‘Building back better’ is neoliberal post‐disaster reconstruction

Abstract

‘Building back better’ (BBB) has become one of the most common expressions in disaster risk reduction. Disasters offer an opportunity to encourage improvements not only in the structural safety of buildings and infrastructure, but also in addressing structural inequalities and injustice. Consequently, they are an opportunity to make things ‘better’. However, in the context of neoliberalism, the definition of ‘better’ does not always mean ‘good for all’. We argue here that BBB allows for widely varied definitions of what is and what is not a risk, who is and is not responsible, and what forms of action are to be taken in response to these dangers. This serves as a designation for capacity to make ‘better’, but not actively change, social and political systems that initially create risk. Disasters and its terminology, therefore, are not ideologically neutral and should thus be deliberately unpacked and critically evaluated rather than accepted unquestioned.

What We Measure Matters: The Case of the Missing Development Data in Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction Monitoring

“…What different SFDRR indicators demonstrate is that, while there has been a shift from hazard to vulnerability, the latter is still treated as an outcome that can be addressed through ''building resilience'' (for example, Cheek and Chmutina 2021) and not as a process that is influenced by external socioeconomic factors and is historically rooted. We know that the creation of risk is a complex process influenced by internal and external socioeconomic factors, local and global socioecological policies, and is geographically located and historically rooted-all of which are a manifestation of power.…”

“…Following Althusser (1971), we see how the SFDRR, built on a rigorous Western ''scientific'' approach to society and the problems it faces because of disasters, ''represents'' the ''imaginary relationship of individuals'' with the real world. This imaginary relationship is guided by a neoliberal narrative that normalizes vulnerability as ''individual guilt'' (von Meding 2021) and fetishizes the status quo of the social system, to which only few want to return (Cheek and Chmutina 2021).…”

“…Certain ideas were imposed on the fledgling DRR field: economic growth as a prerogative (Cuny 1994;Lewis 1999; Lewis and Kelman 2012), or the West acting as the ''saviour of the world,'' while erasing the wants and needs of those ''underdeveloping'' countries we still often refer to as developing (Galeano 1970;Chang 2009;Prashad 2012). These ideas are clearly reflected in the ''Building Back Better'' narrative, where the focus on ''build back'' is largely measured in economic terms (for example, investments and infrastructure) (Cheek and Chmutina 2021), by for instance prioritizing the speed of the reconstruction of buildings over the safety or livelihoods and neighborhoods (Kennedy et al 2008;Zanotti 2010;Thomalla et al 2018), and reproducing conditions of inequalities and vulnerabilities (Stone 1989) instead of alleviating those existing since prior to the disaster. Sometimes these processes are entirely predictable based on power differentials and the stated political goals of the institutions that set the terms of engagement (Stone 1989;Matthewman 2015).…”

“…Such a hazard-centric approach is reflected in DRR measures that can displace the disaster temporarily but leave the underlying factors that created the risk that leads to the disaster unaddressed. What is accomplished is neoliberal restructuring-privatizing public assets, deregulating major industries, reducing corporate taxes, competition of capital investments, the conflation of democracy with free-markets, scepticism of government planning and policy making that addresses social inequality, elimination of the concept of the public good-which is traded in for a belief in personal responsibility, a belief that the government's job is to assist the private sector (Cheek and Chmutina 2021). The nature and degree of these factors varies by state and disaster, but the fundamental elements are there.…”

Exploring disaster ontologies from Chinese and Western perspectives: commonalities and nuances

“…In the "developed", yet damaged world, this prosperity was to be revived. In the "developing" world, this dynamic was brought about through policy and restructuring (Cheek and Chmutina, 2021). Understanding the roots of these approaches and their philosophical grounding is critical, to avoid making assumptions that these views are normative and allow for appropriate critique.…”