Resilience concepts
On this page
Equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives of resilience
Resilience concepts can broadly be grouped into 2 schools of thought or perspectives – equilibrium and evolutionary.
Equilibrium-based theories of resilience emphasise the return to a single previous state or equilibrium following a shock, or the shift to alternative multiple equilibria. This perspective is valuable in contexts like engineering which is concerned with consistent non-variable performance in which slight departures from the performance goal are immediately counteracted. Maintaining consistent performance seems important when considering the resilience of things like bridges, aircraft, nuclear reactors and so on.
Evolutionary-based theories emphasise the capacity of a system to adapt and fundamentally change over time in the face of numerous shocks and disturbances. This view sees resilience as a dynamic process, not just a characteristic or property. The aim is to maintain the long-run health of the system.
Many authors contend that evolutionary-based theories are more useful than equilibrium-based ones for studying the resilience of economic systems. The line of reasoning includes that the likelihood of economic success being sustained over the long term crucially depends on an economy’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and adjust to external shocks as and when these occur.
Some concepts from te ao Māori seem to broadly align with the evolutionary perspective of resilience. For example, kaitiakitanga (sustainable guardianship and protection) resonates with the evolutionary perspective’s goal of maintaining the health of a system in the long term. Māori also tend to see the natural world as inextricably linked with human wellbeing, per the evolutionary perspective. Note, however, that Māori hold wide-ranging perspectives on the topic of resilience.
Despite the grouping of resilience concepts into the 2 broad perspectives above, the study of resilience is highly context-specific and begs a 4-part question:
- Resilience of what, to what, by what means, and with what outcome?
This below summarises some of the main concepts and ideas about resilience, grouped under the equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives:
Basic concept
Equilibrium perspective:
Emphasises the return to a single previous state or equilibrium following a shock or the shift to alternative multiple equilibria
Evolutionary perspective:
Emphasises the capacity of a system to adapt and fundamentally change in the face of numerous shocks and disturbances
Definitional elements
Equilibrium perspective:
- Bouncing back
- Absorbing shocks
Evolutionary perspective:
- Positive adaptability/bouncing forward
- System transformation
Main fields of use
Equilibrium perspective:
Engineering, ecology (re absorbing shocks), economics (mainstream)
Evolutionary perspective:
Psychology, socio-ecological systems, economics (evolutionary, ecological)
The resilience of what?
Equilibrium perspective:
Tends to take a fairly narrow view eg regional employment
Evolutionary perspective:
Tends to take a systems view, for example, ecological systems, regional economic systems
To what?
Equilibrium perspective:
- Examines a single shock, for example, recession
- Tends to view shocks in a negative light
Evolutionary perspective:
- Examines multiple shocks, disturbances and long-term trends, for example climate change
- Tends to view shocks as a learning opportunity
By what means?
Equilibrium perspective:
Risk mitigation, impact absorption, recovery
Evolutionary perspective:
Resilience is a long-term process including ongoing adaptation and learning
With what outcome?
Equilibrium perspective:
- Return to the original pre-shock state – the system structure and function are unchanged
- Avoiding the shock altogether
Evolutionary perspective:
- Long-run performance or health of the system (which needs to be defined) – the system structure and even function may change
- The survival of the system
Measurement approaches
Equilibrium perspective:
- Approaches that focus on single shocks
- Indicators of time to recovery and avoidance of losses, and models of how long it takes for a shock to dissipate, or where a system would have been in the absence of a shock
Evolutionary perspective:
- Approaches that take a long-term, systemic view
- System dynamic models, case studies, mixed methods, indicator frameworks, and other methods to gain a broad picture of system performance in the long term
Source: Author, based on studies covered in the literature review
The resilience of what?
Regarding resilience of what, the first thing to clarify is what it is that needs to be resilient. ‘System’ is often used as a generic term for this entity, especially in relation to evolutionary-based theories of resilience.
Regarding economic systems, resilience can take place at 3 broad levels:
- Microeconomic – individual behaviour of businesses, households, or organisations.
- Mesoeconomic – economic sector, individual market, or cooperative group.
- Macroeconomic – all units and markets combined, including interactive effects.
