From Micro To Supramacro:

Extending The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Introduction
The effects of globalisation and its impact on sustainable livelihoods (SL) is an
acknowledged reality. However, what is less common is the direct linkage of
international policies, institutions and policies (PIP) to livelihoods. In this discussion,
we extend the sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) to include the ‘supramacro’
level to acknowledge the influence of transnational organisations (TNO),
multinational corporations (MNC) and non-governmental organisations (NGO). We
explore SL from the perspective of countries and propose that nations in themselves
are engaged in a struggle to achieve and promote SL. We revisit the conceptual
underpinnings of SL and establish the complexity of livelihoods; in so doing, we lay
the foundation to exploring a ‘bigger picture’ of SL.

Sustainable livelihoods concept: in brief

SL has proven to be a robust and flexible concept; the myriad of approaches and
derivative frameworks based upon SL attest to this. As a concept, it has demonstrated
seminal value to development efforts due to its ability to provide a “coherent
organising principle” that integrates the diverse components of livelihood (Solesbury,
2003, p. 16). Chambers and Conway (1992) proposed that SL should be the focus of
“priorities for research and policy” due to the world being a “global village with finite
resources” (p.5). Perceptions of globalisation linked to ideas of population pressures,
scarce resources, modernisation and liberal economies promotes this view. SL has
gained much ground and prominence; its adoption by the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) and the UK Department for International
Development (DFID) has given it formal currency (Carney, 2002; Solesbury, 2003).
In drawing from Chambers and Conway, Scoones (1998) proposed a sustainable
livelihoods framework (SLF) for analysis (later revised and published by DFID; see
diagram 1) and redefined SL as:

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 1/11

 “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and
social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is
sustainable when it can cope and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain
and enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural
resource base.”
(Scoones, 1998, p. 5)

In the above definition, ‘sustainability’ was primarily concerned with natural

resources; i.e. the carrying capacity of natural resources. This was expected as
Chambers et. al. introduced SL within the context of rural livelihoods. However, since
then, SL has broadened to encompass the fundamentals of capacity, capability, equity
and sustainability. (Chambers et. al., 1991; Scoones, 1998; Lautze, 1997). In brief, the
ability to make a living is dependant on what one has (livelihood assets or resources),
can build upon (capacity), have access to (equity) and is able to make use of
(capability). Sustainability is dependent on how resilient a livelihood is to
vulnerability dynamics by assessing the coping mechanisms available in the short
term and the ability to adapt and recover in the long term (capacity) without damaging
current livelihood assets.

Diagram 1. Sustainable livelihoods framework (DFID, 1999, p. 46).

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 2/11

Dynamics and interconnectedness
The appropriation of SL by multiple agencies, and subsequent reflexive adaptation,
implementation and analysis, has resulted in the evolution of highly-defined
sustainable livelihood approaches (SLA) and programmes (for examples, see
Goldman, 2000; Mukherjee, Hardjono and Carriere, 2002; Hussein, 2002, Turton,
2000). SL has now come to be characterised as both a means and an end to
sustainable development; alternately viewed as either a desirable outcome or a
desirable process (Carney, 2002; Toner, 2002; Hussein, 2002).
The diversity of SLA and the substantive literature pertaining to livelihoods
has served to remind us of the complexities associated with livelihood strategies and
that there are ‘multiple dimensions’ to poverty (DFID, 1999). These have promoted
our understanding of changing vulnerabilities and highlighted the dynamic
interconnectedness of sub-components such as governance, rights, economics, and
policies, institutions and processes (PIP) on livelihoods. For example, Keeley (2001)
highlighted the power dynamics of policy-livelihood relationships, Eriksen, Brown
and Kelly (2005) revealed the extent of reliance on activity diversification and food
aid; Lautze (1997) examined livelihood strategies amidst conflict; Dilley and Bordeau
(2001) proposed that vulnerability could be viewed as systemic risks as opposed to
events; and Pimbert, Thompson and Vorley (2001) revealed the impact of
globalisation on farmers. In terms of scalability, distinctions have been drawn at the
household level (micro) to the national (macro) to identify the effectiveness of
poverty-alleviation measures (UNDP, 2003). The linkages between micro, macro and
the meso level (e.g. district, regional, provincial) has provided greater insight into
how PIP interact with livelihood assets and “condition the environment (vulnerability
context) which people operate” (Goldman, 2000, p.3).
Given the substantial literature, why should we adapt SLF further to include a
supramacro dimension? After all, where appropriate, the impacts of international PIP
have been raised. Carney (2002) suggested that the “priority is not to extend the use of
SL but to ensure that we are living up to our oft-stated commitments on poverty
reduction” (p.48). It is for this that there is a need to do so. Livelihood assessments

