Risk of disaster exposure is often associated with prior conditions of economic deprivation, and it is held that risk would be less for an asset-rich household than an asset-poor one. Observational data may, however, contradict this expected pattern. The contradiction is resolved when we examine risk distribution through the lens of Weberian class distribution, and associate risk with peoples’ class situations. This paper draws upon the household survey data from Tanzania to illustrate this argument.
AbelT.Cockerham.W. C.1993. Lifestyle or lebensführung? Critical remarks on the mistranslation of Weber’s “class, status, party.” The Sociological Quarterly34 (3): 551–56.
2.
BenichouJ.GailM. H.1990. Variance calculations and confidence intervals for estimates of the attributable risk based on logistic models. Biometrics46 (3): 991–1003.
3.
BreenR.2005. Foundations of a neo-Weberian class analysis. In Approaches to Class Analysis, ed. WrightErik Olin, pp. 31–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
CohenG. A.1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics99 (4): 906–944.
5.
GoldthorpeJ. H. [1980]1987. Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
6.
KombeW. J.2005. Land use dynamics in peri-urban areas and their implications on the urban growth and form: The case of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Habitat International29 (1): 113–35.
7.
MercerC.2014. Middle class construction: Domestic architecture, aesthetics and anxieties in Tanzania. The Journal of Modern African Studies52 (2): 227–250.
8.
NPS (National Bureau of Statistics [Tanzania]). 2011. Tanzania National Panel Survey Report (NPS), Wave 2, 2010–2011. Dar es Salaam: NPS.
9.
NPS (National Bureau of Statistics [Tanzania]). 2013. Tanzania National Panel Survey Report (NPS), Wave 3, 2012–2013. Dar es Salaam: NPS.
10.
ScottJ.2002. Social class and stratification in late modernity. Acta Sociologica45 (1): 23–35.
11.
SenA.1980. Equality of what? In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, ed. McmurrinS., 195–220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
StephensN. M.HamedaniM. G.MarkusH. R.BergsiekerH. B.EloulL.2009. Why did they “choose” to stay? Perspectives of Hurricane Katrina observers and survivors. Psychological Science20 (7): 878–86.
13.
VincentK.2004. Creating an index of social vulnerability to climate change for Africa. Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. Working Paper, 56.
14.
WeberE. U.1998. Who’s afraid of a little risk? New evidence for general risk aversion. In Decision Science and Technology: Reflections and Contributions of Ward Edwards, eds. ShanteauJ.MellersB. A.Schum, pp. 53–64.and D.Norwell, MA:Kluwer Academic Press.
15.
WeberE. U.BlaisA. R.Betz.N. E.2002. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making15 (4): 263–90.
16.
WeberM. [1922] 1972. Wirtschaft Und Gesellschaft [Economy and Society]. Tübingen: Mohr.
17.
WeberM. [1922] 1978. Economy and Society. 2 Vols. Edited by RothG.WittichC.Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
WeberM.1946. Class and status. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, eds. GerthH. H.Wright MillsC. pp. 180–195New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
WisnerB.BlaikieP.CannonT.DavisI.2004. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. London: Routledge.
20.
ZhangJ.Yu.K. F.1998. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association280 (19): 1690–91.