The unit of analysis in studies about the resilience of economic systems can therefore be people, businesses, communities, regions, countries etc.
To what?
Resilience is concerned with the effects of shocks, disturbances and other perturbations. Understanding the nature and causes of these shocks is central to studying resilience.
Much of the focus of resilience studies is on sudden, ‘out-of-the-ordinary’ events like recessions or natural disasters. These events tend to be seen in a negative light. Some (but not all) authors also include ‘slow-burn’ pressures that cumulate over long periods of time, such as climate change, technological change and other long-term trends. These slow-burn pressures and trends are often highlighted in the context of the resilience of rural communities facing decline.
Ideally, the study of resilience involves considering these various pressures in combination and over the longer-term, per the evolutionary perspective. In fact, an evolutionary perspective tends to see shocks and disturbances as a learning opportunity and as a means of improving resilience.
By what means?
There are many different concepts about the determinants of, and/or strategies or actions to improve, resilience. These strategies tend to be context-specific. Important contextual factors include both the type of system or entity that needs to be resilient, and the nature of the shock or disturbance. However, it is possible to identify some common threads by looking across different concepts about resilience strategies.
Resilience is often seen as a process. Pre-disruption strategies include planning and prevention, strategies during the disruption include mitigating and absorbing the disruption’s effects, and post-disruption strategies include recovering and learning in preparation for future disruptions. For example, in the context of resilience to supply chain disruptions, pre-disruption strategies might include ones about preparedness, such as holding strategic reserves, storage, and internal stock. Strategies during the disruption include information-based ones, such as having a detailed view of supply chain inventories and other supply chain parameters and sharing information. Recovery strategies post-disruption might include ones about re-structuring supply chains, such as re-shoring, back-shoring, near-shoring, and localising.
Other resilience strategies that span many different contexts are:
- Variety – draws on Darwinian theory which stresses the role of variety in species in enabling them to adapt to changing environments.
- Dispersity – refers to the distribution of important system components and functions over space, scale, and time.
- Redundancy – involves intentionally duplicating critical components or functions of a system.
- Optionality – involves building options which can be exercised as more information comes to light.
Various ‘capitals’ or assets are often seen as sources of resilience, especially in the context of regional and community resilience. These capitals include financial, human, natural, physical, political, and social capital. Resilience based on capitals essentially revolves around the idea that the more resources from which a community is able to draw, the greater its resilience. In New Zealand, these ideas are picked up in Treasury’s Living Standards Framework – a wellbeing framework predicated around the concept that New Zealand’s wealth (capitals) can be used to improve current and future wellbeing. As well as wellbeing, wealth or capitals can enhance resilience.
The role of governance and institutions also features prominently in many theories about regional resilience. This reflects the role of human agency and decision-making in social systems; community resilience is not just a matter of the amount and type of resources that communities have at their disposal, but also the awareness of and effective use of those resources. Local economic governance arrangements that constantly enhance and foster local economic investment, entrepreneurship, the attraction of skilled labour, and infrastructural improvement, are not only likely to contribute to that region’s long-run growth rate but also to its capability to recover from unexpected shocks and perturbations. This might involve developing a collective and forward-looking position on how to survive disruptive shocks, and determining the ultimate goal of resilience or what is important in terms of the long-run performance of a regional economy. This local effort needs to be supported by central government, especially in regions that lack the necessary resources and capabilities.
With what outcome?
The desired outcome in equilibrium-based views of resilience is a return to the pre-disruption state following a shock or avoiding the shock altogether. However, critics of the equilibrium view argue that the desire for a return to ‘normal’ risks a lack of questioning of what normality entails. One oft-cited example is the 2005 Hurricane Katrina. The hurricane not only destroyed the physical fabric of New Orleans, but also revealed social processes which residents did not find acceptable, and a pre-disaster normal to which they did not want to return.
The evolutionary perspective of resilience sees the long-run performance, health or integrity of the system as the desired outcome of resilience. Importantly, ‘performance’ and ‘health’ need to be defined for resilience work to be useful. The survival of the system is also generally seen as a desirable outcome based on the evolutionary perspective. Otherwise, little else is assumed – or deemed as desirable – to remain the same.