Role of social capital in post disaster recovery has been building up a broader field of disaster research. It has created a new dimension to the field of disaster research. At present, disaster recovery is the burst issue across the world. Social bonding and bridging is very effective and expeditious way in post disaster recovery because this relation contribute a lot to resilience phases. Sociologists have researched on role of social capital who recognized that people prefer to use relatives, friends, neighbors and network connection for support during crisis.
2.1 Social Capital
Social capital refers to trust, norms, relationship which affect social and economic activities (Delpierre et al., 2016). Supporters of this new concept believe that the level of trust, norms and networks (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015; Ambrus et al., 2014) of social capital contributes efficiently to social and economic performance positively and negatively. Obviously, the term ‘social capital’ that is at present popular in the field of social sciences of international development which plays a significant role in accelerating further discussion (Demirgüç-Kunt et al., 2013). It is interesting to study the forms of trust and network and norms in formulation of social capital. Some recent scholars have revealed the contribution of social contribution in both inside and outside the family for better outcomes (Di Falco and Bulte, 2013; Hwang and Bowles, 2012; Alger and Weibul, 2010). It was also showed that the closure of social networks (vertical hierarchical bond between parents and horizontal ties among the parents of those children) is crucial for greater affect (Clay et al., 2016; Abedin and Shaw, 2015; Hossain and Hossain, 2015; Di Falco and Bulte, 2013; Alger and Weibul, 2010; Boxman et al., 1991)
Social capital refers the intangible fact holding by the people in a society (Ahsan, 2014; Alger and Weibul, 2010). It implies that social relationship and interaction among social members these network relationships are all crucial types of “capital”, which bring benefits both for individuals and for the community of society (Ahamed, 2013). Social capital is normally constituted of three factors: trust, norms and networks (Harada, 2012) .Informal networks of kinship are the effective substitute for the poorly performing institutions in developing countries (Alger and Weibul, 2010). There are plenty of evidence and documentation of the bene?ts of such networks (Foster and Rosenzweig, 2001; Grimard, 1997). There are ample of literatures, those have shown the informal insurance but not effective in community level (Hwang and Bowles, 2012; Martinuzzi and Sedla?ko, 2002; Townsend, 1994; Udry, 1994; Deaton, 1992) found that household consumptions are not much influenced by income, unemployment, idiosyncratic shock but controlled by the village level consumption. He identified that the most vulnerable are less insured than their neighbors are. Udry (1994) attested the risk pooling among the households in northern Nigeria and founded that repayment depend on the realization by both lenders and borrowers but efficient risk polling is not achieved.
Alger and Weibul (2010) disaster researchers had already found the role of social networks and social capital in disaster recovery. Drabek et al. (1975) argues that social network and social associations are the basic social units that respond in a disaster. Dynes (2005) holds that the disaster lessen all types of bonding and bridging including economic, human and social ones. Social capital is least damaged comparing to other physical capital. So, the social capital and social networks may be the most valuable resource in post disaster recovery. Thus, (Angelucci et al., 2012; Botzen and van den Bergh, 2009; De Weerdt and Dercon, 2006) resources are necessary to reduce neighborhood disadvantage are vast and part of a long-term effects. Kinship and social network play a dominant role in developing countries (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015). Social networks build up trust and altruism among the members of network (Alger and Weibul, 2010; Dynes, 2005; Drabek et al., 1975;). These network channels help to allocate informal finance through risk sharing (Angelucci et al., 2012; Martinuzzi and Sedla?ko, 2002) channels affect financial access (Banerjee and Munshi, 2004).
Scholars highlighted the key role of community’s social and structural resources association with disaster resilience. Communities with high level of social capital, access to socio-economic resources are significantly greater in the post-disaster (Norris et al., 2008). In social network analysis, the structure of the society is exactly this network-like structure (Norris et al., 2008; Banerjee and Munshi, 2004). Informal institutions are considered ine?ective against covariate shocks, such as natural disasters (Sarwar, 2005). Although extant works on risk sharing against natural disasters are relatively scarce, recent empirical studies provide evidence for such arrangements against household-level disaster shocks (Sawada and Shimizutani, 2011).
2.2 Social Capital and Recovery
Disaster recovery is an essential phase in the emergency management process of community management (Sawada and Shimizutani, 2011; Norris et al., 2008; Woolcock, 2001). One of the most desire after a disaster is to repairing house, rehabilitation and restoration and recover damaged assets (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015). Ambrus et al. (2014) and Woolcock (2001) defined disaster recovery is the process of rebuilding, reshaping and restoring the physical and environment through planning and prevent actions. According to (Rotberg, 2010; Sarwar, 2005; Townsend, 1994) disaster recovery are activities of government, NGOs to deal with impact of disaster.
