Abstract
Disaster survivors are often criticised for being dependent on humanitarian (and development) assistance. This dependency is perceived pejoratively by civil servants and other elites, including non-governmental organisation staff. Officials offered up such narratives in relation to the disaster response and recovery programmes following the Nepal earthquake of 2015. Using a Bourdieusian framework, and undertaking qualitative inquiry in four earthquake-affected districts of Nepal, this paper contrasts the official narratives of dependency syndrome with people's perspectives and lived experiences. The findings problematise official discourse. Aid was frequently insufficient, poorly targeted, or non-existent. Moreover, the Bourdieusian framing highlights the agency of survivors, as their habitus predisposed them to help others. It broadens the notion of assistance and dependence, suggesting that social and cultural (as well as economic) capital are vital resources for recovery. Lastly, it shows that dependencies are not necessarily bad. Greater attention to these non-economic capitals and 'good dependencies' could expedite recovery from future disasters.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
