Post-disaster reconstruction and ethics: the power of social capital

1.1 PDR AND ETHICS

Ethics in PDR emphasise equity, justice and accountability. Corruption, weak building codes and poor transparency can transform natural hazards into ‘man-made’ crises (Cifuentes-Faura 2024; Sanderson et al. 2022). Ficara & Wheeler (2023) advocate for a human rights-based approach that frame disasters as injustices rather than misfortunes. Cajilig (2017) critiques top-down models that marginalise displaced communities, urging participatory, community-centred planning. Ubesingha et al. (2024) identify challenges to professional and ethical conduct in PDR that encompass intra-industry issues such as project complexity and skills gaps; and extra-industry pressures including weak governance and social structure.

Ethical challenges in PDR are exacerbated by corruption, organisational constraints (e.g. poor leadership, unclear organisational structures) (Bosher et al. 2009), poor coordination among actors with conflicting objectives (Olshansky et al. 2012), poor governance, politically motivated decision-making (Koria 2009) and resource scarcity (e.g. materials, labour and infrastructure) (Chang et al. 2011). Reconstruction often privileges those with pre-existing social capital, reinforcing inequality (Medwinter 2021), while top-down governance can exclude vulnerable groups participating in PDR (Johnson & Lizarralde 2012). Transparency and inclusive governance are therefore critical (Hawkins & Prado 2020), as effective PDR requires contextual sensitivity, collaborative governance and ethical accountability to ensure equitable recovery (Kim & Choi 2013).

1.2 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND ETHICS

Social capital benefits communities through collective action, economic development and knowledge-sharing (Woolcock 2001). However, its ‘dark side’ includes normative imposition (Ecclestone & Field 2003), reinforce inequality (Baycan & Öner 2023; Portes 1998) and create gendered barriers (Burt 1998).

Social capital comprises structural and cognitive dimensions. Structurally, bonding ties within homogeneous groups foster solidarity but risk insularity (Coleman 1990; Putnam 2001); bridging ties across diverse groups facilitate opportunity and innovation (Granovetter 1973; Lin 2004); and linking ties to institutions provide access to power, yet can reinforce hierarchies (Woolcock 2001). The shared norms and values reduce transaction costs and enable cooperation (Coleman 1990; Putnam 2001), but may also entrench dominant groups and marginalise others (Bourdieu 1986; Portes 1998).

Ethically, social capital has both enabling and constraining effects. Dense networks in non-profit organisations, which enforce reputation, ethical norms, trust and informal sanctions, reduce opportunism and promote moral conduct (Subedi et al. 2025). In high-pressure work environments, trust, shared values and safety build cognitive capital, fostering moral courage and happiness (Pirdelkhosh et al. 2022). The structural dimension of social capital supports crisis resilience by providing essential infrastructure for action. Cognitive dimension provides the motivation, trust and shared understanding needed to make this action effective and sustainable (Zhao et al. 2025). This holds true across contexts: during general crises, in rural collective action through network trust (Alipour et al. 2025) and in urban areas through trust and attention (Ghalambordezfooli & Hosseini 2019). Conversely, social capital can fuel cronyism and corruption. This occurs when political insiders exploit preferential access to resources, or when trust among insiders leads to the belief that personal connections supersede formal rules (Cao et al. 2016). It also arises from closed networks and geographical clustering, where norms of loyalty encourage in-group favouritism over fairness, fostering inequality and corruption (Bai et al. 2022).

1.3 SOCIAL CAPITAL: ETHICS IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND DISASTER CONTEXTS

Built-environment scholarship implicitly links social capital to ethics through themes of equity and justice in reconstruction, housing, and planning. Ethical concerns are evident in socially embedded corruption (Sanderson et al. 2022), inequitable urban access (Mullenbach et al. 2022) and unsafe labour conditions (Sunindijo & Kamardeen 2017). These issues highlight the need for trust-building and participatory governance (Kennedy et al. 2008).

The disaster literature reveals more explicit intersections between ethics and social capital. Mutual aid after Hurricane María (in Puerto Rico, 2017) temporarily transcended social divisions (Schrauf & Rodríguez 2024) and philanthropic models such as giving circles exemplify how shared ethics and pooled networks can democratise disaster response (Miller-Stevens & Taylor 2020). Superstorm Sandy (in the Caribbean and US coastal mid-Atlantic, 2012) exposed how pre-existing social capital reproduces inequality by channelling post-disaster resources to already advantaged, predominantly white communities, while excluding marginalised communities (Medwinter 2021).

