![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
It is generally recognised that diversification is among the livelihood strategies adopted by rural households to manage risk events, yet understanding of its status and effectiveness in the context of civil war is lacking or inadequately researched. The empirical findings in a non-conflict context suggest that the higher the risk and the more assets available, the more households will diversify. This article is an attempt to gain a nuanced understanding of the status of livelihood diversification in the context of civil war. The empirical findings of this article indicate that diversification is not always the best livelihood strategy option in the context of civil war. Within the households exposed to civil war, those exposed to endogenous counter-insurgency warfare tend to diversify their primary livelihood activities less. Contrary to commonly held views, among the households exposed to exogenous counter-insurgency warfare, the non-poor households tend to diversify their primary livelihood activities less than the poor households. Similar findings are also observed from the results of the comparative analysis of different forms of diversification in crop production, livestock management and assets. The differential status of livelihood diversification observed during civil war is more explained by the nature and characteristics of counter-insurgency warfare.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank his wife, Mrs Esther Tindilo for her support, his PhD Thesis supervisor, Dr. Stephen Devereux at IDS and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft.
Notes
1. CitationDevereux, “Famine in the Twentieth Century.”
2. Ellis, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, 15.
3. CitationLumby, Investment Appraisal and Financial Decisions, 239
4. CitationAlderman and Paxon, Do the Poor Insure?
5. Binswanger, “CitationAttitudes towards Risk.”
6. CitationRosenzweig and Binswanger, “Wealth, Weather Risk and the Composition”; Dercon and Krishnan, “CitationIncome Portfolios in Rural Ethiopia and Tanzania,” 851.
7. Dercon, “CitationIncome Risk, Coping Strategies and Safety Nets,” 1
8. Eswaran and Kotwal, “Implications of Credit Constraints.”
9. Moser, “The Asset Vulnerability Framework.”
10. Dercon, “CitationIncome Risk, Coping Strategies and Safety Nets,” 18.
11. Barrett, Reardon, and Webb, “Non-farm Income”; Little et al., “Avoiding Disaster.”
12. Ellis, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity.
13. CitationBarrett, Reardon, and Webb, “Non-farm Income,” 327.
14. CitationKeen, “Incentives and Disincentives for Violence.”
15. CitationDeng, “Confronting Civil War.”
16. Ellis, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity, 214.
17. Deng, “CitationFamine in the Sudan.”
18. CitationChang, Women-headed Households.
19. Ellis, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity, 213.
20. Ellis, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity, 214.
21. Moser, “The Asset Vulnerability Framework”; Ellis, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity, 216.
22. CitationLittle, Somalia: Economy without State.
23. CitationSiegel and Alwang, “An Asset-Based Approach to Social Risk Management,” 28.
24. Deng, “CitationSocial Capital and Civil War.”
25. CitationHuntington, Achroyd, and Deng, “The Challenge for Rainfed Agriculture.”
26. CitationDercon, “Risk, Crop Choice and Savings”; CitationCarter and May, “Poverty, Livelihood and Class.”
27. CitationHuntington, Achroyd, and Deng, “The Challenge for Rainfed Agriculture.”
28. CitationLittle, Somalia.
29. Lienhardt Divinity and Experience, 27.
30. Deng, Transition and Modernization.
31. Deng, “CitationAre Non-poor Households always Less Vulnerable.”
32. Deng, “CitationAre Non-poor Households always Less Vulnerable.”.
