Professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Senior Lecturer at the School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Disasters. 2022 Jul;46(3):768-790. doi: 10.1111/disa.12487. Epub 2022 Mar 17.
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.
本文考察了对“韧性”的三个常见批评：（i）它是一种“自上而下”的政策话语，对地方特色关注不足；（ii）韧性政策代表了向社区责任转移的新自由主义转变，以及国家从提供保护的角色中退缩；（iii）对韧性的关注往往会转移人们对脆弱性根本原因的关注。本文利用尼泊尔 2015 年地震后的收集的数据，认为这些批评在这种情况下具有混合的重要性，但（i）和（iii）尤其指出了中央政府及其国际合作伙伴在增强社区韧性方面的方法存在重要问题。虽然在地方层面考虑韧性有好处，但重要的是要认识到社区内部的不平等，以及这些不平等可能如何反映在不同程度的脆弱性上，以及它们如何通过韧性建设计划得到加强。
