Preece, JuliaMukeredzi, Tabitha GraceMakheta, Mankopane Violet2024-03-272024-03-272023-08-09https://hdl.handle.net/10321/5220Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Education at the Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2023.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- 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.291 penCommunity partnershipsLivelihoodThesishttps://doi.org/10.51415/10321/5220