Page 1 of 17
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 9, No. 11
Publication Date: November 25, 2022
DOI:10.14738/assrj.911.13382.
Lusinga-Machikicho, S., & Mutanana, N. (2022). A Critical Analysis and Review of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach for Rural
Development. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(11). 243-259.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
A Critical Analysis and Review of the Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach for Rural Development
Susan Lusinga-Machikicho
Women's University in Africa
Faculty of Social and Gender Transformative Sciences.
Ngonidzashe Mutanana
Faculty of Social Sciences, Gender and Transformative Sciences
Women's University in Africa
ABSTRACT
The main objective of this paper was to evaluate and analyse the importance of the
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) and its application to policies and projects
for rural development. Literature focusing on the main components of the SLA was
reviewed. The paper noted that the SLA is effective in interrogating the livelihoods
of the poor and the various mechanisms contained in the approach such as all forms
of capital, the vulnerability aspect, livelihood strategies and outcomes as well as the
various laws and regulations governing the access and use of resources. It has been
observed by leading scholars such as Chambers and Scoones (1992) as an inclusive
and top- down approach. The approach has theoretically proven that it assists in
understanding the livelihoods of the poor in rural communities. It is recommended
that government and their development partners adopt and incorporate the SLA
into their policies for sustainable livelihoods and development.
Key words: Rural Development, Rural livelihoods, Sustainable Development, Sustainable
Livelihoods
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the applicability of the Sustainable Livelihood
Approach (SLA) for projects and policies for rural development and its provision for sustainable
livelihoods taking into context the livelihoods of the poor in developing countries such as
Zimbabwe. While the focus of the SLA is on sustainable livelihoods, it has gone a notch up in
coming up and outlining the importance of focusing on the various components of the SLA in
order that development practitioners and policy makers should contextualise in order to
promote sustainable livelihoods. The paper further shows how some projects that have been
guided by the SLA have managed to achieve their developmental goals. Based on the different
components in the SLA, the approach remains critical for rural development and the poor in the
rural sector.
The SLA has been described by Chambers and Conway (1992) as a way of understanding the
livelihoods of local people. It emerges at the intersection of development and environment
studies to offer a new way to think about work, particularly the work of vulnerable populations
(Serrat, 2017). The SLA gives a holistic understanding of the livelihoods of the poor by
Page 2 of 17
244
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 9, Issue 11, November-2022
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
organizing the factors that constrain or enhance livelihood opportunities and shows how they
relate (Asian Development Bank, 2017). It is based on evolving thinking about the way the poor
and vulnerable lives their lives and the importance of institutions and policies. In a nutshell,
this theory gives an affirmation that policies for rural development have a choice to adopt the
SLA framework to guide their aims and objectives. The Brundtland Commission defined
sustainability as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs (Emas, 2015).
Scoones (2009) describes a livelihood as one comprising of capital assets, both material and
social resources and activities for a means of living. A livelihood is sustained when it can cope
and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both
now and in the future while not undermining the natural resource base. The use of current
resources should be sustainable to ensure that the future generation will be able to benefit and
make use of.
SLA – (Serrat, 2017) Asian Development Bank
In light of the above, rural communities in low-income countries derive their livelihoods mainly
from natural resources especially agriculture (DFID, 1999). There is greater dependency on
agriculture, which in recent years has been faced with shocks and stresses arising from factors
such as climate change and variability and general environmental mismanagement. DFID
(1999) further asserts that the poor or vulnerable people’s livelihoods are critically affected by
trends, shocks and seasonality which they have no control over. Rural livelihoods are very
fragile and naturally do not respond well to shocks and stresses, particularly in low-income
countries (Kapur, 2019). Moreover, the deprived and underprivileged sections of the
communities have lesser opportunities to reputed livelihoods; hence the fragility of their
livelihoods. Since agriculture is their major occupation, its compromise due to poor yields leads
Page 3 of 17
245
Lusinga-Machikicho, S., & Mutanana, N. (2022). A Critical Analysis and Review of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach for Rural Development.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(11). 243-259.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.911.13382
to poverty. As such, policies and projects for rural development need to be relevant and
applicable to the needs of the rural population.
METHODS
Narrative review approach was used mainly focusing on the debates that exist. The research
study is qualitative in nature and desktop and narrative method was used. Data was analysed
using thematic and document analysis. The information used was mainly taken from journals
which had undergone double review and policy documents which have shown use of the SLA.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
The history and evolution of the SLA
The SLA has been dubbed a people-centered, responsive, participatory, multilevel, dynamic,
and sustainable as it is conducted in partnership with the public and private sectors approach.
It came into being as a response and as a challenge to the policies of the colonial regime that
were bottom-up and non-participatory in nature (Kapur, 2019). The question that arises
henceforth is whether the SLA, as a guide to policies for rural development has been responsive
to the needs of those needing the intervention post 1990s.
The general assumption is that the 1990s policies were centered on the SLA framework
promoted by participatory development based on what people had and not, what they did not
have. The key emphasis was on the vulnerability aspect, their access to capital assets, policies,
livelihood strategies and outcomes to address rural livelihoods in two complementary
manners, namely: technological advancement and industrialisation concepts (Serrat, 2017).
Technological advancement and industrialisation are premised on the thinking that they lead
to the creation and, intensification of production and resultantly sustainable livelihoods and
poverty reduction (Cornwall & Musembi, 2004).
In the same vein, Dixon, Gulliver and Gibbon (2001), argue that the SLA concepts have only
worked partially as evidence points out that an estimated 800 million rural people in the world
live in poverty and, are undernourished, with another 1, 2 billion living below the international
poverty datum line. Notably, the composition of rural livelihoods particularly in sub-Saharan
Africa remains static as most household incomes are still derived from farming activities that
are characterised by factors such as lack of finance, poor access to markets, outdated
technology and traditional on and off-farm activities that rural populations survive on (Ndulu,
2007). These outcomes are attributed to poor policy implementation.
The SLA as a Participatory/People-Centered Framework
People-centered development within the SLA focuses on improving local communities, self- reliance, social justice and participatory decision making. It recognises that economic growth
does not inherently contribute to human development. The people-centered approach assumes
that the custodians of development should involve recipients. FAO (2013b) recognises that a
people/community-centered approach puts emphasis on three main principles that is place,
control and resources in the hands of the community, viewing poor people as assets and
partners in development to build existing institutions. Ellis and Bahiiga (2001) viewed people- centered development as a paradigm shift from the basic needs approach characterised by the
grassroots approach. Morse and McNamara (2013), agree with this assertion as they viewed