Regional Resilience in the Southern African Development Community: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ockert Rudolf Pretorius
,
Johannes Ernst Drewes
,
Trynos Gumbo

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) and its member countries are potentially vulnerable to external disturbances, including environmental, economic, and social shocks. Regional policy emphasizes interventions to ensure long-term growth and development in the face of potential disturbance. It is important to investigate the extent to which existing research supports regional resilience policymaking. Objectives include investigating available research on resilience in the SADC, identifying potential limitations, and delineating areas of future research to be considered by researchers that contribute to knowledge and evidence creation. 

  • regional resilience
  • regional policy
  • SADC
  • external disturbances

1. Introduction

Developing countries, including the member countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), face significant disruptions from external disturbances of an economic, social, and environmental nature. This includes, inter alia, vulnerability to economic shocks that influence output and production patterns [1], environmental degradation and climate change [2], and current and future public health emergencies [3]. These challenges have the significant potential to affect long-term socio-economic development objectives of the regional bloc and its members, which include the aim of fostering economic growth and poverty alleviation, enhanced quality of life for the regional population, as well as security and peace [4]. In response, policymakers in SADC supranational institutions have sought to develop policies to alleviate the risks faced by the region, including the development of the SADC Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, which focuses on specific interventions to catalyze adaptation to climate change and its effects on the region [5]. However, the need for sustained adaptation and adaptability to diverse socio-economic and environmental challenges, to which the member countries of SADC remain vulnerable, is apparent [6]. The need exists for the development of holistic policies that underline the resilience of the SADC through alleviating its vulnerability to external disturbances, mitigating the potential impact of said disturbances on regional systems, and enabling the region to delineate a new way forward to sustain long-term growth and development.

2. Vulnerability to External Disturbances

Regions and countries in the Global South are vulnerable to multiple economic, social, and environmental disturbances originating in external regions that might affect internal growth and development objectives [7][8]. In the economic context, external economic shocks have significant potential to disrupt internal production systems in developing countries [9]. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 is an example of such a disturbance, where downturns in the financial and housing markets in the United States of America and other developed countries led to a downturn in export demand for developing countries [10][11] and decreased foreign direct investment (FDI) in markets such as the SADC as firms, consumers, and investors turned risk averse. The SADC experienced a significant decrease in trade and investment with major trading partners during this period [12]. Developing regions remain vulnerable to future economic shocks that might similarly affect socio-economic growth and development. This is underlined by limited export diversification and industrialization, which is also relevant to the member countries of the SADC. Existing research points to economic openness (in terms of exports as percentage of total trade and the scale of import tariffs), export market dynamics (income level of markets), sectoral composition (contribution of primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors to economic output) [1], and degree of regional integration (trade between member countries) [6] as factors that affect regional economic resilience through either lowering the impact of the initial shock on the regional economy or hastening the recovery of the previous growth trajectory. Pretorius et al. [1] note that interventions toward reducing economic vulnerability (e.g., restrictions on import and export markets) ought to be balanced with their potentially adverse effect on economic growth.
In addition to external economic shocks, social disturbances may also place pressure on the resilience of regions and their member countries. One such disturbance is the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, which has highlighted the threat of public health emergencies on growth and development objectives in developing countries [13], where significant pressure has been experienced in public health systems, social networks, physical- and mental wellbeing. In the SADC, the aftermath of COVID-19 has also highlighted the ineffectiveness of social and emergency interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on vulnerable populations [14]. The tourism industry, which contributes to significant employment opportunities for local populations, suffered severely [15]. Related disturbances have constituted a significant shock to member countries of the SADC [16]. Other social phenomena, such as sustained population growth [17] and urbanization [18], and the strain on resources these represent, also constitute challenges for policymakers in the SADC and its member countries. Policy responses ought to consider the environmental impact of human activities and development while also facilitating socio-economic growth in line with development objectives [19].
An additional consideration is global warming and the degradation of the natural environment, which emphasizes the need for resilience policies to foster mitigation and long-term adaptability in the SADC and other developing countries and regions [20]. Climate change is set to be a significant catalyst of worldwide environmental, social, and economic change [21]—particularly in developing countries where agricultural production is vulnerable to environmental alterations, which presents a looming disturbance to a sector that contributes a significant share to economic production and employment [22]. Specific to the SADC, the impact of climate change is “expected to be compounded due to the region’s high poverty levels, weak infrastructure, poor management of natural resources and dependence on rain-fed infrastructure” [23] (p. 133). Already drought-prone member countries will experience higher temperatures, impacting regional food security and related economic and social outcomes. The latter is also related to the vulnerability of regional healthcare systems in the face of changing burdens of disease attributable to the changing climate [24].
The abovementioned economic, social, and economic disturbances and their potential to inflict significant disturbances to the SADC and its member countries constitute the motive for the development of the resilience of the region and its member countries.

3. Overview of Regional Resilience

Resilience research is much diffused and has been undertaken in diverse fields and disciplines, and therefore, various definitions and applications can be identified in the literature [25][26]. Avenues of resilience research include, inter alia, urban and regional planning [27], ecological systems [28], psychological and social systems [29], and economic studies [30]. The most prominent cluster, and the one which constitutes the foundation of research in other fields, is the resilience of ecological systems to exogenous threats [31]. Within this paradigm, resilience is the ability of natural systems to adapt and foster ongoing adaptability to the current and potential future effects of disturbances originating external to the region [21]. While said disturbances may affect its function, a resilient system is one that changes and adapts while being able to provide the same or better outcomes as in the period prior to the disturbance [25][32]. Within the context here, which is anchored in regional policy on the supranational scale of the SADC, resilience can be seen as the region sustaining long-term socio-economic growth and development in the face of external disturbances which may otherwise affect the development trajectory [33]. Resilience in this developmental paradigm is measured by the capability of the relevant regional systems to, firstly, withstand the initial effects of the external disturbance on their functional capacity, and secondly, to rapidly recuperate any lost output in the post-shock period [34][35][36]. Evidently, the themes of ‘resistance’ and ‘recovery’ are central in conceptualizing regional resilience [37].
The analysis of resilience within the regional context may be done retrospectively by investigating the impact of previous disturbances. Examples of retrospective analyses are that of Brixiová et al. [38], who use a previous economic shock in determining the potential mitigating effect of intra-regional trade on a future economic shock, and Pretorius et al. [39], who analyze the role of supply chain efficiency in mitigating the trade impact of COVID-19, with the objective of delineating policy interventions to create resilient supply chains and reduce the impact of future disturbances. The contribution of these analyses of resilience, while based on different disturbances, is the delineation of factors that may support resilience in their context, which may be extended to other contexts by future research. Policy measures can then be identified to be implemented in regions considered vulnerable to specific disturbances.
In analyzing the extent of regional resilience, three approaches can be delineated. This includes the equilibrium and multiple equilibria approaches, as well as the systems and long-term perspective. The equilibrium approach assumes that the region maintains a steady growth path from which it deviates in the event of an external disturbance [33]. Regional resilience, in this regard, is measured by the extent of the deviation from the pre-shock equilibrium state and the period needed to regain this trajectory after the shock [40][41]. This deviation is measured using one criterion, which may include indicators of living standards, quality of life, human development, employment, and economic output [42]. In comparison, the multiple equilibria approach differs through rejecting the assumption that regions have a predetermined growth path which is naturally resumed in the post-shock period. Rather, actions by agents and decision makers—i.e., interventions by policymakers—create different trajectories that regions may follow after the effects of the disturbance [43].
The systems perspective of resilience [25] builds on the multiple equilibria approach in maintaining that resilience is a product of the complex interaction between diverse factors within a system—or region—including pervasive social conditions, political environment, economic agents, institutional role players, and environmental considerations [44][45]. Dubbed the social structures of accumulation [46], these networks of interaction catalyze structural change to the system over time to maintain favorable conditions for growth and development over the long term. According to this perspective, a resilient region is one that can maintain a stable social structure while having the ability to negotiate and transition to a new structure to support ongoing growth and development [25][33]. The notions of adaptation and adaptability are central to a resilient region’s ability to foster internal change and follow a new growth path [32][47][48][49]. For this study, adaptation is considered to be the action of continuous change to support long-term growth and development [6], while adaptability is considered to be the ability to catalyze change in response to potential disturbances [50][51].

