方法对比

	Asset Poverty Trap Analysis	Sustainable Livelihoods Framework
领域	Development Studies	Development Studies
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	2006	1998
提出者	Michael R. Carter & Christopher B. Barrett	Robert Chambers & Gordon Conway; Ian Scoones; DFID
类型	Panel-data test for nonlinear asset dynamics and poverty traps	Analytical framework for understanding livelihoods and poverty
开创性文献	Carter, M. R., & Barrett, C. B. (2006). The economics of poverty traps and persistent poverty: An asset-based approach. Journal of Development Studies, 42(2), 178–199.	Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.
别名	Poverty Trap Analysis, Asset Dynamics Analysis, Micawber Threshold Estimation, Dynamic Asset Poverty Analysis	SLF, Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, SLA, DFID Livelihoods Framework
相关	4	4
摘要	Asset Poverty Trap Analysis tests whether households face nonlinear asset dynamics that can trap them in persistent poverty, using panel data on what households own rather than on what they earn. Developed by Michael Carter and Christopher Barrett (2006), the approach estimates the asset recursion — how a household's asset stock this period maps into its stock next period — and looks for multiple equilibria. When that mapping is S-shaped, there is an unstable equilibrium, the Micawber threshold, below which households converge toward a low-asset trap and above which they accumulate toward a higher equilibrium. This yields a dynamic asset poverty line and a structural reading of who is poor and likely to stay poor.	The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) is an analytical lens for understanding how poor households construct their livelihoods, drawing on five categories of capital assets within a vulnerability context that is mediated by institutions and policies. Crystallised by Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway and operationalised by Ian Scoones and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) in the late 1990s, it shifts development analysis from sector-by-sector or income-only views to a holistic, people-centred account of what people have, what they do with it, and what outcomes result.