ArticlePDF Available


Resilience is turning out to be a resilient concept. First proposed way back in the 1970s in the context of ecosystem dynamics, it was then dissected and elaborated spawning terms such as malleability, elasticity, hysterisis, inertia, resistance, amplitude as ecologists struggled to make it into something measurable, usable, and distinct from its notoriously slippery predecessor stability .
Botteon, M. and C. Carraro (1998), ‘Strategies for environmental negotiations: issue
linkage with heterogenous countries’, in N. Hanley and H. Folmer, ed. Game
Theory and the Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Casson, M. (1991), The Economics of Business Culture: Game Theory, Transactions Costs
and Economic Performance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Coase, R. (1988), The Firm, the Market and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago
Common, M. and C. Perrings (1992), ‘Towards an ecological economics of sustain-
ability’, Ecological Economics, 6(1): 7–34.
Daly, H. (1990) ‘Towards some operational principles of sustainable development’,
Ecological Economics, 2: 1–7.
Dow, S. (1996), The Methodology of Macroeconomics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Holling, C.S. (1973), ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’, Annual Review
of Ecological Ecology and Systematics, 4: 1–24.
Keynes J.M. (1936), The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,
Basingstoke: MacMillan.
Kroeze-Gil, J. and H. Folmer (1998), ‘Linking environmental and non-environ-
mental problems in an international setting: The interconnected games
approach’, in N. Hanley and H. Folmer, ed. Game Theory and the Environment,
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Munro, A. (1997) ‘Economics and biological evolution’ Environmental and Resource
Economics, 9(4), 429–449.
Ulph, A. (1998), ‘Learning about global warming’, in N. Hanley and H. Folmer, ed.,
Game Theory and the Environment, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Williamson, O. and S. Winters (1991), The Nature of the Firm: Origins, Evolution and
Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Resilience, sustainability, and
Ecological Economics Unit, Institute for Social and Economic Change, P.O.
Nagarabhavi, Bangalore 560 072
Resilience is turning out to be a resilient concept. First proposed way
back in the 1970s in the context of ecosystem dynamics, it was then dis-
sected and elaborated—spawning terms such as malleability, elasticity,
Environment and Development Economics 249
Financial support from the MacArthur Foundation’s World Environment and
Resources Program is gratefully acknowledged.
hysterisis, inertia, resistance, amplitude—as ecologists struggled to make
it into something measurable, usable, and distinct from its notoriously
slippery predecessor ‘stability’. But in the post-Brundtland era, the focus
appeared to have shifted to the umbrella concepts of ‘sustainability’
(Brown et al., 1987; Lubchenco et al., 1991, Levin, 1993), ‘ecosystem health’
(Schaeffer et al., 1988; Costanza et al., 1992) or ‘ecosystem integrity’ (Regier,
1993; Angermeier and Karr, 1994). The article by Levin et al., however, is a
strong pitch for reviving the concept of resilience and even for applying it
in social contexts. Why has resilience been resuscitated? How can it be
operationalized? How does it relate to sustainability? And can either
resilience or sustainability be considered sufficient for environmental
Resilience, ‘the ability to recover from [presumably severe shocks or
stress]’ as the dictionary puts it, is a flag to draw attention to the need to
incorporate non-linearities in models of socio-ecological systems.
Superficially, it might seem surprising that it should take so much effort to
get us to recognize the importance of non-linearities. After all, we experi-
ence non-linearities and irreversibilities on a daily basis: plants die of too
much watering as well as too little, children falter with too little guidance
but rebel at too much. Non-linearities are well-recognized in traditional
philosophies and knowledge systems, be they those of Indian sages,
Amazonian hunters, dialectical Marxists or even nineteenth century
natural historians. Nevertheless, those branches of natural science
(agriculture, fisheries, forestry, even medicine) and of social science (essen-
tially economics) that most directly inform public policy today appear to
be oblivious of such phenomena, sticking to their linear mechanistic mind-
sets. That such approaches continue to hold sway in face of everyday
experience, traditional philosophy, and also recent developments in non-
linear systems theory speaks of their hegemony over the policy-making
process (Holling et al., 1995; Norgaard, 1987). Any attempt to break these
mindsets and hegemonies is therefore to be vigorously applauded.
