Structural social capital is defined in terms of social institutions and specifically incorporates their rules, procedures, and networks to facilitate collective action for mutual benefits (Granovetter 1985; Granovetter 1992; Burt 1992; Nanphiet and Ghosal 1998; Portes 1998; Uphoff 2000; Aldrich et al. 2018; Scott 2017). This study defines social institutions in terms of both governmental and non-governmental institutions. Important aspects of social institutions are the network, the density or ties of the network, and interactions between any social units (Burt 1992; Granovetter 1992; Wasserman and Faust 1994; Nahapiet and Ghosal 1998; Portes 1998; Castiglione et al 2008). This study includes three main components of structural social capital in the context of disaster recovery process: network of institutions for exchange of resources and information, frequency of participation in community recovery planning, and professional interactions of institutions.
The network ties of social institutions and density of networks plays a crucial role for the access and mobilization of resources as well as exchange and flow of information in a more efficient manner (Burt 1992; Granovetter 1992; Knack and Reef 1997; Nanphiet and Ghosal 1998; Dasgupta and Serageldin 1999; Uphoff 2000). Strong and robust social networks of institutions have been considered an important part of efficient disaster recovery processes (Adger et al. 2001; Colten et al. 2008). Structural social capital facilitates collaborative efforts through strong social ties and networks, and with better and structured communication. Strong structural social capital is usually associated with a high level of interactions and coordination (Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1990; Nanphiet and Ghosal 1998; Uphoff 2000). Professional interactions among and between institutions, interconnectedness, and frequency of participation in planning and policies are important for designing and developing recovery plans (Cutter et al. 2006; Brody et al. 2010). Studies have found that high rates of participation of both governmental and non-governmental institutions in planning and decision-making processes can create high quality plans and recovery processes (Berke et al.1993; Godschalk et al. 2003; Gordani and Murphy 2010). Structural social capital affects the disaster recovery process via capacity of social institutions, as the slight changes in capacity of institutions ultimately impact the overall connections of institutions to deal with emergency response and recovery processes (Uphoff 2000).
After hazard events, recovery and response efforts require the help and contributions of various institutions (Adger et al. 2001; Harrald 2006). The efficiency of recovery planning and polices efforts can be impacted by multiple factors such as involvement of informal social institutions, mutual understanding of institutions, density of networks, inclusion of local knowledge, and local support (Quarantelli1999; Berke et. al. 1993; Burton et al. 2011). Hazards and climate change scholars (Pelling 1999; Adger 2003, Cutter and Emrich 2006; Colten and Stumper 2009) have been analyzing the role and importance of social institutions for disaster response and recovery and have argued the importance of interdependence among social institutions to promote community resilience. Adger (2003, 2005) highlighted the importance of informal collective decision-making process after a hazard event. These articles suggested that to create a resilient community it is important to involve human agency, interaction and cooperation of institutions, strong networks, and inclusion of diverse institutions in planning and policy making.
Seminal work of scholars (Elliot and Pais 2006; Colten and Stumper 2009; Airriess et al. 2007) analyzed the post disaster recovery process of hurricane Katrina (2005) in New Orleans. They found that local social capital rich institutions were actively engaged in the emergency response process by providing the necessary resources and had been easily accessible by local communities in the response and recovery process. However, there was a poor coordination between governmental and non-governmental institutions during emergency response and recovery process, and local institutions were not truly incorporated into the disaster response teams. Additionally, there was a lack of knowledge of the capacity and resources of these local institutions, lack of collaborations among various stakeholders, and lack of involvement of local institutions (Nelson et al. 2007; Colten et al. 2008; Patterson et al. 2010).
A better understanding of capacity of existing social units as well as a well-coordinated and decentralized decision-making process can help to deal with emergency situations in a more efficient manner. Involvement of social capital rich organizations in the planning process and a better understanding of the existing social structure can help to cope with hazard events (Pelling 1999; Dynes 2005; Aldrich 2011). Capabilities assessment of social institutions is context specific, and the variables of capability may depend on the institutional domains and field of research. Institutional characteristics such as efficiency, flexible policies, and professional interactions are important for the creation of social capital (Newton 1999; Castiglione et al 2008). The capabilities of institutions can affect the overall performance of structural social capital (Nahapiet and Ghosal 1998; Woolcock and Narayan 2000; Mohan and Mohan 2002).
