In the search for effective policies to combat poverty, bridging the gap between macro-level policy analysis and micro-level livelihoods analysis is an essential task, but not an easy one. While top-down policy analysis often ignores the realities of how policies affect people, bottom-up approaches such as sustainable livelihoods analysis often generate information which is too locally-specific to be useful in policymaking. An IDS paper examines the challenges facing efforts to connect the two approaches, and proposes new ways of identifying entry-points for policy-focused interventions to promote sustainable livelihoods.

The sustainable livelihoods (SL) framework is increasingly being adopted by donor agencies and NGOs interested in taking a more holistic approach to poverty reduction. This paper looks at ways of using the SL framework to analyse the links between policy and the livelihoods of poor people, and between poor people themselves and the policy process. In particular, it focuses on the relevance to policy analysis of three key elements of the framework: institutions, organisations and social capital.

Drawing on the findings of IDS research carried out in Ethiopia and Mali and on a review of relevant literature, the paper argues that:

• The shape in which a given policy measure actually reaches people will be influenced by the nature of the institutions and/or organisations on which it depends for implementation.
• Even institutions which seem to operate country-wide (like markets and legal systems) take different shapes in different contexts which may lead to big variations in how policy is transmitted to people.
• Informal institutions can play an important role in either increasing or restricting people’s ability to respond to policy changes.
• Conventional policy measures often fail to engage with informal institutions, and may even cause unintended damage to those which are vital to the livelihoods of the poor.
• Different kinds of social capital are relevant in different ways – while horizontal forms (such as mutual support among neighbours) can reduce vulnerability and increase access to resources, vertical forms (such as mobilising to claim rights) can enable poor people to influence policy implementation and even policymaking itself.
• Government agencies and/or active civil society groups may be able to influence policy in the interests of the poor and vulnerable even where these groups themselves lack vertical social capital. The extent to which this is possible will depend on how the policy process works in a particular country, region or sector.

Micro-level SL analysis can generate policy-relevant insights, but needs to be combined with big picture analysis of existing policy and the policy process. Combining SL studies with policy analysis makes it possible to identify the specific ingredients of different policies, the factors which influence the process of putting them into practice and the specific implications for different groups of people. To be effective, however, such analysis should:

• start from existing policy and work towards prescription, not vice-versa.
• concentrate on policy in practice – specific policy measures (laws, regulations, programmes and projects) into which official statements of intent are translated.
• consider implementation as an integral part of the policy process, rather than looking only at policy formulation
• Establish which institutions and organisations different policy measures depend on for implementation, and how different groups of poor and vulnerable people interact with them.
• Examine whether poor and vulnerable groups have either the social capital or the access to allies in government and/or civil society to be able to influence the policy process.
• Cross-check micro- and macro-level data to reveal where policy measures need to be modified to take account of variations in local conditions, and where local trends revealed by SL analysis have a wider relevance for policy.

The paper concludes by proposing a 15-point checklist designed to help decision-makers to use SL-focused policy analysis to identify potential entry points for interventions. Further guidance is provided in an Annex, which discusses appropriate methodologies and sets out a number of lessons drawn from detailed case studies.

Source(s):
‘Analysing Policy for Sustainable Livelihoods’ IDS Research Report #49, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton by Alex Shankland (2000) available on line Full document.

Funded by: UK Department for International Development

id21 Research Highlight: 25 January 2001

Further Information:
Alex Shankland
Participation Group
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE
UK

Tel: +44 (0)1273 678646
Fax: +44 (0) 1273 621202
Contact the contributor: a.shankland@ids.ac.uk

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

Other related links:
The Africa Policy Information Centre has accessible policy-relevant information and analysis around African issues

ADI is a research institute aimed at initiating practical solutions to Africa's developmental crisis by challenging policies

UNU Environment and Sustainable Development features further related research

CAPCITY is dedicated to advancing the policy and practice of capacity building in international development co-operation

GSSD is a resource for knowledge networks on sustainable development

B-SPAN is a window into a world that offers an opportunity to see what is being discussed and debated inside the World Bank on a variety of sustainable development and poverty reduction issues

Search Sustainable Development International for up-to-date news and information