Very earlier literature focused on risk sharing within informal networks such as friends, relatives in lieu of community level. Delpierre et al. (2016) tested the risk sharing at the village level in developing countries. They showed households cope with health shocks in Tanzania, but not rejected full risk sharing for food consumption and evidence of insurance for non-food consumption. De Weerdt and Dercon (2006) showed whether risk sharing in ethnic group is efficient or not. They found financial risk sharing through informal network was present in the group, but the extent of it was very low. On the other hand, non-financial aid in the group was strong. According to the paper, most of the victim were wisely sufferer so they had little amount of resources to help their friends and relatives.
Fafchamps (1999) found that risk sharing is conducted on informal networks of friends and relatives. They found that households share risk against shocks within informal network. They wanted to know the financial risk sharing in informal network instead of household and village level. According to Barr and Genicot (2008) informal risk sharing is self-enforced, thus takes place with closely related friends, co-member in an organization. A theoretical model by Fafchamps (1999) shows risk sharing by gift giving while quasi credit remove the barriers of gift giving. Ambrus et al. (2014) examine the structure of risk sharing network and degree of insurance is characterized by network which is the number of connections that group have.
A growing literature has given experimental evidence on the formation of risk sharing networks. Fafchamps and Gubert (2007) studied risk sharing network formation in Philippines villagers and find the determinants of insurance link. In network members there is diversification of occupation and income. Foster and Rosenzweig (2001) examine the role of altruism in determine the degree of insurance in informal risk sharing. Their result shows imperfect commitment in risk sharing and reduce altruism among the households. Angelucci et al. (2012) focus on the risk sharing groups in network and examine who commits to risk sharing in different mechanisms. They find people who are in same religion and cross marriage form groups share risk. They also find the people in same organization are likely to share risk when social sanctions are possible.
The paper attempts to examine the risk sharing behavior of household in southern coastal area of Bangladesh following a severe natural disaster, specially its long run effect minimization through household different risk coping strategies with social network (Angelucci et al., 2012; Baird, 2010; Barr and Genicot, 2008). The paper closely follow the relationship between household income, damage assets value, investment and formal/informal resource sharing (Angelucci et al., 2012). The households are insured by the informal resource sharing networks to recover from natural disaster in the long term. The risk sharing behavior of households in affected villages in Bangladesh following a community wide natural disaster, particularly its long –run effect on household’s investment and income (Islam and Nguyen, 2014).
Natural disasters are distinctive events occur in a specific time and place and characterized by physical damages and losses with serious disruptions in normal functioning (Kreps, 1984). Each year different disaster hit extremely and massacre the everyday normal livelihood in coastal areas of Bangladesh. These are geographically clustered but they mostly affect socio-economic resources. People cannot recover their losses at the disaster time or even in several years later; they cannot come back to their previous condition (Abedin and Shaw, 2015; Aldrich and Meyer, 2015; Ambrus et al., 2014; Angelucci et al., 2012; Alger and Weibul, 2010). At the same time, It limits access to credit markets; thus, any impact of shocks exacerbated and sustain in long run (Islam and Nguyen, 2014). To minimized their destitute situation and recover to normal life poor household are forced in different risk overcoming strategies such as selling of assets, diversification of family members, NGOs assists, credit from relatives and neighbors (Deaton, 1997; Morduch, 1990).
Some Economists have been able to build up great amounts of knowledge about risk sharing with constant relative risk aversion utility function and incorporate to it with household who like to share risk. These studies have been extended to the financial market in less developing countries (Rotberg, 2010). However, informal lending among the most people that are left out the formal credit networks (Ahsan, 2014). According to, Demirgüç-Kunt et al., (2013), around 50 percent of the world’s population rely on the informal network source of financing and excluded the formal lending channels of financing.
2.3 Bonding and Bridging Network
In coastal villages, short-term recovery lasts up to a few month and long-term recovery lasts up to a several years (Islam and Walkerden, 2014). Baird (2010) in his study distinguished between short run and long run recovery. He showed in short-term households require immediate rescue, reducing health shock, food support, shelter and emergency medical assistance and restoring other services, establishing communication routes etc. But in long-term it is badly in need repairing house, restoring damaged assets. Bonding and bridging network contributes in these recovery phases. Networks are an embodiment of social network (Islam and Walkerden, 2014). Network can form in many ways but relationship with relatives, friends, and neighbors are tighter in many aspect of disaster recovery (Ambrus et al., 2014; Banerjee and Munshi, 2004). Households are related to others households, friends, relatives, neighbors and other kinds of organization (e.g. NGOs and local government) are all important in disaster recovery and resilience. Baird (2010); Islam and Walkerden (2014) and Woolcock (2001)) showed bonding network never break down rather the relatives living in safer zone continuously help their destitute relatives. .Social networks are differentiated on the types of relationships people have with each other bonding and bridging (Woolcock, 2001). Bonding relationship are particularly close relationship with relatives. It includes relationship with family members and close relationship with neighbors and friends (Scott and Liew, 2012). Bridging relationship is the relationship with NGOs and local government.
