DIME – FRAGILE STATESDUBAI, MAY 31 – JUNE 4

Evidence and Questions about Livelihoods and Conflict

Erwin BulteWageningen UniversityTilburg UniversityDIME Workshop, DubaiJune 1, 2010

Outline of Presentation

Concepts and Definitions Livelihood and income Sustainable Livelihood Framework

Conflict and livelihoods Conflict and behavior Conflict and assets Conflict and preferences

Unanswered Questions and Implications

Livelihoods and income

Livelihood:A livelihood comprises the assets, the activities and the

access to these (mediated by institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household.

Income is the most direct and measurable outcome of the livelihood process

Income:Income comprises both cash and in-kind contributions to the

material welfare of the individual or household deriving from the set of livelihood activities in which household members are engaged.

Farm income, non-farm income, off-farm income Rural survival strategies in poor countries characterised by

highly diverse portfolio of activities (that is continuously adapted to changing circumstances)

Livelihood and incomeDiversificationRural livelihood diversification is the process by which rural

households construct an increasingly diverse portfolio of activities and assets in order to survive and to improve their standard of living.

Figure 1: ‘Average’livelihood portfolio fora rural household in Sub-Saharan Africa(based on Reardon, 1997)

Sustainable livelihoods framework

Assets Mediating External processes factors

Natural capitalPhysical capital Policies Trends

LivelihoodHuman capital Institutions Shocks

strategiesFinancial capital ProcessesSocial capital

SLF Cont’d: Assets

Assets:Stocks of capital that can be utilised directly

or indirectly to generate the means of survival of the household or to sustain its material well-being at different levels above survival

Fundamental feature: They exist as a stock giving rise to a flow

of output (e.g. forests), or They are brought into being as

investments in future productive capacity, financed out savings (e.g. agricultural machines)

SLF Cont’d: assetsNatural capital: E.g., land, water and biological resources Management matters (productivity)

Physical capital: Goods produced through economic production, used to create a flow of

outputs into the future Includes (rural) infrastructure such as roads, electricity, piped water

Human capital: The labour available to the household: Its education, skills and health Increased by (public or private) investments in education and health

Financial capital: The stock of money to which the household has access (savings, credit) Savings can also be held in cattle, goats, gold, jewellery, food stocks, ..

Social capital: Community and wider social claims on which households can draw by

virtue of their belonging to social groups Safety network, trust, investment, reciprocity Social capital building processes are complex and may create ‘social

exclusion’ (of poor?)

SLF Cont’d: assets

Assets pentagon:Shows relative asset status of a particular group (as

compared to the maximum level of each asset for the community in question)

Figure 2: Example ofan assets Pentagon

So……..Human capital• labour capacity• no education• limited skillsNatural capital• landless• access to common property

resourcesFinancial capital• low wages• no access to creditPhysical capital• poor water supply• poor housing• poor communicationsSocial capital• low social status• descrimination against women• strong links with family & friends• traditions of reciprocal exchange= an extremely reduced “livelihood pentagon”

Landlessfemale

agricultural labourer

Financial Capital

Social Capital

Physical Capital

Human Capital

Natural Capital

Policies, institutions, processes… (~ IFAD style)Policies - (levels of)

government, - NGO- international bodies

Institutions - political, legislative, judicial

- civil society, membership

- commercial enterprise, etc

Processes - rules of the game- social norms, customs- gender, caste, class

SLF Cont’d: Shocks

Mediating processes:P. I. P. are critical mediating factors for livelihoods

because they can inhibit or facilitate the productive use of assets and choices by individuals and households

Exogenous factors and shocks: Trends: Population growth, technical change,

international trends, macro policies, …

Affect assets as well as mediating factors Shocks: Droughts, floods, pests, diseases, civil

wars, … Result in ‘erosion’ of assets. (But see below)

SLF Cont’d: Livelihoods strategies

Livelihood strategies (= set of activities that generates the means of

household survival)Various classifications possible, e.g.: Natural resource based activities (cropping, livestock,

NFP, …) Non-natural resource based activities (trade,

manufacturing, …)

Alternative classification (e.g., Scoones 1998): Agricultural intensification Agricultural extensification Livelihood diversification MigrationDepends on purpose of analysis

The SL framework in full

PoliciesInstitution

sProcesses

NS

FP

HVulnerabilit

yContextShocks

SeasonalityTrends

Changes

influenceLivelihoodStrategies

LivelihoodOutcomes

Non-linear feedback effects…

Livelihood outcomes…

Poverty - a “poor” livelihood outcome:

• based on a fragile or unbalanced set of livelihood assets

• unable to sustain to shocks, changes or trends

• not supported, or actively obstructed by policies, institutions and processes that do not allow assets to be used as they might

• livehood options combined in a “bad” or unsustainable strategy

• Outcomes: food security, well-being, sustainable resource management, etc: these are the ultimate variables of interest for an impact assessment.

Conflict and livelihoods

Conflict is a shock (part of the vulnerability context):

Direct effect through asset loss. Conflict may not affect all assets or activities… Hence: Substitution possibilities amongst assets

and activities are crucial for secure livelihoods Assets substitutability depends in part on the

existence and functioning of asset markets

Indirect effect through the P.I.P. Context

Direct and indirect effects matter for livelihood strategies.

Conflict and assets

Conflict destroys assets. Theft. Crops and infrastructure (hard and soft).

Substitution towards subsistence (both to cope, and to reduce exposure to violence)▪ Example: Deininger on Uganda▪ Limited scope for accumulation, dynamic

implications.

Effects are context-specific.

Conflict and assets

Does conflict affect social capital? Evidence suggests that it might (+). Bellows & Miguel, Blattman. Our own evidence in Burundi:

▪ Villages exposed to violence (by army or rebels) have more (bonding) social capital.

As an aside: conflict-villages tend to have better local institutions (tenure security, quality of decision makers). Causal effect.

Conflict and preferences Georgia: children exposed to bombing

(war with Russia) behave more pro-socially in sharing experiments.

Burundi: conflict affects preferences (or at least: play “in artefactual field experiments”) More risk seeking More patient More altruistic

All of these effects will have an impact on livelihood strategies and outcomes.

Livelihood interventions

Interventions aimed at rebuilding assets (direct support): NR conservation, health training, literacy

training, etc.

Interventions aimed at improving P.I.P. (indirect support) Improve policies, institutions, local

organisations, so as to improve access to assets and provide incentives for productive investments

Livelihoods interventions

A lot of uncertainty (governance structures, micro-macro linkages, and so on).

Own projects in Sierra Leone and Liberia, collaborating with NGOs. Trial and error; “looking for clues…” Until now: not enough efforts to learn

from the past

Issues and questions

Impact of conflict on assets and P.I.P. Heterogeneous impact? Conditioning factors? How can we make households more resilient?

▪ Which assets/PIP matter most (and when?); how to build them?

Impact on livelihood strategies and outcomes Dynamic implications for growth and

development?

Feedback effects on vulnerability for conflict