Concepts of Strong Comparability and Commensurability versus ...

Table 1. Integrated rural development versus sustainable livelihoods
Dimensional
criteria
Starting
point
Concepts of
poverty
Problem
analysis
Sectoral
scope
Level of
operation
Partner
organisation
Project
management
structure
Integrated rural development
(1970s)
Structures, areas
Holistic, multi-dimensional;
Recommendation domains
suggest uniformity (an
operational simplification)
Undertaken by planning unit
in short period of time,
viewed as conclusive
Multi-sectoral, single plan
Sector involvement
established at outset
Local, area based
National and local
governments
Dedicated project
management unit, external to
government
Sustainable livelihoods (late
1990s)
People and their existing
strengths and constraints
Multi-dimensional, complex,
local;
Embraces the concepts of risk
and variability
Inclusive process, iterative
and incomplete
Multi-sectoral, many plans
Small number of entry points;
Sectoral involvement evolves
with project
Both policy and field level,
clear links between the two
Local and national
governments
NGOs, civil society
organisations, private sector
Project within partner
organisation
Coordination
(between
sectors)
Integrated execution
(donor-driven)
Driven by shared objectives,
benefits of co-ordination
identified by those involved
Sustainability Not explicitly considered Multiple dimensions;
Core concern
Source: DFID, 1999, p. 10.
9. CASE STUDY 2. Economic competitiveness:
human versus ecological sustainability in corporations
9.1 From rejection to compliance
Concerns about developing social capital, too, can explain
why companies may wish to support local community participation
in corporate decision-making. Social capital is fundamental to the
successful working of the new organisational forms such as the
network organisation and communities of practice. Companies are
98