Abstract:
This study investigated two community partnerships in Lesotho, focusing on how they
sustained themselves for improved livelihoods. It explored the ways in which the partnerships
of Matelile Tajane Community Development Trust (MTCDT) and Jire Provides Cooperative
(JPC) operated in order to improve their livelihoods and address poverty. The study in
particular aimed at assessing the extent to which the partnerships followed the Lesotho
Government’s smart partnership principles of trust and reciprocity, networking and sharing a
common goal. These principles resonated with social capital concepts which are a strong
feature in the sustainable livelihoods framework, as advocated by the UK Department for
International Development.
The sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF) and the social capital theories were therefore
used to guide the analysis of the study. This study was an instrumental comparative case study
design using a qualitative approach and interpretative paradigm. Purposive sampling of 45
participants was used. The participants were the partnership members of the MTCDT and the
JPC, community members staying close to the partnerships, community leaders, and service
provision officers within the areas of Ha Seeiso and Masianokeng.
Multiple data collection sources were used. These were the transect walk, focus group
discussion, interviews, observation and documentary analysis. Data collected through
interviews was used to triangulate the primary data from other sources. This was done in order
to verify the collected information. A content analysis method was used through engaging
inductive and deductive approaches to analysing data.
The findings revealed that the larger partnership, MTCDT, used linking and bridging social
capital to network and access resources, assist and support vulnerable groups like the orphans,
HIV and AIDS affected people with their requirements. The smaller partnership, JPC, focused
more on bonding social capital to expand its relationships to family members so that they could
assist each other. To a lesser extent it developed linking social capital networks to assist the
disadvantaged groups to access services like medical check-ups and issuing of national
identification cards.
The findings highlighted that the partnership which was able to utilise more linking social
capital was better able to diversify and sustain livelihoods compared to the smaller bonding
social capital partnership. In addition the MTDCT emphasised that the role of self-
iii
determination in achieving goals was an important asset in itself. The sustainable livelihoods
literature did not appear to examine the role of self-determination or the different forms of
social capital in this way or link it significantly to lifelong learning.
However, a significant finding across both partnerships was that the element of trust in relation
to financial interactions proved inadequate in both case studies. This meant that while the
foundations for social capital were evident they were not fully utilised.
There were also vulnerabilities which both partnerships were unable to overcome, such as
unemployment which contributed to community youths becoming drunkards.
One recommendation, therefore, was that smart partnerships should focus on a broader and
more diversified range of social capital networks. A second recommendation was that
considerable education and training work needed to be done to improve the understanding of
how financial trustworthiness must form the basis for reciprocity. The four De Lors (1996)
pillars of lifelong learning, which include the pillar learning to live together, were deemed to
be relevant here. Recommendations for training included management of partnerships,
dialogue, communication skills and conflict management. A second pillar, learning to do, was
also relevant because it enhanced the partnerships’ skills for income generation. Such training
could include sand-stone mining for the MTCDT, while the JPC required knowledge of broiler
production and how to produce animal feeds.