日中地震災害対応におけるソーシャル・キャピタルの有効性の違いに関する研究

Large-scale disasters have occurred frequently in the 21st century, including the Great East Japan Earthquake (2011), the Kumamoto Earthquake (2016), major earthquakes in Sichuan, China (2008 and 2013), and the Canterbury Earthquake in New Zealand (2011). As such, reducing disaster risk and increasing resilience have become common challenges for all humankind. The concept of social capital gained the attention of disaster researchers and policymakers during the 1990s. This concept encompasses elements such as trust, cooperation, and networks. It includes three types of social capital: bonding (strong ties and trust within a community), bridging (ties between different communities, non-profit and others), and linking social capital (connections between communities and public institutions, such as governments). The extant literature typically finds that social capital, as a resource, can effectively increase the speed of community recovery and enhance community resilience in the face of disasters, such as by helping disaster victims receive assistance more quickly, disseminating information more effectively, and promoting cooperation. While an emerging consensus supports social capital’s important role in building disaster resilience, its role is not fixed and its effectiveness may vary across social settings. That is, social capital does not function in isolation; its role depends on the context in which it is embedded (Dasgupta 2003). From a country perspective, the amount, type, and role of social capital varies across different political and social structures. Thus, social capital is also closely related to the environment in which it is embedded and characterized as “inherently contextual” (Bernier et al. 2014; Yila et al. 2013; Cai 2016). After reviewing the literature on definitions and types of disaster resilience and social capital, this study considers post-disaster reconstruction cases in Japan and China to analyze the differences in the effectiveness of social capital for building disaster resilience under different political and social contexts. Specifically, the following section reviews the literature on the definitions and types of resilience and social capital, and role of social capital in building resilience. We then examine the “inherently contextual” nature of social capital. Section 3 compares the cases of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and 2008 Sichuan Earthquake in China to examine the differences in the effectiveness of social capital in disaster response between Japan and China. Finally, we analyze the impact of the differences in social systems between China and Japan on the differences in the effectiveness of social capital, and provide recommendations for disaster managers.