Once we accept the basic thrust of the argument, however, we can
proceed in the traditional manner of science, viz., developing a clear tax-
onomy and hypotheses. How then should resilience be defined? Here, I
found Levin et al.’s treatment inadequate and had to take recourse to
Holling (1973), who states that resilience is the size of the stability domain
around stable time-invariant equilibria (point attractors) or stable oscilla-
tions (periodic attractors). From this definition, a number of points follow.
First, resilience should not be measured in terms of the distance of the
current state of the system from the edge of the stability domain, which is
a constantly changing parameter. This in turn implies that reductions in
the magnitude of the excursion away from equilibrium should not be termed
as increases in resilience. Second, reductions in the perturbing force or in the
deviation per unit perturbing force (the latter being the inverse of ‘robustness’
or ‘inertia’—Westman, 1986) should not be confused with increases in
resilience. They are complementary ways of ensuring the same end result
(viz., system stays within the stability domain) as increasing resilience
(increasing the size of the domain). Third, resilience must refer to a situ-
ation where the perturbation applied to the system is significant (to cause
250 Policy Forum
it to move far away from equilibrium) but temporary (a shock or a period
of stress—Westman, 1986), because a continuously applied perturbation
will eventually drive any system out of its stability domain, regardless of
the size of the domain.
In the absence of sufficient resilience, i.e., if the perturbation drives the
system out of a stability domain, the system may either collapse (when
there is no other stable equilibrium) or may enter another stability domain,
characterized by a different system structure, such as a reversed Gulf
Stream. Intuitively, this seems to be the situation in which one should use
the term adaptability: the ability of a system to keep some ‘ultimate’ desired
state variables (say net food production) at the desired level in the face of
domain shifts in ‘underlying’ ecosystems (say the agro-climatic system).
Again, one can talk about the time required to adapt, the extent of recovery
to the old level of the desired variable, etc. as different aspects of adapt-
ability. But it is clearly useful to distinguish adaptability from resilience.
For instance, an agricultural system may be resilient to (able to recover
from) occasional severe droughts, but it may not be able to adapt to a shift
to a significantly drier climatic regime.
Using the above framework, one can begin to evaluate various
hypotheses about the resilience of socio-ecological systems tossed out by
Levin et al., and propose a few others. First, if the perturbation is anthro-
pogenic (such as net CO2emissions) and clearly of significant magnitude,
then, regardless of the exact nature of the system and one’s distance from
equilibrium or the edge of the stability domain, reducing the perturbing
force (stopping the burning of fossil fuels) is clearly one (and probably the
best) means of reducing the chances of a disastrous domain shift (say in the
climate system), even though this does not really constitute an increase in
system resilience. And a careful distinction between resilience and adapt-
ability would, for instance, prevent the climate change debate being
hijacked by the adaptationists.
Second, a key result of resilience research (mentioned in passing by
Levin et al.) is that one should attempt to work with natural variations.
Small perturbations should be utilized to build resilience rather than be
suppressed in order to reduce variability of the state variable. For instance,
it is better to leave mild illnesses untreated so as to build immunity rather
than ingest antibiotics at the mildest sneeze. It follows that Levin et al.’s
general statement that ‘effective feedback is necessary for resilience’ needs
to be qualified, because taking medicines at the mildest sneeze is in fact a
sign of a system with a very effective negative feedback! Normal negative
feedbacks reduce short-term variability, what resilience needs is a non-
linear negative feedback: nil at low values of deviation and high at values
close to the edge of the stability domain.
