CHAPTER 2: HOUSEHOLD ASSETS AND RESILIENCE
2.1 Household Coping Strategies
27
28
Table 2.1: Commonly observed household coping strategies
Source: Corbett (1988: 1100)
Watts (1983:435) argues that coping strategies follow a progression that reflects increasing
„irreversibility‟ and „commitment of domestic resources‟. Households will respond initially with strategies that involve the smallest commitment of domestic resources and the greatest degree of reversibility (Watts, 1983:435). The progression of response is depicted in Figure 2.1. The first few strategies adopted are those of adjustment such as a change of diet to relatively cheaper foods or the incorporation of wild foods into the diet or borrowing grain from others. These strategies are easily reversible and entail a minimal commitment of domestic resources. Households are moderately vulnerable to famine at this point. The next group of strategies are less reversible and include a commitment of domestic resources, such as the sale of small animals or taking a loan. The household‟s vulnerability to famine is high at this point and donor assistance is required to mitigate further risk. Once households reach the point of selling off productive assets, they become extremely vulnerable to destitution and require direct donor relief.
Coping strategy Dispersed grazing
Changes in cropping & planting practices Migration to towns in search of urban employment Collection of wild foods
Use of inter-household transfers & loans Use of credit from merchants & moneylenders
Migration to other rural areas in search of employment Rationing of current food consumption
Sale of productive household assets
Consumption of food distributed in relief programs Sale of possessions
Break-up of the household
Increased petty commodity production & trading Distress migration
29
Figure 2.1: Responses to household food shortages
Source: Adapted from Watts (1983:436) and Frankenberger (1992: 95)
High
HighLow Low
Crop & livestock adjustments
Small animal sales
Productive asset sales
Outmigration Farmland sale Farmland pledging Cash/cereal loan
Labour sales Diet change
Grain loan from kin Famine food use
Reversibility Commitment of domestic resources
Time
Adaptation Diet change, borrowing, seasonal labour migration
Divestment Liquid
assets
Produc- tive assets M
igration
Household Strategies
Moderate High Extreme Household Vulnerability
Donor Responses
Development Mitigation Relief
High
HighLow Low
Crop & livestock adjustments
Small animal sales
Productive asset sales
Outmigration Farmland sale Farmland pledging Cash/cereal loan
Labour sales Diet change
Grain loan from kin Famine food use
Reversibility Commitment of domestic resources
Time
Adaptation Diet change, borrowing, seasonal labour migration
Divestment Liquid
assets
Produc- tive assets M
igration
Household Strategies
Moderate High Extreme Household Vulnerability
Donor Responses
Development Mitigation Relief Adaptation
Diet change, borrowing, seasonal labour migration
Divestment Liquid
assets
Produc- tive assets M
igration
Household Strategies
Moderate High Extreme Household Vulnerability
Donor Responses
Development Mitigation Relief Donor Responses
Development Mitigation Relief
30 In reviewing the study by Watts (1983) and a number of similar investigations, Corbett (1988) proposes that there is a three-stage sequence to household coping strategies. The first stage is one of insurance: households adopt strategies to cope with predictable and non-severe risks. These responses include changes in cropping and planting practices, the sale of small stock, diet adjustments, inter-household transfers and the sale of non-productive assets such as jewellery. Stage one activities have relatively low costs in terms of long-term livelihood of the household. Stage two is one of productive asset disposal and may put the future economic welfare of the household at risk. Activities include the sale of livestock (large animals and breeding stock) and agricultural tools, the sale or mortgaging of land, loans from money lenders and a reduction in consumption levels. The third or last stage is destitution and includes distress migration in search of relief. At this point a household‟s ability to generate current or future income is severely reduced.
Devereux (1993) argues that the first response of households to a food deficit is not to protect their food consumption, but rather to protect their long-term viability. This view is supported by evidence from de Waal‟s study of the famine in Sudan in 1987 (de Waal, 2005). There is a trade-off between competing sets of objectives. Devereux (1993) categorizes coping responses into two behavioural groups each with different objectives. The first group includes strategies that attempt to protect consumption and the second contains responses that modify consumption. The two groups along with their associated activities are given in Table 2.2.
For example, a food deficit household may have the choice of selling assets for food or going hungry – each choice has a different objective. Selling assets for food is a means of protecting consumption; rationing protects the long-term viability of assets (Devereux, 1993).
Devereux (1993) further explains that the (mild) rationing of food is easily reversible and costs relatively little in terms of long-term effects. Therefore, households will avoid selling assets or borrowing money until the perceived costs of doing so exceed the perceived costs of additional rationing.
What does become clear from the literature on household coping strategies is that assets play an important role in risk management and the future viability of the household. The quantity and type of assets a household possesses determines its current and future income (Corbett, 1988). Households that consume assets and income, especially those involved in agriculture, become increasingly vulnerable to future food deficits (Devereux, 1993).
31
Table 2.2: Categories of household coping responses
Source: Devereux (1993: 53)