Introducing aspirations and opportunities
The inclusion of the aspirations of the poor, and the opportunities that they are able to pursue, encourages users of the SL framework to focus on the hopes of the poor themselves and their capacity to take advantage of opportunities rather than making assumptions about what options and opportunities may exist within a given livelihoods system. This encourages a people-centred analysis and an understanding of the strengths of the poor that can be built on through the development process.
Actions instead of strategies
The terms "strategies" seems to imply that the poor have choices regarding what they do to realise their aspirations, take advantage of opportunities and cope with vulnerability. This term is replaced by "actions" in order to emphasise that they may or may not represent choices and that they may or may not have positive, or intended, outcomes.
Emphasising the "feedback" from strategies and outcomes to other livelihood elements
The change in the overall structure of the framework also allows strategies and livelihood outcomes to become more "integrated" into the framework as a whole. This emphasises the importance of the "feedback" between:
strategies adopted by the poor;
the livelihood outcomes they achieve;
and the assets, institutions and influences that affect their livelihood options
For example, the strategies forced on the poor, either because of their vulnerability or as a result of the poor support they receive from service providers and enabling agencies, may have direct negative impacts on the sustainability of their livelihoods systems as a whole.
Uses of the new framework
Clearly no framework can be all-inclusive and this version of the framework is not intended to be used "as it stands" in every situation. Like the original SL Framework, this alternative does not provide ready-made solutions and is only as useful as the detailed analysis, discussion and adaptation that goes into it.
This version of the SL framework has been developed above all with a view to providing an added tool for facilitators in helping development practitioners to analyse their practice, the conditions in which they intervene and the courses of action open to them.
It may also prove useful to practitioners by helping them to understand the factors they need to take into account when identifying entry points for development activities, but it is not intended as a field tool. Elements in it may provide field workers with added assistance in structuring enquiries into local conditions, analysing situations and identifying possible entry points for development interventions, but it must be supported by appropriate tools and methods for working in the field.
As a guide to the analysis of development situations, the "unpacking" of transforming structures and processes - the "PIP box" - should assist practitioners in addressing them in practical terms. The hub model provides a generic means of analysing institutions that is both adaptable to different situations but at the same time allows practitioners to look at the different aspects of institutions on which interventions might focus.