Economic Resilience Library
In this section, we share a curated selection of articles, reports, book chapters, and full publications that we recommend for a deeper understanding of economic resilience. These are works we have cited in our own research or found particularly valuable in shaping discussions on resilience and sustainable economic development.
We believe that having access to a well-structured library of research is as crucial for today’s scholars and professionals as it was for us. That’s why we continuously update and expand this collection, featuring both our own studies and contributions from other researchers.
This is a dynamic resource, always evolving with new insights and perspectives. If you would like to contribute your publication to our library, feel free to reach out to us.
-
Abstract. I analyze a social evolutionary model in which there is a non-excludable public good that reduces the chances of catastrophe. I show that while resilient types that produce the public good cannot survive head-to-head competition with other more selfish types in a fixed population, they do if catastrophes reduce population.
-
To address the blind spots of existing concepts of economic resilience, Hafele et al. develop an economic resilience framework based on a social-ecological approach to defining the economic system.
-
Building on the concept of economic resilience developed in Hafele et al. (2023a), Hafele et al. construct the Economic Resilience Index (ERI) and compare the economic resilience of EU Member States with regard to six resilience dimensions.
-
-
-
Fanning et al. explore the concept of “provisioning systems” as a set of elements working together to satisfy a human need. They go on to identify six important elements of provisioning systems (households, markets, the commons, the state, techniques, and material stock) that can be further analysed and compared.
-
Abstract: The concept of resilience has roots in many disciplines, making the pursuit of a unified theory very attractive but also very difficult. Yet this has not stopped scholars and politicians from attempting to claim resilience as their flagship concept and build a canon for the 21st century around it. This tendency to reduce or totalize resilience has spawned a host of taxonomies, each seeking to offer the final word on the definitional de- bate. I argue that this desire to create a unified theory of resilience misapplies the concept, ignores the dynamics of its emergence and the polysemic nature of its use in theory, policy, and practice. This malleability makes resilience at once both a very attractive logic for dealing with uncertainty and a dangerous pathway towards embedding untempered algorithmic systems of coercive prediction into the governance of everyday life. In understanding the emergence of the resilience concept, one must appreciate both the positive and negative potential of this flexible and adaptive notion. I close by suggesting that resilience has gained such traction in recent years in no small part because it represents a shift in the onto-politics of our time, but that we must be careful about which type of resilience gets enacted.
Keywords: resilience, assemblage, post-structuralism, positive critique, problematization.
-
Manca et al. build a conceptual framework for economic resilience. They distinguish between different resilience capacities, that are a system’s capacity to respond to shocks either by absorption, adaption, or transformation.
-
Abstract
The welfare impact of a disaster does not only depend on the physical characteristics of the event or its direct impacts in terms of lost lives and assets. Welfare impacts also depend on the ability of the economy to cope, recover, and reconstruct and therefore to minimize aggregate consumption losses. This ability can be referred to as the macroeconomic resilience to natural disasters. Macroeconomic resilience has two components: instantaneous resilience, which is the ability to limit the magnitude of immediate production losses for a given amount of asset losses, and dynamic resilience, which is the ability to reconstruct and recover. Welfare impacts also depend on micro-economic resilience, which depends on the distribution of losses; on households’ vulnerability, such as their pre-disaster income and ability to smooth shocks over time with savings, borrowing, and insurance, and on the social protection system, or the mechanisms for sharing risks across the population. The (economic) welfare disaster risk in a country can be reduced by reducing the exposure or vulnerability of people and assets (reducing asset losses), increasing macroeconomic resilience (reducing aggregate consumption losses for a given level of asset losses), or increasing microeconomic resilience (reducing welfare losses for a given level of aggregate consumption losses). The paper proposes rules of thumb to estimate macroeconomic and microeconomic resilience based on the relevant parameters in the economy. It also provides a toolbox of policies to increase macro- or micro-economic resilience and a list of indicators that can be used to build a resilience indicator.