Third, competition—and the positive feedback it provides—may lead to
greater efficiency, but it is not necessary for resilience: most traditional
resource management systems, now seen as being resilient and ecologi-
cally well-adapted (Berkes et al., 1994), have evolved in non-competitive
communitarian settings. Fourth, the link between risk-spreading and
resilience is complex. If risk is adaptively internalized, by say a person
developing multiple skills, the results are different than if it is externalized,
Environment and Development Economics 251
by the person continuing to specialize but hooking up with a much larger
system: the regional or national job market. The latter approach increases
the connectance of the overall system. It has been shown in a number of
cases, ranging from food webs (May, 1973; Siljak, 1978, who worked on
‘connective stability’) to trade networks (Siljak, 1978), electrical systems
(Fink, 1991), and (qualitatively) even stock markets (Rochlin, 1991), that
indiscriminately increasing connectance may increase efficiency and even
asymptotic stability, but it reduces resilience to structural perturbations in
the system. Furthermore, ‘dynamical systems composed of interconnected
subsystems are stable [with respect to disruptions in connectance] if
the subsystems are self-contained and the interdependence between the
subsystems is properly limited’ (Siljak, 1978, p. 2): something for us to
ponder over in this era of indiscriminate globalization, free trade, and
Fifth, resilience may in fact require some ‘slack capacity’ (Rochlin, 1997)
that is relatively ‘unplugged’ from the larger system (such as a stash of
gold jewellery at home as against simply a diversification of one’s stock-
market investment portfolios), so that this capacity is unaffected by shocks
in the larger system. ‘Exploiting all opportunities for mutual gain’ (Levin
et al.) may in fact reduce resilience by leaving no such ‘slack’. On the other
hand, adaptability may require a different kind of slack: a store of as yet
unexplored, unvalued resources (such as biodiversity), and of course the
ability to learn.
Clearly, since resilience and adaptability are defined with respect to a
stability domain, the notions of equilibrium and stability continue to be
relevant even after incorporating non-linearity. In general, for a system to
be able to persist (in some desired form or with some desired properties)
over time, i.e., to sustain, requires that it be at or around some equilibrium,
have some stability in the face of small (‘normal’) perturbations, some
resilience in the face of large (‘abnormal’) perturbations, and some adapt-
ability to domain shifts. Thus, rather than stretch and pull the concept of
resilience (sometimes beyond all recognition) or cast the debate in terms of
short-term stability versus long-term resilience, it would be more appro-
priate to think of these properties as different attributes of sustainability—a
concept general enough to serve in most discourses as one of society’s
meta-objectives (Lélé, 1988, 1993).
Particular situations would require more emphasis on particular attri-
butes: systems characterized by high degrees of environmental variability
(such as semi-arid regions or turbulent business conditions) must give
primacy to resilience (hence the domination of r-selected grasses or small,
loosely structured, opportunistic firms), while those characterized by low
environmental variability (such as moist tropical regions or stable
economies) permit the neglect of resilience (hence the domination of k-
selected trees and complex rain forests or large, complex firms). Each
specialization comes at the cost of some other qualities, and has an associ-
ated productivity gain under certain conditions. Research may no doubt
have hitherto focussed disproportionately on stable ecosystems. But to
insist that resilience is somehow more ‘fundamental’ would be akin to
insisting that k-selected species are unfit to survive.
252 Policy Forum
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that the critique of conventional socio-
environmental science is much broader than just the problem of not
incorporating non-linearities. From a scientific perspective, the study of
complex socio-ecological systems also suffers from the problem of reduc-
tionism—the tendency to look at tree growth only as a function of age
rather than thinking of succession, disease and pollination in modelling
forest stands (Holling et al., 1995)—and the lack of methodological plu-
ralism (Norgaard, 1989).
