In the Rubble of Resilience: Housing Reconstruction after Nepal's 2015 Earthquake

在尼泊尔，政府主导和捐赠者支持的主要住房重建计划在近六年后未能为80万受地震影响的家庭中的大多数家庭重建更好的住房。自2004年以来，尼泊尔的重建一直受到重建更好和灾后恢复能力思维的兴起的影响。从事灾害研究的国际组织越来越多地使用“恢复力”作为政策和规划的框架，并使用“恢复力”来描述受灾人口。在实践中，复原力思维导致了对所有者(而不是捐赠者)驱动的重建、新的重建工具(例如重建融资)和新的数字技术的更多重视。我的研究难题是：为什么尼泊尔的住房重建经验与其他灾后国家的糟糕结果相似，尽管在重建政策和实践中吸取了经验教训？我试图用一个更大的问题来回答这个问题：不断变化的发展和人道主义做法对政治和政策的影响是什么？我将通过三个附属问题来探讨这一点：a)通过使用创新工具和越来越多地使用“复原力”作为政策框架，在发展和人道主义实践方面产生了哪些变化？B)这些不断变化的做法对尼泊尔“业主主导”的住房重建政策有何影响？C)国家和国际组织如何交叉并共同制定关于创新、韧性和性别的政策？

In Nepal the main government-led and donor-supported housing reconstruction programme hasfailed to 'build back better' homes for the majority of the 800,000 earthquake-affected households nearly six years later. Reconstruction in Nepal has been shaped by the rise, since 2004, of Build Back Better and resilience-thinking in disaster recovery. Internationals working on disasters increasingly use 'resilience' as a framework for policy and planning and 'resilient' as a description of affected people. In practice resilience-thinking has led to a greater emphasis on owner (not donor) driven reconstruction, new reconstruction tools (e.g. in rebuilding finance), and new digital technologies.My research puzzle is: Why has Nepal's housing reconstruction experience been similar to poor results in other post-disaster countries, despite 'lessons learnt' in reconstruction policy and practice? I seek to answer this with a larger question: What are the political and policy implications of changing development and humanitarian practices? I will explore this through three subsidiary questions: a) What changes in development and humanitarian practice emerged from the use of innovation tools, and increasing use of 'resilience' as a policy framework? b) How did these changing practices impact policies in Nepal's 'owner-driven' housing reconstruction? c) How did the state and internationals intersect and co-produce policies on innovation, resilience and gender?