this paper is the rural growth linkage approach
which sees non-farm growth being stimulated by agricultural innovation
[Haggblade et al, 1989; Haggblade and Hazell, 1989; Hazell and
Haggblade, 1993]. Another strand is the active promotion of rural non-farm
enterprise [Saith, 1992; Fisher et al., 1997] and rural small-scale industries
[Chuta and Sethuraman, 1984; Liedholm, McPherson and Chuta, 1994].
Enabling the rural poor to earn enough in order to survive is one thing,
reducing income disparities between poor and rich quite another [World
Bank, 1990]. One view is that diversification has a broadly equalising effect
on rural incomes [Haggblade and Hazell, 1989], and this is supported by
studies suggesting that it raises the incomes of the poor relative to the rich
[Valentine, 1993; Adams, 1994]. However, this may be a function of specific
contextual conditions, since two different zones in one African country
displayed opposing results in this regard [Reardon et al., 1992]. The effect
may be indirect, by enabling poor households to overcome credit and risk
constraints on agricultural innovation [Taylor and Wyatt, 1996]. In a study
conducted by the latter authors, non-farm income sources were found to
have a disproportionately beneficial indirect impact on small farm output
compared to large farm output.

An opposing view is that diversification has a disequalising effect on
rural incomes, in other words it exacerbates rural differentiation. Several
studies have demonstrated that richer households derive a higher proportion
of their incomes from non-farm sources than poorer households [Collier
and Lai, 1986; Evans and Ngau, 1991; Webb et al, 1992: 40; Reardon et
ah, 1992]. Note that this does not have to be inconsistent with the critical
role of income diversification for poor families; it merely states the obvious
which is that better off families are able to diversify in more favourable
labour markets than the poor. Important reasons for this effect are the lack
of assets of the poor and their exclusion from the more highly remunerated
labour markets due to skill and education constraints [Dercon andKrishnan,
1996]. Indeed, education may be a major explanatory cause of cumulative
processes of rural differentiation [Francis and Hoddinott, 1993].
A case study of rural Pakistan described by Adams and He [1995] is
instructive on the income distribution question. It demonstrates that some
income sources have equalising, and others disequalising effects, on rural
incomes. Specifically, livestock, non-farm wages, non-farm self-
employment, and domestic remittances were found broadly to have an
equalising impact on rural income distribution; while agriculture
(cropping), rental income and international remittances had a disequalising
impact. This occurred in part because crop income was correlated with
highly unequal land ownership, while livestock income was not correlated
in this way. Note also that international migration involves barriers to entry
(travel and visa costs) that make it more accessible to better off than to
poorer households, hence the difference in effects between domestic and
international migration.
VI. DIVERSIFICATION, FARM PRODUCTIVITY AND NON-FARM

GROWTH
One particular paradigm has governed a large proportion of the policy
discussion for the past 20 years concerning the relationship of farm to non-
farm rural activity. This is the rural growth linkages model, originating in
the mid-1970s in the work of certain influential writers on rural
development [Johnston and Kilby, 1975; Mellon 1976], and applied to the
study of rural growth, employment and incomes in Asia and Africa [Bell et
al, 1982; Hazell and Roell, 1983; Haggblade et al, 1989; Delgado et al,
1994]. This approach is relevant to the study of livelihood diversification
due to its emphasis on rising farm productivity as the source of
diversification of income earning opportunities in rural areas.
While there are variations in emphasis within the rural growth linkages
approach, its central tenet is that growth in agriculture itself provides the
stimulus for the growth of rural non-farm activities in developing countries
[Haggblade andHazell, 1989; Hazell andHaggblade, 1993]. This is said to
occur due to the rising expenditure of farm households on locally-produced
non-farm commodities and services, including consumer goods and services
(expenditure linkages), inputs and services to agricultural production
(backward linkages), and processing and marketing services related to farm
outputs (forward linkages). The significance and magnitude of these
linkages have been explored in a number of sources [Ranis and Stewart,
1987; Ranis, 1990; Bagachwa and Stewart, 1992].
Empirical studies utilising the growth linkages approach have appeared
to demonstrate big multiplier effects in the rural economy resulting from
growth in agricultural output. Studies in Asia concluded that $1 extra value
added in agriculture created $0.80 additional non-farm income [Bell, Hazell
and Slade, 1982; Hazell and Ramasamy, 1991]; while a review of evidence
for sub-Saharan Africa suggested a lower multiplier of the order of $0.50
growth in non-farm income for each $1 extra agricultural income
[Haggblade et al, 1989]. However, by altering certain assumptions in the
models that produce these figures, some researchers have estimated higher
multipliers, ranging between $0.95 and $1.90 non-farm growth per $1 farm
growth, for selected sub-Saharan African countries [Delgado etal, 1994].16
Studies of rural growth multipliers mainly concur that consumption
linkages tend to dominate over forward and backward linkages in
explaining total linkage effects [Hazell and Haggblade, 1993]." In other
words, labour-intensive non-farm output growth is purportedly stimulated
especially strongly by consumption expenditure, reflecting demand by farm
households for locally-produced products and services. Controversially,
some studies found that these consumption linkages were higher for laiger
farmers than for smaller farmers [Hazell and Roell, 1983; Haggblade and
Hazell, 1989], leading to the potential policy inference that larger farms
should be favoured above small and poor farmers in promoting higher farm
productivity in order to achieve balanced growth within the rural sector18
The direction of causality in the growth linkage model is always from
farm growth to non-farm growth, not the other way round. This implies that
the primary focus of anti-poverty policy should be growth in farm output.
This helps to explain the emphasis on technological change in agriculture in
much writing on rural development in the 1980s. It also explains the
preoccupation of some authors in the 1990s with the supposed 'failure' of
the green revolution in Africa; the logic being that unless farm yields and
output rise steadily in African agriculture, the growth linkage multipliers
will fail to occur and the non-farm rural economy will stagnate as well
[Delgado et al, 1994].
Concomitantly, the rural non-farm sector according to this viewpoint has

little dynamic of its own and would be unlikely to take a leading role in
employment and income growth in the rural economy. In the succinct words
of Saith [1992: 114] 'the tail cannot wag the dog'.
The growth linkage approach has been criticised for relying on
unrealistic assumptions about the responsiveness of local non-farm output
to increasing demand by farmers, and for ambiguity in the definition of
what constitutes local supply and tradables, allowing for wide variation in
multiplier results according to the definitions adopted [Harriss, 1987; Hart,
1989; 1993]. These assumptions as well as other internal characteristics of
the models may result in exaggeration of the multiplier eifects of
agricultural growth in the local economy [Haggblade et ah, 1991; de
Janvry, 1994].
A study of intertemporal employment and output patterns in India
concluded that diversification into non-farm activities was more likely to
have occurred as a result of stagnation in agriculture or post-green
revolution shedding of labour by farmers who are substituting capital for
labour than from farm yield growth itself [Chandmsekhar, 1993]. In other
words, the existence of an excess labour supply unable to secure agricultural
jobs may have been a stronger stimulus to non-farm investment than farm
growth. In similar vein, the location and vigour of rural non-farm activity
may be due to its own cost and competitiveness characteristics rather than
to farm output growth. Fisher et ah [1997] demonstrate that the most
dynamic growth areas in the rural non-farm sector in India rely heavily on
urban and export demand, and possess negligible links to agriculture. In
some sub-Saharan African countries agricultural linkages have been found
to be very weak [Valentine, 1993; Tschirley and Weber, 1994].
A focus on the household rather than the sector results in preoccupations
that are different to the growth linkage emphasis on the leading role of farm
output growth. The key question becomes whether or not the withdrawal of
resources from the farm household that occurs with diversification damages
the growth prospects of agriculture. In particular, it is typically the younger,
more innovative, better educated members of farm families that leave the
farm to engage in rural non-farm activities or to undertake distance
migration. In doing so they may also divert scarce capital from the farm into
rural self-employment or job search funding for would-be migrants.
Several researchers have concluded that livelihood diversification has
adverse effects on farm investment and output. A first argument is that
investment in the social and kinship networks required to support diverse
livelihoods diverts resources from investment in agriculture [Berry, 1989:
46-51]. A second is that in some instances it may be farm profits that are
invested in non-farm enterprise rather than the other way round [Pottier,
1983]. A third is that non-farm diversification withdraws able-bodied and

