Blurred Responsibilities of Disaster Governance: The American Red Cross in the US and Haiti

Abstract

The influence of private actors, such as non-profit organizations (NPOs) and firms, has been increasing in disaster governance. Previous literature has interrogated the responsibilities of states towards citizens in disasters, but the roles of private actors have been insufficiently challenged. The article politicizes the entangled relations between NPOs, states, and disaster-affected people. It proposes the Rawlsian division of moral labor as a useful, normative framework for interrogating the justice of disaster governance arrangements in which ‘liberal’ states are involved. Liberal states have two types of responsibilities in disasters: humanitarian and political. The humanitarian responsibilities imply provision of basic resources needed for the capacity to make autonomous choices (domestically and abroad), while the political responsibilities imply provision of the institutions needed for the liberal democratic citizenship (domestically). Through this analytical lens and building on the wealth of existing scholarship, we illustrate the disaster governance role of the American Red Cross in the United States (a 2005 hurricane) and in Haiti (the 2010 earthquake). Where, in Rawlsian terms, United States is interpreted as a ‘liberal’ society, Haiti is framed as a ‘burdened’ society. The article proposes five points to consider in analyzing disaster governance arrangements under neoliberal regimes, structured around the division of humanitarian and political responsibilities. The article illustrates how NPOS are instrumental in blurring the boundaries between humanitarian and political responsibilities. This might result ultimately in actual vulnerabilities remaining unaddressed. While the Rawlsian approach challenges the privatization and lack of coordination in disaster governance, it is limited in analyzing the political construction of ‘burdened’ societies.

Disasters and indigenous peoples: A critical discourse analysis of the expert news media

“…As others (e.g. Meriläinen et al, 2020) note, this lack of attention to the private sector may be a problem because it fails to account for the potentially transformative role the private sector can have in risk management, and the role that the government can have in enabling risk reduction and limiting risk creation. For example, while Angelo (21/04/2020) highlights the role of agribusiness, loggers and drug traffickers in Brazil in displacing Indigenous peoples, the reporter details how they are enabled to do so by what is in essence a complicit government (Ioris, 2020).…”

“…Viewing disaster through the vulnerability paradigm promotes a shift toward disasters as 'everyone's responsibility', a multi-stakeholder endeavour involving a distended network of actors in the management of risk through cross-societal interventions (Clark-Ginsberg, 2020;Tierney, 2012). Who is specifically involved in this set of interventions is blurry and shifting (Meriläinen et al, 2020), but a common theme is the decentralisation of government responsibilities to local agencies (Curato, 2018a;Wisner et al, 2001)a stark contrast to traditional, top-down and authoritarian disaster management practices of the hazard paradigm. While this can elevate the voices of local communities and other actors in disaster management (Curato, 2018a;Hilhorst et al, 2020), it can also create problems for those communities if implemented incorrectly.…”

Collaborative governance in handling natural and non-natural disasters based on the perspective of public administration: Evidence from Indonesia

“…Disaster conditions today require new knowledge, mitigation, and response (Suzuki & Kaneko, 2013), as knowledge management is a part of disaster preparedness (Kusumastuti et al, 2021). However, the field showed many problems in disaster management, not only for the affected but also for non-affected individuals (Meriläinen et al, 2020).…”