Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
Development and change

Recently published in Development and Change, Tom Scott-Smith reviews the ‘World Disasters Report 2016 – Resilience: saving lives today, investing for tomorrow’ and considers the ‘resilience paradox’.

In this paradox, resilience is simultaneously accused of being politicizing and depoliticizing. Scott-Smith writes, “The scholarly critique suggests that resilience depoliticizes everything it touches, producing acquiescent subjects who are discouraged from protest. The practitioner critique, on the other hand, suggests that resilience politicizes relief by focusing mistakenly on systems, structures and states… the essence of the scholarly argument is that resilience shifts attention from the state to the individual and encourages us to embrace precarity. The essence of the practitioner argument, however, is that resilience shifts attention from the individual to the state.”

So who is right? “Both sides are wrong,” he argues, “but in different ways.”

Read the article ‘Paradoxes of Resilience: A Review of the World Disasters Report 2016’ here >>

related content

Tom Scott-Smith People

Architectures of Displacement Research

Humanitarian Nutrition Research