The resilience of democratic institutions in Britain, Australia and the United States under conditions of total war

To what extent are democratic institutions resilient when nation states mobilise for war? Normative and empirical political theorists have long argued that wars strengthen the executive and threaten constitutional politics. In modern democracies, national assemblies are supposed to hold the executive to account by demanding explanations for events and policies; and by scrutinising, reviewing and, if necessary, revising legislative proposals intended to be binding on the host society or policies that have been implemented already. This article examines the extent to which the British and Australian parliaments and the United States Congress held their wartime executives to account during World War II. The research finds that under conditions approaching those of total war, these democratic institutions not only continued to exist, but also proved to be resilient in representing public concerns and holding their executives to account, however imperfectly and notwithstanding delegating huge powers. In consequence, executives—more so British and Australian ministers than President Roosevelt—were required to be placatory as institutional and political tensions within national assemblies and between assemblies and executives continued, and assemblies often asserted themselves. In short, even under the most onerous wartime conditions, democratic politics mattered and democratic institutions were resilient.

A strategy-based framework for assessing the flood resilience of cities – the Hamburg case study

Climate change and continuous urbanization contribute to an increased urban vulnerability towards flooding. Only relying on traditional flood control measures is recognized as inadequate, since the damage can be catastrophic if flood controls fail. The idea of a flood-resilient city – one which can withstand or adapt to a flood event without being harmed in its functionality – seems promising. But what does resilience actually mean when it is applied to urban environments exposed to flood risk, and how can resilience be achieved? This paper presents a heuristic framework for assessing the flood resilience of cities, for scientists and policy-makers alike. It enriches the current literature on flood resilience by clarifying the meaning of its three key characteristics – robustness, adaptability and transformability – and identifying important components to implement resilience strategies. The resilience discussion moves a step forward, from predominantly defining resilience to generating insight into “doing” resilience in practice. The framework is illustrated with two case studies from Hamburg, showing that resilience, and particularly the underlying notions of adaptability and transformability, first and foremost require further capacity-building among public as well as private stakeholders. The case studies suggest that flood resilience is currently not enough motivation to move from traditional to more resilient flood protection schemes in practice; rather, it needs to be integrated into a bigger urban agenda.

Measuring the cost of resilience

Air traffic management research lacks a framework for modelling the cost of resilience during disturbance. There is no universally accepted metric for cost resilience. The design of such a framework is presented and the modelling to date is reported. The framework allows performance assessment as a function of differential stakeholder uptake of strategic mechanisms designed to mitigate disturbance. Advanced metrics, cost- and non-cost-based, disaggregated by stakeholder sub-types, are described. A new cost resilience metric is proposed and exemplified with early test data.

Heatwave planning: the role of the community in co-producing resilience

Drawing on a thematic analysis of relevant policy documents, the aim of this paper is to comment on an apparent disconnect between two associated contemporary UK policy areas: planning for heatwaves and community resilience. Regional and national policy documents that plan for heatwaves in the UK tend to focus on institutional emergency responses and infrastructure development. In these documents, although communities are mentioned, they are understood as passive recipients of resilience that is provided by active institutions. Meanwhile, contemporary discussion about community resilience highlights the potential for involving communities in planning for and responding to emergencies (although the concept is also the subject of critique). Within this context, the paper proposes that – through engagement with the ‘community resilience’ policy agenda and its critique – effort should be made to articulate and realise greater participation by individuals, and voluntary and community sector groups in heatwave preparation, planning and response.

Supply Chain Resilience? Definition of concept and its formative elements.

The objective of this paper is to conceptualize Supply Chain Resilience (SCRes) and identify which supply chain capabilities can support the containment of disruptions and how these capabilities affect SCRes. Through a systematic and structured review of literature, this paper provides insights into the conceptualization and research methodological background of the SCM field. A total of one hundred and thirty four carefully selected refereed journal articles were systematically analyzed leading to the introduction of a novel definition for SCRes, which the authors view as the as “the ability to proactively plan and design the Supply Chain network for anticipating unexpected disruptive (negative) events, respond adaptively to disruptions while maintaining control over structure and function and transcending to a post-event robust state of operations, if possible, more favorable than the one prior to the event, thus gaining competitive advantage”. Finally, a critical examination of existing conceptual frameworks for understanding the relationships between the SCRes concept and its identified formative elements, is taking place.

