Abstract:
Disaster survivors are often criticised for being dependent upon humanitarian (and development) assistance. This dependency is perceived pejoratively by government civil servants and other elites, including NGO staff. Officials offered such narratives in relation to the disaster response and recovery programmes following the Nepal Earthquake (2015). Using a Bourdieusian framework and undertaking qualitative inquiry in four earthquake-affected districts of Nepal, this article 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 disaster survivors, as their habitus predisposed them to help others. It broadens the notion of assistance and dependence, suggesting that social and cultural capital (as well as economic capital) are vital resources for recovery. Finally, it shows that dependencies are not necessarily bad. Greater attention to these non-economic capitals and 'good dependencies' could expedite recoveries from future disasters.
