AI Article Synopsis
- This paper critiques the concept of 'resilience' in policy, highlighting three main issues: its 'top-down' approach, its alignment with neoliberal policies, and its tendency to ignore the root causes of vulnerability.
- Using data from Nepal after the 2015 earthquake, the author argues these critiques are relevant, especially points (i) and (iii), showing problems in how resilience strategies are implemented by the government and international partners.
- The paper emphasizes the need to understand inequalities within communities and ensure that resilience-building efforts do not exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.
Article Abstract
This paper examines three common critiques of 'resilience': (i) that it is a 'top-down' policy discourse that pays too little regard to local specificities; (ii) that resilience policy represents a neoliberal shift towards the responsibilisation of communities and a retreat of the state from its role in providing protection; and (iii) that the focus on resilience tends to divert attention from the underlying causes of vulnerability. Using data collected after the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, the paper argues that these critiques have mixed salience in this context, but that (i) and (iii) in particular point to important problems in how the central government and its international partners have approached enhancing the resilience of communities. While there are benefits to considering resilience at the local level, it is important to recognise the inequalities within communities, how these might be reflected in differential degrees of vulnerability, and how they might be reinforced through resilience-building programmes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/disa.12487 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!