73
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
fi nancial capital may be either liberating, oppressive or a combination of both
(Johnson 2010 ) . An important shortcoming of livelihoods approaches is the lack of
acknowledgement that the decision to disentangle structure and agency in the
capitals-institutions framework is often accomplished by freezing the interplay of
structure and agency in constituting the possibilities for action.
Two recent book chapters address this limitation of livelihoods approaches
(Bebbington et al. 2007 ; White and Ellison 2007 ) . Bebbington et al. ( 2007 ) argue
that livelihoods approaches have engaged in two disconnecting practices. The fi rst
of these is the ‘bracketing’ mentioned in the previous paragraph. The learning that
needs to take place in this regard is for those development agents who employ livelihoods approaches to be much more attuned to the ways in which local livelihoods
strategies are informed, in a dynamic manner, by broader political economic relationships. The second disconnection is between the perspectives or worldviews of
development agents like non-government organizations and the perceptions of, or
perceptions of the possibility of, alternative paths of development. Certain options
seen as desirable by non-government organizations may be seen either as undesirable or unfeasible by target populations.
While Bebbington et al. ( 2007 ) see the livelihoods approach as needing some
reorientation, White and Ellison ( 2007 ) argue for a more thoroughgoing rethinking
grounded in a social constructionist position. Like Bebbington et al. ( 2007 ) , they
fl ag the disconnection between development agents and the targets of development.
To White and Ellison ( 2007 ) this results from the failure of outsiders to comprehend
that their positions, like those of the development subjects whose lives they seek to
improve, are constituted by social, cultural, and political relationships. Without this
self-awareness, livelihoods approaches simply become in fl ections of dominant economic perspectives in development. The risk, as it relates to livelihoods, is with the
terms and categories that livelihoods approaches use. They must not be seen as
employing standard templates with universally applicable categories of capitals.
Instead, contextually sensitive livelihoods approaches would acknowledge that the
resources that people employ are not fi xed in meaning and are thus assets in struggles for power.
There are three implications of White and Ellison’s ( 2007 ) critique for livelihoods approaches. First, development practitioners – or fi sheries managers – must
make more effort to re fl exively understand their own positions. Second, there must
be acknowledgment that the boundary within livelihoods approaches between capitals and context is arti fi cial and that, in reality, all capitals are actually resources
that are given their meaning and power by locally relevant conditions. Third, each
livelihood resource itself is not a discrete, universal category. Instead, resources
may be given meaning by multiple categories. White and Ellison ( 2007 ) give the
example of land, which can be given meaning as natural, social, cultural, and political capital (White and Ellison 2007 , 167). With reference to work such as that by
Bavinck ( 2001 ) , it is easy to see how maritime space similarly can be a powerful
social construction where different groups of fi shers and government agents have
divergent perceptions of marine space. Despite these layers of complexity in understanding livelihoods construction, however, it remains important to make the effort
5 Livelihoods in the Context of Fisheries – A Governability Challenge
fi nancial capital may be either liberating, oppressive or a combination of both
(Johnson 2010 ) . An important shortcoming of livelihoods approaches is the lack of
acknowledgement that the decision to disentangle structure and agency in the
capitals-institutions framework is often accomplished by freezing the interplay of
structure and agency in constituting the possibilities for action.
Two recent book chapters address this limitation of livelihoods approaches
(Bebbington et al. 2007 ; White and Ellison 2007 ) . Bebbington et al. ( 2007 ) argue
that livelihoods approaches have engaged in two disconnecting practices. The fi rst
of these is the ‘bracketing’ mentioned in the previous paragraph. The learning that
needs to take place in this regard is for those development agents who employ livelihoods approaches to be much more attuned to the ways in which local livelihoods
strategies are informed, in a dynamic manner, by broader political economic relationships. The second disconnection is between the perspectives or worldviews of
development agents like non-government organizations and the perceptions of, or
perceptions of the possibility of, alternative paths of development. Certain options
seen as desirable by non-government organizations may be seen either as undesirable or unfeasible by target populations.
While Bebbington et al. ( 2007 ) see the livelihoods approach as needing some
reorientation, White and Ellison ( 2007 ) argue for a more thoroughgoing rethinking
grounded in a social constructionist position. Like Bebbington et al. ( 2007 ) , they
fl ag the disconnection between development agents and the targets of development.
To White and Ellison ( 2007 ) this results from the failure of outsiders to comprehend
that their positions, like those of the development subjects whose lives they seek to
improve, are constituted by social, cultural, and political relationships. Without this
self-awareness, livelihoods approaches simply become in fl ections of dominant economic perspectives in development. The risk, as it relates to livelihoods, is with the
terms and categories that livelihoods approaches use. They must not be seen as
employing standard templates with universally applicable categories of capitals.
Instead, contextually sensitive livelihoods approaches would acknowledge that the
resources that people employ are not fi xed in meaning and are thus assets in struggles for power.
There are three implications of White and Ellison’s ( 2007 ) critique for livelihoods approaches. First, development practitioners – or fi sheries managers – must
make more effort to re fl exively understand their own positions. Second, there must
be acknowledgment that the boundary within livelihoods approaches between capitals and context is arti fi cial and that, in reality, all capitals are actually resources
that are given their meaning and power by locally relevant conditions. Third, each
livelihood resource itself is not a discrete, universal category. Instead, resources
may be given meaning by multiple categories. White and Ellison ( 2007 ) give the
example of land, which can be given meaning as natural, social, cultural, and political capital (White and Ellison 2007 , 167). With reference to work such as that by
Bavinck ( 2001 ) , it is easy to see how maritime space similarly can be a powerful
social construction where different groups of fi shers and government agents have
divergent perceptions of marine space. Despite these layers of complexity in understanding livelihoods construction, however, it remains important to make the effort