Disaster Governance in South Asia: Special Reference to Nepal

  • Tej KarkiEmail author
  • Nimesh SalikeEmail author
Part of the Contemporary South Asian Studies book series (CSAS)


Responsive disaster governance cannot eliminate natural disasters but it can minimise human losses and property damage and reconcile people’s concerns. This paper examines the state of disaster governance at the time of the 2015 earthquake disaster in Nepal through the lens of political economy. This research confirms an earlier assertion that government regulatory and enforcement mechanisms to cope with disasters in developing nations are weak and fragmented. It was found that the disaster response was weak on many fronts, including that there was a lack of a ‘one-window policy’ for enforcement of building regulations and for disaster response, with weaker regulation for private developers. Other weaknesses observed were building code violations by the permitting authority, circumvention of the inspection process by local residents, corruption in the permitting process, and weaker trust and collaboration between the government and local residents.


Disaster governance Nepal Socio-economic impact Earthquake disaster 


  1. ADB (2015) Asia’s disaster data shows need for leaders to scale up resilience at Sendai meeting.
  2. ADB (2017) Asian Development Bank (ADB), key indicators for Asia and the Pacific
  3. Ambraseys N, Bilham R (2011) Corruption kills. Nature 469:143–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artiningsih SJS, Yuniartanti RK (2016) The challenges of disaster governance in an Indonesian multi-hazards city: a case of Semarang, Central Java. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci 227:347–353. Scholar
  5. Bajracharya K (2016) Women of Nepal and post-earthquake humanitarian responses: an observation of three months. Lowl Technol Int 18(2):83–88Google Scholar
  6. Belbase B (2015) Housing investment at high risk. Kathmandu:
  7. Bhandari A, Regmi D (2015) A very weak homes. Kathmandu:
  8. Bhattarai S (2015) For now don’t live in the apartment. Kathmandu:
  9. Bilham R (2009) The seismic future of cities. Bull Earthq Eng 7(4):839–887. Scholar
  10. Bilham R (2013) Societal and observational problems in earthquake risk assessments and their delivery to those most at risk. Tectonophysics 584:166–173. Scholar
  11. Bilham R (2014) Aggravated earthquake risk in South Asia. In: Shroder JF, Wyss M (eds) Earthquake hazard, risk and disasters. Academic Press, pp 103–141. Scholar
  12. Blackburn S (2014) The politics of scale and disaster risk governance: barriers to decentralisation in Portland, Jamaica. Geoforum 52:101–112. Scholar
  13. Crowley NÉE, Donovan K, Elliott JR (2012) Earthquake disasters and resilience in the Global North: lessons from New Zealand and Japan. Geogr J 78(3):208–215. Scholar
  14. Deville J, Guggenheim M, Hrdličková Z (2014) Concrete governmentality: shelters and the transformations of preparedness. Sociol Rev 62:183–210. Scholar
  15. Dhakal P (2015) No food and slees due to the nearby earthquake shaken crumbling housing towerrs. Kathmandu:
  16. Ekin A (2015) Fears as buildings continue to crack in quake-hit NepalGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghimire HL (2015) Disaster management and post-quake impact on tourism in Nepal. J Tour Hosp 7:37–57Google Scholar
  18. Giri S (2015a) 11 of Valley’s apartment buildings unsafe: govt, Kathmandu.
  19. Giri S (2015b) After 7.9 quake, future of high rises hangs in balanceGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey D (2010) The enigma of capital: and the crises of capitalism. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Karki D, Khatiwada S (2016) Disaster under-insurance in Nepal: a look into supply side constraints in the insurance industry in Nepal. Samriddhi Foundation, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  22. Kathmandu Post News (2015) Flat owners baulk at return to high-life post-earthquake. Kathmandu.
  23. Khalfan M, Tait MJ, El-Dakhakhni WW (2015) Seismic risk assessment of nonengineered residential buildings: state of the practice. Nat Hazards Rev 16(3).
  24. Khand MM (2004) Political and administrative corruption: concepts, comparative experiences and Bangladesh case.
  25. Mahat S (2015) Only ten percent of the city population complied with the building bylaws. Kathmandu:
  26. Nagarik News (2015) Park View Horizon must compensate to the affected. Kathmandu:
  27. NPC (2015) Nepal earthquake 2015: post disaster needs assessment, vol. A: key findings, Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission, Singha Durbar, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  28. Pathak B (2015) An impact assessment of a great earthquake in Nepal.
  29. Payne G, Majale M (2004) The urban housing manual: making regulatory frameworks work for the poor. Earthscan, London, VAGoogle Scholar
  30. Pudashaini J (2015) Tall apartments tall fear.
  31. Reilley M (2010) The Haiti and New Zealand quakes: a fair comparison?
  32. Schneider SK (1992) Governmental response to disasters: the conflict between bureaucratic procedures and emergent norms. Public Adm Rev 52:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Setopati News (2015) 71 apartments banned for any repairs. Kathmandu:
  34. Shakya K (2016) Earthquake: impact on Nepalese economy and women. Lowl Technol Int 18(2):75–82Google Scholar
  35. Tierney K (2012) Disaster governance: social, political, and economic dimensions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37(1):341–363. Scholar
  36. Tuladhar S (2015) Impact of the great earthquake–2015 on hospitality industry of Nepal. J Tour Hosp 7:87–115Google Scholar
  37. Ulak N (2015) Nepal’s earthquake–2015: its impact on various sectors. J Tour Hosp 7:58–86Google Scholar
  38. Yamamura E (2014) Impact of natural disaster on public sector corruption. Public Choice 161(3–4):385–405. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture, Design, and PlanningLovely Professional University (LPU)PhagwaraIndia
  2. 2.International Business School Suzhou (IBSS), Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU)SuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations