Cluster III. Good governance: where the strategy aims at developing structures and systems of democratic governance that are participatory, representative, accountable and inclusive and
3.4 Models and the theoretical perspective that guided the study
3.4.4 Sustainable livelihoods framework
Figure 3.5: The push and pull framework
Source: (Heeks 2005a)
Human capital represents the skills, knowledge, ability to labour and good health that together enable people to pursue different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives.
Social capital is the genre of social resources upon which people draw in pursuit of their livelihood objectives and includes networks, participation in social or productive groups and mutually-beneficial relationships.
Natural capital is the term used for the natural resource stocks from which resource flows and services useful for livelihoods are derived.
Physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support livelihoods.
Financial capital denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihoods, such as available stocks, which can be held in several forms such as cash, bank deposits, liquid assets such as livestock and jewellery, or resources obtained through credit-providing institutions and regular inflows of money, including earned income, pensions and other transfers from the state and remittances.
The vulnerability context includes: trends such as population change, national and international economic trends; shocks such as natural disasters, epidemics, civil conflict and economic crises; seasonal variations in prices, costs, production, food supply and economic opportunity.
Processes include institutions, organisations and policies which are crucial in shaping livelihoods. They operate at all levels, from the household to the international level, and in all spheres, from the most private to the public.
Livelihood outcomes are the achievements or outputs of livelihood strategies. They could include outcomes such as higher income levels, an increased sense of well-being, reduced vulnerability, improved food security and more sustainable use of natural resources bases.
Livelihood outcomes are sustainable when they are resilient in the face of external shocks and stresses.
The sustainable livelihoods framework is widely used in the field of development, but the framework is increasingly used in the context of ICT-based development initiatives (Arun,
Heeks and Morgan 2004; Richardson 2005; Souter et al., 2005). In addition, Heeks (1999) pointed out that, as ICTs continue to diffuse and as greater attempts are made to apply them to current poverty-focused agenda goals, there are increasing opportunities for livelihoods frameworks and tools to make a contribution to understanding ICTs and development. Gerster (2006) emphasised that application of the livelihoods framework in poverty reduction initiatives using ICTs is of paramount importance, because the role of ICTs in poverty reduction is not limited to reducing income poverty, but includes non-economic dimensions such as empowerment, disadvantages in access to land, credit and services (for example health and education); vulnerability (towards violence, external economic shocks, natural disasters); powerlessness; and social exclusion. The use of the sustainable livelihoods framework is useful in this study because bridging the digital divide is not merely about increasing the number of telephone lines or providing improved internet access, but is basically about impacting the lives of people and empowering them through ICT (Singh 2006).
While information, knowledge and communication are not explicitly acknowledged in the livelihood frameworks, they are crucial to people‟s ability to develop appropriate and sustainable livelihoods strategies. Their influence is seen in all the main building blocks of the livelihoods framework outlined above. By introducing new modes of communication, information acquisition and knowledge-sharing, ICTs may add to the pattern of communication flows available for managing and enhancing the livelihoods frameworks. For instance, much of the vulnerability that people face comes from lack of knowledge or information. Farmers can be vulnerable to the market power of intermediaries and large companies if they have less information than they do about trends or short-term changes in market prices in other places, particularly where there is limited competition to purchase their produce (Souter et al., 2005).
Knowledge is the major component of human capital. Knowledge may be derived from informal and formal education, from personal experience, exposure to information from mass media and ICTs and exchange of ideas among friends and acquaintances. Knowledge of principles, processes and practical skills is essential to people's ability to make effective use
of (and to increase) their natural, financial and physical assets. In addition, social capital provides structures and networks through which information is accessed and experience is shared and through which support can be derived in times of difficulty or prosperity. Through communication networks based on social capital, people enhance their knowledge, gain access to information and co-operative resources. ICTs are crucial in this regard, as they can facilitate communication and assist in generating information required by the rural poor to enhance capital assets and make decisions on livelihood strategies (Souter et al., 2005).
The intention of the sustainable livelihoods framework is to employ a holistic perspective in the analysis of livelihoods, in order to identify a manageable number of key entry points where an intervention could be strategically important for effective poverty reduction (Chapman, Slaymaker and Young 2005). The livelihoods framework does not necessarily aim at addressing all aspects of the livelihoods of the poor in a single intervention. For the purpose of the present study the focus was particularly on the vulnerability context, in general, and on three of the five capital assets whose access seems most likely to be susceptible to the characteristics of ICTs. These include financial assets (such as income), social assets (such as networking) and human assets (in particular, access to and use of information and knowledge resources).
The present study is guided by ideas distilled from all the models discussed above. The study will propose a new model based on lessons learned from all the models and the empirical findings of the study (see section 7.5 in Chapter Seven).
3.5 Prominent global initiatives in ICTs for socio-economic development discourse The literature on the link between ICTs and socio-economic development has been through several different stages. The following section provides an overview of the different stages there have been in the progression of thinking (views and theories) about the link between ICT (and technology more generally) and development.