Resilience Turn in German Development Strategy and Humanitarian Intervention

Joseph, Jonathan Working Paper Resilience Turn in German Development Strategy and Humanitarian Intervention Global Cooperation Research Papers, No. 20 Provided in Cooperation with: University of Duisburg-Essen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Suggested Citation: Joseph, Jonathan (2017) : Resilience Turn in German Development Strategy and Humanitarian Intervention, Global Cooperation Research Papers, No. 20, University of DuisburgEssen, Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21), Duisburg, https://doi.org/10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-20 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/214713 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ Jonathan Joseph The Resilience Turn in German Development Strategy and Humanitarian Intervention Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 Global Cooperation Research Papers are available online. To learn more about the Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research, please visit www.gcr21.org. DuEPublico All issues are permanently archived at the University of Duisburg-Essen’s open-access repository: http://duepublico.uni-duisburgessen.de. Printed by UDZ, Duisburg © Duisburg 2017 Copyright is held by the contributing authors. ISSN: 2198-1949 (Print) ISSN: 2198-0411 (Online) DOI: 10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-20 Editorial Board Rainer Baumann Katja Freistein Frank Gadinger Volker Heins Christine Unrau Editorial Office Martin Wolf Tina Berntsen Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21) Managing Board Markus Böckenförde Tobias Debiel Claus Leggewie Dirk Messner Schifferstr. 196 47059 Duisburg Germany Tel: +49 (0)203 29861-100 Fax: +49 (0)203 29861-199 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.gcr21.org A Central Research Institute of the University of Duisburg-Essen Licence: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-ND 4.0 Attribution Please cite the work as follows: Jonathan Joseph 2017. The Resilience Turn in German Development Strategy and Humanitarian Intervention (Global Cooper ation Research Papers 20). Duisburg: Käte Hamburger Kolleg / Centre for Global Cooper ation Research (KHK / GCR21). doi: 10.14282/2198-0411-GCRP-20. Licence: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-ND 4.0. No Derivative Works You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. Notice For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page: www.gcr21.org/publications. Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 Contents Jonathan Joseph The Resilience Turn in German Development Strategy and Humanitarian Intervention 1 Introduction 5 2 Resilience as Governmentality 6 3 German Security Strategy and the General Context for Resilience 9 4 The Emergence of Resilience in German Overseas Interventions 11 5 Conclusion: German Resilience in Context 17 REFERENCES 20 Abstract Resilience has emerged as a key theme in recent policy making. It spans a range of policy fields from infrastructure protection through to humanitarian intervention. This Research Paper looks at resilience as a theme of development strategy and humanitarian intervention and examines how it has emerged in German policy making. It argues that the dominant approach to resilience is a form of neoliberal governmentality that seeks to govern populations from a distance, devolve responsibility to people and communities, promote market mechanisms, encourage entrepreneurial behaviour and promote adaptation innovation and transformation among traditional communities. However, it is also recognised that this is a strongly Anglo-Saxon approach, targeted at specific individuals and communities. The purpose of the paper is to consider the extent to which German policy making is simply a reflection of this dominant Anglo-Saxon approach, or whether there is a more distinctive German view of resilience. It does this by exploring tensions in the German discourse, indicating that there might be other political dynamics in play alongside the neoliberal ones. Keywords Resilience, development, aid, policy, humanitarian, international relations, global development Author Jonathan Joseph is Professor of International Relations at the University of Sheffield. He wrote this paper while a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Global Cooperation Research from January - June 2017. His books include Hegemony: A Realist Analysis (Routledge 2002) and The Social in the Global: Social Theory, Governmentality and Global Politics (Cambridge 2012). He has written a number of recent articles on the theme of resilience and has just completed a manuscript of Varieties of Resilience: Studies in Governmentality (Cambridge forthcoming). He is starting on a new book exploring the relationship between resilience, wellbeing and sustainability.  [email protected] Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 5 The Resilience Turn in German Development Strategy and Humanitarian Intervention Jonathan Joseph 1 Introduction Resilience has emerged as a strong organising idea across a number of policy domains, none more so than international development, humanitarian intervention and disaster risk reduction. However, the idea of resilience, while seen as an answer to many problems of intervention and coordination by some, has also been heavily criticised for embracing neoliberal values. This paper looks at the emergence of resilience in German overseas interventions and assesses the degree to which German resilience-building policy can also be considered a neoliberal intervention. Resilience has emerged only recently in this field, even more lately in the case of German development assistance. Indeed, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) takes its understanding of resilience from existing definitions provided by the EU and the British Department for International Development (DFID). This defines resilience as: the ability of people and institutions – whether individuals, households, local communities or states – to withstand acute shocks or chronic stress caused by fragile situations, crises, violent conflict or extreme natural events, and to adapt and recover quickly without compromising their medium and longer-term prospects. (BMZ 2013: 7) Rather a broad definition, this considers resilience to operate at different levels such as the individual and community level. It presents a number of scenarios— natural and human-made—and sees resilience as the ability to withstand shocks and stress. Whether resilience should be about withstanding and recovering from such events, or should instead embrace adaptation and transformation is something that will be discussed in the next section. Indeed, the aim of this paper is to show that resilience remains a contested notion. The next section will outline the dominant traits of resilience as are found within a more Anglo-Saxon context before contrasting this with the more conflicted German approach to resilience. Indeed, the next section will briefly outline the view that resilience represents a form of neoliberal governmentality that seeks to manage crises in an age of Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 6 austerity by shifting the burden of responsibility on to poorer societies while relieving the international community of the responsibility to intervene directly. The paper then goes on to look at how resilience has emerged in Germany and how the approach has embraced certain neoliberal assumptions, albeit not in a wholehearted way. This should be taken as an indication that while much of the critical literature on resilience (Evans and Reid 2014; Joseph 2013, 2016; Walker and Cooper 2011; Zebrowski 2013) is correct in taking resilience as a form of what Foucault would call neoliberal governmentality (2008), this is only the dominant, Anglo-Saxon form. There are in fact varieties of resilience present in the governance strategies of other, non-Anglo-Saxon countries such as Germany, France, the Netherlands and the Nordic countries. These varieties reflect a strong neoliberal influence, but also other political traditions that are less individualistic than the Anglo-Saxon approach and which place more emphasis on the role of the state, the need for legal protection and consideration of state-society relations. We find below that there is some evidence of this when considering German policy documents aimed at promoting resilience overseas. 2 Resilience as Governmentality Many proponents of resilience point to its emergence in ecological debates. These debates mainly focus on the nature of complex systems and their ability to reorganise themselves when faced with different shocks and stresses (Holling 1973: 1). A notion of societal resilience emerges to account for complex resource systems and their ability to cope. It is argued that the coping ability of societies depends upon the nature of their institutions and their adaptive capacity (Berkes, Colding, and Folke: 2003). Adger argues that social resilience can be understood as the ability of communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure and that this will inevitably require innovation, social learning and coping with change (Adger 2000: 361). The meaning of societal resilience is disputed because of where to place emphasis. Should resilience be about returning to normal functioning, or embracing the need for change? An influential pamphlet from the British think-tank Demos (Edwards 2009) argues that resilience should be seen not only as the ability of a society or community to ‘bounce back’, but as a positive process of learning and adaptation. Chandler (2014: 6–7) insightfully suggests a distinction between older, classical understandings of resilience which place emphasis on preparedness, ‘bouncing back’ and the restoration of operational functioning, and a post-classical understanding that takes a more relational, non-linear and adaptive view of the complex social world in which we live. This view now dominants Anglo-Saxon thinking on resilience and presents itself as radical because of its focus on the adaptive capacities of communities and their potential to harness unique human capabilities. This approach has been taken up by the majority of international organisations and aid donors, driven in particular by thinking coming out of the World Bank and Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 7 United Nations as well as the EU and the Department of International Development in the United Kingdom. These approaches represent a form of governmentality understood as a concern for the health and welfare of threatened populations and the purported desire to improve their condition (Foucault 1991: 100; Li 2007: 275). The governance of such populations occurs not in direct fashion, but ‘from a distance’ (Foucault 2007: 108; Miller and Rose 1990: 9) by invoking civil society and the private sector while seeking to responsibilise governments, communities and individuals. Governmentality, understood as ‘the conduct of conduct’ (Foucault 1991: 102; Li 2007: 275) embraces notions like wellbeing, sustainability and resilience to place increased emphasis on the need for local populations and governments to develop learning, self-awareness and the ability to adapt. While neoliberal governmentality seeks to govern populations from a distance ‘by reference to the market’ (Foucault 2008: 147), human qualities like resilience are seen as existing at the limits of purely economic calculation. However, while this allows the resilience discourse to be presented as a radical departure from previous ways of thinking, it remains based on neoliberal assumptions about human behaviour and the wider social environment. Thus resilience presents itself as emphasising change, but this is about changing individual behaviour rather that attempting to change the system. Indeed, resilience presents a very pessimistic picture about our (lack of) ability to change or control systemic factors. Resilience thinking tends to present macro level shocks as things beyond control. The UNDP talks of shocks and threats having ‘become the norm, rather than the exception’ (UNDP 2011: 1). Both natural disasters and human-made economic shocks and security threats are regarded as too complex to manage. Current resilience discourse thus urges us to turn to considerations of our own adaptability and reflexivity. As a form of governmentality, it promotes selfmanagement through making risk assessments, aquiring knowledge and engaining in responsible decision-making. O’Malley (2010) argues that resilience, rather than being a reactive model that teaches us how to ‘bounce back’, works to create subjects capable of adapting to and exploiting situations of radical uncertainty. Zebrowski talks of resilience as an enframing of life correlated to neoliberal governance and looks at ‘the politics constitutive of resilient populations as a referent of governance’ (2013: 170). Hence resilience, as a form of governmentality, works first to frame the world in a certain way so that various problems and compexities come to the fore. This is a word that we can neither control not properly understand. Such conditions require resilience to work, secondly, as a means of constructing a particular type of subject that operates according to the norms and values of such a framing. This subject will be evaluated according to its resourcefulness and ability to cope in the face of adversity. These subjects have to be created and this is done through active state intervention that seeks to responsibilise individual actors. In this particular case, we are concerned with the role played by international organisations, development agencies and government departments such as USAID and DFID. We will briefly examine the thinking of these two bodies by outlining five elements of governmentality that they can be seen to promote. First of all we noted how governmentality is about governing populations from a distance. If we look at the strategies pursued by DIFD and USAID we find this a Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 8 prominent feature of their resilience-building approach. Thus DFID’s stated aim is to help countries prepare themselves to withstand shocks and disasters (DFID 2011a: 1). While the international community can help support national governments and local actors, it is ultimately the responsibility of that country’s government to develop its population’s capacity to resist and adapt to shocks (DFID 2011a: 1). The international community will help to facilitate this process through coordination with governments, civil society and the private sector while offering expertise and other forms of support. It will also reinforce discipline through a developing system of monitoring and assessment to make sure that countries receiving international support make use of it in the proper way. DFID departments and country offices will decide upon appropriate indicators and DIFID is in the process of developing progress indicators to measure how well resilience is being locally embedded (DFID 2011b: 14). The second and related aspect of governmentality is the strategy of devolving responsibility and attempting to reach right down to the individual. The way this is promoted in current international development parlance is through capacity building. Specifically, resilience is about developing adaptive capacities, noted by DFID as the ‘ability to adjust to a disturbance, moderate potential damage, take advantage of opportunities and cope with the consequences of a transformation’ (DFID 2011b: 8). This works at different levels from the institution down to the individual and is about how these actors are able to anticipate, plan, react to, and learn from shocks or stresses. Recent trends in development discourse have shifted emphasis down to the level of individual or human capacities, although