While not being an exhaustive stock taking,
a number of livelihood related themes, poli-
cies and programmes have been covered in
the earlier chapters. Livelihood as a body of
knowledge and a field of practice is complex
and diverse. The diversity in natural resource
endowments and local cultures make it dif-
ficult to have a common approach across
the country. If there is one key element
that we wish for in the conceptualisation of
livelihood development, what would it be?
According to us, it should be the autonomy
of action in the choice of livelihood and the
practice of it in the hands of household.
Policies and programmes on livelihoods
are usually meant for vulnerable people
who lack own resources to pursue gainful
employment or vocations. Since the policies
are framed for the have-nots, considerable
supply side thinking enters the design and
implementation. The assumptions in the
supply stage indicate that the intended target
of the programmes cannot be trusted to do
a good job of his/her livelihood. Hence, we
see a number entry barriers, operational
conditions, requirements of proving one
is on the right path at regular intervals and
prove that the programme design was right.
Never for a moment the supply side think-
ers pause to reflect whether they can do the
same things expected of the programme
target population.
If autonomy of action has to prevail,
then planners should learn to whittle down
their conditions to the barest minimum.
Livelihood project designs can do with a
healthy dose of realism. People participa-
tion has been a buzzword for a long time.
In all the projects a participation of people
is ensured and there is adequate documen-
tation to prove people participated. But the
question is how their participationwas made
use of to improve the programme design
and delivery? When was the last time a
significant change resulted from consulting
people who are supposed to benefit from the
programme? Why people still do not own
programmes where people’s institutions
have been built up painstakingly? Trust
is an important factor in the government
and people interface. When trust goes
missing, ownership even in a participa-
tory programme shifts to the government
functionaries. The NRLM is a case in point.
The design prioritised channeling money
into groups through grants, infrastructure
and bank loans. Had the individuals and
groups been asked to come up with a clear
plan of how they will use the money (if it
is a grant) and how they will use and repay
(if it is a loan), the outcomes could have
been different. We may not see a number
of groups leaving corpus funds idle in bank
accounts or one in three groups defaulting
on bank loan repayment. The assump-
tion from the supply side was that lack of
funds was the reason for people not having
sustainable livelihoods. The reality is that
Conclusion:
How will livelihoods be
meaningful and inclusive?
Chapter
9