Social capital can empower marginalised groups such as women (Nguyen 2019). However, linking social capital is vulnerable to elite capture, skewing disaster aid distribution and further disadvantaging vulnerable groups such as women, the elderly and remote households (Panday et al. 2021). Further, linking social networks between households and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can create aid dependency (Islam & Walkerden 2015), while ethical recovery depends on accountability, fairness and culturally appropriate practices (Nurdin 2024; Storr et al. 2025).

1.4 SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR ETHICS IN PDR

PDR is not merely a technical challenge but an ethical obligation to rebuild with justice, transparency and dignity (Ficara & Wheeler 2023). However, ethical PDR is often undermined by systemic failures such as corruption, political interference and inequality (Cifuentes-Faura 2024; Ubesingha et al. 2024). Social capital can promote ethical outcomes by fostering the accountability of public officials, construction industry actors and the broader governance system (Sanderson et al. 2022), equitable distribution of resources, rights and participation (Ficara & Wheeler 2023), and empowering communities by enabling everyday resilience, resourcefulness and solidarity (Cajilig 2017), while countering elite capture (Portes 1998) and entrenched disparities (Medwinter 2021).

Disaster scholarship has explored different social networks (Heffernan et al. 2025; Versaillot & Honda 2024) and exclusions from network benefits (Nguyen 2019). Social capital is implicated in collective action (Schrauf & Rodríguez 2024), justice (Islam & Walkerden 2015), Indigenous practices (Galarza-Villamar et al. 2024), power asymmetries (Storr et al. 2025) and temporal ethics (Miller-Stevens & Taylor 2020). Yet how social capital shapes the ethics of PDR remains unexplored.

The built-environment literature on social capital remains sparse. It is largely limited to neighbourhood development in urban environments (Lee et al. 2018), community facilities in housing developments (Kang 2025), equity in low-income neighbourhoods (Mullenbach et al. 2022), workplace dynamics (Li et al. 2018) and gender barriers (Sunindijo & Kamardeen 2017). In disaster contexts, Sanderson et al. (2022) stress the embeddedness of corruption, while Lizarralde et al. (2015) demonstrate how Cuba’s integrated planning enhances collective resilience. Though community participation in PDR is discussed (Davidson et al. 2007), it is seldom linked to social capital.

The present study addresses this gap by examining the intersection of ethics and social capital in the context of PDR.

2.1 CASE STUDY

The selection of case studies employed a two-phase selection process, following Yin (2018): first, stratifying potential cases by the World Bank’s 2022–23 country income level, disaster type and scale, and informant availability (World Bank 2024); and second, selecting five representative cases. This design enabled richer data collection than single case studies (Yin 2018). The marked differences in socio-economic conditions, formal and informal systems, and governance quality are summarised in Table 1. PDR implementation mechanisms vary across these contexts, ranging from centrally managed, state-funded reconstruction in high-capacity settings to fragmented, donor-driven projects in fragile states that rely on informal community systems.

2.2 DATA COLLECTION

Data collection followed established case study protocols (Yin 2018), including: semi-structured interviews conducted online in English (n = 33) using an interview guide (Creswell & Poth 2018) and pilot-testing in Mozambique to refine the procedures (Yin 2018). The interview guide was pilot-tested with three domain experts and five colleagues to enhance validity (Bryman 2016). Purposive sampling of built-environment professionals and humanitarian workers was combined with respondent-driven snowballing, where an incorporated tracking system mitigated snowball sampling bias (Saunders et al. 2019). Interviews explored how cognitive dimensions and social networks impacted ethical outcomes in PDR. Interviews continued until reaching data saturation, with each case yielding six to nine interviews (Table 2). The inclusion criteria targeted built-environment and humanitarian professionals engaged in PDR. The final sample (n = 33) comprised professionals with over five years of experience.

2.3 DATA ANALYSIS

Qualitative analysis followed a six-phase thematic analysis framework, as summarised in Table 3 (Braun & Clarke 2012).

Content analysis of key terms (e.g. ‘trust’, ‘corruption’) and three-step coding (levels 1–3) (Strauss 1987) were integrated within the thematic process. A final cross-case analysis (Yin 2018) identified patterns across contexts to strengthen generalisability.

