ABSTRACT
Bryceson’s (1999) ‘betwixt and between’ conceptualisation of the rural household emphasises the fact that no two households earn their livelihood in the same way (see also Bryceson, 2000, for an accessible summary of this work). Thus policy interventions that emphasise a particular livelihood strategy are unlikely to benefit all. This can be considered as analogous to the livelihood strategies that straddle the rural-urban interface. The empirical evidence presented by Bryceson (1999) suggests that the mixing of agricultural and non-farm employment can result in flows of investment between these activities. Similar outcomes can result from flows of finance between rural and urban areas. In addition to these arguments, de-peasantisation may also be an explanation for the development of non-agricultural activities in African rural areas that sheds light on the relationship between cities and the countryside at a more general level. This research is mirrored by similar findings in the South-East Asian context (Afsar, 1999; Rigg, 1998a, 1998b) and in Latin America (Reardon et al., 2001; Tacoli, 1999). The bulk of the interpretation explains the development of non-farm employment in terms of:
• declining employment and earning opportunities in cities under structural adjustment programmes;
• the consequent presence of returned migrants in rural areas; • the low esteem in which younger people in rural areas hold
agriculture as a means of income earning; • the decline of rural services as a result of structural
adjustment; • the low viability of using agricultural inputs to boost
productivity; • growing population pressure.
