How does government discourse make people vulnerable?

Abstract

Purpose

This paper develops a model of social vulnerability. Specifically, it aims to (1) determine the factors of social vulnerability to flood risks and (2) interrogate the discursive structure and framing of vulnerability within the local domain of disaster governance.

Design/methodology/approach

This is a descriptive-survey research design mobilized through sequential exploratory mixed method.

Findings

For ordinary people, vulnerability is due to five factors: (1) government inaction, (2) age-based frailty, (3) disability-based social exclusion, (4) weak social capital and (5) material susceptibility. Moreover, there are two patterns of discursive structure surrounding the risk of flooding in Davao del Norte: (1) where Cavendish banana is a favored export commodity of those who are in power, the Pressure-and-Release Model fits within the narrative of land-use changes in the province, and (2) where the local domain of disaster governance frames the DRR as a “hero-villain” normative duality.

Practical implications

At the policy level, the findings should inform the current government practices in development planning to mitigate flood risks, specifically the proposed Philippine National Land-use Act and the pending Bill to create the Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (DRRM) Department. Operationally, the “hero-villain” finding challenges the self-awareness of disaster managers and functionaries whose technical trainings inculcated a one-size-fits-all approach to disaster response.

Social implications

The findings support the theory that disaster and disaster risks are socially constructed realities.

Originality/value

This paper teased out the gap between the people's risks perceptions in Davao del Norte and the government's DRR episteme, and it points to power relations that impede its closing.

Citation

Tagalo, R.D. (2020), "How does government discourse make people vulnerable?", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 697-710. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-07-2020-0225