Author: Prof. Dr. Holger Straßheim
In an increasingly complex world marked by multiple crises such as public health emergencies, climate change, and the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), the concept of resilience has emerged as a critical framework for policymakers and ethicists alike. A paper that has been presented at the conference of the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA) in August last year and that is currently under review presents a comprehensive analysis of resilience as a normative and discursive resource across three countries: the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany.
Resilience has become a prominent and intensively discussed concept. At its core, it promises insights into the capacity of systems to absorb disturbances, adapt to them and transform itself to retain functions and identity. The concept has not only attracted researchers from different disciplines but also policy actors on the national and international level. A more critical strand of literature emphasizes the normative undertones of the resilience discourse, the implicit values and political implications associated with it.
In the paper, we both analyse and critically reflect on how resilience is utilized across different ethical advisory systems and policy areas, particularly during times of uncertainty and crisis. We argue that resilience is not merely a buzzword but has evolved into a ‘topos’ — a commonplace argument that serves as a shortcut for complex discussions surrounding ethical values and policy-making.
Resilience: A Comparative Analysis
One of the key findings of the paper is that resilience has become a central theme across different ethical frameworks in the UK, Australia, and Germany. Each country approaches resilience through specific cultural and political lenses, which shapes the interpretation and implementation of resilience within policy areas.
- Germany tends to associate resilience with systems, emphasizing a technical discussion on the integration of resilience into organizational cycles. The German Ethics Council explicitly connects resilience to ethical principles, focusing on the need for resources that enable societies to adapt to crises while ensuring health protection and social participation.
- The UK adopts a more specific and policy-oriented approach to resilience. Here, the focus is on concrete crises, such as climate impacts or public health emergencies. The UK’s emphasis on community-driven resilience assessment reflects a broader cultural inclination towards measurement and accountability in policymaking.
- Australia, characterized by a more decentralized system, frames resilience as a national imperative. The Australian government has initiated a ‘National Resilience Strategy’ that underscores societal collaboration in addressing multifaceted challenges, including climate change and cybersecurity threats. This focus on national resilience is intertwined with a securitization discourse, reflecting a strategic imperative to safeguard the nation’s essential character amidst uncertainties.
Implications and Future Directions
Our paper also emphasizes that while resilience is widely accepted as a guiding principle, its implicit values and ethical implications often go unexamined. We call for further empirical inquiries to explore the relationship between the semantic evolution of resilience and its entanglement with ethical advisory systems across different contexts.
By highlighting the multifaceted roles that resilience plays in policy discourse, we hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of the ethical dimensions of public policy in times of crisis. As the concept of resilience continues to shape the landscape of governance and decision-making, recognizing its political and moral underpinnings will be vital for crafting effective and just policies.
All in all, the upcoming paper sheds light on the importance of resilience as a central theme in ethics advisory systems and underscores the need for a critical examination of its normative and political implications in the face of contemporary challenges.