Conclusion: Methodological and Conceptual Contributions

  • Philippe Bonnal
  • Jean-Michel SourisseauEmail author
  • Pierre-Marie Bosc
  • Pierre Gasselin
  • Jean-François Bélières
  • Élodie Valette

At the end of this collective work, it is time to draw the main lessons from it. Two directions seem to be of most interest and relevance. The first pertains to the methodology and more specifically to the SRL (Sustainable Rural Livelihoods) framework which served as a common approach for the various case studies. It will be useful to carry out a critical analysis of this framework and to revisit a number of its concepts and methodological inputs in order to enrich it. On the basis of the case studies, the second direction allows us to reconsider the nature of the family farm, its functioning and the results of the activities implemented in different contexts (its existence); its adaptability to the political, economic and social changes of the contemporary world (its transformations); and their possible scenarios (its possible futures).

Revisiting the Revised Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework

For over 15 years, much research has been conducted by mobilizing the SRL framework and...


  1. Altieri MA (2009) The ecological and social tragedy of crop-based biofuel production in the Americas. Bull Sci Technol Soc 29(3):236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrianirina N (2013) L’agriculture pour le développement: pertinence et limites à l’échelle des ménages ruraux. Une approche dynamique comparative pour trois régions de Madagascar. École doctorale Economie Gestion, Centre international d’études supérieures en sciences agronomiques, Montpellier, 179 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley C, Carney D (1999) Sustainable livelihoods: lessons from early experience. DFID, London, 55 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Chambers R, Conway G (1991) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS discussion Paper 296, Decembre 1991, IDS, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang H-J (2002) Kicking away the ladder: development strategy in historical perspective. Anthem Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Chayanov AV (1966b) Peasant farm organization. In: Thorner D, Basile Kerblay K, Smith REF (eds) The theory of peasant economy. The American Economic Association/Richard D. Irwin, HomewoodGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis F (1999) Rural livelihood diversity in developing countries: evidence and policy implications, Natural resource perspectives, vol 40. ODI, London, 10 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Fan S, Brzeska J, Keyzer M, Halsema A (2013) From subsistence to profit. Transforming smallholder farms. Food policy report. IFPRI, Washington, DC, June 2013, 30 pGoogle Scholar
  9. FAO (2010) 2000 World census of agriculture. Main results and metadata by country (1996–2005), FAO statistical development series, vol 12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 350 pGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO (2011b) The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture. Managing systems at risk. FAO, Rome, 285 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrington J, Carney D, Ashley C, Turton C (1999) Sustainable livelihoods in practice. Early applications of concepts in rural areas. Natural resource perspectives, vol 42. Overseas Development Institute, London, 14 pGoogle Scholar
  12. Fréguin-Gresh S, Trousselle A, Le Coq JF, Perez FJ (2012) Archipiélagos familiares rurales en Nicaragua: la realidad del bono demogràfico ante el cambio estructural y la globalización. Communication world rural sociology congress, Lisbon, Portugal, July 29 August 4, 2012Google Scholar
  13. HLPE (2013) Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition. Rome: CFS-HLPE, 112 p. Retrieved 17 December 2017.
  14. IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a crossroads. In: McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J, Watson RT (eds) International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. IFAD (2011) Rural poverty report 2011: new realities, new challenges: new opportunities for tomorrow’s generation. Rome, International Fund for Agricultural Development, 318 pGoogle Scholar
  16. ILO (2014) World of work report 2014. Developing with jobs. International Labour Office, Geneva, 221 pGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuznets S (1966) Modern economic growth. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  18. Losch B, Fréguin-Gresh S, White E (2012) Structural transformation and rural change revisited: challenges for late developing countries in a globalizing World, World Bank-Agence française de développementGoogle Scholar
  19. Mazoyer M (2001) Protéger la paysannerie pauvre dans un contexte de mondialisation. Rome, FAO, 28 pGoogle Scholar
  20. Mc Keon N (2014) Building global democracy: including the excluded in global politics: the case of peasants, 17 pGoogle Scholar
  21. McMillan M, Headey D (2014) Introduction – understanding structural transformation in Africa. World Dev 63:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York, 280 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sabourin E, Samper M, Sotomayor O (2014) Políticas públicas y agriculturas familiares en América Latina y el Caribe: balance, desafíos y perspectivas. Cepal, IIeCA, Cirad, 298 pGoogle Scholar
  24. Scoones I (2009) Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. J Peasant Stud 36(1):171–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sourisseau J-M (ed) (2015) Family farming and the worlds to come. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Timmer CP (2009) A world without agriculture: the structural transformation in historical perspective. The American Enterprise Institute Press, Washington, DC, 83 pGoogle Scholar
  27. UNCTAD (2013) Wake up before it’s too late. Make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. In: United Nations, UN conference on trade and development. Trade and environment review 2013, New York, 341 pGoogle Scholar
  28. World Bank (2007) World development report 2008, agriculture for development. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC, 386 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Éditions Quæ 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Bonnal
  • Jean-Michel Sourisseau
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Pierre-Marie Bosc
    • 3
    • 4
  • Pierre Gasselin
    • 5
    • 6
  • Jean-François Bélières
    • 1
    • 2
  • Élodie Valette
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CIRADUMR ART-DEVMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.ART-DEVUniv Montpellier, CIRAD, CNRS, Univ Montpellier 3, Univ Perpignan Via DomitiaMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.CIRADUMR MOISAMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.MOISAUniv Montpellier, CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgroMontpellierFrance
  5. 5.CIRADUMR INNOVATIONMontpellierFrance
  6. 6.INNOVATIONUniv Montpellier, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgroMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations