Defining and Theorizing Household Strategies

This section aims to define strategies as according to EMIGH,2001 in existing literature reviews, though excellent, describe empirical uses of the concept, strategy, not its theoretical underpin-nings. BOURDIEU, 1990 mentioned in EMIGH, 2001 considered strategies as ‘‘the sequence of ordered and oriented actions’’ that are directed to maintain or increase household social and economic position without necessarily to be household objectives. Thus besides being a product of rational and conscious decision-making behaviour, there will also be elements of unconscious-ness behind household strategies. Similarly for CHAYANOV, 1966 strategies¹¹⁴ are based on the idea that households allocate labor on the basis of the households’ needs, the size and composition of their labor force, and the drudgery of such labor. Workers in households with a high dependency ratio work more hours and produce a higher output than workers in house-holds with a low ratio of consumers to workers. So, in househouse-holds with many consumers, workers work long hours to provide for their dependents.

Rural livelihoods are not limited just to income derived solely from economic activities but it is a holistic way of looking on their livelihood strategies. SCOONES, 1998 considered agricultural intensification/extensification¹¹⁵, livelihood diversification and migration as the three core livelihood strategies. Pluri-activity is also a potential livelihood strategy on part of the rural people when the farm does not provide an enough amount of income to the peasant families or when there are opportunities in non-farm sector (UPTON, 1999; DHARMAWAN, 2001). All these concepts related to household strategies are documented in details in the following two sections.

2.5.1 Framework for Livelihood Survival Actions

This section begins with an overview of ‘coping’ and ‘adaptive’ strategies followed by listing various categories of survival strategies as formulated by DHARMAWAN, 2001; HERBON,1988;

and MANIG, 1997. Coping refers to situation where a household is food insecure, whereas adaptive is used when a household is food secured and tends to pursue a strategy persistently (AHMED et al., 2002). Coping strategies are actually the bundle of poor people’s responses to declining food availability and entitlements in abnormal seasons or years (BELAY et al., 2006).

Considering livelihood diversification, coping strategies are distinguished from risk strategies by

14 It is to noted that CHAYANOV does not himself use the term strategy and so, provides no definition (EMIGH, 2001).

15 The agricultural intensification is labor-led while extensification is capital-led.

whether the diversification occurred after or before a ‘shock’, and thus whether the actions are reactive rather than pro-active (ELLIS, 1998). Under normal situation according to HERBON, 1988, 1994; MANIG, 1997; and DHARMAWAN, 2001 the peasant households usually pursue the follow-ing strategies to secure their livelihood:

a) Acquisition strategies: Household strategies striving for acquiring the accumulation of resources including all activities concerning utilization of resources endowed and pro-vided by the nature (e.g., land, water, plants, air, and sun-shine);

b) Allocation strategies: The utilisation of acquired resources by making a certain organi-sation and applying specific resources management at household level. Hence, the dispo-sition of material and immaterial resources within a household in a way that it can be used optimally to meet human needs. Under this strategy, one categorises the application of land, labour, knowledge or skill, and power or ability to fulfil human requirements;

c) Transformation/Production strategies: Strategies aim at converting an acquired re-source into another form of useful energy re-sources that can be used to fulfil human needs;

d) Social relation strategies: Social networks are structured to secure human existence.

e) Consumption strategies: The creation of disposable energy by converting an acquired or saved resources into cash necessary for purchasing something for consumption; and f) Reproduction strategies: The maintenance and consolidation of all elements that are

nec-essary for a better living.

Considering the structural components within strategies, ZOOMERS, 1999 based on her study of rural livelihoods in the Bolivian Andes classified four types of strategies: accumulation, consoli-dation, compensatory and security. Applied mostly by recently married couples and families with young children, accumulation is a way to prepare for future expansion aimed at creating a minimum resource base. Some of these socially upward mobility strategies include migration, land acquisition, and labour recruitment. Once this upward mobility is achieved comes the consolidation strategies, where the wealthy households invest in items like short term land improvement to stabilize and improve the household’s well-being and quality of living. Compen-satory or survival oriented strategies are in response to sudden shocks like crop failure or loss of labour power. These includes migration, economizing, selling assets, borrowing, bartering or in some cases relying on family social security. Security strategies like multiple cropping, multi-tasking, sharecropping, stockpiling, and exploring non-agricultural opportunities are common responses to ecologically harsh areas.

2.5.2 Multiple Employment: As a Livelihood Strategy

One important pathway towards livelihood sustainability involves avoidance of long-term dependency on only one or two income sources (BLOCK & WEBB, 2001). Multiple employment or pluri-activity, which constitutes an important source of income for rural household in securing their financial requirement, refers to household that engage in economic activities in addition to farming their own land and animals. Pluri-activates can be classified as:

a) Employment on other farms, e.g., hired farm labour;

b) Para agricultural actives, e.g., food processing on own farm;

c) Other non agricultural activities on the farm, e.g., furniture making; and d) Off farm activities, e.g., wage labour.

Multiple employment in farm households in rural Pakistan according to KUHNEN,1985, on the basis of family structure, farm structure and economic structure, can take any of the below mentioned five different forms (see Figure 4 for a quick overview).

a) Individual income combination: When cultivators of small farms take up off-farm em-ployment (rural labour) as a main occupation or as a sideline permanently or seasonally.

Both of these activities are usually carried out by a single person creating problems of work adjustment and for this reason the second occupation is normally carried out locally.

b) Household or Family Income Combination: A situation when several male members (sons) take permanent non-agricultural employment locally or in distant places. Thus, the migration of workers to Arab countries and their investment in land, farm machinery, transport and trade back home brought about an economic and social advancement for their families.

c) Extended Family Economy: Extended family emerges when there is a close economic and social support contact between urban family (nuclear family) and their farm mem-bers in rural areas. The urban family memmem-bers provide financial as well as labour support while in return the rural family (usually parents) offers basic foodstuffs usually for senti-mental reasons.

d) Remigration of Urban Population Groups: It is usually a case of non-farmers taking up agriculture as second profession. Reasons may be available or inherited landed property, rural residence place, and in few cases tax aversion by bureaucrats through investment in land.

e) Division of Labour: It emerges within the household in remote areas as there are few farm opportunities. Specialization emerges as activities are distributed according to age, skill and inclination resulting in professions like tailoring, mason, technician etc.

Figure 4. Different Forms of Multiple Employment in Developing Countries

Source: Modified after KUHNEN, 1985.

The prevalence of multiple employment is either due to failure of the farm to provide an adequate amount of income to the peasant families or the rapid growth of non-agricultural sector

bringing new employment opportunities to them (UPTON, 1996; DHARMAWAN, 2001). Hence, agriculture is no longer necessarily a characteristic function for rural areas mainly due to it marginalization. Therefore, one must admit the fact that activities outside farming proper are vital to the livelihoods of all households as it is, in most rural contexts, not that easy to disentangle

‘farming’ from activities which are ‘non-farm’, since a household’s livelihood is, in fact, a complex and organic whole made up of different activities on the part of different members, which together form a jigsaw which – ideally - fits tightly together (OVERBEEK et al., 2000).