From a social perspective, conventional, primarily Western, environ-
mental science is also characterized by narrow value systems. Both
resilience as a goal in itself and sustainability as an overarching goal essen-
tially pertain to the temporal dimension of human well-being. There is,
however, also a simultaneously or primarily spatial dimension to many
environmental problems, where current actions of one group affect the
current well-being of another group. Typically, these spatial externalities
(and the political power of the involved actors) are asymmetrical, if not
entirely unidirectional. Unless one takes a clear position that in addition to
our concern for the future, intra-generational justice is also a fundamental
value, these environmental problems will get short shrift. For instance,
when upstream factories pollute rivers that are the primary source of
drinking water for downstream communities, the argument that the pol-
lution is reducing ‘long-term river ecosystem resilience’ or ‘water use
sustainability’ will not cut much ice with the factory owners: one has to
invoke the notion of intra-generational justice. Similarly, a concern for the
climate we may pass on to our future generations will not in itself prevent
unfair arm-twisting by the North. The North would prefer to increase the
resilience of the global climate system by buying up forest lands and
emission rights from the South at historically biased exchange rates, rather
than reduce its own level of fossil fuel consumption. The lessons from the
history of environmental policy are unambiguous: no amount of ‘trust’,
‘clever institutional design’ (a la the already faltering Montreal Protocol),
or ‘epistemic consensus’ (a la the IPCC: but see Jasanoff, 1992) can com-
pensate for major asymmetries in the interests and powers of the different
actors. And no amount of concern for long-term resilience of the human
ecosystem can by itself ensure a fair environmentalism or a just develop-
ment. Levin et al. do not claim that it does, but in a world of limited
attention spans and paltry environmental budgets, we must ensure that
resilience does not knock more pressing but politically inconvenient
matters off the agenda.
Angermeier, P.L. and J.R. Karr (1994), ‘Biological integrity versus biological diver-
sity as policy directives’, BioScience, 44(10): 690–697.
Berkes F., C. Folke, and M. Gadgil (1994), ‘Traditional ecological knowledge: biodi-
versity, resilience and sustainability’, in C.A. Perrings, K.-G. Maler, C. Folke, C.S.
Holling and B.-O. Jansson, eds., Biodiversity Conservation, Stockholm: Kluwer
Academic, pp. 281–300.
Brown, B.J., M. Hanson, D. Liverman, and R. Merideth Jr. (1987), ‘Global sustain-
ability: toward definition’, Environmental Management, 11(6): 713–719.
Environment and Development Economics 253
Costanza, R., B.G. Norton and B.D. Haskell (1992), Ecosystem health: new goals for
environmental management, Washington DC: Island Press.
Fink, L.H. (1991), ‘Introductory overview of voltage problems’, in L.H. Fink, ed.,
proceedings of Bulk Power System Voltage Phenomena II: Voltage Stability and
Security held at Deep Creek Lake, Maryland, USA, ECC, Inc.
Holling, C.S. (1973), ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’, Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics, 4: 1–23.
Holling, C.S., F. Berkes, and C. Folke (1995), ‘Science, sustainability and resource
management’, Beijer Discussion Paper Series no. 68, Beijer International Institute
of Ecological Economics, Stockholm.
Jasanoff, S. (1992), ‘Pluralism and convergence in international science policy’, in
Science and Sustainability: Selected Papers on IIASA’S 20th Anniversary, Laxenburg,
Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, pp. 157–180.
Lélé, S. (1988), ‘The concept of sustainability’, in A.T. Charles and G.N. White III,
eds., Natural Resources Modelling and Analysis: Proceedings of an Inter-
disciplinary Conference held at St. Mary’s University and the Bedford Institute of
Oceanography between 29 Sept.–2 Oct. 1988, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
Centre for Resource Systems Analysis, pp. 46–48.
Lélé, S. (1993), ‘Sustainability: a plural, multi-dimensional approach’, Working
Paper, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security,
Oakland, USA.
Levin, S. (1993), ‘Forum: Science and sustainability’, Ecological Applications, 3(4):
Lubchenco, J., A.M. Olson, and L. Brubaker, et al. (1991), ‘The sustainable biosphere
initiative: an ecological research agenda’, Ecology, 72(2): 371–412.
May, R.M. (1973), Stability and Complexity in Model Ecosystems, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Norgaard, R.B. (1987), ‘Economics as mechanics and the demise of biological diver-
sity’, Ecological Modelling, 38: 107–121.
Norgaard, R.B. (1989), ‘The case for methodological pluralism’, Ecological Economics,
1(1): 37–57.
Regier, H.A. (1993), ‘The notion of natural and cultural integrity’, in S. Woodley, J.
Kay, and G. Francis, eds., Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems,
Delray Beach, Florida: St.Lucie Press.
Rochlin, G.I. (1991), ‘Jacking into the market: Trans-national technologies and
global securities trading’, paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on
Large-Scale Systems, Sydney, Australia.
Rochlin, G.I. (1997), Trapped in the Net: The Unanticipated Consequences of
Computerization, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schaeffer, D.J., E.E. Herricks, and H.W. Kerster (1988), ‘Ecosystem health: I.
Measuring ecosystem health’, Environmental Management, 12: 445–455.
Siljak, D.D. (1978), Large-Scale Dynamic Systems: Stability and Structure, New York:
Westman, W.E. (1986), ‘Resilience: concepts and measures’, in B. Dell, A.J.M.
Hopkins, and B.B. Lamont, eds., Resilience in Mediterrenean-type Ecosystems,
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Dr. W. Junk, pp. 5–19.
254 Policy Forum
... Astfel, sustenabilitatea este considerată de numeroşi autori ca fiind termenul mai larg care subsumează, printre altele şi rezilienţa, care devine astfel un indicator, un subset sau un atribut al sustenabilităţii (Pearce et al.,1996;Lélé, 1998;López-Ridauira et al., 2002;Bastianoni et al., 2004;Tainter, 2006;Stirling, 2008;Mortimer, 2010;Colucci, 2012;Moore, 2013). Sunt, de asemenea, şi alte abordări, cel puţin la fel de numeroase, care consideră că rezilienţa este termenul mai larg şi mai cuprinzător şi devine o precondiţie/un concept cheie pentru sustenabilitate (Holling, 1973;Wildavsky, 1988;Holling, 2004;Fiksel, 2006;Lebel et al., 2006;Walker și Salt, 2006;Callaghan şi Colton, 2008;Adger, 2000;Novotny et al., 2010;Ahern, 2011;Pierce et al., 2011;Christmann et al., 2012;MacKinnon şi Derickson, 2012;Crowe şi Foley, 2013) (Tabelul 1). ...
... Resilience has its origins in ecosystem theory and can be defined as 'the persistence of relationships within a system and the ability of this system to absorb changes, and still persist' . Since its origins in ecology, many different definitions of resilience have been developed for different fields (Adger, 2000;Perrings et al., 1995;López-Ridaura et al., 2005;Zhou et al., 2009;Pimm, 1984;Lele, 1998). ...
Full-text available
Conference Paper
Almost 2 424 (or 1,4%) of the 176,654 digitally published theses and dissertations from South African institutions of higher learning contain “human settlement(s)” or “housing” as catalogue keywords. This paper presents a landscape study of such theses and dissertations completed since the dawn of democracy in South Africa. The goal was to identify gaps in research – both topically and geographically – to guide future research direction in the field of human settlements’ curriculum enhancement and system-wide capacity building. The objective was to locate the originating institutions and the geographic study regions, document the nature and range of study topics by thematic category and to visualise changes in these factors over time. A purposively selected sample was studied to identify the broad need which the dissertations seek to address, and mapped to research designs and research methods. The research design consisted of a systematic desktop review. Method: Data on South African theses and dissertations were obtained from the National Electronic Theses and Dissertations (NETD) portal and sorted by keywords and publication date. Quantitative data analysis was performed on a representative sample of dissertations and theses. Originating institutions and (where obtainable/applicable) study regions were geographically mapped. The study revealed areas of research focus mapped according to topic and region. Findings from this paper provide the groundwork for further investigation into research gaps and needs as identified from practitioners’ perspectives, to establish alignment.
... In the age of the Anthropocene, when humanity is recognized as a global geological force, resilience offers a conceptual framework that seeks to sustain the vital ecoservices that make social life possible (Grove & Chandler, 2016). One important task in relation to social systems is the conceptualizing of resilience for complex, nonlinear, and evolving systems (Lélé, 1998). Adger defines social resilience as "the ability of communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure" (2000:361). ...
Full-text available
The Covid-19 pandemic has had multiple effects on social systems as yet another crisis, alongside climate change and biodiversity loss, that stems from the complex interaction between human and natural systems. In this regard, building resilience to ongoing and future crises has become a common reference point in both public and scholarly discourse. In the context of building resilience, the civil sector has an important social role to play in promoting the public interest and strengthening the role of citizens in democratic societies, thus enabling them to participate in society's development. The environmental movement, as one of the most successful social movements, combines issues of environmental protection with a concept of social justice and economic development, and thus with building the resilience of society as a whole. The research questions were: how has the Covid-19 pandemic affected environmental NGOs, and what strategies have they applied to cope with and adapt to the new situation? How do environmental activists describe the concepts of vulnerability and resilience within the NGO sector? What are their expectations of future trends in the field to which their activism refers? The results of this research point to the conclusion that resilience is defined in terms of an organization's adaptability, flexibility, inner social cohesion, and capacity to self-organize with an emphasis on networking. Intersecting crises that stem from the complex relationship between human and natural systems pose a challenge of finding an efficient frame for the problem within the movement and of re-establishing a corrective role in society.
... Agricultural resilience can be considered as a more recent concept if compared to agricultural sustainability (Lele, 1998). Initially appearing as a rather vague concept (Markusen, 1999) it has, nevertheless, been operationalized (Norris et al., 2008). ...
This study aims to investigate the relationship between sustainability and resilience concepts in agriculture. First, we discuss the theoretical preliminaries related to the definition of these two concepts. Indeed, the literature considers sustainability as a proxy for resilience and vice versa in the context of agriculture. Intuitively, one may expect that sustainability and resilience are positively correlated. Second, we challenge these insights by embarking on empirical analysis directed at the Northern European countries (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden) that are member states of the European Union. The criteria describing sustainability and economic resilience are identified for the empirical analysis. Third, the criteria decision making is applied to derive the composite indicators. The contemporaneous correlation between the composite indicators of sustainability and economic resilience is rather weak across the analyzed countries. However, the correlation increases in case the first-order differences of the composite indicators are considered. Therefore, economic resilience indicators cannot be replaced by sustainability-related ones and economic resilience should be taken as an additional facet of the economic sustainability when developing composite indicators. Share Link:
... Business resilience has become important in recent decades due to climate change and the search for competitiveness (Lew et al., 2016;Winnard et al., 2014;Mclellan et al., 2012;Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011;Lele, 1998;Ludwig, Walker & Holling, 1997). ...
Full-text available
The complex adaptive system has facilitated advances in artificial intelligence (Moon et al., 2011; Padilla, 2012; Chandrasekaran, 2013; Yagüe & Balmaseda; 2020); but it is also a metaphor to understand the way in which the network of companies responds to changes. In recent decades, the systemic approach has contributed to the advancement of knowledge in administrative, economic and organizational sciences (Mas, 2008; Jackson, 1994).
... Complexity theory and complex adaptive systems (CAS) are increasingly recognised as a useful framework in tourism research generally, and tourism and destination governance more specifically (Dredge, 2019;Farrell & Twining-Ward, 2004). Lélé (1998) argued that only complexity approaches can address the non-linearities apparent in policymaking on sustainability. CAS approaches imply a continuous interaction between stakeholders in formal institutions or informal networks, with these interactions affecting tourism development and the final outcome of policies. ...