whether in fact such interventions can successfully enhance capacities at the individual level is a matter for debate (see Joseph 2016). The third element of governmentality relates to the promotion of the free market and the role of private enterprise. The Anglo-Saxon approach to resilience places great emphasis on the private sector’s ability to get things done and actively promotes such things as public-private partnerships as the best way to share risks and encourage investment. Such partnerships are seen as means for actors like DFID to operate in an ‘increasingly complex humanitarian system’ (Ashdown 2011: 1). This partly connects to the more general development aim of making poorer countries more open to market forces, partly to the neoliberal assumption that the private sector offers more dynamism, particularly in managing risk (Ashdown 2011: 37). This connects with a fourth element of governmentality which is to encourage pragmatism, innovation and initiative. Resilient subjects should be able to learn from experiences and adapt their behaviour in appropriate ways. A USAID report argues that innovation ‘allows institutions, communities, and individuals the opportunity to think critically and to challenge existing structures that are in place and create new ideas in order to “bounce back better”’ (Bujones et al. 2013: 13). These human attributes are especially important when existing service delivery is poor and communities need to think critically about their situation and develop new coping mechanisms. This last element that distinguishes the Anglo-Saxon approach is the transformative view of resilience as an opportunity to organise and rebuild. For the World Resources Institute, people can actually thrive in the face of a crisis (WRI Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 15 German development cooperation therefore does not limit its support to state institutions, but also regards their roots in society, the legitimacy of state actions, society as a whole and the interfaces between state and society as central elements in sustainable statebuilding processes. In this sense it is linked to the promotion of political involvement in all its dimensions of cooperation. (BMZ 2009: 15) This is important and reflects the recent social turn in thinking about these issues, placing greater emphasis on ‘different political and social situations, the sociocultural settings and the individual needs of the partner countries’ (BMZ 2009: 13). However, alongside this social understanding lies a much more instrumental account of civil society: Strengthening civil society enables it to better fulfil its role as a critical but constructive watchdog and as a lobby. It also promotes democratic consciousness among the citizens, promotes the integration of disadvantaged groups and helps to bring greater transparency to policy-making. (BMZ 2009: 8) Here civil society, rather than being an important socio-cultural context, becomes an instrumental means for ensuring that states adhere to a good governance agenda as determined by international organisations like the World Back. Civil society is regarded as a ‘watchdog’ for holding the state to account in such areas as democracy and the rule of law, efficiency and transparency and cooperation with the international community (BMZ 2009: 14). This is ironic given that the same document later notes the problematic relationship between certain civil society actors and external funders where dependence on external funds leads such groups to assume the priorities of the donors rather than representing the concerns of the local people in political processes (BMZ 2009: 25). Again, we might note the tensions in German overseas policy between a genuine concern for social and political processes, and a more instrumental approach that reflects the pervasive influence of neoliberal governmentality within the wider field of international development and the Anglo-Saxon dominance of the main international organisations and donors. Finally, we can highlight some of the tensions between neoliberal governmentality and a more sympathetic understanding of socio-cultural context by looking at the approach of the German Red Cross (GRC) which, as mentioned, is a major player in the development of German resilience strategy in this area. GRC’s Resilience Framework outlines its main objectives which, in line with BMZ strategy, focuses on building resilient communities and enhancing their ability to overcome shocks, adapt and recover. The GRC looks at how these resilient communities can develop by looking at their coping mechanisms and capacity to identify and deal with problems. The interesting point here is that it is suggested that communities already have traditional coping mechanisms for reacting to crises and emergencies so that stress should be on local ownership. As the GRC says: ‘people know precisely what needs they have in their community and what measures to take in Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 16 order to further strengthen their coping capacities’ (German Red Cross 2014: 318). This is in contrast to the arguments found in USAID approaches which question traditional coping mechanisms and suggest that people develop a more entrepreneurial approach in dealing with local problems (Headey and Kennedy 2012: 