4. Role of Institutions in SADC Resilience Policy

The actions of policymakers are central to fostering the characteristics of adaptation and adaptability, as institutions, economic and political agents, and social networks should “create and sustain the capacity to learn and adapt” [25] (p. 12). Regional resilience requires pro-active policy formulation and decision-making by political agents and economic role players, with the planning process coordinated by well-capacitated institutions [51]. Institutions should have sufficient human capacity [52] to delineate appropriate growth and development path to support regional resilience and to plan and implement appropriate interventions to achieve the desired development trajectory. In the context of the SADC, supranational institutions need to apply conducive policies to facilitate the process of fostering resilience in the region, its member countries, and urban environments.
A prominent supranational institution in the region is the SADC Secretariat, which coordinates the development and implementation of regional development policies and programs [53]. One such planning instrument is the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP), which identifies investment and development priorities in the region [54]. Regional integration, through economic liberalization and trade facilitation, is central to the objectives of the SADC, with supporting policies such as the SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap seeking to catalyze related economic and productivity objectives [55]. Regional development policies emphasize regional economic outcomes, with limited consideration of resilience-specific interventions. The policies that do exist, such as the SADC Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, focus on environmental outcomes, including climate change adaptation and disaster risk management [5].

5. The Role of Research in Policymaking

In general, there are various role players that contribute to the policymaking process, including the policymakers that consider the available evidence in the formulation process (SADC institutions); the recipients of policy (e.g., public, private sector and communities in member countries); and non-sector stakeholders that are intermediaries between the policymakers and recipients of policy (e.g., pressure and lobbying groups) [56]. The producers of the relevant evidence in the policymaking process are researchers. Research is an activity that seeks to contribute to knowledge creation through generating new ideas or providing evidence for existing ones [57]. The benefits associated with the outcomes of research ought not be limited to the researcher but are also expected to have potential utility for the policymaker, among other role players [58]. The importance of research as the basis for policymaking is supported by Muluk and Winoto [58] (p. 287), who state that the former is “necessary for determining and reading the direction of policy and the consequences of future risks”. Trostle et al. [59], through synthesizing the models of Weiss [60], delineate three approaches by policymakers in utilizing research in the policymaking process, namely the rational, strategic, and diffusion approach. The rational approach states that policymakers will use research that is available and will commission additional investigations should additional evidence be required. The strategic approach includes the use of research to support existing policy positions or other strategic objectives. The diffusion approach states that policymaking is influenced by diverse forces, of which research is one—all of which may contribute to identifying additional problems and presenting potential solutions to policymakers. While research may be utilized in different ways in the policymaking process, these approaches further underline the importance of research in informing policymakers.
Despite the potential role of research, there are barriers that may limit its application in policymaking. One such barrier is the inherent difference between research activities, or knowledge production, and that of policymaking, where objectives and methods are not automatically aligned, with results from the former difficult to transfer to the latter [61]. Additional barriers include that research is not always “context sensitive, timely and relevant for policy-makers”; limited interest on the part of policymakers in utilizing research evidence; challenges in policymakers accessing relevant research; and their inaccurate interpretation of said research [62]. Muluk and Winoto [58] provide guidance on optimizing the contribution of research to policymaking. One requirement is that research ought to be relevant to policy, which may include relevance to the specific themes associated with the policy area. Secondly, research ought to provide tangible applications to policymaking, ensuring that the evidence presented by research may be implemented through policy.

6. Current Limitations and Future Research Areas

The importance of research, and researchers, as sources of evidence in policymaking, is already pronounced in developing regions such as the SADC, particularly during times of global disruption. To optimize the potential contribution of research to policymaking, presented evidence needs to be thematically relevant to the themes inherent to the policy areas and delineate applications to policy. Current research on resilience in the SADC is limited primarily to environmental and social themes, with incorporation of the regional planning scale restricted to a limited number of publications. Existing evidence is also limited in its applicability to regional development policy, with possible interventions that are studied being mostly presented in the context of environmental and social disturbances.

Regional institutions are central to the delineation of policy that supports resilience in the face of diverse potential environmental, economic, and social disturbances. As per the rational approach by policymakers in utilizing research, institutions may use available research or commission additional investigations as sources of evidence in policymaking. According to the strategic and diffusion approaches, research may be used to support existing policy positions or broadly contribute to identifying problems and potential solutions related to strategic objectives among a variety of stakeholders that feed into the policymaking process. Researchers that seek to create knowledge and evidence related to resilience policymaking in the SADC—although this may be extended to researchers in diverse policy areas in different contexts—ought to contribute to overcoming current limitations in available evidence to optimize the contribution of research to policymaking.

Accordingly, to create evidence that is more thematically relevant to resilience policy areas, future areas of research should include broader investigations of potential economic disturbances that face the SADC. This may include, among other themes, reference to specific shocks, their impact and effects, and possible mitigating factors. This research, which is an emerging trend, would complement existing evidence that focuses mostly on environmental and social disturbances. Future research should also be centered on integrating the regional planning scope and scale inherent to resilience policy in the SADC. A limited number of publications emphasize the importance of this planning scale in considering the resilience challenges faced by the SADC, with the effects of disturbances potentially transcending the borders and policy scope of individual member countries. In addition, to create evidence that is more applicable to resilience policy interventions, future research ought to incorporate increased consideration of the strategic objectives, policy instruments, and development policy that are applicable to supporting resilience outcomes. This includes policies that center on the delineation of interventions to achieve regional development objectives, including, inter alia, the RISDP, the SADC Climate Change Action Plan, and the SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap.

Future research ought to also build on the existing transdisciplinarity evident in current research. Select publications highlight the need for input from a diverse range of stakeholders and disciplines in the knowledge creation process. This is especially relevant in the context of resilience, where diverse disturbances bring about complex outcomes and factors to be considered toward their mitigation. For researchers on resilience in the SADC, significant opportunities exist in leveraging the new areas of knowledge creation catalyzed by the drive for SDG implementation, which have seen a growth in research on important resilience-related themes.

The aim of the above content was to delineate how current research may support resilience policymaking in the SADC. It does not, however, comment on the practical consideration of the evidence presented in previous, current, and future research by SADC institutions and policymakers. In addition, this discussion does not interrogate the policymaking process in regional institutions, nor the factors inherent to said process that determine the uptake—or otherwise—of research evidence. These fall outside the scope here and ought to be studied in future research. It does, however, contribute to supporting an evidence-based approach to resilience policymaking in the SADC. This is conducted through the use of a bibliometric review and selective content review in identifying limitations in current research and areas of future research to overcome said limitations.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/world3030024

