Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Why Gender Does Not Stick: Exploring Conceptual Logics in Global Disaster Risk Reduction Policy
Swedish Defence University, Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership (ISSL), Political Science Section, Sektionen för krishantering och internationell samverkan.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2892-7345
2019 (English)In: Climate Hazards, Disasters, and Gender Ramifications / [ed] Kinnvall, Catarina & Rydstrom, Helle, London: Routledge, 2019, 1st, p. 88-124Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The chapter is an analysis of the Sendai Framework for action; the central policy document in the global field of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). Since this Framework sets the agenda for the wider field of DRR practice across the globe, it is important to scrutinise for anyone interested in problems of gender-based disaster inequality. The Sendai Framework acknowledges issues of gender inequality yet, as discussed in this chapter, does so in a rather limited and somewhat problematic way. To understand the shortcomings the analysis makes use of Carol Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to Be?” (WPR) approach to policy analysis. With help of this analytical tool,  two conceptual logics are identified in the Framework that prevent full incorporation of a gender perspective. Firstly, a relief logic assumes a temporality of acuteness and prescribes male-dominated professional domains as experts. This makes a political analysis of gender inequality unintelligible. The relief logic also renders silent political solutions to alter gender inequalities. Secondly, a techno-managerial logic proposes technical and managerial solutions to problems of disaster risk. This rewrites solutions to structural inequalities as problems that can be solved technologically and managerially – in contrast to the types of political solutions needed to alter gender inequalities.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
London: Routledge, 2019, 1st. p. 88-124
Series
Routledge Studies in Hazards, Disaster Risk and Climate Change
Keywords [en]
Gender, Disasters, Disaster Risk Reduction, Sendai Framework for action
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Statsvetenskap med inriktning mot krishantering och internationell samverkan; Statsvetenskap med inriktning mot krishantering och internationell samverkan
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:fhs:diva-8662OAI: oai:DiVA.org:fhs-8662DiVA, id: diva2:1331983
Available from: 2019-06-27 Created: 2019-06-27 Last updated: 2019-06-27

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Climate Hazards, Disasters, and Gender Ramifications

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bondesson, Sara
By organisation
Sektionen för krishantering och internationell samverkan
Social Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 67 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf