Addressing power and scale in resilience programming: A call to engage across funding, delivery and evaluation

Abstract

Resilience has recently emerged as a conceptual and operational buzzword spanning every facet of the international development agenda. The rise of resilience provides renewed opportunities for geographers to critically engage with the policy sphere and shape ongoing discourse over the nature of resilience programming. Yet, while aspects of the political economy of resilience have long been acknowledged in both academic and practitioner literatures, scholarly inputs have had limited influence in addressing issues of power and scale as applied directly to resilience programming. In this commentary, we argue that enhanced uptake of geographic enquiry is contingent on geographers being more proactive in engaging with resilience practitioners. One way of doing so is to tailor scholarly inputs to three critical elements of the programmatic cycle, namely how resilience-building activities are funded, delivered, and evaluated. Using these three facets, we highlight key practical and ethical considerations worthy of further geographic enquiryfocusing on issues of power and scale as concepts at the heart of geography.

Geography's lens, landscape architecture, and the green recovery

“…Collins and Welsh's work also highlights the need for geographers to engage with the public as communities of practice; groups that have rallied around common concerns such as resilience (see Jones et al, 2020, cited in Collins & Welsh, 2022). In the specific context of working with public communities of practice, Allert (2004) describes a shift in focus from data to ‘knowing’, through authentic processes of knowledge construction.…”

The role of disasters in shaping narratives of resilience and transformation in Puerto Rico

“…Reflecting its foundations in disaster risk reduction, resilience is often described as the capacity to ‘build back better’ ( Carr, 2019 ), a somewhat contradictory conceptualization that acknowledges the need for change but maintains a focus on a return to previous conditions. Such definitions have been critiqued for suppressing a critical analysis of what is built back, for whom it is better, and who gets to choose ( Carr, 2019 ; Ensor et al, 2018 ; Eriksen et al, 2015 ; Jones et al, 2020 .…”

“…Critical social science scholars have long questioned the desirability of social system persistence in the context of social inequity and power imbalances ( Adger, 2000 ; Baker, 2019 ; Jones et al, 2020 ; Welsh, 2014 ), especially when there is a potential for maladaptive outcomes or unintended negative impacts ( Eriksen et al, 2021 ; Kuhl, 2021b ; Magnan et al, 2016 ). While some have critiqued resilience narratives as “nihilistic” acceptance of exposure and vulnerability to danger ( Evans and Reid, 2013 ), other scholars argue that the concept embeds a “neoliberal” emphasis on individual responsibility and self-reliance into governance, creating limited, shallow effects for stakeholders ( Evans and Reid, 2013 ; Joseph, 2013 ).…”

The road to “local green recovery”: Signposts from COVID‐19 lockdown life in the UK

“…Echoing a recent call from Jones et al (2020) for geographers to proactively engage with those communities of practice which are seeking to deliver "resilience" (acknowledging the problematic near ubiquity of that term), we see opportunities to examine how locally oriented (meso+) neighbourhood initiatives become more than the sum of their parts as they fulfil multiple (social, emotional, practical) needs. This is particularly salient as local authorities, third-sector community support networks, and ad hoc "neighbour-to-neighbour" arrangements constituted the front-line response to many COVID-19 challenges.…”