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 3/11

need to be rendered more meaningful by making explicit the impacts of international
PIP, which thus far, has been perceived as ‘sudden’ and ‘unforeseeable.’ For example,
the impacts of the Asian economic crisis of 1997-1998 was referred to as an
“economic disruption” that “befell Indonesia” by Mukerjee et. al. (2002, p. 8). This is
reflective of “false impression(s) that globalization is somehow imposed from above”
(Vasquez, 2002, p. 203). The influences behind globalisation are not neutral.

Supramacro-influences
When Scoones (1998) proposed that the SLF could be applied at “a range of different
scales” (p. 5), he acknowledged that the complexity of interactions of institutions and
organisations at “different levels” including “sometimes international” (p.12-13)
could influence livelihood outcomes. Increasingly, globalisation has resulted in a
convergence of rural and urban livelihoods (Pimbert et. al., 2001) and exposed, even
compounded, the sorry plight of nations that are unable to compete in the global
marketplace or benefit from foreign investments (Larsen, 2001). The result is a “vast
gulf (that) divide(s) one sixth of humanity today in the richest countries from the one
sixth of the world barely able to sustain life” (Sachs, 2005, p. 50). It is therefore
logical to situate international PIP within the SLF for the purposes of examining the
influence of international actors, highlighting global power relationships, establishing
direct causality and assigning culpability.
Nations can be conceptualised to engage in decision-making processes in an
effort to maintain or promote their livelihoods. Nations possess livelihood assets and
are exposed to vulnerabilities, just like individuals and households. A nation’s
influence, access, rights and entitlements are expanded and curbed by international
PIP. Therefore, in extrapolating the national experience, we can substitute ‘country’
for ‘people’ to account for micro-macro linkages. For differentiation purposes, we
may think of international PIP as the supramacro level. This is represented in Diagram
2.

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 4/11

Diagram 2. Adapted PIP box.

In so doing, we can extend the SLF to include international PIP and add
‘political capital’ (Po) as a sub-component of livelihood assets. (See Diagram 3). We
differentiate political capital to identify the formal networks, claims, relations,
affiliations and organisations that nations can call upon to construct their livelihood
strategies from that of the informal (social capital). Political capital contextualises the
reality that there are groups of countries that “collectively establish and enforce the
rules of the global order” (Klak, 2002). The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs
(GATT) and its subsequent evolution as the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
exemplifies how the global economic system is a construct by a group of nations that
promoted trade – and by extension, wealth – in the First World, to the exclusion of
other nations such as the USSR (Sachs, 2005). The WTO’s mandate is to promote free
trade; however, trade barriers remain disproportionately high. It is estimated that a
50% reduction could increase trade globally by US$100 billion (Larsen, 2001).

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 5/11

 By contrast, social capital refers to informal networks, the inter-country
alliances that seek to circumvent the ‘formal rules of the game.’ This identifies the
use, by nations, of multiple ‘tools’ to engender influence. China’s growing influence
in sub-Saharan Africa is an example; two-way trade is estimated to grow to $100b by
2010 (Tisdall, 2007). China has also pledged $5b in aid and soft loans without
conditionality to multiple nations in the region; negotiations with Zimbabwe over a
$2b loan have been reported (McGrears, 2007). The G8 is another example. In this
case, wealth is not the only determinant of influence; military might accounts for
something on the world stage too. Contrary to popular perception, the G8 does not
represent the world’s top eight richest nations; the Federation of Russia ranks 58 in
world GDP (UNDP, 2007). The G8 actively exercises its influence through overseas
development aid (ODA) and weighing in on issues ranging from climate change to
debt relief (G8 Information Center, 2007). Social capital is also racked up through
alliances with those who share one’s ideologies and supports one’s position; witness
the US$4.7 billion bail out of Argentina by Venezuela (The Economist, 2007).

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 6/11

Similarly, Queen Elizabeth II’s speech at the Bush White House emphasised the
importance of US-UK relationship as “one of the most durable international
collaborations anywhere in the world” (Hardman, 2007, p.230). The extent of this
‘collaboration’ was evident in the joint-invasion of Iraq – despite domestic resistance
in the UK and around the world. The above examples are by no means exhaustive,
however they illustrate the livelihood assets a nation may possess and wield to
construct its livelihood strategy. These are summarised in the chart below:

In broadening the SLF, we bring to the fore both the direct and indirect
influence international actors (TNO, MNC and NGO) can have on a nation’s assets.
By highlighting the ‘two-way’ dynamics between PIP and vulnerability factors, we
also acknowledge that these inform upon each other (MoIP/UNDP, 2004; Huq, 2007).
Further, it has been suggested that there are gaps between experience, policy
development, implementation and analysis (Blaikie and Soussan, 2002; Keeley, 2001;
UNDP, 2003). This can lead to examples of “erroneous policy recommendations…
(that) stem from too narrow a focus on localised contexts that ignore the wider
political economy” (Pimbert et. al., 2001). By extending the SLF, we provide a
possible, if necessarily simplistic, tool to overcome myopic development

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 7/11

interventions. To illustrate, we use two brief examples. Malaysia, in the aftermath of
the Asian economic crises of 1997-1998, implemented policies that were contrary to
IMF advisory for the region’s affected countries. Malaysia fixed the exchange rate,
implemented a temporary embargo on outgoing funds and expanded money supply
(Ang and Kibbin, 2005). Whether its speedy recovery by 1999-2000 was a result of
this livelihood strategy, its ability to preserve financial capital resulted in reduced
vulnerability. In this case, intervention would have greater impact if it also focussed
on strengthening the nation’s financial capacity.
Zimbabwe presents a contrasting view. The country has suffered from
‘pariah’ status owing to widespread condemnation of its oppressive regime. As a
result, it been subject to economic sanctions and trade embargoes since 2002,
economic, political and social structures have broken down, aid is non-existent and it
is barely able to meet its food subsistence needs (OneWorld, 2007). Zimbabwe has
been reduced to ‘selling’ mineral concessions and dependence on Chinese foreign aid
(Misanet / IRIN, 2007). This is reminiscent of reported rural livelihood strategy
patterns; under extreme stress, households cope by selling off livestock and depending
on aid (Eriksen et. al. 2005). In assessing Zimbabwe’s SL outcome prospects, it
becomes evident that any intervention without well-functioning PIP in place will
further heighten vulnerability.
In such cases, the supramacro approach allows for a ‘bigger picture’
assessment; identifying how interventions may ‘cancel each other out’ or have
reduced impact; conversely, how multiple interventions may promote development in
the same direction. In Zimbabwe’s case, the resumption of any tied aid will be
negated by the political capital it currently has with China. In short, a supramacro
perspective presents a more realistic assessment of the multiple options a nation may
have at its disposal to sustain its livelihood.

