Livelihood approaches compared: a brief comparison of the livelihoods approaches of the UK Department for International Development (DFID), CARE, Oxfam and the UNDP

The article concludes that these agencies are still relatively early on in their efforts to implement sustainable livelihoods approaches, and it is probably too early to draw firm conclusions about differences. However, the four agencies share much in common, notably the focus on assets and on micro-macro links as well as common roots in the work of Chambers and Conway. All also stress flexibility in application.

The more interesting question, that can be answered only over the longer term, is how the different agencies vary in their actual operationalisation of the approaches. It is likely that that variation will be both internal (i.e. different parts of a single organisation operating in somewhat different ways) and in comparison with each other. Amongst some there is scepticism that for all the new and good intentions, we are in danger of falling back towards familiar, needs-based income generation programmes (unless we remain highly vigilant and seek to learn as we go). In the short term and at a conceptual level commonality certainly exceeds variation:

• All agencies adopt an asset-based approach. Differences in the number of assets considered by particular agencies are not likely to be important. Some agencies stress capabilities as well as assets and activities, others less so. However, this seems to be more a case of simplifying vocabulary than of abandoning the core ideas that lie behind the notion of capabilities
• There is a somewhat different understanding of sustainability between the agencies. CARE, in particular, stresses household livelihood security. If this difference is carried through into practice, it could be significant (for example the relative emphasis placed on the environment would differ). However, it should also be noted that gaining an understanding of sustainability and incorporating its different elements into action programmes is perhaps one of the more challenging aspects of SL approaches
• All agencies stress a need to understand and facilitate effective micro-macro links. The various agencies also seem to have quite strong opinions as to the extent to which they are doing this themselves and the extent to which other agencies are doing it. A good deal of the difference probably comes down to the different mandates and scale of operation of the agencies covered in this review. UNDP, and to a lesser extent DFID, tend to have higher level entry points than the NGOs. Yet both NGOs see a need to work more on macro issues in the modern development context. There is clear scope for complementary activity here with different agencies building on their existing strengths.
• Different agencies place a different level of stress on empowerment. Again, this may well be to do with comparative advantage issues, rather than an actual difference in opinion as to what is important.
• UNDP is the only organisation that explicitly stresses technology in its framework. It is not yet clear whether this has a specific impact on development activity. DFID certainly supports many technology programmes, despite the fact that it chooses not to single out technology (it views it instead as on, key, means of contributing to human capital).

[adapted from author]