References

  1. Pretorius, O.; Drewes, E.; van Aswegen, M.; Malan, G. A Policy Approach towards Achieving Regional Economic Resilience in Developing Countries: Evidence from the SADC. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2674.
  2. Hartzenberg, T.; Erasmus, G.; Jensen, H.G.; Sandrey, R.; Fundira, T.; Clark, V.; Zarenda, H.; Woolfrey, S.; Viljoen, W.; Cronje, J.B.; et al. Cape to Cairo: Exploring the Tripartite FRA Agenda. Available online: https://www.acismoz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cape%20to%20Cairo.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
  3. Dafuleya, G. Social and emergency assistance ex-ante and during COVID-19 in the SADC region. Int. J. Community Soc. Dev. 2020, 2, 251–268.
  4. SADC. SADC Objectives. Available online: https://www.sadc.int/about-sadc/overview/sadc-objectiv/ (accessed on 17 January 2022).
  5. SADC. SADC Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan. Available online: https://www.sadc.int/files/5615/9126/1263/SADC_Climate_Change_Strategy_and_Action_Plan-English.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2022).
  6. Pretorius, O.; Drewes, E.; Van Aswegen, M. Fostering a resilient regional economy in the SADC through regional integration. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2017, 9, 217–228.
  7. Braun, B.; Aßheuer, T. Floods in megacity environments: Vulnerability and coping strategies of slum dwellers in Dhaka/Bangladesh. Nat. Hazards 2011, 58, 771–787.
  8. Akyüz, Y.; Yu, V.P.B. The Financial Crisis and the Global South: Impact and Prospects (No. 76). Research Paper. Available online: https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/RP76_The-Financial-Crisis-and-the-Global-South-Impact-and-Prospects_EN.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  9. Chakrabarti, A. Organizational adaptation in an economic shock: The role of growth reconfiguration. Strateg. Manag. J. 2015, 36, 1717–1738.
  10. Lin, J.Y. The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Developing Countries. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26129 (accessed on 18 November 2021).
  11. Griffith-Jones, S.; Ocampo, J. The Financial Crisis and Its Impact on Developing Countries. International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth. Working Paper 53. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/71832/1/597838127.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2020).
  12. Markowitz, C.; Wentworth, L.; Grobbelaar, N. Operationalising the SADC Regional Development Fund. Available online: https://www.africaportal.org/documents/18837/GA_Th1_PB-markowitz-wentworth-grobbelaar_20180716.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2022).
  13. Maliszewska, M.; Mattoo, A.; Van Der Mensbrugghe, D. The Potential Impact of COVID-19 on GDP and Trade: A Preliminary Assessment. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (9211). Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33605 (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  14. Pawar, M. The global impact of and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Community Soc. Dev. 2020, 2, 111–120.
  15. Nyaruwata, S.; Mbasera, M. A critique of contribution of tourism to jobs in Southern African Development Community (SADC): Implications for post COVID-19 pandemic. Int. Tour. Hosp. J. 2021, 4, 1–18.
  16. UNCTADstat. Data Centre. Available online: https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx?sCS_ChosenLang=en (accessed on 3 January 2022).
  17. Childers, D.L.; Pickett, S.T.; Grove, J.M.; Ogden, L.; Whitmer, A. Advancing urban sustainability theory and action: Challenges and opportunities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 320–328.
  18. United Nations. 2014 Visions of the World Urbanizations Prospects. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/publications/2014-revision-world-urbanization-prospects.html#:~:text=Today%2C%2054%20per%20cent%20of,66%20per%20cent%20by%202050.&text=By%202050%2C%20India%20is%20projected,million%20and%20Nigeria%20212%20million (accessed on 3 January 2022).
  19. Nagendra, H.; Bai, X.; Brondizio, E.S.; Lwasa, S. The urban south and the predicament of global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 341–349.
  20. Lwasa, S.; Buyana, K.; Kasaija, P.; Mutyaba, J. Scenarios for adaptation and mitigation in urban Africa under 1.5 C global warming. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 30, 52–58.
  21. Tan, X.; Zhu, K.; Meng, X.; Gu, B.; Wang, Y.; Meng, F.; Liu, G.; Tu, T.; Li, H. Research on the status and priority needs of developing countries to address climate change. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125669.
  22. Karimi, V.; Karami, E.; Karami, S.; Keshavarz, M. Adaptation to climate change through agricultural paradigm shift. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 5465–5485.
  23. Viljoen, W. Addressing climate change issues in eastern and southern Africa: The EAC, COMESA, SADC, and the TFTA. In Cape to Cairo—Exploring the Tripartite FTA Agenda; Hartzenberg, T., Erasmus, G., Jensen, H.G., Sandrey, R., Fundira, T., Clark, V., Zarenda, H., Woolfrey, S., Viljoen, W., Cronje, J.B., et al., Eds.; Trade Law Centre: Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2013; pp. 130–164.
  24. Young, T.; Tucker, T.; Galloway, M.; Manyike, P.; Chapman, A.; Myers, J. Climate Change and Health in SADC Region: Review of the Current State of Knowledge. Available online: https://open.umich.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/uct-ccandhealth220910.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
  25. Hudson, R. Resilient regions in an uncertain world: Wishful thinking or a practical reality? Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2009, 3, 11–25.
  26. Adler, C.E.; Aldunce, P.; Indvik, K.; Alegría, D.; Borquez, R.; Galaz, V. Resilience. In Research Handbook on Climate Governance; Bäckstrand, K., Lövbrand, E., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 491–502.
  27. Van Aswegen, M.; Retief, F.P. The role of innovation and knowledge networks as a policy mechanism toward more resilient peripheral regions. Land Use Policy 2020, 90, 104259.
  28. Holling, C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23.
