This was one of the initial questions posed by Radha Rajkotia of the IRC as she began a recent presentation focused on the use of the sustainable livelihoods approach to improve the well-being of conflict-affected youth. The presentation was an element of a Washington Network for Children in Armed Conflict event and the question was far from unfounded.
To open the presentations, Felix Unogwu of Search for Common Ground silenced the crowd of over 50 attendees as each reflected on the stories of three conflict-affected young people. Though each demonstrated a sense hope, the comments of one young man from Liberia clearly illustrated the motivation for the event. When asked about his livelihood, the man took the inquiring practitioner into his home and pointed to a row of seven certificates on his wall. Each one was presented to him in recognition of his completion of a development-led effort to improve his livelihood. "I have seven certificates on my wall," he commented. "I have attended seven trainings. With all of this, I cannot provide for my family. I've lost self-respect."
Youth Unemployment in Conflict-Affected Areas, was organized in response to a growing recognition that, despite our best intentions, we as a community often fall short of providing youth the skills, knowledge or market connections necessary to pursue their own livelihoods and escape from poverty. The event centered on the presentation of two common approaches to this challenge - the sustainable livelihoods approach and the value chain approach. Through their comments and the questions and answers that followed, the presenters outlined the strengths and weaknesses of each approach in overcoming this challenge, a topic on which Jason Wolfe and others have commented in this forum.
Though I doubt anyone walked away with a magic bullet for improving employment among youth affected by conflict, many of us did gain a deeper understanding of these two distinct, yet surely connected schools of thought. We also realized that to translate this common ground into better programs, we have much work to do. Questions related to timing, targeting, scale, sequencing and prioritization were all largely left on the table. For our part, we will continue to monitor progress in this area and hope to work closely with some of those involved to deepen our collective understanding. In this regard, CYES would like to encourage further substantive exchanges among practitioners addressing youth unemployment regarding their experiences (successful or otherwise), available resources, or questions. Please do not hesitate to add your thoughts in the comments section or contact us by email at: moderators@cyesnetwork.org.
In the meantime, here are some links to relevant resources across the site, including the event presentations, of course:
Resources:
- Youth Unemployment in Crisis-Affected Areas: Event Presentations
- WNCAC Meeting Archive Center (Notes and all event presentations)
- Making Markets Work for Poor: Comparing M4P and SLA Frameworks
- Youth Livelihoods Development Program Guide
Activities:
This paper reports on DFID-funded research by ITDG to develop analytical tools that help development practitioners understand livelihoods involving micro / small-scale enterprise (MSE). The research concerned the roles which:
- private-sector markets play in livelihoods of micro-entrepreneurs and small-scale producers
- technological change (including poor people's own adaptability) has on livelihood opportunities and outcomes
Millions of poor people depend to a significant degree on earnings from MSEs – whether as business owners, employees or self-employed. Processes of technological change and market development are often highly significant factors in their livelihoods. However, weak analysis of these factors’ influence within SL approaches means that opportunities to enhance poor people’s livelihoods may be over-looked. Also, the pro-poor influence which SL advocates seek to have on the objectives and priorities of development programmes may be diminished.
The study focuses on two methodological tools which may be particularly useful to understand livelihoods that involve micro / small-scale enterprise:
- The concept of technological capabilities - a bundle of specific organisational skills and linkages that help determine people’s ability to generate and manage processes of technological change.
- The systems tool known subsector analysis – which models enterprise inter-relations, market channels and linkages in order to create a map of the institutional / market landscape for MSEs.
The 15 page report describes ITDG’s practical experience and lessons learned from applying these tools. It draws on two case-study reports generated by field research in Kenya and Ghana in April 2001. It also includes suggestions for revisions to SL frameworks for livelihoods that involve micro-enterprise.
Poverty reduction is the ultimate objective of both the Market Development and Sustainable Livelihoods approaches. However, the means by which to achieve poverty reduction often differ under these approaches. Realising the need to find common grounds of understanding between the two approaches, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) organized a seminar on Making Markets Work for Poor (in short: M4P), looking for complementarities, divergences and synergies with other approaches to poverty reduction. This seminar in particular focussed on the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA).
The following series of three papers (prepared by The Springfield Centre on behalf of the FAUNO Consortium) explore synergies, complementarities and divergences between the M4P and Sustainable Livelihoods approaches.
- Complementarities, divergences and synergies
- Case studies
- International development cooperation: seeking common principles that underpin a coherent approach to poverty reduction
This main paper outlines the conceptual framework used to assess the two projects in the case studies (below) as well as summarising the seminar discussion.
These case studies compare two projects in Bangladesh: KATALYST for M4P and LEAF/SAAKTI for SLA, with a third case study reporting on a joint initiative between KATALYST and LEAF/SAAKTI.
These briefing notes describe the analytical framework under which the M4P and SL approaches were compared to each other.
