IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devpol/v39y2021i1p103-120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eviction is not a disaster

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Day
  • Margaretha Wewerinke‐Singh
  • Susanna Price

Abstract

Motivation Should the process of forcibly evicting people from customary land be classified as a “disaster”? Some international organizations and governments are integrating processes on forced eviction of urban residents into policies that are primarily designed to manage displacements due to climate change and disasters—such as Vanuatu’s 2018 National Policy on Climate Change and Disaster‐Induced Displacement. Purpose This article contextualizes the classification of evictions as “disasters.” We argue that evictions are not disasters and should not be so classified. We make these arguments from an empirical position, based on community response to the declaration of eviction as disaster, and also from the perspective of international law. Approach and Methods Our data come from the following sources: Communities: We use a storytelling method to interview around 100 women and men. The policy: We review the language of the Vanuatu policy in the context of international guidance on displacement generally and on forced eviction specifically. Public records: We use court records and newspaper reporting to understand claims of government, land claimants and survivors. Policy‐makers: A limited number of unofficial conversations with policy‐makers inform this work. Findings Urban forced evictions should not be treated as “disasters” in policy on forced displacement. Our interviewees identify the equation of eviction and “disaster” as one that removes the agency of the government to protect their human rights. The evidence presented here suggests that the Government of Vanuatu does not have sufficient powers to intervene in some forced evictions from customary land. This raises critical questions about whether the government will be able to fulfil the promises made in the policy and in its obligations under international law relating to displacement. Policy Implications Classifying forced evictions together with land conflicts, infrastructure and development as potential “crises,” and so “disastrous,” as the Vanuatu policy does, creates a new set of challenges that must now be managed as the policy is operationalized. This includes serious consideration of how countries that take this path will fulfil their obligations to protect against, avoid and minimize displacement, in the context of customary land, and meet other international policy standards, in order to ensure no one is left worse off nor denied the benefit of development opportunity. This is a timely issue for peer countries. Right now, other Pacific countries, like the Solomon Islands, are looking to Vanuatu’s example to develop internal displacement policies of their own.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Day & Margaretha Wewerinke‐Singh & Susanna Price, 2021. "Eviction is not a disaster," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(1), pages 103-120, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:39:y:2021:i:1:p:103-120
    DOI: 10.1111/dpr.12460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12460
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/dpr.12460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Serdar Yilmaz & Ayse Guner, 2013. "Local Government Discretion And Accountability In Turkey," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 33(2), pages 125-142, May.
    2. Ramalho, Jordana, 2019. "Worlding aspirations and resilient futures: framings of risk and contemporary city-making in Metro Cebu, the Philippines," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100212, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Serdar Yilmaz & Varsha Venugopal, 2013. "Local Government Discretion And Accountability In Philippines," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 227-250, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steven Roche & Catherine Flynn, 2021. "Local child protection in the Philippines: A case study of actors, processes and key risks for children," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(3), pages 367-383, September.
    2. Smoke, Paul, 2016. "Looking Beyond Conventional Intergovernmental Fiscal Frameworks: Principles, Realities, and Neglected Issues," ADBI Working Papers 606, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    3. Verbrugge, Boris, 2015. "Decentralization, Institutional Ambiguity, and Mineral Resource Conflict in Mindanao, Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 449-460.
    4. Ramalho, Jordana, 2019. "Worlding aspirations and resilient futures: framings of risk and contemporary city-making in Metro Cebu, the Philippines," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100212, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Neyapti, Bilin & Özdemir Oluk, Begüm, 2021. "Fiscal transfers in Turkey: Do politics matter?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 45(3).
    6. Aireen Grace Andal, 2022. "Situating children’s lives in coastal cities: Prospects and challenges in urban planning in five Southeast Asian cities," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 279-292, April.
    7. Tschakert, Petra & Parsons, Meg & Atkins, Ed & Garcia, Alicea & Godden, Naomi & Gonda, Noemi & Henrique, Karen Paiva & Sallu, Susannah & Steen, Karin & Ziervogel, Gina, 2023. "Methodological lessons for negotiating power, political capabilities, and resilience in research on climate change responses," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devpol:v:39:y:2021:i:1:p:103-120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/odioruk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.