Interrogating the Neoliberal Biopolitics of the Sustainable Development-Resilience Nexus



One of the defining features of post–Cold War international relations has been the correlation of development practices and rationalities with those of security and the emergence of what has been called the ‘development-security nexus’. While the development-security nexus remains relevant, semantic shifts in the conceptualization of both development and security are occurring. Demands for development are increasingly tied not simply to demands for ‘security’ but to a discursively new object of ‘resilience’. And this shift from security to resilience is tied likewise to a reconceptualization of development as ‘sustainable development’. Are these, then, merely semantic shifts, or do they signify changes in the rationalities that have shaped the ‘development-security nexus’ during the post–Cold War period? Are the rationalities that distinguish resilience different to those underpinning demands for security? And are those of ‘sustainable development’ different to what was once known simply as ‘development’? Does the weaving of a nexus of relations between ‘sustainable development’ and ‘resilience’ represent a departure from the ‘development-security nexus’ in some way? And, if so, what explains that shift and what are its political implications? This chapter answers these questions through an analysis of the neoliberal biopolitics of the sustainable development-resilience nexus’. While sustainable development deploys ecological reason to argue for the need to secure the life of the biosphere, neoliberalism prescribes economy as the very means of that security. Economic reason is conceived within neoliberalism as a servant of ecological reason, claiming paradoxically to secure life from economy through a promotion of the capacities of life for economy. This is the paradoxical foundation on which neoliberalism constructs its appropriation of sustainable development. Sustainable development and neoliberalism are not the same, nor is the former simply a proxy of the latter, but they do come into contact powerfully on the terrains of their rationalities of security, which, on account of the interplay between ecological and economic reason, is increasingly conceptualized as resilience. This surface of contact ought to make for a tense and political field of contestation but has instead made largely for a strategically manipulable relation between the two doctrines.


Sustainable Development United Nations Environment Programme World Summit Common Future Political Subject 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (2011). The kingdom and the glory: For a theological genealogy of economy and government. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barbier, E. B. (2010). Poverty, development and environment. Environment and Development Economics, 15, 635–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbier, E. B., & Markandya, A. (1990). The conditions for achieving environmentally sustainable development. European Economic Review, 34(2–3), 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Death, C. (2010). Governing sustainable development: Partnerships, protests and power at the world summit. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Duffield, M. (2007). Development, security and unending war: Governing the world of peoples. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  8. Duffield, M. (2008). Development, security and unending war: Governing the world of people. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Folke, C., & Kautsky, N. (1989). The role of ecosystems for a sustainable development of aquaculture. Ambio, 18(4), 234–243.Google Scholar
  10. Folke, C., et al. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437–440.Google Scholar
  11. Foucault, M. (1997). The order of things. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Gladwin, M. T., et al. (1991). A medium term precursor to the Loma Prieta Earthquake? Geophysical Research Letters, 18(8), 1377–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.Google Scholar
  14. Guattari, F. (1995). Chaosmosis. Indiana: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Handmer, J. W., & Dovers, S. R. (1996). A typology of resilience: Rethinking institutions for sustainable development. Organization & Environment, 9, 482–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610, 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khagram, S., Clark, W. C., & Raad, D. F. (2003). From the environment and human security to sustainable security and development. Journal of Human Development, 4(2), 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mondzain, M.-J. (2005). Image, icon, economy: The Byzantine origins of the contemporary imaginary. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Moore, B. (1978). Injustice: The social bases of obedience and revolt. New York: M E Sharpe.Google Scholar
  20. Neocleous, M. (2008). Critique of security. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’ Brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., & Williams, M. (2000). Contesting global governance: Multilateral economic institutions and social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pingali, P., Alinovi, L., & Sutton, J. (2005). Food security in complex emergencies: Enhancing food system resilience. Disasters, 29(51), S5–S24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reid, J. (2011). The vulnerable subject of liberal war. South Atlantic Quarterly, 110(3), 770–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reid, J. (2012). The disastrous and politically debased subject of resilience. Development Dialogue, 58, 67–80.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenau, J. N. (1991). Superpower scholars: Sensitive, submissive, or self-deceptive? (Issue 1 of Occasional research paper). Athens: Panteios University of Social and Political Sciences.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenau, J. N. (2002). Information technologies and the skills, networks and structures that sustain world affairs. In J. N. Rosenau & J. P. Singh (Eds.), Information technologies and global politics: The changing scope of power and governance. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rosenau, J. N. (2008). People count! Networked individuals in global politics. Boulder/London: Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Shani, G. (2012). Empowering the disposable? Biopolitics, race and human development. Development Dialogue, 58(Apr), 99–111.Google Scholar
  30. Tandon, N. (2007). Biopolitics, climate change and water security: Impact, vulnerability and adaptation issues for women. Agenda, 73, 4–20.Google Scholar
  31. United Nations. (2004). Living with risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. New York: UN Publications.Google Scholar
  32. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2004). Exploring the links: Human well-being, poverty and ecosystem services. Nairobi: UN Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Walker, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience: From systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, 42, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LaplandLaplandFinland

Personalised recommendations