2). The GRC approach also places emphasis on building networks with external stakeholders while also recognising the way communities are able to organise themselves through self-help measures in order to optimise their coping capacities (German Red Cross 2014: 318). Access to knowledge is recognised as another important factor in building resilience among communities, allowing people in less developed countries to understand their vulnerabilities and risks and develop appropriate strategies to adjust and adapt (German Red Cross 2014: 318). Although the emphasis is on communities, there is recognition of the importance of robust physical infrastructure and access to the services (German Red Cross 2014: 319). As with other German arguments about resilience, there is a tension between the more social emphasis of established policy and the individualist, neoliberal language characteristic of much Anglo-Saxon resilience discourse. When the GRC talks of ‘the strengthening of the self-help capacities and coping mechanisms of particularly vulnerable individuals and groups in developing countries’ we find a peculiar use of neoliberal language, if not intentions. Elsewhere, the GRC talks of the strengthening of resilience means not only providing protection against natural hazards, but ‘comprehensively reducing the underlying factors of vulnerability’ such as health risks, food security, access to water and sanitation and to social services. These social measures are regarded as at least as important as adaptation to the consequences of climate change and disaster risk reduction measures. Indeed, strengthening resilience has political, socio-cultural, economic and ecological dimensions. It is therefore necessary to work with governmental authorities to strengthen health systems, land use and disaster management (German Red Cross 2014: 329). It is stressed that we cannot replace the role of governmental structures and that donors must work with political decision-makers, who are called upon to support the population in strengthening resilience. This responsibility may not be delegated to civil society actors (German Red Cross 2014: 330). This is particularly interesting because in effect such delegation lies at the heart of Anglo-Saxon governmentality. In particular, the Anglo-Saxon approach wishes to govern through a denial of the responsibility of the international community by governmentalising the behaviour of national governments and civil society groups. This sums up the tensions in the German approach to resilience. As it becomes an increasingly influential idea, it brings with it Anglo-Saxon arguments about devolving responsibility to civil society. Yet German discussions of resilience understand this slightly differently and still talk about such things as the need to recognise that the process of change should come from within society that we ought to value those initiatives that come out of civil society, rather than just seeing them as a means to achieve a larger strategy (BMZ 2014: 5). But in other ways the emergence of resilience in this sphere of German policymaking is in line with dominant trends within the international community. BMZ writes that the quality of transitional development assistance is maintained Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 17 through compliance with international standards and principles of cooperation, particularly those of the OECD. This covers mechanisms of planning, implementation and evaluation based on an analysis of needs, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. Moreover, these are in line with the Post-Hyogo Framework for Action and the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, on the basis of the Principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship (Federal Foreign Office 2012: 5; BMZ 2013: 9). TDA compliance with international standards requires detailed analysis of its effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability with all results and impacts subject to an ongoing monitoring process that we have described above as a form of governance from a distance (BMZ 2013: 9). 5 Conclusion: German Resilience in Context The German Federal Foreign Office is promoting the idea of a significant shift in overseas policy. The world itself is said to be growing more complex and challenging with climate change, population growth, urbanisation, scarcity of raw materials, extreme poverty, conflicts and protracted crises. Against this background of crises, it is claimed: international humanitarian assistance is undergoing a paradigm shift. Beyond the reaction to sudden disasters and crises humanitarian assistance increasingly needs to be forward-looking. Responsible humanitarian assistance is not only reactive but also has a formative effect. Risk analysis and management are just as essential as the quick availability of assistance in the case of acute need, while coordinated cooperation with national, regional and international partners is vital. (Federal Foreign Office 2012: 3) In pursuing this strategy the Federal Foreign Office places emphasis on preparedness, strengthening local structures, improving response capabilities, empowering civil society players and other local stakeholders and, notably, boosting self-help capabilities so that recipients of aid learn how to help