The Sustainable Livelihood Approach, like other theoretical approaches, has received some criticism. The criticism has primarily been on the practical usage of the approach. Sakdapolrak (2014, p20) posits that criticism of the livelihood’s perspective falls in three clusters: the insufficient appreciation of the relation between structure and agency, the rigid notion of assets and the lack of appreciation for the dynamism of space and time.
The insufficient appreciation of the relation between structure and agency has been one of the major criticisms targeted at the livelihoods approach. The livelihoods approach emphasises the agency of individuals: the capability of the individual to independently take action that can successfully catapult the individual out of a situation of vulnerability and stress. Critics argue that since the perspective emphasises the behaviour and actions of individuals in specific situations,
38
the perspective should employ theories that explain the actions and choices of people at least (Sakdapolrak 2014, p20). Theories of human decisions are, however, absent from the approach.
The approach has also received flack for failing to view the individual as a `whole entity` with a unique and dynamic perspective to life, thus, it is not a giving that an individual at all times makes choices that are rational and strategic for the attainment of a certain set outcome (Sakdapolrak 2014, p21). Most importantly, the approach has been criticized for failing to fully acknowledge the impacts of structural limitations to the agency of individuals. De Haan (2012, p349) argues that in order for the livelihoods perspective to easily gain global grounding, it had to refrain from coming across as a ‘neo-liberal project’. However, in the process of avoiding an ideological stand, it over-emphasized the ingenuity of labour- even for the poor- ignoring and not fully appreciating the influences of the roles of governments and private sector, and the impacts of policies, institutions and culture on actions of individuals (De Haan 2012, p349).
Another criticism of the livelihood approach has been on its rigid notion of assets. According to the livelihoods approach, assets are the main tools used in analyzing the risk of an individual or household to vulnerability (Sakdapolrak 2014, p20). Therefore, the more assets that an individual or household has, the more the likelihood of overcoming vulnerability. Morse et al. (2013, p43) points out that for the analysis within the context of the SLA to be complete, some or all of the assets within the framework should be measurable. For example, for households whose main occupation is farming, it is difficult to determine the exact sizes of farmland that can sufficiently sustain their livelihoods. Furthermore, assets and capitals are usually viewed as constants in people’s lives, neglecting the importance of the origin as well as the trajectory and accumulation of assets and capital (Sakdapolrak 2014, p21). The livelihoods perspectives notion of assets also neglects the fact that assets can be relational and its ownership can be contested within social settings (Van Dijk, 2011, p106-108). Finally, the economic and materialistic nature of the notion of assets and capital means that there is difficulty in assessing the non-economic or non-material contexts in the livelihood of people (Sakdapolrak 2014, p21).
The SLA has also been criticized for lacking appreciation for the dynamism of space and time.
The interactions that occur at the local-global scale is important in shaping spatial dynamics and economic conditions of a given place, which in turn shape shapes livelihood situations in that place (Sakdapolrak 2014, p21). In this regard, it is not enough to view livelihoods within an isolated and
39
independent context. De Haan (2012, p349) posits that the simplistic nature of the livelihoods approach creates a difficulty of adequately embedding it in the contexts of local and trans-national structures which could have made for better analysis and understanding of how global connectedness affects local livelihoods. With regard to time, the livelihoods approach has been criticized for concentrating too much how people are equipped to cope with the stress and vulnerabilities in the interim while neglecting the role of history and the importance of a long-term social change (Sakdapolrak 2014, p21).
Even though the criticism of the sustainable livelihood approach holds substantial ground, Sakdapolrak (2014, p22) argues that expanding the scope of the SLA by synthesizing some aspects of Bourdieu’s theory of social practice can mitigate some of the shortcomings of the approach.
One of the criticisms of the SLA was on the insufficient appreciation of the relation between structure and agency, broadly based on an inadequate understanding of the actions of the poor and vulnerable in navigating limiting structures to make a living. Drawing on Bourdieu’s ideas on
‘habitus and social practices’ Sakdapolrak (2014, p23) suggests that, for the SLA to be more holistic, it should appreciate that, the livelihood strategies and actions adopted by people are just not based on ‘common sense’, but also on inherent dispositions that culminate from life path, socialization, perceptions and social positions. In this regard, the analysis and understanding of livelihoods would be less simplistic, more comprehensive and more realistic. The relationship between agency and structure would also be more appreciated in this context. In addition, capital should not be viewed as a static stock of endowment available to households, but rather as socially embedded endowments which are contested through political processes and decisions (Van Dijk, 2011, p112-113). Furthermore, recognizing the role of political processes and decisions in the livelihood approach helps for a better understanding of spatial dynamism and the local-global connections that affect livelihoods Sakdapolrak (2014, p23).
In this chapter, there has been a review of the literature on unemployment and the SL approach. I have focused on youth unemployment in Ghana as well-presented a thorough review of its causes.
On the SL approach, literature has been on the origins of the concept and its operationalization.
Literature has also focused on the relations of the SL approach to unemployment, drawing on examples from developing countries, particularly from the African continent. Literature on the
40
critique of the SL approach was also reviewed. With this background knowledge, the succeeding chapter will elaborate on the findings obtained from the fieldwork.