The coding structures are shown in Table 4 (ethical challenges) and Table 5 (enhancing ethics).

3.1 ETHICAL CHALLENGE TO PDR POSED BY SOCIAL CAPITAL

Analysis of the five case studies revealed that social capital, while often considered a positive force, can also obstruct ethical reconstruction.

3.2 ENHANCING PDR ETHICS THROUGH SOCIAL CAPITAL

Despite these challenges, the analysis disclosed that social capital, when properly strengthened, can support ethical conduct. Six key themes emerged from the analysis.

4.1 LINKAGES-BASED CHALLENGES

This discussion interprets findings on exclusionary ‘boys’ clubs’ (Section 3.1.5), corrupt networks (Section 3.1.4) and aid-focused dependency (Section 3.1.3), revealing how bonding and bridging capital can be distorted to obstruct ethics. The network linkages within social capital impede ethical reconstruction, contradicting the notion that dense networks enhance recovery (Woolcock 2001). While bonding social capital (Coleman 1990) typically fosters cohesion, the findings reveal it can also create exclusionary networks. This supports the notion of the ‘dark side’ of social capital (Baycan & Öner 2023; Portes 1998), whereby tightly knit groups fabricate circumstances that promote aid dependency. A novel insight is the resistance to foreign professionals in underdeveloped contexts, where strong intragroup ties may obstruct external assistance and perpetuate exclusion, a dynamic unexplored in disaster scholarship (Carrasco et al. 2024). Tan-Mullins et al. (2021) also note that the emergence of new groups, previously non-existent before the crisis, can erode community trust due to shifts in social connections. Another novel finding is the public silence observed during investigations into possibly illegal activities in PDR, which further illustrates the shielding nature of bonded networks.

Additionally, the study identified the negative implications of bonding among professional groups, particularly ‘boys’ clubs’ that marginalised women, extending the work of Enarson & Meyreles (2004) into social capital theory. Bonding among male professionals (Burt 1998) fostered an unsafe, intimidating workplace culture for females, eroding trust among professionals and, in extreme cases, facilitating sexual and child abuse (Nguyen 2019). In post-disaster contexts, entrenched gender inequalities amplify the risk of abuses of power, including sexual exploitation, as evidenced in studies of post-earthquake Nepal (Tearne et al. 2021) and broader disaster contexts (Nguyen 2019). These dynamics undermined the ethical fabric of PDR and inflicted secondary trauma upon professionals, harming work culture and effectiveness.

The study also found that professional networks exploited bridging capital (Granovetter 1973) for unethical purposes forming alliances disguised as friendships to enable corruption, and misconduct. This extends structural holes theory (Burt 2007) by demonstrating that bridging ties can be instrumentalised to facilitate corruption, rather than ethical collaboration, in PDR.

Similarly, linking networks between politicians and community members compromised PDR ethics. This supports Panday et al. (2021), who observed that marginalised groups with low social capital had less access to aid than those with political connections. Communities often expected politicians to manipulate beneficiary lists in their favour, illustrating how social capital can be mobilised for unequal advantage (Lin 2004). Certain groups leveraged their political connections to claim unfair benefits, positioning themselves as ‘elites’, reinforcing cronyism (Cao et al. 2016). This undermined ethical aid distribution and placed professionals in ethically compromised positions, forcing them to respond to frequently revised beneficiary lists, often aware that new additions were not genuine victims.

4.2 COGNITIVE DIMENSION-BASED CHALLENGES

Cognitive challenges including profound distrust (Section 3.1.1), normalised corruption (Section 3.1.4) and resistance to innovation (Section 3.1.6) demonstrate how eroded shared norms and values undermine ethical foundations. Values, norms and trust, as cognitive dimensions of social capital, further complicated ethical reconstruction. The normalisation of socially embedded corruption, misconduct and abuse in PDR (Sanderson et al. 2022) led communities to withhold support for investigations. This normalisation of corruption supports the critique of social capital (Portes 1998) and reflects the broader societal distrust towards authorities, affirming that distrust undermines collective action (Putnam 2001). This aligns with the view that social capital outcomes are shaped by pre-existing societal norms (Aldrich & Meyer 2015). This is exacerbated in resource-scarce settings, where corruption becomes a rationalised survival strategy.

Moreover, pre-existing limited education and skills training left many without basic construction knowledge, hindering meaningful engagement in PDR. This aligns with Panday et al. (2021) who noted that pre-existing socio-cultural inequalities (e.g. gender, remoteness) undermine the community social capital disaster resilience. Social capital thus reproduced rather than mitigated these inequalities (Medwinter 2021), which resulted in substandard self-built housing and the acceptance of poor-quality building materials, often promoted by corrupt authorities. These issues were compounded by a dependency mentality rooted in pre-existing poverty, a cognitive dimension of social capital that fostered passive aid acceptance overactive engagement.

Silence in the face of abuse also reflected deep-rooted trust issues, aligning with Finkelhor’s (2008) findings on disclosure barriers in unequal societies. This custom concealed crime-entrenched inequalities, normalised subpar construction and enabled the continued abuse of vulnerable individuals by professionals. Ultimately, these dynamics compromised both the ethics of PDR and the professional conduct of those involved.

4.3 LINKAGES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR ETHICAL PDR

Conversely, findings on collaborative dependency (Section 3.2.1), community oversight (Section 3.2.6) and skills training (Section 3.2.4) illustrate how bridging and linking capital can enable ethical practice. This study advances social capital theory by illustrating how different networks contribute to ethical PDR, extending disaster scholarship (Shirleyana et al. 2023) into the PDR context. Bonding social capital, often associated with strong ties within homogeneous groups (Putnam 2001), can reduce the overreliance on external aid and foster self-reliance (Hsueh 2019). This research builds on that notion by demonstrating that, when paired with capacity-building (e.g. community training), bonding capital strengthens social cohesion and embeds ethics into reconstruction by empowering local actors and promoting collective ownership. This departs from critiques of bonding capital as insular (Portes 1998), revealing its potential for resilience through inclusive interventions, consistent with the literature on social capital in enabling community-based recovery (Shirleyana et al. 2023).

Bridging social capital, characterised by connections across diverse groups (Woolcock 2001), was also central to ethical PDR. Beyond facilitating access to new information and opportunities (Kim 2010), this study emphasises its affective and interpersonal dimensions: informal gestures (e.g. shared smiles, asking for a glass of water) fostered trust and empathy. These micro-level interactions humanise professional roles, countering top-down approaches and aligning reconstruction with community needs. Furthermore, initiatives such as training women in construction challenged structural inequalities, and broadening the inclusivity of bridging ties, an area where the literature remains comparatively underdeveloped (Aldrich & Meyer 2015).

Linking social capital, the vertical ties between communities and authorities (Woolcock 2001) were key to ethical governance in PDR. Beyond its recognised role in resource mobilisation and legitimacy (Woolcock 2001), this research uncovers its role in facilitating accountability and citizen oversight. The case of communities in Nepal used linking capital to reject politicised beneficiary lists, enabling public scrutiny that improved transparency and minimised governance failures. This extends Bai et al.’s (2022) argument in business studies and Gupta et al.’s (2018) view that social capital functions as an informal governance and monitoring mechanism against unethical behaviour into PDR. This reflects an important extension of the literature by demonstrating that linking capital, when exercised by informed and cohesive communities, can function as a safeguard for ethical practice, not merely a conduit for aid.

4.4 COGNITIVE DIMENSION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR ETHICAL PDR

Facilitators such as rebuilt trust (Section 3.2.2), community empowerment (Section 3.2.3) and empathetic engagement (Section 3.2.5) highlight how affirmative cognitive capital—shared trust, norms and empathy—becomes the bedrock of ethical PDR. Thereby, this study extends disaster scholarship (Susanto et al. 2023) to the PDR context. While prior work emphasises trust and shared values for cooperation (Versaillot & Honda 2024), this study foregrounds the role of emotional and psychological dimensions in shaping ethical outcomes. In disaster contexts, trust formation is often mediated through empathetic engagement (e.g. informal conversations, gestures of kindness). These seemingly minor affective exchanges build mutual respect, social reciprocity and a sense of shared purpose serving as vital ethical building blocks for PDR.

