Paranirvar manis (dependent people)? Rethinking humanitarian dependency syndrome: a Bourdieusian perspective.

Disaster survivors are often criticised for being dependent on humanitarian (and development) assistance. This dependency is perceived pejoratively by civil servants and other elites, including non-governmental organisation staff. Officials offered up such narratives in relation to the disaster response and recovery programmes following the Nepal earthquake of 2015. Using a Bourdieusian framework, and undertaking qualitative inquiry in four earthquake-affected districts of Nepal, this paper contrasts the official narratives of dependency syndrome with people's perspectives and lived experiences. The findings problematise official discourse. Aid was frequently insufficient, poorly targeted, or non-existent. Moreover, the Bourdieusian framing highlights the agency of survivors, as their habitus predisposed them to help others. It broadens the notion of assistance and dependence, suggesting that social and cultural (as well as economic) capital are vital resources for recovery. Lastly, it shows that dependencies are not necessarily bad. Greater attention to these non-economic capitals and 'good dependencies' could expedite recovery from future disasters.

From goods to goats: examining post-disaster livelihood recovery in the aftermath of the Nepal earthquake 2015.

Disasters can have substantial impacts on people's livelihoods in developing countries. Further, if the need for livelihood interventions is ignored or delayed, the crisis may trigger unexpected harmful consequences in the affected households in the aftermath. Therefore, restoring livelihoods should remain a priority in the post-disaster recovery process. However, such recoveries in rural contexts and developing countries, like Nepal, are complex as the livelihood restoration process is affected by serious spatial, socio-economic, and political factors. We employed qualitative research methods in four highly affected districts in the 2015 Nepal Earthquake (7.8 Mw) to examine post-disaster livelihoods recovery. Our paper critically assesses the humanitarian response based on the narratives and lived experiences of affected households. The findings show that humanitarian assistance was crucial in addressing several unmet needs of disaster-affected rural households in resource-poor settings in Nepal. However, the interventions were generally fragmented, insufficient, neoliberal led (forcing market dependencies), and largely business-as-usual in their orientation. Previous studies in Nepal paid insufficient attention to the goods provided to affected households in the name of recovery. Therefore, our paper scrutinises selected humanitarian objects, such as power tillers, and unpacks their political economy and effectiveness in local contexts. Further, our findings show that some livelihood policies reinforced the gap between the haves and have-nots, thereby reproducing pre-disaster inequalities in the post-disaster field.

Conceptualising disaster social capital: what it is, why it matters, and how it can be enhanced.

Social capital discourse occupies an important place in disaster studies. Scholars have adopted various inflections of social capital to explain how those with greater amounts of this crucial resource are generally more resilient to disasters and experience speedier recovery. Disaster scholars have also discovered that people typically display altruistic tendencies in the wake of disasters and develop novel networks of mutual support, known as 'communitas', which is also seen to build resilience and boost recovery. In this paper, we use the work of Pierre Bourdieu to synthesise these literatures, conceptualising communitas as 'disaster social capital'. We offer a fleshed-out definition of disaster social capital to distinguish it from regular social capital and discuss the barriers to, and the enablers of, its formation. While primarily a conceptual discussion, we believe that it has practical and policy value for disaster scholars and practitioners interested in inclusive disaster risk reduction as well as full and just recoveries.

Theorizing disaster communitas.

Disaster scholars have long complained that their field is theory light: they are much better at doing and saying than analyzing. The paucity of theory doubtless reflects an understandable focus on case studies and practical solutions. Yet this works against big picture thinking. Consequently, both our comprehension of social suffering and our ability to mitigate it are fragmented. Communitas is exemplary here. This refers to the improvisational acts of mutual help, collective feeling and utopian desires that emerge in the wake of disasters. It has been observed for as long as there has been a sociology of disasters. Within the field, there have been numerous efforts to name and describe it. Yet there has been far less enthusiasm to theorize it, which means that the disaster literature has not adequately explained the social conditions under which communitas arises (or fails to). In this article, we synthesize numerous case studies to do so. This takes us beyond simple statements of what communitas is and what it should be called, to considerations of the conditions under which it emerges, how it should be conceptualized, the factors that might prevent communitas, and how we might encourage it. While primarily a theoretical work, the identification of communitas' facilitators and barriers have practical import for disaster risk reduction (DRR) policy as communitas has frequently proven to be a positive and potent force.