Disaster politics: tipping points for change in the adaptation of sociopolitical regimes

Abstract

Calls from the climate change community and a more widespread concern for human security have reawakened the interest of geographers and others in disaster politics. A legacy of geographical research on the political causes and consequences of disaster is reviewed and built on to formulate a framework for the analysis of post-disaster political space. This is constructed around the notion of a contested social contract. The Marmara earthquake, Turkey, is used to illustrate the framework and provide empirical detail on the multiple scales and time phasing of post-disaster political change. Priorities for a future research agenda in disaster politics are proposed.

Emerging Livelihood Vulnerabilities in an Urbanizing and Climate Uncertain Environment for the Case of a Secondary City in Thailand

“…Political ecologists identify increased floods not only as a result of climate change and heavy rainfall but also as outcomes of political processes [21]. Unplanned urban growth with mismanaged infrastructure development and land use changes reflects those outcomes [22,23].…”

Toward a Sustainable and Resilient Future

“…Indeed, the political neutrality that underpins the humanitarian imperative makes any overt actions to promote human rights by humanitarian actors difficult. In this way, disaster response and reconstruction can to only a partial extent claim to enhance human security (Pelling and Dill, 2009). Work at the boundaries between humanitarian and development actors, new partnerships, the involvement of government, and meaningful local participation are all emerging as ways to resolve this challenge.…”

“…Even in stable polities, adaptation planning that seeks long-term resilience is confronted by political instability directly after disasters (Drury and Olson, 1998;Olson, 2000;UNDP, 2004;Pelling and Dill, 2009). When disasters strike across national boundaries or within areas of conflict, they can provide a space for rapprochement, but effects are usually short-lived unless the underlying political and social conditions are addressed (Kelman and Koukis, 2000;Kelman, 2003).…”

“…New interest in disaster and climate change as a security concern has brought in lessons from international law (Ammer et al, 2010) and security policy (Campbell et al, 2007) on planning for relatively lowprobability, high-consequence futures. Although during times of stress it is easy for polities to drift toward militarization and authoritarianism for managing disaster risk (Albala-Bertrand, 1993), there are alternatives, such as inclusive governance, that can meet the goals of sustainable development and human security over the long term (Olson and Gawronski, 2003;Brauch, 2009;Pelling and Dill, 2009;Bauer, 2011). …”

The innovativeness of national policy portfolios – climate policy change in Austria, Germany, and the UK

“…If layered on top of a process of cumulative changes, even insignificant policy innovation might trigger radical changes in the political trajectory towards new policy instruments with new interests and coalitions (Black et al 2005, Pelling and Dill 2010, Shipan and Volden 2012. Second, governmental action or 'cheap talk' might be perceived as innovative, even if actual instruments remain traditional and symbolic (McConnell 2010, Krause 2011, Bauer et al 2012.…”