skilled labour from farm production [Lipton, 1977; 1980; Low, 1986], A
fourth is that remittances are invariably utilised by the household for
consumption purposes rather than productive investment [Rempel and
Lobdell, 1978]. In a study in Indonesia, written up under the title 'too busy
to farm', Preston [1989] found that the non-farm occupations of farm
household members resulted in the gradual withdrawal from cultivation of
the less productive arable areas on farms.
These findings portray a different sequence of events from the growth
linkage approach. They relate to situations where buoyant non-farm labour
markets cause an exodus of certain types of labour from the farm. The non-
farm labour markets may be in cities, export processing zones, general
manufacturing or mining industries. The jobs on offer may be gender
differentiated or require particular skills or levels of education. The eflFect is
to cause agriculture to stagnate, and in sub-Saharan Africa rural non-farm
activity plays little role in the processes under observation.
A contrary household-level view is that the advent of non-farm income
sources has a net beneficial impact on agriculture at the household level.
Remittances from migrant family members are used for agricultural
investment [Lucas and Stark, 1985]. In doing this, they can be interpreted
as relieving a credit constraint caused by credit market failures [Stark, 1982;
Savadogo et al, 1994; Taylor and Wyatt, 1996]. Alternatively, non-farm
income can be viewed as a substitute for insurance, enabling the farm
household to carry out risky innovations [Evans andNgau, 1991]. One well-
known case study appears to demonstrate massive long term benefits
arising from the investment of urban earnings in environmental recovery
and agricultural innovation [Tiffen and Mortimore, 1992; Tiffen et al.,
1994]?"
Note, however, that the logic of this position is indeed that the 'tail wags
the dog'. Non-farm income sources become the agent of positive change in
agriculture, rather than agriculture being the agent of rural non-farm growth.
Furthermore, whereas in the growth linkage model it is rising farm
productivity that enables labour to be released to the non-farm sector in a
virtuous circle of rural growth, in the instances cited it is the prior release of
labour from a stagnant agriculture that sets up a reverse chain of causality
in which the alleviation of capital constraints becomes the catalyst of farm
output growth.
These apparently irreconcilable interpretations of the relationship
between farm productivity, agricultural growth, intra-rural diversity, and
household level income diversification may merely reflect the distinct
temporal and spatial contexts to which they apply. The growth linkage
approach is associated with the period in Asia when green revolution
technologies were achieving unprecedented increases in yields and output

for the food grains, rice and wheat. The approach was formulated in part as
a rebuttal of earlier pessimistic prognoses about the distributional impacts
of the new technologies [e.g., Griffin, 1979]. The context of the models was
agrarian economies containing many landless or near landless labour and
rural labour markets offering an elastic supply of labour at the going wage.
Sub-Saharan Africa has been unable to reproduce anything like the farm
growth of that era in Asia, and nor is it likely to do so given that climate,
cropping systems, soils and so on are vastly more heterogeneous and risk-
prone than the Asian case. Nor, with few exceptions, do sub-Saharan
African countries possess rural labour markets of the type prevalent in Asia;
on the contrary rural Africa is prone to seasonal and locational labour
shortages in agriculture.21 Most income diversification in Africa has been
not just non-farm but non-rural in character.
The different findings concerning the impact of diversification on farm
output are spatially and temporally specific. The stagnation of farming in
the southern African periphery in the 1970s and 1980s was due to the
adjacency of a booming labour market and low food prices [Low, 1986].
These conditions are unlikely to be replicable on the same scale at other
times in other places. Likewise the 'greening' of Machakos District adjacent
to Nairobi as a result of the reverse investment of urban earnings \Tiffen and
Mortimore, 1992; Tiffen et ah, 1994] may not possess the generality it tries
to convey. In the end, the direction of resource allocation by family
members will reflect real comparative returns to different activities in
different locations, modified by considerations of risk and the long term
social security of the family.
VII. DIVERSIFICATION AND GENDER

The spatially-extended concept of the household is the social arena around
which most economic work on livelihood diversification has been
undertaken. The strength of this approach is its recognition of the joint
circumstances in which household members find themselves; its weakness
is its neglect of the determinants and effects of diversification differentiated
between women and men.
It is not proposed here to take on board the vast literature on gender and
rural development. However, it is appropriate to consider the additional
insights into diversification that are afforded by a more disaggregated
approach to the household. Intrahousehold aspects of diversification can be
pursued only to a limited degree within the context of the unitary household
model, the predictive capabilities of which are restricted to patterns of
intrahousehold specialisation that correspond to gender differentiated work
opportunities and wage rates in different labour markets.

Collective models of the household based on individual welfare
maximisation and bargaining theory provide more scope for examining how
the social status and independent decision-making capabilities of women
are affected by changing their access to work and income outside the home
[Ellis, 1993: Ch.9; Haddad et al, 1997\. However, these models remain
somewhat economistic in approach, and they need supplementing by an
understanding of the social institutions that shape individual and family
behaviour [Hart, 1995]. This recalls a previous comment about the 'social-
embeddedness' of economic courses of action. Individuals may do things
because they have no choice, as well as doing things because they are
exercising choices.
Taking gender to mean the socially-defined roles of men and women,
gender will often be found to constrain the patterns of income
diversification pursued by the household [Davies andHossain, 1997]. Such
constraints may be direct, due, for example, to the total or partial prohibition
of women working outside the home; or they may be indirect, resulting, for
example, from girls being permitted less access to schooling than boys.
Even without explicit constraints of this kind, the widespread social
assignment of women to domestic duties means that their ability to
participate in income earning opportunities outside the household or farm is
likely, in most cases, to be more circumscribed than is the case for men.
A significant feature of income diversification in sub-Saharan Africa has
been the so-called 'feminisation of agriculture', caused by the
predominantly male involvement in long distance migration to cities, mines
and plantations [Low, 1986; Berry, 1989; Hart, 1994]. As discussed in the
preceding section, it is generally thought that this process has an
immiserising effect on agriculture due to the loss of labour, the heavy
domestic obligations of the women left behind, the lack of innovation and
farm investment, and the logical use of remittance income to purchase food
shortfalls [Low, 1986]. The predominance of males, and often younger
males, in many different types of seasonal and circular migration has been
noted by many researchers [Agarwal, 1990; Bigsten, 1996; Breman, 1996].
Gender thus affects diversification options, in terms of which income
earning opportunities are taken up and which are discarded; and also affects
diversification patterns, as manifested by unequal male and female
participation rates in different branches of non-farm activity.
Gender also affects diversification outcomes for the welfare and status
of family members as individuals. Some research findings suggest that a
greater share of cash income accruing to women results both in more of the
household budget being spent on food and in improvements to family
nutrition [Hoddinott and Haddad, 1995; Quisumbing et al., 1995].
Engagement in independent income sources may raise the social status of

women within the household, and improve their negotiating position across
a range of household decisions, although these outcomes are not guaranteed
merely from the fact of women's engagement in non-farm income-
generating activity [Wolf, 1990]. For these reasons, gaining a better
understanding, in different contexts, of the gender differentiated impacts of
alternative income sources within the household could result in
improvements in the design of local-level policies intended to ameliorate or
reduce poverty, improve nutrition, and enhance the ability of individuals to
improve their own living standards [IFPRI, 1992; Bourguignon and
Chiappori, 1992; Alderman et al, 1995].
VIII. DIVERSIFICATION AND POLICY

One policy implication that arises from livelihood diversification is that the
arena for household survival is spatially wider than the local sites often
chosen by NGOs and aid donors as focal points for resource management
policies [Painter et al, 1994]. Another is that different sources of income
represent opportunities to different individuals or to families possessing
different incomes and assets, therefore poverty reduction and income
distribution are affected by policies that, intentionally or not, promote or
downgrade alternative income generating activities [Adams and He, 1995].
Subject to the foregoing point, the removal of constraints to, and
expansion of opportunities for, diversification are desirable policy
objectives because they give households more capabilities to improve their
livelihood security [Jazairy et al, 1992]. Market liberalisation can play a
potentially positive role in this respect, by reducing the profile in the
economy of state and parastatal agencies that formerly curtailed diversity
and constrained opportunities and outcomes.22 A meticulously conducted
participatory study done in a cross section of Tanzanian villages in the early
1990s discovered that increased options for non-farm income generation
were regarded by villagers as the single most significant change in their
lives resulting at that point from new economic policies [Booth et al, 1993].
Arising from the literature, a number of policy areas are identified as
having relevance either for the survival portfolios of the poor or for
diversifying the income-earning options of individuals and households in
rural areas. These are described briefly as follows:
(a) Targeting: The purpose of targeting is to provide safety-net support

beneath the incomes of those social groups that are most vulnerable to
events or shocks that could lead to insufficient food or destitution [Lipton
and Ravallion, 1995]. There are two main types of targeting. Indicator
targeting works by identifying the social groups (landless, old, disabled, etc)
thought most likely to require support. Self-targeting works by providing
wages or food in return for work at levels that can enable the poor to
survive, but that are not so high as to be interesting for the better off. In
effect, self-targeting provides a diversification option for those needing to
diversify to survive. Successful targeting requires adequate information on
the locational and seasonal incidence of food insecurity and deprivation.
(b) Reduce Risk: Risk is closely related to market failure, and market failure
is related to high transaction costs, political and social instability, lack of
rule of law, poor information, poor infrastructure and so on. Market failure
will always be with us, but initiatives that improve freedoms of exchange
and movement, increase information, facilitate labour markets, ensure
transparency and accountability on the part of state agencies, and improve
infrastructural facilities (see below) are likely to help.
(c) Microcredit: Lack of credit is widely acknowledged as a constraint on

potential diversification, and there are several well-known examples of the
success of small-scale group lending schemes in enabling individuals and
households to widen their income earning options [Hulme, 1990] There are
now many different models and experiments in micro-credit provision from
which to adapt and to choose appropriate elements for local solutions
[Hulme and Mosley, 1996; Johnson andRogaly, 1997].
(d) Rural Services: In many circumstances the service sector can play a
larger role in employment and income generation than is conventionally
thought to be the case [Haggblade et al, 1989; Reardon et al, 1992]. The
service sector includes orthodox services to agriculture such as marketing,
input supply, machinery repair and so on; but also covers a diverse range of
services in the consumption sector that are often poorly represented or
absent in rural areas.
(e) Rural Non-farm Enterprise: This strand of policy has been popular in the
literature for a long time and comes in different guises in different eras, for
example, rural small-scale industry (RSSI) and microenterprise (ME). At
least one major review of this sector is dubious of its long term potential,
calling it a 'bargain basement sector' which has been encouraged in the past
merely to avoid tackling difficult issues such as land reform or in a
misguided attempt to slow the pace of rural-urban migration [Saith, 1992].
It has also been termed 'the forgotten sector', only in this instance from the
contrary view that it does (in India) and can play a most important role in
income-generation, employment and growth [Fisher et al., 1997]. The latter
source contains a detailed discussion of facilitating and enabling roles of

government towards the rural non-farm sector.
(f) Rural Towns: Rural towns have latterly tended to be neglected as

potential focal points for economic growth, and in many countries
municipalities have played a subordinated role down to vanishing point in
determining the sites, incentives and infrastructure for non-farm investment.
Several researchers in the diversification literature note the importance of
rural towns as focal points of non-farm income generating possibilities
[Haggblade et al, 1989; Evans andNgau, 1991].23
(g) Infrastructure: The enabling role of infrastructural facilities is a

recurring theme throughout the literature on diversification [e.g.,Lipton and
Ravallion, 1995: 2630], and indeed has more history than this because it is
one of the few priorities that belongs both in the 1960s era of dinosaur
development projects and in the 1990s era of participatory community
development. In participatory exercises improved road access is one of the
most frequently cited desirable items on village wishlists. Improved rural
roads reduce the costs of all types of spatial transaction, including labour,
output, input and consumer markets. Power supply also makes a big
difference to feasible options for rural output growth. Access to mains
electricity is a prerequisite for the location in rural areas of many types of
manufacturing industry.
(h) Education: All studies that have looked into the matter concur that
education is a great facilitator of livelihood diversification. Lack of
education has been identified as a critical constraint inhibiting
diversification by several researchers [Evans andNgau, 1991; Dercon and
Krishnan, 1996]. Since poverty is closely associated with low levels of
education and lack of skills, education is also a key factor contributing to
the greater ability of better off families to diversify compared to poorer
families. It follows that targeting of education and skills training towards
poor village households is likely to have a relatively large impact on their
ability to diversify income sources.
The foregoing list does not contain the conventional number one rural
policy priority of raising farm productivity. This is partly because farm
policy is such a large topic in its own right [e.g., Ellis, 1992]; and partly
because its relationship to the theme of diversification contains several
strands which are worth elucidating separately.
First, farming or livestock husbandry is still the majority income source
for the largest proportion of poor people in low income countries, and
therefore the continued pursuit of productivity increases in developing

country agriculture remains an important goal. Meanwhile, the accepted
means of stimulating agricultural innovation have changed since the mid-
1980s. Price policies, that is, minimum prices, stable prices, subsidised
input prices, low interest credit and so on, and the associated state agencies
that implemented them, have been dismantled or greatly reduced in scope in
many countries. This implies that agricultural research systems and their
interactions with farmers through extension and participation have changed
from being one of several different means of promoting innovation to being
the main way of doing so.
Second, agriculture itself can play a role in diversification options, and
indeed, new cropping or crop-livestock systems in agriculture can make
important contributions to income diversity. The key feature here is to take
advantage of new markets for different outputs, created by economic
growth and changes in trade regimes. Rapid growth in the production of
high value fruit and vegetable crops for urban and international markets has
been achieved in some sub-Saharan African rural areas [Jaffee and Morton,
1995]. Similar trends have occurred in milk supplies to towns based on zero
grazing regimes in intensive agricultural systems [e.g., Mdoe, 1996]. These
trends are market driven but can be facilitated by NGOs and governments
via market research, credit schemes, and enabling environments, especially
where export trade in concerned.
Third, there is the rural growth linkage contention that farm growth itself
acts as the stimulant for the emergence of more diverse opportunities in the
rural economy [Hazell and Haggblade, 1993]. The likelihood that sub-
Saharan Africa will experience the kind of tidal wave yield and output
growth that Asia experienced in the era from the early 1970s to the mid-
1980s seems increasingly remote. This is not meant to convey undue
pessimisism; it is merely accepting that achievements of this kind in Africa
will continue to occur in a dispersed and uneven way in the future as they
have done in the past. Therefore, rural diversity is unlikely to result from
massive spillovers of agricultural growth in the African context, even if it
arguably had this effect in parts of Asia. The rural growth linkage view of
rural development policy seems increasingly beside the point in both Africa
and Asia.
The current popularly advocated practice for the conduct of rural policy
is to enable rural communities to determine their own priorities through
participatory methods of information gathering, consultation, and
collaboration with agencies, such as NGOs and government oiganisations,
that have goals of improving rural livelihoods [e.g., Chambers, 1997]. This
no doubt has its attractions as an antithesis to the allegedly heavy handed
rural development practice of the past, but it will only ensure its validity in
the future if priorities so identified are then facilitated or acted upon by the
catalysts of the discussion. If members of rural communities keep
identifying rural roads as a key priority for improving their lives, then they
may be forgiven for becoming rather cynical about participation if
assistance with rural road construction and maintenance persistently then
fails to materialise.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
This article has reviewed livelihood diversification as a phenomenon that
characterises the survival and income strategies of individuals and families
in rural areas of developing countries. There is a widespread view, difficult
to substantiate due to the lack of comparable intertemporal data sets, that
diversity has increased over time in general and may be accelerating in the
current phase of rural development in sub-Saharan Africa. There are many
reasons for this, amongst which changing incentives and labour markets,
risk Strategies, impact of disasters and civil strife, and saving and
investment behaviour, all contribute with different force in different
settings.
It is tempting to seek generalisations concerning the causes and effects
of livelihood diversification, and, indeed quite a few of the contributions
reviewed here purport to demonstrate the critical determinant or implication
of greater degrees of household income diversity. Clearly an advantage of
discovering generalisable causes and consequences of diversification is that
policies of wide applicability can then be devised either to tackle its causes
(if it is considered bad) or to stimulate it further (if it is considered good) or
to channel it in particular directions in order to enhance the opportunities it
represents for particular groups (women, the landless, the poor, the risk-
prone and so on).
A first conclusion of this article is that such generalisation is neither
desirable nor necessary in order for an awareness of diversity to inform
local policies. Diversification is an infinitely heterogeneous social and
economic process, obeying a myriad of pressures and possibilities in the
rural economy. It is differentiated in its causes and effects by location,
demography, vulnerability, income level, education and many other factors.
Recognition of this heterogeneity is not to advocate neglecting
diversification as an important research and policy topic. Rather it
emphasises the importance of local contexts and therefore of tailoring local
policies to local circumstances.
A second conclusion is that sheer capability to diversify income sources
signifies an improvement in the livelihood security and income-increasing
capabilities of the rural household. Therefore policies that reduce
constraints to diversification and widen its possibilities are in general

desirable. Policies that act in this direction are those related to taigeting, risk
reduction, micro-credit, rural services, rural non-farm enterprise, rural
towns, infrastructure and education. Diversification within agriculture to
take advantage of new markets is also a desirable policy emphasis.
Finally, there is a need for more systematic knowledge of livelihood
strategies and their links to macroeconomic policies. The last decade has
seen the uneven dismantling in many countries of the middle-level policy
apparatus that used to act as an interface between the macroeconomy and
the rural household. Macro-policies are pursued with little more than
guesswork as to the changes in rural livelihood systems that they provoke,
and therefore little opportunity is aiForded to invigorate beneficial trends or
to ameliorate adverse ones. Moreover, a better understanding of
diversification is needed to underpin social safety net and poverty reduction
policies. Amidst the generalised retreat, often in disarray, of big government
from the rural economy, the least that needs to be put in place are household
monitoring systems that can inform researchers, policy advisers and policy-
makers of the livelihood adaptations occurring as a consequence of the
policies being pursued. The devising of low-cost and effective livelihood
monitoring systems represents a significant methodological challenge for
the future.
final version received December 1997
NOTES
1. This compartmentalisation permeates conventional development economics [e.g., Nafziger,

1997; Todaro, 1997]. It also informs the collection of most government statistics which is
oriented towards counting and classifying full-time jobs (or 'main occupations') and follows
clearly demarcated sectoral classifications for employment, wages, outputs and so forth.
2. The proposition that economic progress depends on specialisation and division of labour can
be traced back to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) which contains the famous
pronouncement that 'the division of labour is limited by the extent of the market' [Smith,
1970: 121]. An explicitly stated rural development version of this proposition is articulated
in Tomich et al. [1995: 36-65].
3. An important branch of enquiry in this area not examined in the article is the inter-
relationship of diversification strategies with natural resource management and the
environment.
4. In the Indian literature, the term 'occupational diversification' is often used to describe
diversification of income sources [Sadangi and Singh, 1993; Unni, 1996].
5. Cash income from crop or livestock sales refers to the gross value of sales less the cost of
purchased inputs, including seasonal wage labour, used in production [Brown, 1979]. The
use of livestock as a store of wealth as well as for recurrent sales or consumption makes
evaluation of the livestock contribution to income quite difficult in practice [Sarris and van
den Brink, 1993: 67-71].
6. For example, the bawon system for harvesting rice which is still prevalent in Java [Hart,
1986; Ellis et al., 1992], and many different types of labour contract observable in India
[Rogaly, 1997].
7. Non-farm rural self-employment is referred to as 'business income' in some sources.

8. These differences in categorisation, while valid within the logic of individual studies, cause
difficulties for making comparisons across studies utilising secondary data, and indeed many
such comparisons are invalidated by the different procedures employed in distinguishing
income sources in different studies.
9. This has occurred, for example, with several largescale household surveys undertaken in
Kenya [World Bank, 1995].
10. This is the case, for example, with the World Bank funded Human Resource Development
Survey in Tanzania [World Bank, 1996].
11. These are sweeping generalisations that are admittedly indefensible statistically. They result
from the dubious procedure of calculating crude averages across non-comparable surveys as
published in the sources cited.
12. For example figures cited by Reardon [1997] on Lesotho give a sample average of 78 per
cent reliance on non-farm sources.
13. One exception in the sub-Saharan Africa literature is the paper by Valentine [1995] which
compares income sources in rural Botswana between 1973/74 and 1985/86, demonstrating a
large increase in non-farm income sources between those two dates.
14. Taking into account interest payments on loans or advances made for consumption purposes.
15. For a different definition of vulnerability — dependence on unreliable non-farm sources of
food - see Reardon and Matlon [1989].
16. Achieved principally by deciding to include more items in the category of nontradable rural
outputs, the production of which are supposedly stimulated by farm household expenditure
[Delgado et al., 1994]
17. This predominance of consumption linkages did not manifest itself in a study of growth
linkages in the Indian State of Tamil Nadu in the mid-1980s [Hazell and Ramasamy, 1991].
18. As pointed out with some force by Harriss [1987], Not all writers within the rural growth
linkage tradition have concurred on this point [e.g., Bell et al., 1982].
19. The two key assumptions are a perfectly elastic supply of locally-produced non-tradables;
and local supply defined by point of purchase, not point of origin.
20. The site of this case-study was the previously degraded Machakos District in Kenya, which
is close to the capital city, Nairobi.
21. These are, of course, rough generalisations. Seasonal labour shortages can be observed in
Asia, just as they may not always be a dominating factor in Africa.
22. The downside is that it may also increase inequality, as plenty of observers have been quick
to point out [e.g., Gibbon, 1992]. On the other hand much commentary on structural
adjustment and its impact in Africa has been premature and thinly supported by evidence;
exhibiting a tendency to exaggerate the speed of change in African economic structures
resulting from the initial adoption of structural adjustment programmes in the mid-1980s.
23. An earlier literature promoted rural towns as growth poles, but this in the 1970s context of
extensive central government involvement [e.g., Richardson, 1979].
REFERENCES
Adams, R.H., 1993, 'The Economic and Demographic Determinants of International Migration
in Rural Egypt', The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.30, No.1, pp.146-67
Adams, R.H., 1994, 'Non-Farm Income and Inequality in Rural Pakistan', The Journal of
Development Studies, Vol.31, No. 1, pp. 110-33
Adams, R.H. and J.J. He, 1995, Sources of Income Inequality and Poverty in Rural Pakistan,
Research Report No.102, Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
Agarwal, B., 1990, 'Social Security and the Family: Coping with Seasonality and Calamity in
Rural India', The Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol.17, No.3, pp.341-412
Alderman, H. and D.E. Sahn, 1989, 'Understanding the Seasonality of Employment, Wage, and
Income', Ch.6 in D.E. Sahn (ed.), Seasonal Variability in Third World Agriculture: The
Consequences for Food Security, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, pp.81-106
Alderman, H. and C. Paxson, 1992, 'Do the Poor Insure? A Synthesis of the Literature on Risk
and Consumption in Developing Countries', Policy Research Working Papers, No.1008,
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Alderman, H., Chiappori, P., Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J. and R. Kanbur, 1995, 'Unitary Versus
Collective Models of the Household: Is it Time to Shift the Burden of Proof?' World Bank
Research Observer, Vol.10, No.1.
Anderson, J.R., Dillon, J.L. and J.B. Hardaker, 1977, Agricultural Decision Analysis, Ames, IL:
Iowa State University Press.
Andrae, G., 1992, 'Urban Workers as Farmers: Agro-links of Nigerian Textile Workers in the
Crisis of the 1980s', in J. Baker and P.O. Pederson, The Rural Urban Interface in Africa:
Expansion and Adaption, Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute for African Studies in co-
operation with Centre for Development Research, Copenhagen.
Baber, R., 1996, 'Current Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Rural Areas of South Africa', Ch.11 in M.
Lipton, F. Ellis and M. Lipton (eds.), Land, Labour and Livelihoods in Rural South Africa
Volume 2: Kwazulu-Natal and Northern Province, Durban: Indicator Press, pp.269-302.
Bagachwa, M.S.D. and F. Stewart, 1992, 'Rural Industries and Rural Linkages in Sub-Saharan
Africa: A Survey', Ch.5 in F. Stewart, S. Lall and S. Wangwe (eds.), Alternative
Development Strategies for Sub-Saharan Africa, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 145-84.
Baker, J. and P.O. Pedersen (eds.), 1992, The Rural Urban Interface in Africa: Expansion and
Adaptation, Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.
Bangura, Y, 1994, 'Economic Restructuring, Coping Strategies and Social Change: Implications
for Institutional Development in Africa', Development and Change, Vol.25, pp.785-827.
Barnum, H.N. and L. Squire, 1979, A Model of an Agricultural Household: Theory and Evidence,
Washington, DC: World Bank, Occasional Paper No.27.
Bell, C., 1988, 'Credit Markets and Interlinked Transactions', Ch.16 in H. Chenery and T.N.
Srinivasan, Handbook of Development Economics Volume I, Amsterdam: North Holland,
pp.763-830.
Bell, C., P. Hazell and R. Slade, 1982, Project Evaluation in Regional Perspective, Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins.
Benjamin, C., 1994, 'The Growing Importance of Diversification Activities for French Farm
Households', Journal of Rural Studies, Vol.10, No.4, pp.331-42.
Bernstein, H., Crow, B. and H. Johnson, 1992, Rural Livelihoods: Crises and Responses, Oxford
University Press.
Berry, S., 1986, 'Macro-Policy Implications of Research on Rural Households and Farming
Systems' in J.L. Moock (ed.), Understanding Africa's Rural Household and Farming
Systems, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Berry, S., 1989, 'Social Institutions and Access to Resources', Africa, Vol.59, No.1, pp.41-55.
Berry, S., 1993, No Condition is Permanent: The Social Dynamics of Agrarian Change in Sub-
Saharan Africa, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Berry, S., 1997, 'Tomatoes, Land and Hearsay: Property and History in Asante in the Time of
Structural Adjustment', World Development, Vol.25, No.8, pp.1225-41.
Bigsten, A., 1988, 'A Note on the Modelling of Circular Small Holder Migration', Economics
Letters, Vol.28, pp.87-91.
Bigsten, A., 1996, 'The Circular Migration of Smallholders in Kenya', Journal of African
Economies, Vol.5, No.1, pp.1-20.
Bigsten, A. and S. Kayizzi-Mugerwa, 1995, 'Rural Sector Responses to Economic Crisis in
Uganda', Journal of International Development, Vol.7, No.2, pp.181-209.
Binswanger, H.P., 1983, 'Agricultural Growth and Rural Non-farm Activities', Finance &
Development, June, pp.38-40.
Blackwood, D.L. and R.G. Lynch, 1994, 'The Measurement of Inequality and Poverty: A Policy
Maker's Guide to the Literature', World Development, Vol.22, No.4, pp.567-78.
Blaikie, P. and H. Brookfield (eds.), 1987, Land Degradation and Society, London: Methuen
Blaikie, P.M., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and B. Wisner, 1994, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's
Vulnerability and Disasters, London and New York: Routledge.
Blarel, B., Hazell, P., Place, F. and J. Quiggin, 1992, 'The Economics of Farm Fragmentation:
Evidence from Ghana and Rwanda', World Bank Economic Review, Vol.6, No.2, pp.233-54.
Booth, D., Lugangira, F. et al., 1993, Social, Cultural and Economic Change in Contemporary
Tanzania: A People-Oriented Focus, Stockholm: SIDA.
Bourguignon, F. and P-A. Chiappori, 1992, 'Collective Models of Household Behavior: An
Introduction', European Economic Review, Vol.36, pp.355-64.
Breman, J., 1996, Footloose Labour: Working in India's Informal Economy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bromley, D.W., 1989, 'Property Relations and Economic Development: The Other Land
Reform', World Development, Vol.17, No.6.
Bromley, D.W., 1991, Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy, Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Brown, M.L., 1979, Farm Budgets: From Farm Income Analysis to Agricultural Project
Analysis, World Bank Staff Occasional Papers No.29, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Bruce, J., 1989, 'Homes Divided', World Development, Vol.17, No.7.
Bryceson, D.F., 1996, 'Deagrarianization and Rural Employment in Sub-Saharan Africa: A
Sectoral Perspective', World Development, Vol.24, No.1, pp.97-111.
Bryceson, D.F., 1997, 'Deagrarianization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Acknowledging the Inevitable',
Ch.1 in D.F. Bryceson and V. Jamal (eds.), Farewell to Farms: Deagrarianisation and
Employment in Africa, Research Series No. 1997/10, Leiden, Netherlands: African Studies
Centre, pp.3-20.
Campbell, D.J., 1990, 'Strategies for Coping with Severe Food Deficits in Rural Africa: A
Review of the Literature', Food and Foodways, Vol.4, No.2, pp.143-62.
Carter, M.R., 1997, 'Environment, Technology, and the Social Articulation of Risk in West
African Agriculture', Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol.45, No.3,
pp.557-91.
Chambers, R., 1982, 'Health, Agriculture, and Rural Poverty', The Journal of Development
Studies, Vol.18, No.2, pp.217-37.
Chambers, R., 1989, 'Editorial Introduction: Vulnerability, Coping and Policy', IDS Bulletin,
Vol.20, No.2, pp.1-7.
Chambers, R., 1997, Whose Reality Counts?: Putting the First Last, London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Chambers, R., Longhurst, R. and A. Pacey (eds.), 1981, Seasonal Dimensions to Rural Poverty,
London: Frances Pinter.
Chandrasekhar, C.P., 1993, 'Agrarian Change and Occupational Diversification: Non-
Agricultural Employment and Rural Development in West Bengal', The Journal of Peasant
Chuta, E. and S.V. Sethuraman (eds.), 1984, Rural Small-Scale Industries and Employment in
Africa and Asia, Geneva, ILO.
Collier, P. and D. Lal, 1986, Labour and Poverty in Kenya, 1900-1980, Clarendon Press: Oxford
Collier, W.L., 1988, A Preliminary Study of Employment Trends in Lowland Javanese Villages,
Bogor, Indonesia: Agency for Agricultural Research and Development.
Corbett, J., 1988, 'Famine and Household Coping Strategies', World Development, Vol.16, No.9,
pp.1099-112.
Davies, S., 1996, Adaptable Livelihoods Coping with Food Insecurity in the Malian Sahel,
London: Macmillan Press.
Davies, S. and N. Hossain, 1997, Livelihood Adaptation, Public Action and Civil Society: A
Review of the Literature, IDS Working Paper No.57, Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies, July.
de Haan, A. (ed.), 1997, 'Urban Poverty: A New Research Agenda', IDS Bulletin, Vol.28, No.2.
de Janvry, A., 1994, 'Farm-Non-farm Synergies in Africa: Discussion', American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol.76, pp.1183-5.
Delgado, C , Hazell, P., Hopkins, J. and V. Kelly, 1994, 'Promoting Intersectoral Growth
Linkages in Rural Africa Through Agricultural Technology Policy Reform', American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.76, pp.1166-71.
Dercon, S. and P. Krishnan, 1996, 'Income Portfolios in Rural Ethiopia and Tanzania: Choices
and Constraints', The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.32 No.6, pp.850-75.
Dwyer, D. and J. Bruce (eds.), 1988, A Home Divided: Women and Income in the Third World,
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ellis, F., 1992, Agricultural Policies in Developing Countries, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ellis, F., 1993, Peasant Economics: Farm Households and Agrarian Development, 2nd Edition,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, F., Trotter, B. and P. Magrath, 1992, Rice Marketing in Indonesia: Methodology, Results
and Implications of a Research Study, Marketing Series No.4, Chatham, UK: Natural
Resource Institute.
Eswaran, M. and A. Kotwal, 1989, 'Credit as Insurance in Agrarian Economies', Journal of
Development Economics, Vol.31, pp.37-53.
Eswaran, M. and A. Kotwal, 1990, 'Implications of Credit Constraints for Risk Behaviour in Less
Developed Economies', Oxford Economic Papers, Vol.42, pp.473-82.
Evans, H.E. and P. Ngau, 1991, 'Rural-Urban Relations, Household Income Diversification and
Agricultural Productivity' Development and Change, Vol.22, pp.519-45.
Fisher, T., V. Mahajan and A. Singha, 1997, The Forgotten Sector: Non-farm Employment and
Enterprises in Rural India, London: IT Publications.
Folbre, N., 1986, 'Hearts and Spades: Paradigms of Household Economics', World Development,
Vol.14, No.2.
Francis, E. and J. Hoddinott, 1993, 'Migration and Differentiation in Western Kenya: A Tale of
Two Sub-Locations', The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.30, No.1, pp.115-45.
Gibbon, P., 1992, 'The World Bank and African Poverty, 1973-91', Journal of Modern African
Glewwe, P. and J. van der Gaag, 1988, 'Confronting Poverty in Developing Countries:
Definitions, Information and Policies', Living Standards Measurement Study, Working
Paper, No.48, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Glewwe, P. and J. van der Gaag, 1990, 'Identifying the Poor in Developing Countries: Do
Different Definitions Matter', World Development, Vol.18, No.6, pp.803-14.
Greeley, M., 1996, 'Measurement of Poverty and Poverty of Measurement', IDS Bulletin, Vol.27,
No.1, pp.50-8.
Griffin, K., 1979, The Political Economy of Agrarian Change: An Essay on the Green Revolution,
2nd Edition, London: Macmillan.
Guyer, J.I. and P.E. Peters, 1987, 'Conceptualising the Household: Issues of Theory and Policy
in Africa', Development and Change, Vol.18, No.2.
Haddad, L., Hoddinott, J. and H. Alderman (eds.), 1997, Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in
Developing Countries: Models, Methods, and Policy, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Haggblade, S. and P. Hazell, 1989, 'Agricultural Technology and Farm-Non-farm Growth
Linkages', Agricultural Economics, Vol.3, pp.345-64.
Haggblade, S., Hammer, J. and P. Hazell, 1991, 'Modeling Agricultural Growth Multipliers',
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May, pp.361-74.
Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and J. Brown, 1989, 'Farm-Non-farm Linkages in Rural Sub-Saharan
Africa', World Development, Vol.17, No.8, pp.1173-201.
Harris, J.R. and M.P. Todaro, 1970, 'Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two Sector
Analysis', American Economic Review, Vol.60, pp.126-42.
Harriss, B., 1987, 'Regional Growth Linkages from Agriculture', The Journal of Development
Hart, G., 1986, Power, Labor, and Livelihood: Processes of Change in Rural Java, Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Hart, G., 1989, 'The Growth Linkages Controversy: Some Lessons from the Muda Case', The
Journal of Development Studies, Vol.25, No.4, pp.571-5.
Hart, G., 1993, Regional Growth Linkages in the Era of Liberalization: A Critique of the New
Agrarian Optimism, World Employment Programme Research Working Paper No.37,
Geneva: International Labour Office.
Hart, G., 1994, 'The Dynamics of Diversification in an Asian Rice Region' Ch.2 in B. Koppel et
al. (eds.), Development or Deterioration?: Work in Rural Asia, Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner,
pp.47-71.
Hart, G., 1995, 'Gender and Household Dynamics: Recent Theories and Their Implications', in
M.G. Quibria (ed.), Critical Issues in Asian Development: Theories, Experiences and
Policies, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Hazell, P.B.R. and Roell, A., 1983, Rural Growth Linkages: Household Expenditure Patterns in
Malaysia and Nigeria, Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute 1983.
Hazell, P.R. and C. Ramasamy, 1991, The Green Revolution Reconsidered: The Impact of High-
Yielding Rice Varieties in South India, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins.
Hazell, P. and S. Haggblade, 1993, 'Farm-Non-farm Growth Linkages and the Welfare of the
Poor', Ch.8 in M. Lipton and J. van der Gaag (eds.), Including the Poor, Proceedings of a
Symposium Organized by the World Bank and the International Food Policy Research
Institute, Washington, DC: World Bank, pp.190-204.
Hearn, D.H., McNamara, K.T. and L. Gunter, 1996, 'Local Economic Structure and Off-Farm
Labour Earnings of Farm Operators and Spouses' Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol.47,
No.1, pp.28-36.
Heyer, J., 1996, 'The Complexities of Rural Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa', Oxford
Development Studies, Vol.24, No.3, pp.281-97.
Hoddinott, J., 1994, 'A Model of Migration and Remittances Applied to Western Kenya', Oxford
Economic Papers, Vol.46, pp.459-76.
Hoddinott, J. and L. Haddad, 1995, 'Does Female Income Share Influence Household
Expenditure Patterns? Evidence from Cote d'Ivoire', Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics, Vol.57, No.1, pp.77-96.
Hulme, D., 1990, 'Can the Grameen Bank be Replicated? Recent Experiments in Malaysia,
Malawi and Sri Lanka', Development Policy Review, Vol.8, pp.287-300.
Hulme, D. and P. Mosley, 1996, Finance Against Poverty, Vol.1, London: Routledge.
Hymer, S. and S. Resnick, 1969, 'A Model of an Agrarian Economy with Nonagricultural
Activities', American Economic Review, Vol.59, No.4.
International Food Policy Research Institute, 1992, Understanding How Resources are Allocated
within Households, IFPRI Policy Briefs 8, Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Islam, R. (ed.), 1987, Rural Industrialisation and Employment in Asia, New Delhi: International
Labour Organisation.
Jaffee, S. and J. Morton (eds.), 1995, Marketing Africa's High-Value Foods: Comparative
Experiences of an Emergent Private Sector, Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt for World Bank.
Jazairy, I., Alamgir, M. and T. Panuccio, 1992, The State of World Rural Poverty: An Inquiry into
its Causes and Consequences, London: IT Publications for the International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD).
Johnson, S. and B. Rogaly, 1997, Microfinance and Poverty Reduction, Oxford: Oxfam.
Johnston, B.F. and P. Kilby, 1975, Agriculture and Structural Transformation, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Katz, E. and O. Stark, 1986, 'Labor Migration and Risk Aversion in Less Developed Countries',
Journal of Labor Economics, Vol.4, pp. 134-49.
Kelly, C. and B. W. Ilbery, 1995, 'Defining and Examining Rural Diversification: A Framework
for Analysis', Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol.85, No.2, pp.177-85.
Kilby, P. and C. Liedholm, 1986, The Role of Non-farm Activities in the Rural Economy,
Employment and Enterprise Development Policy Analysis, Discussion Paper No.7,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute for International Development.
Lageman, B., 1989, 'Recent Migration Flows and the "Net Reallocation of Labour" Between
Rural and Urban Sectors in Nigeria', African Development Patterns Yearbook, pp.525-45.
Larson, D. and Y. Mundlak, 1997, 'On the Intersectoral Migration of Agricultural Labour',
Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol.45, No.2, pp.295-320.
Liedholm, C , M. McPherson and E. Chuta, 1994, 'Small Enterprise Employment Growth in
Rural Africa', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.76, Dec, pp. 1177-82.
Lipton, M., 1977, Why Poor People Stay Poor: Urban Bias in World Development, London:
Temple Smith.
Lipton, M., 1980, 'Migration from Rural Areas of Poor Countries: The Impact on Rural
Productivity and Income Distribution', World Development, Vol.8, pp. 1-24.
Lipton, M., 1996, 'Comment on "Research on Poverty and Development Twenty Years after
Redistribution with Growth"', in M. Bruno and B. Pleskovic (eds.), Annual World Bank
Conference on Development Economics 1995, Washington, DC: World Bank, pp.73-9.
Lipton, M. and S. Maxwell, 1992, 'The New Poverty Agenda: An Overview', IDS Discussion
Paper, No.306, August.
Lipton, M. and M. Ravallion, 1995, 'Poverty and Policy', in J. Behrman and T.N. Srinivasan
(eds), Handbook of Development Economics Vol.IIIB, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1995,
pp.2551-657.
Lipton, M. and J. van der Gaag (eds.), 1993, Including the Poor, Proceedings of a Symposium
Organized by the World Bank and the International Food Policy Research Institute,
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Low, A., 1986, Agricultural Development in Southern Africa: Farm Household Theory and the
Food Crisis, London: James Currey.
Lucas, R.E.B. and O. Stark, 1985, 'Motivations to Remit: Evidence from Botswana', Journal of
Political Economy, Vol.93, No.5, pp.901-18.
Matlon, P.J., 1979, Income Distribution among Farmers in Northern Nigeria: Empirical Results
and Policy Implications, African Rural Economy Paper No. 18, East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
Maxwell, D.G., 1995, 'Alternative Food Security Strategy: A Household Analysis of Urban
Agriculture in Kampala', World Development, Vol.23, No.10, pp.1669-81.
May, J., 1996, 'Assets, Income and Livelihoods in Rural Kwazulu-Natal', Ch.1 in M. Lipton, E
Ellis and M. Lipton (eds.), Land, Labour and Livelihoods in Rural South Africa Volume 2:
Kwazulu-Natal and Northern Province, Durban: Indicator Press, pp.1-30.
Mdoe, N., 1996, 'Constraints to Milk Marketing in the Kilimanjaro Highlands of Hai District',
TSAP Proceedings, Vol.20, pp.247-56.
Meillassoux, C., 1981, Maidens, Meal and Money: Capitalism and the Domestic Community,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mellor, J.W., 1976, The New Economics of Growth, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Moser, C.O.N., 1998, 'The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty
Reduction Strategies', World Development, Vol.26, No.1, pp.1-19.
Murray, C., 1981, Families Divided, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nafziger, E.W., 1997, The Economics of Developing Countries, 3rd Edition, London: Prentice-
Hall.
Nakajima, C., 1970, 'Subsistence and Commercial Family Farms: Some Theoretical Models of
Subjective Equilibrium', in C.R. Wharton (ed.), Subsistence Agriculture and Economic
Development, London and Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Nakajima, C., 1986, Subjective Equilibrium Theory of the Farm Household, Amsterdam: Elsevier
Norman, D.W., 1974, 'Rationalising Mixed Cropping under Indigenous Conditions: The
Example of Northern Nigeria', The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.11, No.l.
Norman, D.W., 1977, 'Economic Rationality of Traditional Hausa Dryland Farmers in the North
of Nigeria', R.D. Stevens (ed.), Tradition and Dynamics in Small-Farm Agriculture, Ames,
IA: Iowa State University Press.
Painter, T., Sumberg, J. and T. Price, 1994, 'Your Terroir and My 'Action Space': Implications of
Differentiation, Mobility and Diversification for the Approche Terroir in Sahelian West
Africa', Africa, Vol.4, No.64.
Platteau, J.P., 1992, Land Reform and Structural Adjustment in sub-Saharan Africa:
Controversies and Guidelines, FAO Economic and Social Development Paper No.107,
Rome: FAO.
Pottier, J., 1983, 'Defunct Labour Reserve?: Mambwe Villages in the Post-Migration Economy',
Africa, Vol.53, No.2, pp.1-22.
Preston, D.A., 1989, 'Too Busy to Farm: Under-utilization of Farm Land in Central Java', The
Journal of Development Studies, Vol.26, No.1.
Preston, D.A., 1994, 'Rapid Household Appraisal: A Method for Facilitating the Analysis of
Household Livelihood Strategies', Applied Geography, Vol.14, pp.203-13.
Quisumbing, A.R., Brown, L.R., Feldstein, H.S., Haddad, L. and C. Pena, 1995, Women: The
Key to Food Security, Food Policy Report, Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Rakodi, C , 1995, 'The Household Strategies of the Urban Poor: Coping with Poverty and
Recession in Gweru, Zimbabwe', Habitat International, Vol.19, No.4, pp.447-71.
Ranis, G., 1990, 'Rural Linkages and Choice of Technology', in F. Stewart, H. Thomas and T. de
Wilde, The Other Policy: The Influence of Policies on Technology Choice and Small
Enterprise Development, Washington, DC: IT Publications.
Ranis, G. and F. Stewart, 1987, 'Rural Linkages in the Philippines and Taiwan', Ch.5 in F.
Stewart (ed.), Macro-Policies for Appropriate Technology in Developing Countries, Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Ravallion, M., 1992, 'Poverty Comparisons: A Guide to Concepts and Methods', Living
Standards Measurement Study, Working Paper, No.88, Washington, DC: World Bank.
Reardon, T., 1997, 'Using Evidence of Household Income Diversification to Inform Study of the
Rural Non-farm Labor Market in Africa', World Development, Vol.25, No. 5, pp.735-47.
Reardon, T. and P. Matlon, 1989, 'Seasonal Food Insecurity and Vulnerability in Drought-
Affected Regions of Burkina Faso', Ch.8 in Sahn [1989: 118-36].
Reardon, T., Delgado, C. and P. Matlon, 1992, 'Determinants and Effects of Income
Diversification Amongst Farm Households in Burkina Faso', The Journal of Development
Studies, Vol.28, No.2.
Rempel, H. and R.A. Lobdell, 1978, 'The Role of Urban-to-Rural Remittances in Rural
Development', The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.14, No.3, pp.324-41.
Richardson, H.W., 1979, 'Rural Growth Centres and National Development: A Defence', Review
of Regional Studies, Vol.123.
Rogaly, B., 1997, 'Embedded Markets: Hired Labour Arrangements in West Bengal Agriculture',
Oxford Development Studies, Vol.25, No.2, pp.209-23.
Roumasset, J.A., Boussard, J.M. and I. Singh (eds.), 1979, Risk, Uncertainty and Agricultural
Development, New York: Agricultural Development Council.
Sadangi, B.N. and R.P. Singh, 1993, 'Understanding Profiles of the Self-Employed Rural Youth
for Promoting Occupational Diversification', Journal of Rural Development, Vol.12, No.1,
pp.57-75.
Sahn, D.E. (ed.), 1989, Seasonal Variability in Third World Agriculture: The Consequences for
Food Security, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.
Sahn, D.E., and A. Sarris, 1991, 'Structural Adjustment and the Welfare of Rural Smallholders:
A Comparative Analysis from Sub-Saharan Africa', World Bank Economic Review, Vol.5,
No.2, pp.259-89.
Sahn, D.E., 1994, 'The Impact of Macroeconomic Adjustment on Incomes, Health and Nutrition:
Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s', Ch.13 in G.A. Cornia and G.K. Helleiner (eds.), From
Adjustment to Development in Africa: Conflict, Controversy, Convergence, Consensus?,
London: Macmillan.
Saith, A., 1992, The Rural Non-Farm Economy: Processes and Policies, Geneva: International
Labour Office, World Employment Programme.
Sarris, A.H. and R. van den Brink, 1993, Economic Policy and Household Welfare during Crisis
and Adjustment in Tanzania, New York: New York University Press.
Savadogo, K., Reardon, T. and K. Pietola, 1994, 'Farm Productivity in Burkino Faso: Effects of
Animal Traction and Non-farm Income', American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol.76, Aug., pp.608-12.
Singh, I., Squire, L. and J. Strauss (eds.), 1986, Agricultural Household Models, Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins.
Smith, A., 1970, The Wealth of Nations (1776), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Stark, O., 1980, 'On the Role of Urban-to-Rural Remittances in Rural Development', The
Journal of Development Studies, Vol.16, pp.369-74.
Stark, O., 1982, 'Research on Rural-to-Urban Migration in Less Developed Countries: The
Confusion Frontier and Why We Should Pause to Rethink Afresh', World Development,
Vol.10, pp.63-70.
Stark, O., 1991, The Migration of Labor, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Stark, O. and D. Levhari, 1982, 'On Migration and Risk in Less Developed Countries', Economic
Development and Cultural Change, Vol.31.
Stark, O. and D.E. Bloom, 1985, 'The New Economics of Labour Migration', American
Economic Review, Vol.77, pp.173-5.
Stark, O. and R.E.B. Lucas, 1988, 'Migration, Remittances, and the Family', Economic
Development and Cultural Change, Vol.36, pp.465-81.
Stichter, S., 1982, Migrant Labour and Capitalism in Kenya, London: Longman.
Taylor, E. and T.J. Wyatt, 1996, 'The Shadow Value of Migrant Remittances, Income and
Inequality in a Household-Farm Economy', The Journal of Development Studies, Vol.32,
No.6, pp.899-912.
Tiffen, M. and M. Mortimore, 1992, 'Environment, Population Growth and Productivity in
Kenya: A Case Study of Machakos District', Development Policy Review, Vol.10,
pp.359-87.
Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M. and F. Gichuki, 1994, More People, Less Erosion: Environmental
Recovery in Kenya, Chichester: John Wiley.
Todaro, M.P., 1969, 'A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed
Countries', American Economic Review, Vol.59, No.1, pp.138-48.
Todaro, M.P., 1997, Economic Development, 6th Edition, London: Longman.
Tomich, T.P., Kilby, P. and B.F. Johnston, 1995, Transforming Agrarian Economies:
Opportunities Seized, Opportunities Missed, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Tschirley, D.L. and M.T. Weber, 1994, 'Food Security Strategies Under Extremely Adverse
Conditions: The Determinants of Household Income and Consumption in Rural
Mozambique', World Development, Vol.22, No.2, pp.159-73.
Unni, J., 1996, 'Diversification of Economic Activities and Non-Agricultural Employment in
Rural Gujarat', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.31, No.33, pp.2243-51.
Valentine, T.R., 1993, 'Drought, Transfer Entitlements, and Income Distribution: The Botswana
Experience', World Development, Vol.21, No.1, pp.109-26.
von Braun, J. and R. Pandya-Lorch (eds.), 1991, Income Sources of Malnourished People in
Rural Areas: Microlevel Information and Policy Implications, Working Papers on
Commercialization of Agriculture and Nutrition No.5, Washington, DC: International Food
Policy Research Institute.
Walker, T.S. and N.S. Jodha, 1986, 'How Small Farm Households Adapt to Risk', in P. Hazell,
C. Pomareda and A. Valdes (eds.), Crop Insurance for Agricultural Development, Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins, pp.17-34.
Walker, T.S. and J.G. Ryan, 1990, Village and Household Economies in India's Semi-Arid
Tropics, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
Webb, P., von Braun, J. and Y. Yohannes, 1992, Famine in Ethiopia: Policy Implications of
Coping Failure at National and Household Levels, Research Report No.92, Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Wolf, D.L., 1990, 'Daughters, Decisions and Domination: An Empirical and Conceptual Critique
of Household Strategies', Development and Change, Vol.21, No.1.
World Bank, 1990, World Development Report 1990: Poverty, New York: Oxford University
Press for World Bank.
World Bank, 1995, Kenya Poverty Assessment, Report No.13152-KE, Washington, DC: World
Bank.
World Bank, 1996, Tanzania The Challenge of Reforms: Growth, Incomes and Welfare Vols.I-III,
Report No.14982-TA, Washington, DC, World Bank.
Zoomers, A.E.B. and J. Kleinpenning, 1996, 'Livelihood and Urban-Rural Relations in Central
Paraguay', Ttjdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol.87, No.2, pp.161-74.

Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Development Studies

ISSN: 0022-0388 (Print) 1743-9140 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjds20

Household strategies and rural livelihood

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220389808422553

Published online: 23 Nov 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15361

View related articles

Citing articles: 208 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Household Strategies and Rural

This article reviews the recent literature on diversification as a

The orthodox view of processes of economic change is that they involve

It is not the intention of this article to attempt to resolve conflicting

II. CONCEPTS OF LIVELIHOOD DIVERSIFICATION

income sources. In a detailed study in rural Pakistan, for example, Adams

contributing to the well-being of the resident group requires explicit

III. EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF INCOME DIVERSITY

proportions on average in Africa." This difference is consistent with other

IV. DETERMINANTS OF DIVERSIFICATION

albeit subject to economic constraints (resources, assets, skills, incomes and

agricultural zones may be one option, circular or permanent migration of

Adaptation is evidently closely related to diversification but the two are

on the horizon of the rural household.

V. DIVERSIFICATION, POVERTY AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION

enabling the household to maintain food consumption in the deficit season

compared to large farm output.

VI. DIVERSIFICATION, FARM PRODUCTIVITY AND NON-FARM

Concomitantly, the rural non-farm sector according to this viewpoint has

1983]. A third is that non-farm diversification withdraws able-bodied and

technologies were achieving unprecedented increases in yields and output

VII. DIVERSIFICATION AND GENDER

opportunities and wage rates in different labour markets.

Engagement in independent income sources may raise the social status of

VIII. DIVERSIFICATION AND POLICY

(a) Targeting: The purpose of targeting is to provide safety-net support

(c) Microcredit: Lack of credit is widely acknowledged as a constraint on

source contains a detailed discussion of facilitating and enabling roles of

(f) Rural Towns: Rural towns have latterly tended to be neglected as

(g) Infrastructure: The enabling role of infrastructural facilities is a

therefore the continued pursuit of productivity increases in developing

constraints to diversification and widen its possibilities are in general

1. This compartmentalisation permeates conventional development economics [e.g., Nafziger,

7. Non-farm rural self-employment is referred to as 'business income' in some sources.

Policies, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

You might also like