Research on Politics of Disaster Risk Governance: Where Are We Headed?

Abstract

This thematic issue aims at unravelling how the global consensus towards a shift to risk reduction and inclusive disaster governance evolves in everyday governance practices, where roles and responsibilities are evolving and negotiated, permeated by politics of power and legitimacy. It identifies three different dimensions of disaster governance. The first is the formal dimension: the way governance arrangements are designed or meant to work. The second is ‘real’ governance: the way in which formal governance arrangements manifest and evolve in actual practice. The third is invisible governance: an amalgam of household and neighbourhood-level activities and networks for disaster response that happen outside of the gaze of the formalized governance arrangements. The 21 articles in this issue address the politics of governance based on thorough empirical work, while theoretically contributing to several themes relating to the politics of disaster governance. The outcomes of the thematic issue are: 1) The three governance dimensions are useful to reveal what the roles and room for manoeuvre is of different actors, including governments, international community, experts, non-state actors and affected communities; 2) Technical solutions for risk reduction and disaster response crucially rely on socio-technical, political, and administrative systems and processes and hence need to be adjusted to the specific context; and 3) The political nature of disaster governance calls for a deeper understanding to advance accountability to affected populations.

When Covid‐19 meets conflict: politics of the pandemic response in fragile and conflict‐affected states

“…Conflict may further contribute to the collapse of local economies (International Crisis Group, 2020 ). Covid‐19 may compound and exacerbate economic and health crises related to a conflict, as confirmed in a study in Colombia, Libya, Sudan, Ukraine, and Yemen (Mustasilta, 2020 ), and its spread may be heightened in the densely populated settings of refugee camps (Mena, 2020 ; Raju and Ayeb‐Karlsson, 2020 ). Weak health systems and a lack of basic infrastructure are also factors contributing to a rise in the risk posed by Covid‐19 in conflict‐affected locations (Ekzayez et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Whether a disaster unfolds upon an earthquake, for example, depends on the level of prevention in the built environment in combination with poverty levels among the population (Kelman, 2020a ; Wisner, Gaillard, and Kelman, 2012 ). While Covid‐19 has been prominent worldwide and has had significant effects on populations in high‐income countries, there is ample evidence that marginalised and vulnerable populations are at greater risk of becoming infected (Raju and Ayeb‐Karlsson, 2020 ).…”

“…The pace, commitment, and extent to which the consensus on this model is translated in practice vary considerably across the world. Still, there have been significant moves towards governance models that bring together different state and non‐state actors and combine top‐down and bottom‐up approaches (Hilhorst, Boersma, and Raju, 2020 ). With regard to pandemics, there have been similar calls to complement top‐down state‐centred control with more inclusive and collaborative forms of governance.…”

“…Lastly, emerging scholarship on Covid‐19 and conflict emphasises that, as in any disaster, marginalised and vulnerable populations are at greater risk and suffer more the effects (Raju and Ayeb‐Karlsson, 2020 ). Covid‐19 augments the vulnerability of people already facing life under conflict in poverty and with a lack of (health) services (International Crisis Group, 2020 ).…”

Routledge Handbook of Autocratization in South Asia

“…The normative presentation of disaster governance can be worlds apart from its real effects (Barnett, 2013;Hilhorst, Boersma and Raju, 2020). Aid and government analyses rarely discuss unintended impacts.…”