CHAPTER TWO: RURAL DEVELOPMENT THEORIES AND CONCEPTS
2.4 RURAL DEVELOPMENT IDEAS: TIMELINE
2.4.6 Phase Six: Sustainable Livelihoods (2000 →)
72 | P a g e
which are often thought of as an essentially local approach to problem solving".
Mendes and Binns (2013:608) confirm that “community development is known to be a central and necessary strategy for effective practice in the rural context”. Compton and Rooney (2012) concur with the above statement, noting that community development is a practice which assists the process of poor people acting together to improve their shared conditions, both through their own efforts and through negotiation with the public service for support.
Compton and Rooney (2012:9) state that "public service agencies and private agencies seek dialogue and cooperation with users in communities". This means that poor people need each other to push their own developmental endeavours, with limited influence from outside their communities. For instance, the development intended for the rural poor should be conducted in consultation with the community structures and traditional authorities since there are cultural aspects that should be respected and observed. Furthermore, in order for that development to succeed, it should be localised to embrace the socio-economic conditions of the community.
Oakely (1998) agrees by noting that community development as the national rural development strategy sets out to create and maintain the spirit of self-help within the domain of self-reliant development of rural communities. Therefore, community development is regarded as a tool that can be used to create awareness and to increase the potential of those living in rural settings to solve their own problems.
73 | P a g e
by international organisations and donors, including the World Bank, the OECD, the IMF, and the UN.
According to Scoones (1998), owing to limited success in terms of the elimination of poverty, sustainable livelihood (SL) approaches emerged and have been central to discussions on rural development. Sustainable livelihood was introduced in the 2000s as a new approach to rural development to reduce and eradicate rural poverty. It further emphasises comprehensive and coherent thinking related to poverty reduction and to achieving rural development and quickly gained great popularity among researchers and development stakeholders (Jomehpour and Kiomars, 2012). SL approaches have evolved from other themes which put more emphasis on poverty eradication, participation (listening and responding to livelihood priorities identified by poor people) and sustainable development (Malatji, 2020; Mazibuko, 2017; Serrat, 2017; Matiei Langroudi et al., 2011; Chambers and Conway, 1992). Initially, the sustainable livelihood concept was introduced as a means of linking socio-economic and environmental concerns, but it was later consolidated into an approach to poverty eradication (Malatji, 2020; Mazibuko, 2013; Brocklesby and Fisher, 2003).
The SL approach is accommodated within the ‘humanist’ paradigm and the Sen’s Capabilities Approach. Both of these sources have influenced the work on Capabilities, Equity and Sustainability by Chambers and Conway (1992) where the term, “livelihood”, is described as:
“the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means of living a livelihood which is sustainable and which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels in the long and short term” (p.6).
Scoones (1998:5) defines a sustainable livelihood in the following quotation: “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
74 | P a g e
resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base”. For instance, according to Mohammadi et al. (2021) and Sajasi Gheidari et al., (2016), achieving sustainable rural livelihoods is not possible without considering the rural livelihood assets.
The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) is a developmental approach which aims to define, understand, and improve people’s livelihoods. Basically, it is a ‘people- centred, bottom-up and dynamic’ approach to developmental thinking (Peng et al., 2017). Sustainable livelihood approaches have evolved over three decades. They have given an overview of how the perspectives on poverty have changed over time and how poor people live their lives; they have also focused on structural and institutional issues (Ashley and Carney, 1999).
The sustainable rural livelihood framework consists of five main components, namely natural, human, social, physical, and financial capital components, the improvement of which is considered necessary to achieve a sustainable livelihood (Abdullahzadeh et al., 2015). Capital is considered an essential component in influencing people’s livelihoods, especially the poor. People need different forms of capital to achieve their defined goals (Jomehpour and Kiomars, 2012). Livelihood capital forms the core component of a sustainable livelihood and is a fundamental factor in poor communities (Ghadiri Masoum et al., 2015). Figure 2.3 shows the framework that has been adapted and employed by the Department for International Development (DFID). The sustainable rural livelihood framework is an analytical structure which intends to understand the complexity of people’s livelihoods, including their vulnerabilities, access to assets, and numerous factors that influence the way people make a living (Jele, 2012; Farrington et al., 1999). The five livelihood assets possessed by household members are interdependent, each one capable of complementing the other (Ellis, 2005), and capable of offering a solution to a crisis (Elasha et al., 2005).
The ability of individuals to escape the scourge of poverty depends on the availability and magnitude of their wealth. It is in fact these factors that determine the various
75 | P a g e
livelihood choices that are offered to an individual and that finally impinge on the sustainability of the individual’s livelihood (Peng et al., 2017; Belcher et al., 2013;
Morse and McNamara, 2013).
Figure 2.3: The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) Source: Scoones (1998:7)
The SLF has proved to be useful as an analytical tool, a set of principles and a developmental objective, particularly in the spheres of, amongst others, project design, project reviews and the assessment of sectors (Farrington, 1991; Farrington et al., 1999). Sustainable livelihood is regarded as one of the key aspects of the sustainable rural development paradigm. Serious attention is given in this paradigm to livelihood and its transformation; in fact, the ways in which its challenges can be addressed are among the most essential aspects in the mitigation of rural poverty reduction and rural development (Sajasi Gheidari et al., 2013).
The SL approach has raised many questions and there have also been many critiques, such as that by Farrington et al., (1999:13):
“To its potential critics, an SL approach may appear excessively micro-focused, time- consuming, and complex, with only limited value-adding. It does not obviate the need for existing methods and tools, and yet requires investments of time and resources to
76 | P a g e
implement wider perspectives and achieve a degree of synergy among existing initiatives”.
A few examples follow: As the first principle, the SL framework calls for a focus on people which means that the approach should be ‘people-centred’. However, people, especially the poor, find it difficult at times to participate (FAO, 1999). Also ‘poverty’, or ‘poverty alleviation’, does not feature in the SL framework (Ashley and Carney, 1999). Additional criticisms of this approach include the failure to engage in debates about politics and governance, to link livelihood and governance debates, to discuss shifts in rural economies, and to deal with broader questions around agrarian change (Scoones, 2009).
Another important theme relevant to this study is Sustainable Development (SD). The paradigm of Sustainable Development seems to have attracted the broad-based attention that other development concepts have lack(ed) and appears poised to remain the dominant development paradigm for a long time (Scopelliti et al., 2018;
Shepherd et al., 2016). The Brundtland Commission, in its report entitled “Our Common Future” (1987), was the first to give an authoritative definition of the term.
The full definition of sustainable development is provided in detail in the sections below. Firstly, it is important to note that the Brundtland Report provided the momentum for the landmark 1992 Rio Summit that laid the foundations for the global institutionalisation of sustainable development. In development literature, a path is seen as being sustainable as long as overall welfare does not decline along the path (Pezzey, 1989).
Whitmore (2006:309) rightly noted that “sustainability implies something quite different, depending on which side of the bulldozer you are on”. According to Ololade and Annegarn (2013), numerous human activities that contribute to advancement and development are possibly also environmentally harmful, socially damaging, and disruptive. As such, the concept of sustainable development has enjoyed much attention in recent years, with much emphasis being placed on the relationship between the benefits of sustainable living and its detrimental effects. Sustainable
77 | P a g e
development has been defined by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987:15) as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Essentially, the main thrust of sustainable development is to establish harmony between the environment, society, and the economy – also known as the “triple bottom line”. The next section focuses on the central concepts associated with rural development.