Neighbors and friends provide most support in early recovery phase (Islam and Walkerden, 2014). Neighbors has limited capacity to help with long term for their poverty (Delpierre et al., 2016; Islam and Walkerden, 2014; Angelucci et al., 2012) showed that involvement in different organization and NGOs have a benefit for getting loan and other assistance.
2.4 Role of Social Capital
The role of social capital in post disaster recovery two previous devastating disaster show how social capital influenced the coastal people after disaster. Nakagawa and Shaw (2004) experimented two different area of Kobe and Gujrat in India of various social and cultural people in rural and urban area and showed the social process quite same in two region. They found communities play a significant role in every stage of disaster cycle. The households with high social capital were founded to be efficient in recover and relief. Although social bonding and bridging is crucial in recovery but it is not the sole factor determining expeditious and satisfying recovery. Community activity that are widely applicable without any geographic limitations. The current study shows that social capital that are closely linked to the contribution in post recover and reconstruction (Kelman, 2015; Barr and Genicot, 2008; De Weerdt and Dercon, 2006; Morduch, 1990; Drabek et al., 1975). There are more other factors that affect recovery, such as government intervention and NGOs which were quite different in Kobe and Gujarat.
This paper is to some extent coherent to the theoretical framework of most of the papers the dimension and objective is different which shows the relationship between informal network (Botzen and van den Bergh, 2009). Thus, the present strategy is applied by informal resource sharing to recover from long run effect from aila happened in coastal area of Bangladesh. Previous studies mostly have examined the health shock as well as income shock in the context of community level but little concentration on the quick repairing households and damaged assets through informal and inner network aspect.
It is growing important to informal and non-financial assistance of victim household during or after disaster over. Coastal communities motivate those at risk to better prepare for ?ooding (Poussin et al., 2014; Botzen and van den Bergh, 2009). A tropical cyclone may damage some parts of the region, but not all houses within villages (Alger and Weibul, 2010). In a situation where there are disaster victims and non-victims within villages, non-victims help victims’ rehabilitation by providing labor, repairing house, public available only in the reconstruction phase (a few years later). Informal financial risk sharing are another critically important factor in poor households (Demirgüç-Kunt et al., 2013; Di Falco and Bulte, 2013). Natural disasters may also adversely affect informal risk sharing (Aldrich and Meyer, 2015; Baird, 2010; Barr and Genicot, 2008; Banerjee and Munshi, 2004) because the people in affected zone have in common shock. But, social network a little bit works after disaster over few years later.
A few studies have been conducted on the issue of the social networking but they cannot combination the role social networking with recover at a stable condition. This study explore the society network with bonding and bridging to recover the post disaster sufferings scenario of the affected people in the cyclone affected regions.
2.5 Cyclone Aila
It is impossible to forget the days of shocking occurring on 25 May, 2009. The time and scenario embed in the mind of victims like a picture. It was most heart touching, shocking or even unforgettable. 25 May, 2009 cyclone aila hit most of the coastal areas of Bangladesh. As flooding, is the normal part of coastal people’s life. It visited once or twice in any form in Bangladesh. Cyclone aila was most devastating, severe and extreme form and lasted three year following the aila has over, particularly the shock still present. The duration of saline water intrusion in time of high tide, it washed way the valuable property, submerged the homestead and cultivable land that was full of harvested crops. According to (Islam and Nguyen, 2014) a few hundred people lost their lives and about a million became displaced due to continuous saline water intrusion during three year after happening cyclone in just Khulna and Shatkhira district that was worst.
Although reconstruction of embankment was running but the suffering of hopeless, homeless, workless people was known no bound. Thousands of survivor people of Uttar Bedkashi Union continuously suffer from the regular inlet comes from the rivers. Katmarcor, Katkata, Gazi Para, Gabbunia and Horihorpur villages experienced sufferings more in three years at a stretch. The water level was high that causes the destruction of embankment in many places that could not be recover in few years. In 2010 flooding has caused many villages submerged at that time the embankment protecting work was continuing. Hundreds of people became homeless; many of them took shelter in nearest buildings, schools, cyclone shelter and the higher ground outside. People somehow safe their lives but losses valuable resources, livestock, crops, green trees, houses overall infrastructure destroyed again. The embankment that were repaired or not reconstructed properly resulting the further flooding in 2010. Although natural disasters are the common phenomena is our country, particularly in coastal areas. Unlike other coastal areas Koyra Upazilla is well protected by largest delta Sundarbans. It covers the region like an armor but people cannot protect natural calamity rather minimize the intensity. Only nature can protect natural disaster that is the great advantage of this areas people. Bangladesh government with collaboration of non-government organization (NGOs) responded quickly to assist the affected people and recover the emergency and aggregate shock. The disaster management ministry committed to rebuilt infrastructure, create people’s employment opportunity. Local level government, NGOs, elite person of the locality come rapidly to expanse their helping hand in form of relief aid. But the overall miseries did not complete remove although differential help of government and NGOs. People still remember the days with various sign already exist in each households.