https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0969-3838
![Sample our Urban Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110826/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Urban-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Conventional social protection programmes that fail to intentionally consider climate change effects in their design and delivery are criticised for not addressing the root causes of vulnerability to climate change, particularly for rural livelihoods. Increasingly, we see a shift to adaptive social protection programming to address climate vulnerability, which incorporates transformative objectives. However, there is a dearth of research into the transformative effects of adaptive approaches. Addressing this gap, we employ a “rights-based approach” to assess how adaptive social protection affords greater transformative resilience and wellbeing outcomes over conventional social protection programming. Taking Bangladesh as our case, empirical data show that although social protection programming incorporates some transformative elements, their impacts in terms of subjective resilience and wellbeing outcomes are limited. These limited outcomes result from prevailing clientelism, inadequate benefits paid to participants, lack of beneficiary participation in decision-making, and failure to address unequal gender norms and power relations. These failures are intentionally obscured through the performative practice of corrupted reporting. We conclude by proposing social protection features that are expected to promote more equitable, inclusive and just pathways to sustainably reduce climate induced vulnerability of subsistence farmers.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our thanks to the participants in this study for sharing their valuable insights and time. Research for this article was supported by the Murdoch University International Postgraduate Scholarship, the Harry Butler Institute and the Centre for Responsible Citizenship and Sustainability, Murdoch University, Australia.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 It is a planned process of change in values, beliefs, behaviours, institutions and governance structures (Olsson, Galaz, and Boonstra Citation2014).
2 For instance, restricted social norms for women on learning how to swim, limited access to natural resources, and traditional clothing practices (sari and purdah system) increase women's vulnerability during disasters (Jordan Citation2019; Röhr Citation2006). Studies reveal how patronage politics and corruption undermine adaptive capacities of marginalised people in the face of climate risks (Crate and Nuttall Citation2016; Rahman Citation2018).
3 SDF is a public institution under Bangladesh's Ministry of Finance.
4 According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, farmers defined as smallholders hold cultivable land ranged between 0.05 and 2.49 acres, medium holders hold between 2.5 and 7.49 acres and large landlords hold 7.5 acres or more (Misra Citation2021).
5 From 1777 to 1860, the British East India Company encouraged the cultivation of indigo in Bengal by a system in which Planters provided loans (dadon) to peasant farmers and required them to sell their crop to them at fixed rates. While the company made enormous profit from exporting the indigo, farmers were entangled in a vicious cycle of debt for their whole life, even passing on the debt to their children (Prasad Citation2018).
6 The research protocol was approved by Murdoch University's Human Research Ethics Committee (Project Number 2019/027).
7 An apex institution at the village level – led by a village committee composed of nine members usually selected by its general members.
8 It can be defined as a participatory process “in which communities have direct control over key project decisions, including management of investment funds” (Mansuri and Rao Citation2004, 1–2).
9 Sub-district Chief Executive Officer.