Lucho proposes to move to the next why

Kath:

I agree on the lack of clarity of purpose. In the case of the markets group (one of the sub-groups of the network) it is still not clear whether it is a mailing list or a means to promote collective initiatives to transform markets. In theory, it is was conceived as more than a mailing list but in practice it is working as one.

I would also like to highlight that lack of clarity of purpose is closely related to a lack of understanding of the incentives and obligations to make things happen.

Now... WHY IS IT THAT THERE IS A LACK OF CLARITY OF PURPOSE? (this would be the second why)

I agree with you that the breadth of the livelihoods approach makes clarity of purpose almost impossible unless you focus on particular aspects of it. This is for me the answer to this second why: it is a problem related to the nature of the subject of the whole network!

Of course, there are other problems that are hampering the whole sub-group to progress: lack of time of the members, lack of funding, lack of leadership (and I assume part of the responsibility here), short age of the initiative, etc. However, if clarity of purpose is not there, no amount of resources, time or leadership will improve the dynamics of the sub-group.

Having said this, the sub-groups of the network are a step forward in terms of focus but we are still a long way to go in this sense. For example, the issue of markets is still as broad as one wants it to be. In this sense, I believe that concrete collaborative research activities or projects could be a good engine to get the sub-groups moving.

Does this mean that now that we (apparently) found The Problem (the nature of the livelihoods approach) we should stop asking the next why? It seems to me that asking ourselves why it is that the livelihoods approach is so broad will not lead us much further. What do you think?

______
Now, there is one thing I do not agree with you much. It is the issue of people copying behaviours. I could agree on this in general, but at least in the case of the markets sub-group I have not seen this at all, despite moments of frenzy (like after a face-to-face meeting). Let me clarify: the frenzy is normally genarated by 6-7 people out of almost forty.
My future strategy will be to work with those 6-7 members. I will not wait for others to contribute if they are just not responding. I am sure that when the most active members begin producing concrete results others (not all) will engage more.

Thanks Kath for your contributions. I hope you can post again.

Hugs,
Lucho