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 8/11

References

Ang, J.B. and McKibbin, W.J. (2005) Financial Liberalization, Financial Sector
Development and Growth: Evidence from Malaysia. Washington, DC: The
Brookings Institution. Brookings Discussion Paper in International Economics
No. 168.
Ashley, C. and Carney, D. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from Early
Experience. London: Department for International Development.
Blaikie, P. and Soussan, J. (2002) Understanding Policy Processes. Livelihood-Policy
Relationships in South Asia. London: Department for International
Development. Working Paper 8.
Carney, D. (2002) Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and Possibilities
for Change. London: Department for International Development.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. R. (1992) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical
Concepts for The 21st Century. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
IDS Discussion Paper 296.
DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: Department for
International Development.
Dilley, M. and Boudreau, T.E. (2001) Coming To Terms with Vulnerability: A
Critique of the Food Security Definition. In Food Policy, 26: 229-247
Eriksen, S. H., Brown, K. and Kelly, P.M. (2005) The Dynamics of Vulnerability:
Locating Coping Strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. In The Geographical
Journal, Vol. 171 (4): 287-305.
G8 Information Centre (2007) Helligendam Summit: Official Documents. Toronto:
G8 Information Centre, University of Toronto.
www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2007heiligendamm/index.html (accessed
15/12/07)
Goldman, I. (2000) Micro to Macro: Policies and Institutions for Empowering the
Rural Poor. South Africa: Khanya.
Hardman, R. (1997) Monarchy: The Royal Family at Work. London: Ebury Press

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 9/11

Huq, S. (2007) Environmental Shocks as Policy Drivers: A Case Study of Floods and
Coastal Cyclones in Bangladesh. Improving Policy-Livelihoods Relationship
in South Asia. London: Department for International Development (DFID).
Issue Paper 5.
Hussein,K. (2002). Livelihoods Approaches Compared: A Multi-Agency Review of
Current Practice. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Keeley, J. (2001) Influencing Policy Processes for Sustainable Livelihoods: Strategies
for Change. Lessons for Change in Policy and Organisations, No. 2. Brighton:
Institute of Development Studies.
Klak, T. (2002) World Systems Theory: Centres, Peripheries and Semi-Peripheries. In
Desai, V. and Potter, R.B. The Companion to Development Studies. London:
Arnold.
Larsen, F. (2001) Globalization and the Poor Countries: Viewpoint of the IMF. In Le
Figaro. January 1. www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2001/010101.htm (accessed
15/12/07)
Lautze, S. (1997) Saving Lives and Livelihoods: The Fundamentals of a Livelihoods
Strategy. Medford, MA: Feinstein International Famine Centre, Tufts
University.
McGreal, C. (2007) Chinese Aid to Africa May Do More Harm than Good, Warns
Benn. In The Guardian. February 8.
Misanet / IRIN (2007) Zimbabwe "Looks East" to Avoid Economic Collapse. In Afrol
News. July 29. www.afrol.com/articles/16876 (accessed 17/12/07)
MoPIC/UNDP (2004) Jordan Human Development Report 2004: Building
Sustainable Livelihoods. Amman, Jordan: Ministry of Planning and
International Cooperation (MoPIC) and United Nations Development Program
(UNDP)
Mukherjee, N., Hardjono, J. and Carriere, E. (2002) People, Poverty and Livelihoods:
Links for Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Indonesia. Washington, DC:
World Bank. Report No. 25289.

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 10/11

OneWorld (2007) Aid Guide. Zimbabwe Guide.
uk.oneworld.net/guides/zimbabwe/development (accessed 15/12/07)
Pimbert, M.P., Thompson, J. and Vorley, W.T. (2001) Global Restructuring, Agri-
food Systems and Livelihoods. London: International Institute for Environment
and Development. Gatekeeper Series No. SA 100.
Sachs, J. (2005) The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It Happen In Our Lifetime.
London: Penguin Books.
Solesbury, W. (2003) Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of
DFID Policy. London: Overseas Development Institute. Working Paper 217.
The Economist (2007) Business Partners: An Alternative Dracula Makes A Buck. In
The Economist. August 9.
Tisdall, S. (2007) No-show Brown Plays into Mugabe's Hands. In The Guardian.
November 30.
Toner, A. (2002) Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches - Can they transform
development? Bradford Centre for International Development, University of
Bradford. BCID Research Paper No.2.
Turton, C. (2000) The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and Programme
Development in Cambodia. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Working Paper 130.
UNDP (2003) Assessment of Micro-Macro Linkages in Poverty Alleviation: South
Asia. New York: Evaluation Office, United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP (2007) Human Development Report 2007/2008.
hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/5.html (accessed 17/12/07)
Vasquez, I. (2002) Globalization and The Poor. In The Independent Review, Vol. VII
(2): 197-206.

Frances Tay McHugh (fran@321-connect.com) Page 11/11