Full-text available
Governance and complexity have increasingly become subjects of interest within research on sustainable tourism. Governance has been marked by a turn to more corporatist and networked policymaking structures. At the same time, the use of the concept of complexity in research on tourism destinations and governance is gaining momentum in an effort to address the links in increasingly networked systems as well as the interrelatedness of the multiple features of a tourist destination. Meanwhile, resilience has emerged as a new buzzword in research on sustainable development and governance which denotes the ability of a destination to cope with and adapt to change. This article reviews the literature on destination governance to identify critical issues and trends, and discusses the relevance of complexity approaches. Evolutionary studies and research on resilience in a sustainability context are becoming part of this discussion. The review sheds light on the limitations and merits of each of these concepts, as well as on their nexus. The article concludes with some key areas for future research on destination governance. The aim of the review is to contribute to conceptual clarity and to advance the application of complexity approaches in research on destination governance.
The discourse of the twenty first century is increasingly a discourse of crisis – global warming, climate change, environmental degradation, health pandemics, geopolitical instability, poverty, enforced migration and refugee movements, among others. Increasingly these ‘grand challenges’ pose complex environmental and social problems that present radical uncertainty regarding the consequences of current actions and encourage multiple conflicting evaluations. We argue in this paper that in response to this ‘new world’ of super-wicked problems and hyperobjects, there is a unique opportunity for entrepreneurship to take centre stage, given that the entrepreneurial context itself is extreme in terms of uncertainty, time pressures, cognitive load, emotional reactions, and social interactions. However, there is a danger that this opportunity may be compromised by ongoing debates over the status, coherence, identity and legitimacy of entrepreneurship as a discipline. Accordingly, we argue for more problem-oriented research in entrepreneurship, not as an additional focus of attention but as foundational to the nature of the discipline itself. This argument is based on a broader discussion of the nature of scientific disciplines as the increasingly specialised division of knowledge and challenges the drive to establish entrepreneurship as a theory-led scientific discipline in the traditional mode. Commitment to the social legitimation of disciplinary discourse advocating problem-oriented entrepreneurship avoids the danger that consensus in the discipline is established at the expense of intellectual development, practical relevance and real impact.
In today’s turbulent, complex, ever-growing, global system organizations face various challenges such as terrorist attacks, pandemic diseases, natural disasters, economic recession, human error, equipment failure, besides minor disruptions. These challenges pose severe threat to the operational continuity of organizations. This vulnerability brings resilience forward as an important issue since it is a necessary precondition for sustainability. Air transportation, which is one of the crucial components of this global system, has also widened its network while gaining more and more importance every day. Due to its scale and complexity, it has also become more vulnerable to disruptions caused by internal and external factors such as weather conditions, strikes, political reasons, aircraft mechanical problems, sickness of crew. These factors can break operational continuity of airlines—one of the main components of air transportation—by causing flight disruptions. A single flight disruption may trigger a snowball effect causing delays or even cancellations on several other flights legs. As today, most of the large airlines serve on a tight hub-and-spoke network, a single glitch in a hub can swiftly affect the whole schedule of an airline. Considering that the notable growth in air transportation has resulted in congested airports and airspace, serving on a large network with limited resources can easily contribute to the propagation of each disruption, costing airlines billions of dollars each year. Thus, effective disruption management is crucial for airlines, as it aims to predict the occurrence of disruptions and to find feasible plans, considering the costs, that allow the airline to recover from these disruptions and their associated delays. In the scope of disruption management, robust and dynamic operational research methodologies have gained popularity. However, due to high system complexity, disruption management is usually covered in different problems such as robust aircraft scheduling, robust crew scheduling, aircraft recovery, crew recovery, and passenger recovery problems. In this context, this chapter, first, briefly presents the concept of resilience and sustainability and introduces the airline operations and scheduling process. Afterwards, it provides detailed information on airline disruption management along with studies in the existing literature and methods used during the process.KeywordsSustainabilityResilienceAirline planning and schedulingAirline disruption managementAirline recovery problemRobust airline scheduling