This research also expands community empowerment (Tohani & Wibawa 2019) by integrating psychological readiness through faith-based interventions (Nurdin 2024). Empowerment thus moves beyond technical knowledge to include emotional resilience and cognitive preparedness. While the literature often focuses on structural dimensions of empowerment (Woolcock 2001), this study argues that ethical PDR requires deep cognitive alignment between professionals and communities. Clearly communicating reconstruction plans or land-use changes in accessible, culturally sensitive terms enables meaningful participation of communities in decision-making while maintaining dignity, particularly when safety imperatives challenge traditional values.

Furthermore, this study highlights the transformative potential of empathetic professionals, particularly disaster survivors. Their lived experiences imbue work with ethical significance, complementing and transcending the rational-choice assumptions prevalent in trust and cooperation literature (Coleman 1990). In doing so, this study advocates for a more emotionally grounded model of cognitive social capital in PDR, where empathy becomes both a personal virtue and an embedded professional standard within reconstruction practices.

4.5 LIMITATIONS

While this study provides valuable insights into social capital and ethics in PDR, three limitations should be acknowledged. First, the focus on five country cases (Italy, Mozambique, Indonesia, Nepal and Sri Lanka) may affect transferability. However, the case study selection ensured maximum variation across economic development, disaster type and governance structures. This enhances the analytical generalisability of the findings. Second, findings are drawn exclusively from professional informants (e.g. engineers, project managers, NGO professionals). While this offers crucial institutional perspectives, the views of affected community members are not represented. Third, the researcher’s positionality as a female construction professional of South Asian origin and training may have shaped the interpretation of themes such as gender, power and colonial aid legacies, despite reflexive efforts to minimise bias.

4.6 VALIDITY, RELIABILITY AND EVALUATION

This study ensured research rigour through careful attention to validity and reliability. Validity was addressed by employing multiple verification strategies, including the use of logic models and analysis of rival explanations to strengthen internal validity (Yin 2018), while external validity was enhanced through the multi-case study design to support generalisability (Bryman 2016). Ecological validity was maintained by examining natural professional contexts in PDR settings (Bryman 2016). Reliability was safeguarded through strict adherence to case study protocols and the development of a comprehensive case study database (Yin 2018).

5.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study advances social capital theory by introducing it to the built-environment literature, framing it not as a monolithic good but as a dualistic force that can both enable and undermine ethical post-disaster reconstruction (PDR). First, it expands the cognitive dimension by introducing empathetic capital, forged through lived experience, as a core component of ethical practice, positioning relational labour as a vital ethical mechanism. Second, it reconceptualises linking capital, revealing its role as a community-led tool for downward accountability and scrutiny, not merely as a conduit for extracting resources. Finally, it interrogates the intersection of structural networks and power, demonstrating how bonding and bridging ties can actively entrench gender inequality and facilitate corruption, moving theory beyond neutral mapping to a critical engagement with power dynamics.

5.2 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This research has five key implications for both policy and practice in the built environment, particularly in PDR:

• Integrate social capital analysis into the project life-cycle

  Governments should commission a locally grounded social capital review in prefeasibility to map networks and risks, incorporating this knowledge into planning. Multidisciplinary tools such as the World Bank Social Capital Assessment Tool (SOCAT)¹ can be incorporated. A continual audit process should then assess how project stages interact with community structures to ensure adaptive, ethical management.

• Invest in community empowerment programmes

  Policy should support initiatives that build technical and psychosocial capacity, including trauma-informed training adapted to local customs and gender roles. Programmes must recognise power asymmetries to ensure marginalised voices can shape decisions, foster community resilience and enable active partnership from design to maintenance, moving beyond passive aid reception.

• Establish institutional accountability mechanisms

  Governments should create formal channels for transparent communication and grievance redress. In resource-poor contexts, these channels must be simple and accessible. This strengthens linking capital and enables public oversight from planning to post-occupancy monitoring, helping mitigate corruption and ensure institutional accountability to communities.

• Reform professional cultures with policy levers

  Professional bodies should enforce ethical codes that dismantle exclusionary networks and address power disparities, promoting gender-balanced teams and independent whistleblowing channels to ensure safe, inclusive practice across all project phases.

• Mandate inclusive co-production

  Policy should require the formal inclusion of marginalised groups in governance structures, using methods that respect local values, literacy and resource limits. Moving beyond consultation to shared decision-making prevents elite capture and ensures equitable distribution of reconstruction benefits through strengthened linking capital.