This study particularly focuses on the capabilities of social institutions pertinent to disaster response and recovery. Drawing from literature, capacity or capabilities of institutions can be defined as the ability of institutions to manage and exchange resources (human and financial), work with mutual co-operation during the emergency response and recovery process, create disaster awareness programs, and implement adaptive and flexible policies for community development (Pelling1999; Ingraham, Joyce et al. 2003; Andrew and Boyne 2010; Brody et al. 2010; Skelcher et al. 2011; Ting 2011). For this study capabilities of social institutions have been divided broadly into three dimensions: capacity in terms of collaboration, capacity in terms of management, and capacity in terms of knowledge and awareness. For each dimension, 3–4 variables are selected to get the in-depth and context specific analysis. Capabilities assessment of institutions in terms of management skills, collaborative planning, and knowledge and educational programs are critical to understand as each dimension has its own impact on disaster response and recovery planning. Capabilities of social institutions play a crucial role for the implementation of hazards mitigation and disaster recovery planning to enhance community resilience.
Literature suggests that collaborative efforts among and between various institutions are important to create a well-integrated disaster recovery policy and planning as well as implementation of policies for the efficient recovery process (Nagawaka and Shaw 2004; Frazier et al. 2013; Aldrich et al. 2018). Collaboration of social institutions can include sharing and exchange of resources, joint project management, supporting shared decision making, optimizing the institutions’ scarce resources, and joint projects (Dynes 2005). Specifically, a formalized well-documented collaborative plan for non-governmental institutions to work with mutual co-operation along with other institutions can help to promote exchange of information and resources, expedite the assistance during hazard events without duplicating the work, and create mutual trust with repeated interactions (Ingraham, Joyce et al. 2003; Scholz et al. 2008; Aldrich 2011; Berke at al. 2014). A formalized collaborative plan can also help to shorten the length of joint projects by bringing together groups of government entities and non-governmental agencies.
The management dimension of capabilities of institutions focuses on the development of overall infrastructure of institutions as well as utilizing institutional resources for efficient and positive outcomes (Fredericksen and London 2000; Ingraham, Joyce et al. 2003; Andrews and Boyne 2010; Malik and Blumenfeld 2012). This dimension can include staff availability, resources to deal with hazard events, strong leadership, funds and distribution of funding, and standardized training within institutions (Ingraham, Joyce et al. 2003). Well-resourced (human and financial) institutions in terms of shelter capacity, funds, and staff can better deal with emergency response and hazard events (Colten et al. 2008; Aldrich 2011). Efficient management processes can have positive impact on the overall performance of the social institutions.
The knowledge and awareness dimension of institutions focuses on the creation and practice of educational programs, knowledge transfer and sharing, adapting and implementing local and flexible policies, and knowledge about hazard related issues (Orlikowski 2002; Harvey et al. 2010; Skelcher et al. 2011). Adaptive and flexible planning can help to reduce the impact of hazard events by acknowledging the environmental uncertainties, people’s risk perception, and actual damage and losses that occur in disasters (Brody et al. 2010; Berke et al. 2014). Creating awareness through disaster related educational programs as well as sharing of knowledge among and between agencies is crucial for the recovery process.
The quality and capacity of institutions also depends upon the type of institutions. Typically, governmental institutions are more involved in the decision making and planning process as compared to local (non-governmental) social capital rich institutions (Pelling 1999; Colten et al. 2008). Typically, high-capacity organizations are big governmental institutions such as EM (Emergency Management) that have enjoyed autonomy in decision making processes, whereas low-capacity local institutions are peripheral in decision-making and planning processes (US.GAO 2008). During emergency response periods local non-governmental institutions are crucial for the mobilization of resources. These institutions are usually approached first after a disaster occurs, and at that time, little is known about their capabilities (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff 2002; Aldrich 2011; Ting 2011).
However, literature suggests that non-governmental institutions are the first ones to be approached by the community in case of a disaster event and emergency response (Murphy 2007; Aldrich 2011). A better understanding of non-governmental institutions in terms of their capacity and authority in the decision-making process is crucial for an overall efficient recovery process. Successful recovery and planning processes are thought to be influenced by the capabilities of social institutions which can facilitate the non-structural mitigation strategies such as social capital (Godschalk et. al. 2003; Berke et al. 2012; FEMA 2018).
A comprehensive understanding of the capabilities of both governmental and non-governmental institutions will help to better prepare for emergency response and recovery. Although previous studies have evaluated the role of structural social capital in disaster recovery processes, little is known about how capabilities of social institutions can actually affect the association between structural social capital and disaster recovery. This study identifies the role of the capacity of social institutions in disaster recovery and planning processes, and this study argues that structural social capital of institutions is positively associated with the capabilities of institutions.