themselves (Federal Foreign Office 2012: 4). Resilience is being promoted as the means to do this. It is argued that ‘strengthening the resilience of local communities, civil society players and (state) institutions [is] at the dynamic interface between the Federal Foreign Office’s humanitarian assistance and long-term development cooperation through recovery and rehabilitation’ (Federal Foreign Office 2012: 7). The question for this conclusion is whether this turn to resilience-building really is such a new and dynamic shift in strategy? The answer to this question is ‘no’ in two quite different ways. First, it is not so different from existing neoliberal practices in the global sphere. Secondly, it is not such a departure from the slightly less neoliberal arguments of existing German policy. If this sounds like a contradiction it is because the reality is something of a Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 18 contradiction with the German approach to resilience caught between two slightly different logics. First is the nature of the global sphere. It has been argued that resilience thinking in this particular field is far more obviously neoliberal in scope. Development policy and humanitarian assistance is led by such organisations as the World Bank, UNDP and OECD-DAC. These organisations reflect the Anglo-Saxon way of thinking, also reflected in the strong influence enjoyed by USAID and DFID and which is acknowledged to have shaped German thinking. The key issue in the global sphere is whether resilience represents a break from the dominant neoliberal way of understanding the world. This paper suggests that resilience reflects on neoliberalism’s limits, but does not break from its logic and indeed helps strengthen certain neoliberal practices of global governance. This works partly because resilience can claim to be doing certain things differently and even to be sceptical of the calculating logic of neoliberalism. However, while this might suggest a slightly different way of thinking, in practice it remains consistent with what Jacqueline Best calls ‘the non-juridical logic of international standards, the calculating metric of transparency and the entrepreneurial ethic of selfresponsibility’ (Best 2007: 102). Although resilience points to a fuzzy picture of global systems that might be beyond human control or calculation, it shifts attention to the need for greater self-reflection at the micro level, something that actually reinforces existing neoliberal techniques of governance. The argument that we live in an uncertain and complex world works to further responsibilise individual behaviour at the micro level. Resilience is not as such a rejection of a neoliberal logic, but an awareness of the limits of markets that actually works to further embed this rationality in a system of variegated practices. It is actually through failures and crises that this can be done—naturalising crisis while responsibilising governments and key actors. Although resilience works to give the appearance of a new strategy, the emphasis placed on complexity and social embeddedness is part of an overall approach to governance that actually works to reinforce rather than undermine an instrumental rationality and associated methods of monitoring and evaluation. We defined resilience as a form of governmentality. It seeks to install a system of governance from a distance. It talks of helping countries prepare themselves, something found in arguments from organisations like DFID (DFID 2011b: 1), but also in the new German discourse of self-help (Federal Foreign Office 2012: 4). The international community thus denies responsibility for direct help, but acts as a facilitator, placing emphasis on the role of communities, civil society and the private sector. The German approach supports this view although it places greater emphasis on the importance of civil society, emphasising its diverse and dynamic character (BMZ 2014). However, there is also strong support for a system of monitoring and assessment to make sure that these local actors behave appropriately with BMZ supporting a system to monitor TDA compliance. (BMZ 2013: 9). Anglo-Saxon governmentality would seek to devolve responsibility through encouraging self-governance. In the international sphere this takes the form of capacity building. Resilience places emphasis on developing adaptive capacities, both institutional and individual. The German approach is moving in this direction Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 19 with less emphasis on traditional concerns such as democracy promotion and other larger-scale institutional frameworks. We can also say that there has been a strong element of neoliberalism shaping German overseas policy making and embedded in the transitional development assistance approach which pre-dates the introduction of resilience into the German policy discourse. However, despite this neoliberal tradition, we can also see that there clearly remains a strong notion of society, understood in political rather than technical terms, as based on people’s needs, with the legitimacy of state action rooted in society as a whole (BMZ 2009: 15). How this is understood depends on whether we adopt the more liberal understanding of capacities promoted in the Anglo-Saxon discourse, or a