Full-text available
Subject. The study investigates the impact of shocks on the economic dynamics during recurring crises. Nevertheless, the impact of exogenous shocks may turn to be minor for GDP of some countries, while they cause unfavorable consequences for the economic development of others. Objectives. I herein identify factors of resilience in the Russian economy, referring to three different crises that took place in 2000–2020, by conducting a theoretical overview of the concept Economic Resilience and resilience factors of economic systems against different shocks. Methods. The decomposition of macroeconomic indicators is the principal method of research. The resilience of the Russian economy and other advanced economies was assessed by macroeconomic indicators related to trends in GDP and the unemployment level. I point out two groups of factors – the innate and acquired (adaptability). Results. During the global financial crisis in 2008, the Russian economy demonstrated its innate factors, such as the availability of considerable reserves and capital mobility between the financial and industrial sectors, as well as adaptive factors as part of the national anti-crisis policy. During the period of sanctions, the resilience of the Russian economy stemmed from the enormous potential of the industrial sector and R&D, considerable reserves for production development, which underlay the import substitution policy. Finally, in the outbreak of the 2020 crisis, Russia managed to handle the crisis much better than the leading countries of the world, since there is a prevalence of State-owned large business and the domestic localization of value added chains. Conclusions and Relevance. The study substantiated the objectivity of resilience factors of the Russian economy during multiple crises, i.e. a combination of financial, commercial, political and pandemic crises.
Full-text available
As a region, Asia comprises communist China, democratic India and many small quasi-democratic and authoritarian states. Both China and India play a significant role in maintaining multilateral world order. Asia’s regional power remains with its enormous potential of resources for domestic markets and per capita purchasing power parity. Hence, the economic and the business aspects of the Asian region require comprehensive study. Sustainable operational excellence is a notion carried by an organisation’s sustainable economic development and other values. This study incorporates the multiple case study method. Twelve case organisations such as Tata Motors, Samsung, Nissan, Indigo, Mitsubishi, Huawei, Wilmar, Canon, NTPC, Hitachi, Singapore Airlines, and L&T were chosen to study their sustainability values, and operational and strategic strands. TISM (total interpretive structural modelling) method is used for model building; four variables such as operating activities, investing activities, financing activities, and SVE (Social value expenditures) are taken for empirical analysis. Based on the available secondary data, the study incorporated panel data regression analysis. The result shows that SVE positively and significantly explains operational activities that proxy with sustainable business practices. The study concludes with a Paux strategy framework for discussion and managerial implications.
Full-text available
Much of the world’s biodiversity has been in the hands of traditional peoples, societies of hunters and gatherers, herders, fishers, agriculturists, for great many generations. Most living resources of the earth have been utilised for a historically long time; exceptions are few (e.g., open-ocean and deep-sea species). As Gomez-Pompa and Kaus [1990] observed, even tropical forests of the ‘Amazon were not untouched environments but the result of the last cycle of abandonment’ by traditional users. The fact is that pre-scientific, traditional systems of management have been the main means by which societies have managed natural resources over millennia [Berkes and Farvar, 1989; Gadgil et al., 1993]. Biological diversity has persisted despite, and in some cases because of, these systems of management so that we have any biodiversity today to speak about.
Much of the world’s biodiversity has been in the hands of traditional peoples, societies of hunters and gatherers, herders, fishers, agriculturists, for a great many generations. Most living resources of the earth have been utilised for a historically long time; exceptions are few (e.g., open-ocean and deep-sea species). As Gomez-Pompa and Kaus [1990] observed, even tropical forests of the Amazon were not untouched environments but the result of the last ‘cycle of abandonment’ by traditional users. The fact is that pre-scientific, traditional systems of management have been the main means by which societies have managed natural resources for millennia [Berkes and Farvar, 1989; Gadgil et al., 1993]. In many cases, the main reason we have any biological diversity to speak about is because of these systems of management.