Critique of the Livelihoods Framework

Questions pertaining to the sustainability of livelihoods are not quite clear in the framework. This is because in most frameworks, the conceptual framework comprises amongst others, the resources accessible to the people, what can be done with the resources or assets and the intended or probable outcomes of their activities carried out as the core part. These features

50

are not easily discernible with the SL. It has not been clear how evaluating and assessing resources or assets of the rural people from different geographical regions; the developed north and the ‘developing’ south will bring similar conclusions. Gender issues in the contemporary world have become very important, they are sensitive and impact greatly on development and must be emphasized in addition to cultures in order to aid more detailed analysis. Gender as an informal institution should be situated in the framework under the vulnerability context due to the lack of “universality” among cultures, which in itself can undermine equity among genders. This assertion confirms what Masanjala (2007:1038) contends when he states that across Africa, the vulnerability of men and women to HIV infection stems from barriers which are brought about by socio-cultural (institutions) norms which do not enable women to have adequate participation and hence derive benefits from the economy.

Rakodi (2002) argues that using the livelihoods concept is a pragmatic realisation of actions taken by households to have security as well as meaning in their lives. There are, however, two sides to the sustainable livelihood framework. It has both its strengths and weaknesses and one can say that the SL approach is still evolving. There are ongoing discussions among practitioners and agencies on what the framework should be, in terms of content and focus. As a human construct, the livelihood framework cannot be a perfect and an all-embracing model. Indeed, Cahn (2002) maintains the SL approach is not a panacea for development, but rather a ‘way of thinking’ that has considerable potential as an analytical framework to guide researchers and practitioners in rural development and poverty reduction. Even though the approach may be sensitive to context and situation, its importance will be assessed as to the extent it reflects real situations which are multi-faceted in nature. Krantz (2001) asserts it can be easier in theory to recognize the different components and extent of what forms sustainable livelihoods, but tricky and complicated in practice due to the fact that many situations may demand context specific analysis.

According to Rakodi (2002), the importance of SL is its ability to put together vital constituents and by showing their interrelationships, help to aid recognition of crucial analytical questions as well as relevant points needed for effective intervention. The protagonists of the diagram (Fig 3.1) are concerned with discussing the concepts, relationships and processes portrayed among people, especially rural poor and how resources could be used to alleviate their poverty. It can be argued that the originators of the livelihoods

51

framework do not therefore take any critical view of the diagram itself and might have envisaged an open ended framework, which can allow future improvements on it. What is more critical to the SL approach is having knowledge that livelihoods are constructed around a series of tangible and intangible resources and the people’s entitlement and access to the resources to be used is significant. To achieve this, the SL should include material such as land and water bodies which can be used as important assets for irrigation in order to realise maximum benefits from livelihoods. Care should be taken such that in the new investment dynamics of land, or usage of other “property of the commons” the rural people are united and can be mobilised for development instead of dividing the rural poor (Scoones, 2009).

It is assumed that the complexities of the SL approach can be dealt with effectively at a decentralized government level. In fact, the strengths, resources and local knowledge of the poor are supposed to be the basis and focal points of policy options and direction; an approach that emanates from inside-out. Sometimes, power brokers and very influential people can arrogate power from the local folk, thereby preventing them from taking their destinies into their own hands. Questions have been raised over which other components should be included in the conceptual framework, as the SL approach is still developing and further benefits and disadvantages will emerge over time (Cahn, 2002). One important but controversial aspect of the approach is the way the framework portrays the interaction between factors. This type of approach can pose a danger as it tries to represent the reality and complexity of a livelihood system in a simple and logical way and by so doing, obliterate the relative importance of some factors and the relationships between them. In two of the frameworks (Ellis, 2000 and Scoones, 1998), it is said that the framework is assumed to be linear with no feedback process, let alone other relationships. This is clearly unrealistic.

The livelihood approach can be deemed less useful for quantifying changes in livelihood security or sustainability (Krantz, 2001). Besides, livelihoods analysis is resource intensive and demands a combination of field methodologies, strong analytical skills, including participatory techniques and the ability to adapt them, thereby making research findings more academic and scientific in character; it then becomes an approach that cannot easily be accessible to young researchers nor policy makers. Nevertheless, gender aspects have been considered by all three SL approaches. DFID’s SL framework for instance, highlights the need to give particular attention to ‘vulnerable groups’, including women, when conducting regular SL analysis, which are then supplemented with specific gender analysis.

52

Another significant limitation of SL approach is that it tends to take the household as the basic unit of analysis. Thus, most of the focus is on how different categories of households relate to different types of assets, to the vulnerability context, to markets, organizations, policies and legislation. With such thinking, the danger can be that the various inequalities found within the household in terms of individuals who wield more economic power and control, who has more say over diversified livelihood interests (Ellis, 2000; Ellis 2005) can be overlooked. In addition, opportunities and power relations in taking crucial decisions that affect health, education of children and which crops to grow and on which parcel of land to be tilled, is often associated with gender, but not spoken about within the SL framework. It is important to note that women and children live under the control of lop-sided power relations in favour of the men, especially in the patriarchal communities studied.

Women and children are generally termed as poor and vulnerable even if they are household heads. General categorisation of women as socially vulnerable and economically deprived or subordinate members of well-to-do households narrate half-truths. In order to take a critical view of the various segments of the household such as men, women, girls and boys, different age groups, other issues such as the order in which the co-rivals gave birth as well as the order in which the wives were married into the polygamous relations must be considered (Bolt & Bird, 2003). The use of SL framework for this study will have implications for my analysis if the households within the Ghana-Togo border were assumed to be a homogenous entity. Household composition reflects different strands of elements comprising each household. The way each household makes a decision and allocates resources are influenced by institutions embedded in a culture, the time at which the decision is made and how social influences can result in varying benefits, work, leisure and consumption patterns. In order to address human rights issues of various segments of the population, making girls and women equal partners in decisions that affect their welfare within the communities/households will drastically reduce the incidence of vulnerability of women and girls to HIV. Thus, institutions (social factors) associated with gender differences are said to shape the HIV risk environment more than the other dimensions through asymmetric sexual relations, economic inequalities and population movements (Masanjala, 2007).

53