Operationalizing agency in livelihoods research: smallholder farming livelihoods in southwest Ethiopia

Abstract

Livelihoods are activities and practices in which social and environmental factors interlink, and they play a key role in achieving human well-being and environmental conservation. Livelihood analyses are therefore important to social-ecological systems research. With a few exceptions, however, the concept of agency has been largely missing in research applying the social-ecological systems approach. This is an important gap to address, because humans are not passive victims of broader sociopolitical trends and environmental changes, but rather play causative roles that shape history. This paper presents a conceptual framework that enables the explicit integration of agency into livelihood analyses, and is useful for examining the extent to which livelihoods enable people to be agents of their own well-being, and stewards of their environment. The framework has four pillars of agency: preconditions (referring to capital assets and resources, or CARs); processes (feedbacks and dynamics); power (the social and political fabrics, and relations in which livelihoods are embedded); and possibilities (the extent to which a present livelihood expands into future options, and builds the ability to act on options). The framework is then applied to a case study analyzing smallholder farming livelihoods and food security in southwest Ethiopia. The case study is based on empirical work involving quantitative survey, in-depth interviews, and focus-group discussions. This paper demonstrates the applicability of the framework to identifying agency constraints in smallholder farming, and helps determine areas where agency can be further strengthened. Beyond the case study, the framework may also be applied in other contexts and to other livelihood types. Its application can strengthen the contribution of livelihood analysis to social-ecological systems research by providing a way to operationalize and foreground agency.

Drivers of ecosystem service specialization in a smallholder agricultural landscape of the Global South: a case study in Ethiopia

“…Specialization was measured by Simpson's index based on ecosystem service production data, and telecoupling by a combination of ecosystem service production data and weighted average ecosystem service flow data. Biophysical conditions (such as altitude and forest cover) and limited tenure security and use rights in the study area may restrict smallholders' agency to change their ecosystem service production, especially if they belong to poor or already vulnerable groups , Manlosa 2022). Kebeles at lower, coffee-suitable altitudes did not exploit comparative advantages as much as kebeles at higher altitudes.…”

“…These considerable potential positive and negative consequences of specialization require informed decisions regarding land use and ecosystem services. The role of farmers in land governance in our study area is limited, and is for example restricted by limited tenure security and land use rights , Manlosa 2022. Governance related to ecosystem service management is often strongly hierarchical, and dominated by government administrative organizations, which can lead to power capture, where the interests of few powerful stakeholders override those of smallholder farmers (Jiren et al 2018(Jiren et al , 2022.…”

“…Moreover, agricultural specialization can increase vulnerability to ecological and economic shocks because of decreased multifunctionality and resilience (Foley et al 2005, Abson 2019, Frei et al 2020, and often leads to landscape simplification, which can negatively impact biodiversity (Abson 2019), or human-nature connectedness and relational values (Riechers et al 2022). Finally, specialization can also cause social problems, such as rising inequalities and the erosion of values, traditions, and local knowledge (Jiren et al 2020a, Riechers et al 2022, with the danger of leaving behind groups that are already disadvantaged, for example because of their lack in capital assets or agency (Manlosa et al 2019a, Manlosa 2022.…”

Measuring livelihood resilience of farmers and diagnosing obstacle factors under the impact of COVID-19 in Jiangsu Province, China

“…The first category is to analyze the level of livelihood resilience from a subjective perspective using methods such as fuzzy integrated evaluation, hierarchical analysis, and expert evaluation. Manlosa (2022) use a study of smallholder livelihoods and food security in southwestern Ethiopia as an example to construct a conceptual analytical framework for livelihood resilience that includes four institutional pillars: preconditions, processes, power, and possibilities. Nath et al (2020) found that various variables related to conflict and rulemaking would affect the level of livelihood resilience of residents in Bangladesh's paddock.…”

The effect of digital technology in agriculture on market access and household food security among smallholder vegetable farmers in Ntfonjeni and Sidvokodvo communities of Eswatini.

“…One of the theoretical frameworks guiding this study is the Sustainable livelihood framework particularly human and social capital assets on improving livelihoods outcomes of farmers through adopting digital technology in accessing markets. Livelihood analyses have made important contributions to broader research areas such as those concerned with development, the environment, and sustainability (Manlosa 2022). This review articulates accessing markets, financial services using digital technology tools and proper digital infrastructure can improve household food security through improved incomes.…”