more socially embedded notion of people’s actions and needs based that reflect a more interventionist and universalist German policy-making tradition. The Anglo-Saxon approach actively promotes the private sector and publicprivate partnerships as more effective and efficient. These are also seen as the best way to share risks and encourage investment. The German approach is slowly embracing these arguments, recognising that infrastructure is often privately owned while maintaining that the state still has a strong role to play. One area where this is developing is risk insurance where the creation of effective climate risk insurance markets and the smart use of insurance-related schemes is seen as complementing climate change adaptation strategies (GIZ 2015: 3). For this, public and private finance is required with public funds being used to increase the riskbearing capacity of insurance markets (GIZ 2015: 5). This could also be seen as an example of encouraging innovation and initiative. Whether these initiatives go so far as to constitute a more transformative view of resilience as an opportunity to organise and rebuild is questionable. This, we noted, was an important feature of World Bank and USAID approaches. By comparison, the German approach seems more ‘conservative’. If BMZ is using resilience in this more conservative way to reinforce some of its existing strategy, then certain lessons should be learned. As BMZ are advised: Previous attempts to tackle some of the same problems being readdressed under the label of resilience have not been sufficiently successful, and it is essential that the lessons of experience are taken on board. Relabelling the challenge as ‘resilience’ is leading some to see this as a brand new idea without precedent. That, at least, is the only conclusion possible from the marked lack of attention to an analysis of the lessons of recent history (Mosel and Levine 2014: 17). Summarising the German situation, it is suggested that resilience is being used to ‘speak about many things’, perhaps even to over-theorise the simple and undertheorise the complex, but that it may help in giving new political momentum to old problems (Mosel and Levine 2014: 21). From an Anglo-Saxon perspective, what is coming out of German policy discourse might not seem particularly exciting. From the point of view of tensions within the governmentality approach, German policy formulations appear almost quite interesting. Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 20 REFERENCES Ashdown, Paddy (2011). Humanitarian Emergency Response Review, London: Department for International Development. Adger, W. Neil (2000). ‘Social and Ecological Resilience: Are they Related?’, Progress in Human Geography 24 (3): 347–64. Berkes, Fikret, Colding, John, and Folke, Carl (2003). ‘Introduction’, in Fikret Berkes, John Colding, and Carl Folke (eds.), Navigating Social-ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1–29. Best, Jacqueline (2007). ‘Why the Economy is often the Exception to Politics as Usual’, Theory, Culture and Society 24 (4): 83–105. Bujones, Alejandra et al. (2013). A Framework for Analyzing Resilience In Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations, Washington DC, Wash.: USAID. BMZ (2009). Promoting Resilient States and Constructive State-Society Relations – Legitimacy, Transparency and Accountability, Bonn: BMZ. — (2013). Strategy on Transitional Development Assistance: Strengthening Resilience – Shaping Transition, Bonn: BMZ. — (2014). Strategy on Government-Civil Society Cooperation in Post-2015 Development Policy, Bonn: BMZ. Cabinet Office (2010). Strategic Framework and Policy Statement on Improving the Resilience of Critical Infrastructure, London: Cabinet Office. — (2011). Strategic National Framework on Community Resilience, Cabinet Office, London. Chandler, David (2014). Resilience: the Governance of Complexity, Abingdon: Routledge. Department of Homeland Security (2016). National Disaster Recovery Framework 2016, Washington DC: FEMA. DFID (2011a). Defining Disaster Resilience: What Does It Mean for DFID?, London: Department for International Development. — (2011b) Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper, London: Department for International Development. Edwards, Charlie (2009). Resilient Nation, London: Demos. Evans, Brad and Reid, Julian (2014). Resilient Life: The Art of Living Dangerously, Cambridge: Polity Press. Federal Foreign Office (2012). Strategy of the Federal Foreign Office for Humanitarian Assistance Abroad, Berlin: Federal Foreign Office / Auswärtiges Amt. Federal Ministry of Defence (2016). White Paper on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr, Berlin: Federal Ministry of Defence. Federal Ministry of the Interior (2009). National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP Strategy), Berlin: Federal Ministry of the Interior. Foucault, Michel (1991). 