ABSTRACT
The objects of the chapter are to clarify:
what is meant by the social construction of vulnerability,
how vulnerability can be understood in relation to political, economic, and social processes, and
what needs to be done to restore vulnerability analysis to a better position in explaining disasters and building prevention and preparedness.
I argue that the concept of vulnerability has been co-opted by institutions working in DRR (and also adaptation to climate change) and is in danger of its analytical power being weakened. Official DRR institutions are themselves embedded in systems of power and have incentives to avoid analysis that gives prominence to class, ethnicity, gender, and other social inequalities. The tendency is to neutralise the explanatory value of what were originally more radical (= root) approaches that investigated disaster root causes. This is evident in how analytical concepts such as vulnerability (along with resilience, sustainability, and so on) are turned into buzzwords when used by organisations and governments that are unwilling or unable to deal with the systems of power that create vulnerability (Cornwall and Eade 2010; Secret Development Worker 2016).