Diverse community collaboratively building a resilient structure.

Building Resilience: How to Empower Communities Instead of Imposing Solutions

Rhea Morgan in Politics & Policy June 2025 • 5 min read.

"Rethinking resilience in the face of global challenges: Shifting from top-down mandates to community-led empowerment for a stronger, more equitable future."

In an era defined by increasing global challenges, the concept of resilience has become a focal point of discussions across various sectors. Resilience, often seen as the ability to recover quickly from difficulties, has been widely adopted as a framework for addressing everything from climate change to economic instability. However, this popular framework has faced criticism, with some arguing it places undue burden on individuals while absolving the state of its responsibilities.

Traditional approaches to resilience often involve top-down mandates where governments or organizations prescribe solutions that individuals and communities are expected to follow. This approach can lead to a situation where those already vulnerable are further marginalized, as their specific needs and capabilities are overlooked in favor of standardized solutions. This one-size-fits-all strategy not only fails to address the root causes of vulnerability but also undermines the very resilience it seeks to build.

This article explores an alternative approach to resilience that emphasizes community empowerment and participatory processes. By shifting the focus from imposing solutions to building local capacities and fostering inclusive decision-making, we can create more equitable and sustainable outcomes. This approach recognizes that true resilience emerges from within communities when individuals are equipped with the resources, knowledge, and agency to shape their own futures.

Why Traditional Resilience Strategies Fall Short

Diverse community collaboratively building a resilient structure.

Critical security studies scholars argue that resilience is being used as a means for individual responsibilization, or as intrinsically neoliberal, with scholars calling for resisting resilience, and rightfully summarizing that critical security scholars have given it a frosty reception, viewing it as a vehicle and multiplier of neo-liberal governmentality. Individuals are to blame for failing their obligation to protect itself, while the state withdraws from one of its central tasks. The current political resilience strategies lack a theoretical substantiation regarding their deployment of resilience-thinking. From a resilience perspective, the debate on the introduction of resilience into security studies has been mostly a rather defensive one.

One of the primary criticisms of traditional resilience strategies is their tendency to place the burden of responsibility on individuals, while simultaneously reducing the role of the state in providing support and protection. This approach is often justified by neoliberal ideologies that prioritize individual initiative and market-based solutions. However, it overlooks the fact that individuals' capacity to be resilient is heavily influenced by their access to resources, social networks, and supportive institutions. By neglecting these structural factors, top-down resilience strategies can exacerbate existing inequalities and leave vulnerable populations even more exposed.

Unequal distribution of resources: Top-down approaches often assume that everyone has equal access to the resources needed to be resilient, ignoring the reality of wealth inequality and systemic barriers.
Lack of local knowledge: Imposed solutions may not be appropriate for all communities, as they fail to take into account local contexts, cultures, and needs.
Undermining of agency: When solutions are imposed from above, communities may feel disempowered and less likely to take ownership of resilience efforts.

The "Disaster Alarm" advisory of the German Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) serves as an example of how existing political resilience concepts perpetuate and even aggravate the consequences of strategic selection bias. The advisory explains how the BBK expects citizens to prepare for emergencies, and seeks to increase and orchestrate societal resilience. The advisory is problematic, since it shifts the responsibility for enacting the proposed measures to the individual. Thus, the BBK fails to consider which personal or societal preconditions are necessary to be able to perform the expressed behavioral expectations. The formulated understanding of resilience is a form of organisational resilience, which redefines the distribution of responsibilities.

Empowering Communities for a Resilient Future

By shifting the focus from imposing solutions to empowering communities, we can create a more equitable and sustainable path towards resilience. This approach recognizes that true resilience emerges from within communities when individuals are equipped with the resources, knowledge, and agency to shape their own futures. It requires a commitment to social justice, participatory decision-making, and the dismantling of systemic barriers that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential. Only then can we truly build resilience that benefits all members of society.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1093/ips/oly025, Alternate LINK

Title: Building Instead Of Imposing Resilience: Revisiting The Relationship Between Resilience And The State

Subject: Sociology and Political Science

Journal: International Political Sociology

Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)

Authors: Marco Krüger

Published: 2018-12-04

Everything You Need To Know

Why do traditional resilience strategies often fall short in addressing global challenges?

Traditional resilience strategies often falter because they place the onus on individuals to recover from difficulties, while reducing the state's role in offering essential support and protection. This approach, often fueled by neoliberal ideologies, overlooks the crucial impact of resource access, social networks, and institutional support on an individual's ability to be resilient. Consequently, these top-down strategies can worsen existing inequalities, leaving vulnerable populations even more exposed. Furthermore, standardized solutions may disregard local contexts, cultures, and needs, ultimately disempowering communities and hindering effective resilience efforts.

What is involved in empowering communities to foster a resilient future?

Empowering communities for a resilient future involves shifting the focus from imposing solutions to building local capacities and fostering inclusive decision-making. This approach recognizes that true resilience emerges from within communities when individuals are equipped with the resources, knowledge, and agency to shape their own futures. It requires a commitment to social justice, participatory decision-making, and the dismantling of systemic barriers that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential. By shifting the focus to community empowerment, the aim is to create a more equitable and sustainable path toward resilience that benefits all members of society.

How do critical security studies scholars perceive the concept of resilience, and why are they skeptical?

Critical security studies scholars view resilience with skepticism due to its association with individual responsibilization and neoliberal governance. They argue that resilience strategies can shift the burden of protection onto individuals, while the state withdraws from its responsibilities. From their perspective, this approach lacks theoretical justification and primarily serves as a vehicle for neoliberal governmentality. They highlight concerns about the potential for resilience frameworks to exacerbate inequalities and undermine the role of the state in providing support and protection.

How does the "Disaster Alarm" advisory of the German Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) illustrate the problems with current political resilience concepts?

The "Disaster Alarm" advisory of the German Federal Office for Civil Protection and Disaster Assistance (BBK) exemplifies how existing political resilience concepts can perpetuate and worsen the consequences of strategic selection bias. The advisory's focus on individual preparedness for emergencies fails to consider the necessary personal and societal preconditions for implementing the proposed measures. By shifting the responsibility to individuals, the BBK's understanding of resilience becomes a form of organizational resilience that redefines the distribution of responsibilities, potentially overlooking the structural factors that influence individual capacity to be resilient.

How do imposed solutions often disregard the importance of local knowledge in building resilience, and what are the implications?

Top-down resilience mandates often overlook the importance of local knowledge. By imposing standardized solutions, these approaches fail to consider the unique contexts, cultures, and needs of individual communities. This lack of local knowledge can result in ineffective or even detrimental interventions that undermine community agency and resilience. This highlights the necessity for participatory processes and community empowerment to ensure that resilience strategies are tailored to specific local circumstances and preferences.