'Governmentality', in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 87–104. Joseph | The Resilience Turn . . . Global Cooperation Research Papers 20 21 — (2007). Security, Territory, Population, Basingstoke: Palgrave. — (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics, Basingstoke: Palgrave. German Red Cross (2014). The Resilience Framework of the German Red Cross Strengthening Resilience through the International Cooperation of the GRC, Berlin: German Red Cross. GIZ (2015). Climate Risk Insurance for Strengthening Climate Resilience of Poor People in Vulnerable Countries: A Background Paper on Challenges, Ambitions and Perspectives, Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Headey, Derek and Kennedy, Adam (2012). Enhancing Resilience in the Horn of Africa, Washington DC, Wash.: USAID and International Food Policy Research Institute. Holling, C.S. (1973). ‘Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1): 399–423. Home Office (2011). CONTEST: The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism, London: Home Office. Joseph, Jonathan (2013). ‘Resilience as Embedded Neoliberalism: A Governmentality Approach’, Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 1 (1): 38–52. — (2016). ‘Governing Through Failure and Denial: The New Resilience Agenda’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (3): 370–90. Li, Tanya Murray (2007). ‘Governmentality’, Anthropologica 49 (2): 275–81. Miller, Peter and Rose, Nikolas (1990). ‘Governing Economic Life’, Economy and Society 19 (1): 1–31. Mosel, Irina and Levine, Simon (2014). Remaking the Case for Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development: How LRRD can become a Practically Useful Concept for Assistance in Difficult Places, London: Humanitarian Policy Group/ BMZ. O’Malley, Pat (2010). ‘Resilient Subjects: Uncertainty, Warfare and Liberalism’, Economy and Society 39 (4): 488–509. UNDP (2011). Towards Human Resilience: Sustaining MDG Progress in an Age of Economic Uncertainty, New York: United Nations Development Programme. USAID (2013). Horn of Africa Joint Panning Cell: Annual Report, Washington DC: USAID. Walker, Jeremy and Cooper, Melinda (2011). ‘Genealogies of Resilience: From Systems Ecology to the Political Economy of Crisis Adaptation’, Security Dialogue 14 (2): 143–60. World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank (2008). World Resources 2008: Roots of Resilience—Growing the Wealth of the Poor, Washington DC, Wash.: WRI. Zebrowski, Chris (2013). ‘The Nature of Resilience’, Resilience: International Practices, Policies and Discourses 1 (3): 159–73. Global Cooperation Research Papers ISSN 2198-1949 (Print) ISSN 2198-0411 (Online) Dirk Messner, Alejandro Guarín, Daniel Haun, The Behavioural Dimensions of International Cooperation Global Cooperation Research Papers 1 Dirk Peters, Rethinking the Legitimacy of Global Governance. On the Need for Sociological Research and Philosophical Foundations Global Cooperation Research Papers 2 Christian Meyer, New Alterities and Emerging Cultures of Social Interaction Global Cooperation Research Papers 3 Herbert Wulf, Is India Fit for a Role in Global Governance? The Predicament of Fragile Domestic Structures and Institutions Global Cooperation Research Papers 4 Volker M. Heins, Global Cooperation and Economies of Recognition: The Case of NGOs Global Cooperation Research Papers 5 Morgan Brigg, Culture, ‘Relationality’, and Global Cooperation Global Cooperation Research Papers 6 Mario Schmidt, ‘It Will Always Be with Us’: Corruption as an Ontological Fact among Kenyan Luo Global Cooperation Research Papers 7 Thomas G. Weiss, Humanitarianism’s Contested Culture in War Zones Global Cooperation Research Papers 8 Fritz Breithaupt, Why Empathy is not the Best Basis for Humanitarianism Global Cooperation Research Papers 9 Gianluca Grimalda, Nancy Buchan, Marilynn Brewer, Globalization, Social Identity, and Cooperation: An Experimental Analysis of Their Linkages and Effects Global Cooperation Research Papers 10 Pol Bargués-Pedreny, Conceptualising Local Ownership as ‘Reflexive Cooperation’: The Deferral of Self-government to Protect ‘Unequal’ Humans? Global Cooperation Research Papers 11 Sarah Van Beurden, Restitution or Cooperation? Competing Visions of Post-Colonial Cultural Development in Africa Global Cooperation Research Papers 12 Bettina Burger-Menzel, Environmental Politics and the Human Being: A New Interdisciplinary Perspective on Motivational Processes and Sustainable Change Behaviour Global Cooperation Research Papers 13 Felix S. Bethke, Cultural Bias in the Perception of Foreign-Policy Events Global Cooperation Research Papers 14 Christian J. Tams, World Courts as Guardians of Peace? Global Cooperation Research Papers 15 Isaline Bergamaschi, The Politics of Aid and Poverty Reduction in Africa: A Conceptual Proposal and the Case of Mali Global Cooperation Research Papers 16 Larry Crump, Cooperation and Closure in Bilateral Trade Negotiations Global Cooperation Research Papers 17 Katrin Seidel, Involvement and Impact of External Actors on Constitution Making in South Sudan and Somaliland: A Comparative Study Global Cooperation Research Papers 18 Zeynep Şahin Mencutek, From Inaction to Restrictions: Changes in Lebanon’s Policy Responses to Syrian Mass Refugee Movement Global Cooperation Research Papers 19 OTHER SERIES FROM THE CENTRE Annual Reports ISSN 2198-1965 (Print) ISSN 2198-042X (Online) Global Dialogues ISSN 2198-1957 (Print) ISSN 2198-0403 (Online) All inhouse publications of the Centre are ready for download from the Centre’s website. www.gcr21.org www.gcr21.org INSTITUT E FOR ADVANCED STUDY IN THE HUMANITIE S UNIVERSITY ALLIANCE METROPOLIS RUHR Institute for Development and Peace Participating Institutes