Munich Personal RePEc Archive

Deconstructing Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) for Equitable Living in Crisis of Global Pandemic

Jackson, Emerson Abraham (2020): Deconstructing Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) for Equitable Living in Crisis of Global Pandemic. Forthcoming in: Springer Nature, Cham : pp. 1-14.

[thumbnail of MPRA_paper_101977.pdf]

Download (715kB) | Preview


In a more skillful parlance, sustainable livelihood thinking can be likened to the reality of sustainability agenda, which according to Mores et al. (2009) incorporate: (i) A set of guiding principles for development intervention within communities or directed at individuals, which should be evidence-based through meaningful involvement of those directly affected; and (ii) An appreciation of available assets and their vulnerability, and the role of institutions in regulating access to assets, capable of helping thought stimulation on what ‘is’ and what ‘can’ be done in pursuit of livelihood needs analysis. As the incidence of COVID-19 unveil itself in the world economy, there is a need to focus attention in deconstructing discourses pertaining to the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in a bid to address ways of minimising human vulnerabilities in the world economy. The concept of sustainable livelihoods has dominated developmental efforts in under-developed economies, typically in Africa, Latin America and some parts of Asia (Cline-Cole and Robson, 2016; Clarke and Carney, 2008; Amalric, 1998; Cline-Cole, 1998). Decent living condition has been a challenge for people in the under-developed economies; this is partly due to the peculiarity of structural bottlenecks experienced by individual economies, which include poor management of state owned enterprises and institutionalized corruption that impede citizens’ access to essential livelihood assets (Jackson and Jabbie, 2020; Jean, 2002; Thompson and Porter, 1997). In cognisance of these issues, poor people are mostly left to settle in shanty locations, usually associated with poverty, while the means of access to livelihood assets like arable land and social capital are almost nonexistent for the poor to utilise (DFID, 2000).

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact us: mpra@ub.uni-muenchen.de

This repository has been built using EPrints software.

MPRA is a RePEc service hosted by Logo of the University Library LMU Munich.