Skip to main content

Conclusion

Rural Resources, Local Livelihoods & Poverty Concepts

  • Chapter

Abstract

This concluding chapter comes back to the questions raised in the introduction, and draws together the ideas that have emerged for approach and methodology. Political ecology debates over rural resources and livelihoods are often pursued at perhaps too general a level. Social scientists may see them as discourse between alternative systems of knowledge, and condemn as naïve any positivist search for ‘the facts’. Natural scientists are more likely to see them as conflicts that pit objective management, founded on western science, against less rational alternatives. In their documentation and analysis of ‘hard’ quantitative outcomes, natural sciences may lose sight of the real socio-cultural, historical and political forces driving events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Abbot, J. and Guijt, I. 1997: Methodological complementarity: creativity and compromise. PLA Notes 28: 27–32 IIED, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. and Broch-Due, V. 1999. The poor are not us. James Currey and Ohio University Press, Oxford and Athens OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayart, J.-F. 1993. The state in Africa. The politics of the belly. Longman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waal, A. 1997. Famine crimes: Politics and the disaster relief industry in Africa. James Currey and Indiana University Press, Oxford and Bloomington IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandin, B. 1988. Wealth ranking in smallholder communities: A field manual. Intermediate Technology Development Group, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guyer, J. 1997. Diversity and intensity in the scholarship on African agricultural change. Reviews in Anthropology 26: 13–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, D. ed. 2000. Rethinking pastoralism in Africa: Gender, culture and the myth of the patriarchal pastoralist. James Currey and Ohio University Press, Oxford and Athens OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, D. 2001. Once Intrepid Warriors: Gender, ethnicity and the cultural politics of Maasai development. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • IIED, 1995. Notes on participatory learning and action: Critical reflections from practice. IIED Sustainable agriculture programme: PLA Notes 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iliffe, J. 1987. The African poor: A history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzberg, M.G. 1988. The dialectics of oppression in Zaire. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, S. 2000. Gender, ethnographic myths and community based conservation in a former Namibian ‘homeland’. In: Hodgson, D. ed. 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. and Homewood, K. 2002. Entrepreneurs, elites and exclusion in Maasailand: Trends in wildlife conservation and pastoralist development. Human Ecology 30 (1): 107–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M. 1991. ‘Entitlements or empowerment? Famine and starvation in Africa’ Review of African political economy 51: 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2005 James Currey Ltd

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Homewood, K. (2005). Conclusion. In: Homewood, K. (eds) Rural Resources & Local Livelihoods in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-06615-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics