The Potentials of Local Institutions for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: The Case of Farming Households in Dawuro Zone, Ethiopia

This study investigates the potentials of local institutions in building the sustainable rural livelihoods to farming households in Dawuro zone of SNNPR, Ethiopia. To achieve this objective, three local districts with their respective kebeles/peasant associations and farming household heads were selected for survey by using simple random sampling technique. In this respect, 200 household heads from three districts were selected for collection of primary data with use of survey questionnaire. In addition, focus group discussion with representatives of household heads; key informant interviews and personal observations have been employed to this study. In addition to descriptive statistics, the study has employed binary logistic regression and multiple regression models for analysis and presentation of quantitative data. The results of the study show that some public institutions like health institutions, schools and agriculture and rural development offices at local level are remarkably accessible to farming household heads. As a result, they provide the health services, education and agricultural inputs to the farming household heads respectively. The accessibility to some other public institutions that can contribute to the livelihood of household heads has not yet been improved in the study areas. The study also shows that the engagement of private sectors, NGOs, micro finance and cooperatives at local level is yet at infant stage and not actively filling the service provision gaps left by the public sector. Most household heads at local level belong to traditional voluntary organizations and are gaining benefits like the humanitarian supports, labor support, information exchange, reciprocal credit, crop harvesting and farming support for building their livelihood assets. In addition, the result of logistic regression shows that those household heads that have access to health institutions, agriculture and rural development offices are more likely to improve their human capital of livelihood asset. The household heads that have also access to micro finance, local rotating savings, festive groups, finance and economic development offices, and agriculture and rural development offices are more likely to improve their financial capital of livelihood asset compared to those who do not have access to these institutions. Moreover, the multiple regression results show that the access of household heads to funeral societies, rotating saving, labor share, micro finance, and the offices of finance and economic development significantly determine the social capital of livelihood asset at local level. The access of household heads to rotating saving, faith based organizations, agriculture and rural development office and health institutions also significantly determine their natural and physical capitals of livelihood assets at local level. Furthermore,  the household heads with improved livelihood assets like financial capital, natural capital and physical capital are more likely to have better-off welfare status  (Above 3871 ETH Birr of poverty line) as compared to those who are with unimproved of these capitals. Therefore, it is indispensable for all stakeholders to improve the access of farming household heads to local public, private and traditional institutions to enhance the improvement of their welfare status. Keywords: Livelihood, local institutions, livelihood assets, welfare, farming household head

Chewaka Cluster Partnership: Achievements, challenges, lessons and way forwards

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundatio

Language and Law in Ethiopia

The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to introduce our readers to the problems of legal terminology in Ethiopia\u27s codes and to explain what the Faculty of Law has been attempting to achieve in this area; second, to give some specific examples, drawn from the procedural codes, of these language problem

Foreign Affairs Federalism: A Revisionist Approach

In April 2010, the Arizona legislature enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Commonly known as SB 1070, the law created a slate of new criminal offenses and arrest powers covering aliens within Arizona\u27s borders. SB 1070 proved divisive. It inspired copycat legislation in several states, provoked sharp criticism from the legal academy, and-most relevant here- catalyzed a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice seeking a preliminary injunction against the state law on the ground that it was preempted by federal law. Initially, the federal government\u27s litigation prospects seemed dim. One term before SB 1070 reached the Supreme Court, the Justices had upheld an earlier Arizona effort to tamp down on undocumented aliens in the workplace. Doing so, the Court had limned a narrow reach for the preemptive penumbra of federal immigration law. In the SB 1070 oral argument, the Solicitor General seemed to fare poorly, with Justice Sotomayor even suggesting that his central preemption argument was not selling very well and that he try to come up with something else. Yet in June 2012, the Court handed down an opinion giving the federal government close to everything it had sought. By a vote of five Justices to three, the Court invalidated three of the four challenged provisions and upheld the fourth subject only on condition that the state satisfied demanding limiting qualifications. What many expected to be a rout in favor of Arizona\u27s position ended instead in a robust affirmation of national authority

Foreign Affairs Federalism: A Revisionist Approach

In April 2010, the Arizona legislature enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Commonly known as SB 1070, the law created a slate of new criminal offenses and arrest powers covering aliens within Arizona\u27s borders. SB 1070 proved divisive. It inspired copycat legislation in several states, provoked sharp criticism from the legal academy, and-most relevant here- catalyzed a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice seeking a preliminary injunction against the state law on the ground that it was preempted by federal law. Initially, the federal government\u27s litigation prospects seemed dim. One term before SB 1070 reached the Supreme Court, the Justices had upheld an earlier Arizona effort to tamp down on undocumented aliens in the workplace. Doing so, the Court had limned a narrow reach for the preemptive penumbra of federal immigration law. In the SB 1070 oral argument, the Solicitor General seemed to fare poorly, with Justice Sotomayor even suggesting that his central preemption argument was not selling very well and that he try to come up with something else. Yet in June 2012, the Court handed down an opinion giving the federal government close to everything it had sought. By a vote of five Justices to three, the Court invalidated three of the four challenged provisions and upheld the fourth subject only on condition that the state satisfied demanding limiting qualifications. What many expected to be a rout in favor of Arizona\u27s position ended instead in a robust affirmation of national authority