Suchergebnisse

Disaster research owes a lot to development studies and yet the debt is often not acknowledged. In this scholarly but accessible book by Sarah Bradshaw, we see a very effective linking of gender, disaster and development that will be of value to academics and practitioners working in and across all these domains. Maureen Fordham, University of Northumbria, UKBringing gender into the foreground in both development and disaster discourse, the author challenges received wisdom and offers cautionary notes about reinforcing inequalities through feminized disaster interventions. The book is an outstanding platform for fundamental change in how we think about and act toward gender in disaster contexts, leaving readers cautiously optimistic. This is one for the top shelf a book we have been waiting for and must put to use. Elaine Enarson, founder, Gender and Disaster Resilience AllianceOnce in a while a book is published which offers an empirically and theoretically informed analysis of an under-studied topic which helps to carve out a new field of enquiry. Such is the case with Dr Sarah Bradshaws breathtakingly detailed, richly first-hand informed, and incisive, account of the frequently paradoxical co-option of women into the analysis and practice of "disaster" in developing economies. Bradshaw's eminently comprehensive, well-substantiated, perceptive and sensitive treatment of the "A to Z" of gender and "disaster" in developing country contexts constitutes a 21st century volume which will be a definitive benchmark for scholars, policymakers, practitioners, and feminist activists at a world scale. Sylvia Chant, London School of Economics, UKThe need to disaster proof development is increasingly recognised by development agencies, as is the need to engender both development and disaster response. This unique book explores what these processes mean for development and disasters in practice

PurposeThis paper argues that extractivist logic creates the environmental conditions that produce "natural" hazards and also the human conditions that produce vulnerability, which combined create disasters. Disaster Risk Creation is then built into the current global socio-economic system, as an integral component not accidental by-product.Design/methodology/approachAs part of the movement to liberate disasters as discipline, practice and field of enquiry, this paper does not talk disasters per se, but rather its focus is on "extractivism" as a fundamental explanator for the anthropogenic disaster landscape that now confronts us.FindingsApplying a gender lens to extractivism as it relates to disaster, further highlights that Disaster Risk Management rather than alleviating, creates the problems it seeks to solve, suggesting the need to liberate gender from Disaster Risk Management, and the need to liberate us all from the notion of managing disasters. Since to 'manage' disaster risk is to accept uncritically the structures and systems that create that risk, then if we truly want to address disasters, our focus needs to be on the extractive practices, not the disastrous outcomes.Originality/valueThe fundamental argument is that through privileging the notion of "disaster" we create it, bring it into existence, as something that exists in and of itself, apart from wider socio-economic structures and systems of extraction and exploitation, rather than recognising it for what it is, an outcome/end product of those wider structures and systems. Our focus on disaster is then misplaced, and perhaps what disaster studies needs to be liberated from, is itself.

The article explores the implications for gender roles and relations in Nicaragua of implementing a Conditional Cash Transfer programme aimed at improving the situation of the extreme poor. Nicaragua's programme, the Social Protection Network/Red de Protección Social (RPS), is modelled on the Progresa/Oportunidades programme of Mexico and shares many features in common. Evaluations of Progresa have suggested positive outcomes for women. However, examination of the findings highlight some cause for concern particularly around what inclusion on the programme means for the women involved. The article explores the consequences of translating this programme aimed at addressing the structural causes of poverty into a more overtly neoliberal and neo-conservative policy context such as that in Nicaragua. It highlights how a key feature of the RPS is the `social adjustment' of women's behaviour for economic growth gains and discusses the possible consequences for the women included and excluded from the programme.