Caravani Matteo, Lind Jeremy, Sabates-Wheeler Rachel, Scoones Ian
PASTRES Programme Affiliate Rome Italy.
BASIC Research/PASTRES Programme, Institute of Development Studies University of Sussex UK.
Dev Policy Rev. 2022 Sep;40(5):e12613. doi: 10.1111/dpr.12613. Epub 2022 Apr 9.
Social assistance, humanitarian relief, and disaster response increasingly overlap, especially where recurrent crises and persistent conflicts prevail. In such situations, distinctions between risk and uncertainty become especially important. It is critical for policy and practice to shift from focusing on risk assessment and management to embracing uncertainty.
The article assesses the appropriateness of two approaches to social assistance and humanitarian relief where crises recur and conflicts persist: risk assessment and management; and embracing uncertainty and ignorance.
The article reviews different approaches to social assistance, humanitarian relief, and disaster response, and asks how they are framed. It draws on experiences from programmes offering social assistance, humanitarian relief, and disaster response, highlighting the professional, bureaucratic, and institutional features that influence programme design and functioning. These are compared with "high-reliability" approaches deployed in other critical infrastructure-such as water and energy supply.
Mainstream approaches focus on risk assessment and management, assuming predictability and stability. This is problematic, especially in settings of crisis and conflict where there may be no functioning delivery system for social assistance and relief. The article highlights alternatives to the mainstream risk-focused approaches, which emphasize learning, collaboration, adaptation, and flexibility. Such approaches must build on embedded practices of moral economy, collective action, and mutual care and be supported through professional and institutional capacities that generate reliability.
The article suggests a new agenda for the intersection of social assistance, humanitarian relief, and disaster response, which makes uncertainty the focus for rethinking responses at scale, especially in settings affected by crisis and conflict.
社会援助、人道主义救济和灾害应对之间的重叠日益增加,特别是在反复出现危机和持续冲突的地区。在这种情况下,区分风险和不确定性变得尤为重要。政策和实践从关注风险评估和管理转向接受不确定性至关重要。
本文评估了在危机反复出现和冲突持续的情况下,两种社会援助和人道主义救济方法的适用性:风险评估和管理;以及接受不确定性和无知。
本文回顾了社会援助、人道主义救济和灾害应对的不同方法,并探讨了它们的构建方式。它借鉴了提供社会援助、人道主义救济和灾害应对的项目经验,突出了影响项目设计和运作的专业、官僚和机构特征。并将这些与水和能源供应等其他关键基础设施中采用的“高可靠性”方法进行了比较。
主流方法侧重于风险评估和管理,假设具有可预测性和稳定性。这存在问题,特别是在危机和冲突环境中,可能不存在社会援助和救济的有效交付系统。本文强调了主流的以风险为重点的方法的替代方案,这些方案强调学习、协作、适应和灵活性。此类方法必须建立在道德经济、集体行动和相互关怀的内在实践基础上,并通过产生可靠性的专业和机构能力予以支持。
本文提出了社会援助、人道主义救济和灾害应对交叉领域的新议程,将不确定性作为大规模重新思考应对措施的重点,特别是在受危机和冲突影响的环境中。