  29. Buheji, M. Psychological Resilience and Poor Communities Coping with COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2020, 10, 100–108.
  30. Giannakis, E.; Bruggeman, A. Regional disparities in economic resilience in the European Union across the urban–rural divide. Reg. Stud. 2020, 54, 1200–1213.
  31. Pendall, R.; Foster, K.A.; Cowell, M. Resilience and regions: Building understanding of the metaphor. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 71–84.
  32. Oliva, S.; Lazzeretti, L. Adaptation, adaptability and resilience: The recovery of Kobe after the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 67–87.
  33. Hill, E.; Wial, H.; Wolman, H. Exploring Regional Economic Resilience. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Working Paper 2008-04. Available online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7fq4n2cv (accessed on 6 March 2022).
  34. Briguglio, L.; Cordina, G.; Farrugia, N.; Vella, S. Economic vulnerability and resilience: Concepts and measurements. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 2009, 37, 229–247.
  35. Davoudi, S. Resilience: A bridging concept or a dead end? Plan. Theory Pract. 2012, 13, 299–307.
  36. Palekiene, O.; Simanaviciene, Z.; Bruneckiene, J. The application of resilience concept in the regional development context. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 213, 179–184.
  37. Dawley, S.; Pike, A.; Tomaney, J. Towards the resilient region? Local Econ. 2010, 25, 650–667.
  38. Brixiová, Z.; Meng, Q.; Ncube, M. Can Intra-Regional Trade Act as a Global Shock Absorber in Africa? Available online: https://docs.iza.org/dp9205.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2022).
  39. Pretorius, O.R.; Drewes, J.E.; Engelbrecht, W.H.; Malan, G.C. Developing resilient supply chains in the Southern African Development Community: Lessons from the impact of COVID-19. J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag. 2022, 16, 12.
  40. Pike, A.; Dawley, S.; Tomaney, J. Resilience, adaptation and adaptability. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 59–70.
  41. Scott, M. Resilience: A conceptual lens for rural studies? Geogr. Compass 2013, 7, 597–610.
  42. Volkov, A.; Žičkienė, A.; Morkunas, M.; Baležentis, T.; Ribašauskienė, E.; Streimikiene, D. A Multi-Criteria Approach for Assessing the Economic Resilience of Agriculture: The Case of Lithuania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2370.
  43. Lu, P.; Stead, D. Understanding the notion of resilience in spatial planning: A case study of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Cities 2013, 35, 200–212.
  44. Varga, L.; Harris, J. Adaptation and Resilience of Interdependent Infrastructure Systems: A Complex Systems Perspective. UCL STEaPP. Available online: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1469381/ (accessed on 28 February 2022).
  45. Gillard, R.; Gouldson, A.; Paavola, J.; Van Alstine, J. Transformational responses to climate change: Beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2016, 7, 251–265.
  46. Hein, E.; Dodig, N.; Budyldina, N. Financial, Economic and Social Systems: French Regulation School, Social Structures of Accumulation and Post-Keynesian Approaches Compared. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Financial%2C-economic-and-social-systems%3A-French-of-Hein-Dodig/99af352197bf128f9cc7cd117f8d90a257e14187 (accessed on 7 March 2022).
  47. Leichenko, R. Climate change and urban resilience. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 164–168.
  48. Desouza, K.C.; Flanery, T.H. Designing, planning, and managing resilient cities: A conceptual framework. Cities 2013, 35, 89–99.
  49. Hu, X.; Hassink, R. Adaptation, adaptability and regional economic resilience: A conceptual framework. In Handbook on Regional Economic Resilience; Bristow, G., Healy, A., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; pp. 54–68.
  50. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20–29.
  51. Simmie, J.; Martin, R. The economic resilience of regions: Towards an evolutionary approach. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 27–43.
  52. Christopherson, S.; Michie, J.; Tyler, P. Regional resilience: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 3–10.
  53. SADC. SADC Secretariat. Available online: https://www.sadc.int/about-sadc/sadc-institutions/secretariat/ (accessed on 19 March 2022).
  54. SADC. SADC Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP). Available online: https://www.sadc.int/index.php/download_file/view/8564/140/ (accessed on 3 June 2022).
  55. SADC. SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap. Available online: https://www.sadc.int/files/2014/6114/9721/Repriting_Final_Strategy_for_translation_051015.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2021).
  56. Antonopoulou, V.; Chadwick, P.; McGee, O.; Sniehotta, F.F.; Lorencatto, F.; Meyer, C.; O’Donnell, A.; Lecouturier, J.; Kelly, M.; Michie, S. Research Engagement with Policy Makers: A Practical Guide to Writing Policy Briefs. Available online: https://osf.io/m25qp/download (accessed on 3 June 2022).
  57. Fong, P.S.W. Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: An empirical study of the process and their dynamic interrelationships. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 479–486.
  58. Muluk, M.R.K.; Winoto, S. Role of research/academic in policy formulation. J. Appl. Manag. 2017, 16, 285–292.
  59. Trostle, J.; Bronfman, M.; Langer, A. How do researchers influence decision-makers? Case studies of Mexican policies. Health Policy Plan. 1999, 14, 103–114.
  60. Weiss, C.H. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm. Rev. 1979, 39, 426–431.
  61. Almeida, C.; Báscolo, E. Use of research results in policy decision-making, formulation, and implementation: A review of the literature. Cad. De Saúde Pública 2006, 22, S7–S19.
  62. Erismann, S.; Pesantes, M.A.; Beran, D.; Leuenberger, A.; Farnham, A.; De White, M.B.G.; Labhardt, N.D.; Tediosi, F.; Akweongo, P.; Kuwawenaruwa, A.; et al. How to bring research evidence into policy? Synthesizing strategies of five research projects in low-and middle-income countries. Health Res. Policy Syst. 2021, 19, 29.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback