5. Disaster capitalism

Disaster informed social workers, taking the time to understand the wider context of a disaster, must be prepared to identify and challenge situations and networks that are potentially exploitative following a disaster. The aftermath of a disaster often involves different stakeholders who have varied, and frequently conflicting, priorities for disaster recovery. For example, government attempts to boost the local economy and invest in new businesses could conflict with social work efforts to build relationships and empower locals to guide their own recovery.

Complete short task 6 in workbook (10 minutes)

A conflict of priorities may not be as inevitable as is often suggested. Dominelli (2013) argues that a sustainable development approach, based on environmental justice, could provide job opportunities for those who lost their livelihoods, whilst also repairing damaged environments and mitigating the potential of future disasters. This needs to involve adequate financial support provided to local residents to support their own recovery, beyond the provision of immediate emergency needs. Social workers can play a central role in advocating for this approach and linking residents with these resources.

However, disasters are also frequently seen as opportunities to gain advantage, both politically and financially. In her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine, social activist Naomi Klein describes in detail how disaster response and recovery frequently prioritises the needs of economic, political and financial systems at the expense of local communities, or what she terms “disaster capitalism”. For example, she explores the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 in the USA, suggesting that for private companies no opportunity for profit was left untapped:

When it comes to paying contractors, the sky is the limit; when it comes to financing the basic functions of the state, the coffers are empty (Klein, 2007: 409).

A similar situation has been seen during the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK, with local services frequently struggling, and a number of reports finding social workers struggling to provide basic services (for example). At the same time billions of pounds has been spent on private consultants and firms, most notoriously in the case of the Test and Trace system that as of March 2021 has an allocated budget of £37 billion, and is being implemented by a conglomerate of private firms. Despite this large sum of money, a UK Parliament Accounts Committee report found no clear evidence of its effectiveness of the Test and Trace system, and many argue that the funding should be used to support public services to provide this service instead.

Klein (2007) also discusses the role of governments in disaster capitalism, acting to facilitate disaster capitalism. Similarly, the UK government have been found to have acted unlawfully in a number of areas since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. This includes in their role in allocating contracts to private organisations for the procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE).

More directly relevant to social work, the aforementioned Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (widely known as Statutory Instrument 445) was introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic ostensibly in order to reduce pressures on social services and care providers supporting children through removing a number of core legal protections. However, following a campaign by the charity Article 39 and supported by a large number of organisations and individuals (including hundreds of social workers), the failure of the government to consult widely on the changes was found to have been unlawful. It is noteworthy that while children’s rights organisations and the Children’s Commissioner were not consulted in making these change, private care providers were, once again suggesting a priority towards protecting financial and business interests during disasters.

Social workers should build on the inspirational example of resistance to disaster capitalism that was encompassed in the challenge to Statutory Instrument 445, and challenge recovery approaches that prioritise the needs of politicians and financial organisations over local communities and marginalised communities. At times this needs to include involvement in activism and stepping outside of their (often statutory) remits. Each social worker should reflect on their values, and the specific contexts of a disaster, in order to determine any action they should take. These points will be discussed in more detail, with a focus on social work ethics, in Module 4.

Next section

Section links

  1. Disasters and the law introduction
  2. Civil Contingencies Act 2004
  3. Advocating for the role of social workers in disasters
  4. Contextualising disasters
  5. Disaster capitalism (current page)
  6. Follow up task