Introduction: resilience and the Anthropocene: the stakes of ‘renaturalising’ politics

The Anthropocene marks a new geological epoch in which human activity (and specifically Western production and consumption practices) has become a geological force. It also profoundly destabilizes the grounds of Western political philosophy. Visions of a dynamic earth system wholly indifferent to human survival liquefy modernity’s division between nature and politics. Critical thought has only begun to scratch the surface of the Anthropocene’s re-naturalization of politics. This special issue of Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses explores the politics of resilience within the wider cultural and political moment of the Anthropocene. It is within the field of resilience thinking that the implications of the Anthropocene for forms of governance are beginning to be sketched out and experimental practices are undertaken. Foregrounding the Anthropocene imaginary’s re-naturalization of politics enables us to consider the political possibilities of resilience from a different angle, one that is irreducible to neoliberal post-political rule.

Introducing Corporate Reputation Continuity to Support Organizational Resilience Against Crises

As Corporate Reputation (CR) evolves into an important asset for organizations, crises and disasters stand as threats to the preservation of the reputation capital since they usually result to negative projections to their audiences and to problematic evaluations by their stakeholders. Viewing CR as the accumulated trust and positive evaluations of the stakeholders, this paper proposes a conceptual and normative framework for Reputation Continuity, which enhances the ability of organizations to preserve their reputation, instead of working for its recovery in the post-crisis period. In our approach, we propose a process of maintaining trusted links, instead of restoring them and establishing a reputation resilient organization, instead of one struggling to recover from reputation losses, after the crisis has emerged. Working closely with stakeholders during the crisis, injecting a sense of normality continuity through effective leadership and mitigating image problems are seen as critical concerns, alongside a set of managerial practices to be followed. Ultimately, it is argued that, the value-based and strategically integrated view of Business Continuity must be enhanced and supported by Reputation Continuity activities.

Rethinking the Conflict-Poverty Nexus: From Securitising Intervention to Resilience

We are witnessing nothing less than a revolution in international policy-thinking, with a shift from imagining that international policy-makers can solve development/ security problems through the export or transfer of policy practices or their imposition through conditionality, to understanding that problems should be grasped as emergent consequences of complex social processes which need to be worked with rather than against. This paper, prepared for the 2014 CEPA conference, focuses therefore less on the politicisation and securitisation of questions of conflict and poverty and more on the depoliticisation of questions of conflict and poverty, especially through frameworks of resilience.

Resilience and critique

I would like to thank Philip Hammond and Julian Reid for their thoughtful reviews. For Reid, the ‘life’ focus of resilience thinking is just another liberal/ neoliberal governmentality, enabling the reproduction and extension of biopolitical rule, thus my book provides interesting insights, but is not necessarily essential for the making of such claims. For Hammond, the conceptual distinctions made in the book shed some useful insights into current discussions of how policy understandings are being transformed and the emergence of the new doxa of complexity and its relational ontology (drawing adherents from across the, now defunct, Left–Right ideological divide).

Resilience and the ‘everyday’: beyond the paradox of ‘liberal peace’

Over the last decade there has been a shift towards critical understandings of ‘liberal peace’ approaches to international intervention, which argue that local culture holds the key to the effectiveness of peace interventions. In this ‘bottom-up’ approach, peace, reconciliation, and a ‘culture of law’ then become secondary effects of sociocultural norms and values. However, these liberal peace critiques have remained trapped in the paradox of liberal peace: the inability to go beyond the binaries of liberal universalism and cultural relativism. This understanding will be contrasted with the rise of ‘resilience’ approaches to intervention – which build on this attention to the particular context of application but move beyond this paradox through philosophical pragmatism and the focus on concrete social practices. This article clarifies the nature of this shift through the focus on the shifting understanding of international intervention to address the failings of the ‘war on drugs’ in the Americas.

How the World Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Failure: Big Data, Resilience and Emergent Causality

In modernity, failure was the discourse of critique, today, it is increasingly the discourse of power: failure has changed its allegiances. Over the last two decades, failure has been enfolded into discourses of power, facilitating the development of new policy approaches. Foremost among governing approaches that seek to include and to govern through failure is that of resilience. This article seeks to reflect upon how the understanding of failure has become transformed in this process, particularly linking this transformation to the radical appreciation of contingency and of the limits to instrumental cause-and-effect approaches to rule. Whereas modernity was shaped by a contestation over failure as an epistemological boundary, under conditions of contingency and complexity there appears to be a new consensus on failure as an ontological necessity. This problematic ‘ontological turn’ is illustrated using examples of changing approaches to risks, especially anthropogenic understandings of environmental threats, formerly seen as ‘natural’.