Livelihoods

The history of livelihoods thinking goes back to the late 1930s. The focus of initial work in this area was on how rural systems were changing and what challenges those changes posed for development. Although there was previous research that fell within what can be considered livelihoods thinking, one of the most widely used definitions, as well as an increase in the number of publications focused on the term, is observed in the 1990s. The surge in the advancement of livelihood approaches aligns with the political environment of the time that called for a shift from development policies focused on economic growth to a new focus on people’s well-being as the strategy to eliminate poverty, particularly following the publication of the report from the Brundtland Commission, formerly the World’s Commission on Environment and Development, titled Our Common Future (1987). In the early 1990s, Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway defined the concept of livelihoods as comprising the following:

... the capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claims, and access), and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain and 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.

The adoption of the livelihoods concept by government officials, the subsequent development of a sustainable livelihoods framework by the DFID, and the posterior adoption of the concept by international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Oxfam International, and CARE International, accentuates the acceptance of the framework by researchers, policymakers, and humanitarian organizations.

The concept of livelihoods affords an opportunity to focus on human agency. Because of its focus on human action, it allows for an understanding of what people are already doing to cope with risk. Moreover, because of its focus on “doing,” it allows for an understanding of the process through which people negotiate their living as part of a larger system that can present chances and obstacles. Frank Ellis highlights the notions of access and activities as well as the role of institutions in informing individual capacity.

Scholars argue that the concept of livelihood and its associated frameworks seek to capture how people live, how they manage their daily lives and resources, and consequently provide a better understanding of behavior that could evoke the creation of effective capacity-building solutions. While the concept of livelihoods has been fundamental to numerous national and international efforts aimed at poverty reduction, devising balanced humanitarian interventions has been a source of debate that intensified at the turn of the century. The debate on the extension and limits of humanitarian aid coincides with larger debates on the impact of globalization on the nation-state, with debates on the impact of providing long-term, lifesaving support in situations of chronic instability, and with widespread concerns regarding the use of humanitarian interventions to advance the political and economic interests of dominant nations or coalition partners.