74
D. Johnson
to apply and further re fi ne livelihoods approaches. Careful scrutiny of how development
practitioners or fi sheries governors operationalize livelihoods must be matched with
similar care for how local perceptions are signi fi cant in the ongoing building of
livelihoods.
The chapters by Bebbington et al. ( 2007 ) and White and Ellison ( 2007 ) are in an
edited volume on the topic of wellbeing in development (Gough and McGregor
2007 ) , and are concerned with how wellbeing may complement livelihoods perspectives. Wellbeing may be thought of as the meta-goal of development; it is the
objective that development understands as ‘good change’ (Chambers 1997 ) and
seeks to pursue. Livelihoods as a development strategy therefore seek to enhance
wellbeing. More than just specifying the goal, however, wellbeing also provides
important complementary insights that enhance the livelihoods approach. Like livelihoods, wellbeing is both the end and a means. As individuals, households, and
communities increase their wellbeing, they also increase their capacities to aspire to
improve their wellbeing further. Greater health, improved knowledge, deepened
social networks and other factors all contribute to wellbeing, while also strengthening the basis for the further pursuit of wellbeing. Wellbeing is also a development
objective and a way of thinking about development. As with livelihoods approaches,
wellbeing as a perspective emphasizes the multiple dimensions of what constitutes
wellbeing, their changing intersections, and the bases they provide for agency and
motivation.
More than just reinforcing livelihoods approaches, however, wellbeing also
challenges them to be more attentive to the social and cultural construction of
what good change represents. It pushes the livelihoods perspective to more consistently examine and seek to bridge the disconnections that separate development agents from development subjects and livelihood resources from context.
The wellbeing approach argues that notions of wellbeing are given meaning in the
context of particular social relationships and the cultural ideas that inform them.
While there is a degree of objectivity to wellbeing in such forms as general human
needs for nutrition, shelter and health, even these conditions may vary considerably. As humans, we are capable of adapting to conditions of great deprivation or
relative opulence and consequently shift our standards of the normal preconditions of wellbeing (Biswas-Diener and Diener 2001 ) . Equally, the weighting of
resources that contributes to wellbeing varies by context. Coulthard ( 2008 ) has,
for example, shown how the Pattinavar fi shers of Pulicat Lake emphasize the
social and cultural importance of attachment to traditional fi shing methods as a
determinant of their wellbeing. This disadvantages them in relation to newcomer
groups in the fi shery who are free of such constraints and use other fi shing methods that are more productive in the current ecologically degraded lagoon context
(Coulthard 2008 ) . The case illustrates how particular conceptions of wellbeing
link to livelihood strategies and gives insight into how rationality is socially and
culturally speci fi c.
Bearing in mind the overarching idea that social relations and meanings shape
the possibilities for action using resources, wellbeing can be operationalized in
three dimensions (Gough et al. 2007 ; Coulthard et al. 2011 ) . First, wellbeing seeks
D. Johnson
to apply and further re fi ne livelihoods approaches. Careful scrutiny of how development
practitioners or fi sheries governors operationalize livelihoods must be matched with
similar care for how local perceptions are signi fi cant in the ongoing building of
livelihoods.
The chapters by Bebbington et al. ( 2007 ) and White and Ellison ( 2007 ) are in an
edited volume on the topic of wellbeing in development (Gough and McGregor
2007 ) , and are concerned with how wellbeing may complement livelihoods perspectives. Wellbeing may be thought of as the meta-goal of development; it is the
objective that development understands as ‘good change’ (Chambers 1997 ) and
seeks to pursue. Livelihoods as a development strategy therefore seek to enhance
wellbeing. More than just specifying the goal, however, wellbeing also provides
important complementary insights that enhance the livelihoods approach. Like livelihoods, wellbeing is both the end and a means. As individuals, households, and
communities increase their wellbeing, they also increase their capacities to aspire to
improve their wellbeing further. Greater health, improved knowledge, deepened
social networks and other factors all contribute to wellbeing, while also strengthening the basis for the further pursuit of wellbeing. Wellbeing is also a development
objective and a way of thinking about development. As with livelihoods approaches,
wellbeing as a perspective emphasizes the multiple dimensions of what constitutes
wellbeing, their changing intersections, and the bases they provide for agency and
motivation.
More than just reinforcing livelihoods approaches, however, wellbeing also
challenges them to be more attentive to the social and cultural construction of
what good change represents. It pushes the livelihoods perspective to more consistently examine and seek to bridge the disconnections that separate development agents from development subjects and livelihood resources from context.
The wellbeing approach argues that notions of wellbeing are given meaning in the
context of particular social relationships and the cultural ideas that inform them.
While there is a degree of objectivity to wellbeing in such forms as general human
needs for nutrition, shelter and health, even these conditions may vary considerably. As humans, we are capable of adapting to conditions of great deprivation or
relative opulence and consequently shift our standards of the normal preconditions of wellbeing (Biswas-Diener and Diener 2001 ) . Equally, the weighting of
resources that contributes to wellbeing varies by context. Coulthard ( 2008 ) has,
for example, shown how the Pattinavar fi shers of Pulicat Lake emphasize the
social and cultural importance of attachment to traditional fi shing methods as a
determinant of their wellbeing. This disadvantages them in relation to newcomer
groups in the fi shery who are free of such constraints and use other fi shing methods that are more productive in the current ecologically degraded lagoon context
(Coulthard 2008 ) . The case illustrates how particular conceptions of wellbeing
link to livelihood strategies and gives insight into how rationality is socially and
culturally speci fi c.
Bearing in mind the overarching idea that social relations and meanings shape
the possibilities for action using resources, wellbeing can be operationalized in
three dimensions (Gough et al. 2007 ; Coulthard et al. 2011 ) . First, wellbeing seeks