Why Care and Inclusion Are Central to Climate Adaptation

This blog post is based on an article published in the Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy by Christopher Taylor Brown.

As the planet experiences another year of unprecedented climate-related hazards, the discourse on climate change is evolving. We are moving beyond the focus on mitigation — how to prevent climate change — to the urgent necessity of adaptation — how to live with its consequences. While mitigation remains essential, we must now also address the immediate impacts of climate change.

Discussions of climate adaptation frequently emphasise technical and physical solutions such as higher seawalls, drought-resistant crops, improved drainage systems, and early warning sensors. These represent the hard infrastructures of resilience. However, as climate risks intensify, a critical question arises: Why are some societies, despite comparable levels of wealth or democracy, significantly better prepared to manage these risks than others?

My recent study, Social Inclusion, Welfare States, and Ecosocial Adaptation: A Global Analysis, suggests that differences in adaptive capacity are linked not only to physical infrastructure but also to the soft infrastructure of societies — welfare states and social inclusion regimes. Admittedly, some may argue that prioritising care and inclusion over technical solutions could divert resources from urgently needed physical interventions. This is a valid concern, as there is a risk that limited resources might be reallocated from projects delivering immediate protection — such as seawalls or emergency shelters — to broader social initiatives whose benefits are less directly observable in the short term.

However, while this concern underscores the importance of immediate, tangible adaptation measures, it fails to recognise that technical solutions alone may be insufficient when implemented within exclusionary or fragmented social systems. In contexts where care institutions are weak or exclusionary, even robust infrastructure may be less effective due to unequal access, a lack of trust, and diminished community engagement, ultimately undermining long-term resilience. The findings challenge the technocratic perspective by suggesting that care and inclusion are not secondary considerations but enabling prerequisites for climate resilience, as cohesion and access to resources enable societies to maximise the effectiveness of physical adaptation strategies.

The Adaptation Gap Is a Social Gap

A significant adaptation gap exists worldwide. Although the Paris Agreement mandates global adaptation efforts, resources necessary for survival are distributed unequally. Communities in the Global South face the highest risks with the least resources, a disparity exacerbated by colonial legacies and an inequitable global financial system.

Current policy debates, including those related to the UN’s Adaptation Gap Report, frequently emphasise the financial shortfall in climate aid — the billions pledged but not delivered by the Global North. While this financial gap is significant, this study highlights an equally critical institutional gap.

Through analysis of data from 173 countries over a 25-year period (1995–2020), the study found that a country’s adaptive capacity is associated with its social institutions. The results indicate that countries with more inclusive regimes tend to exhibit higher adaptation readiness and lower climate vulnerability, even after accounting for wealth, levels of democracy, and geographic location.

Ecosocial Adaptation: Welfare as Climate Adaptation

This study conceptualises climate resilience through the framework of ecosocial adaptation. This lens treats welfare states as a key component of the institutional infrastructure that can support climate adaptation, alongside more commonly emphasised technical and physical measures.

Analogous to how a bridge connects communities to markets, a robust social safety net links vulnerable populations to the resources necessary for climate risk recovery. When governments provide income security, healthcare access, and political representation for marginalised groups, they may strengthen conditions for climate readiness by improving access, recovery capacity, and participation.

The study compared various welfare regimes and found that adaptation outcomes differ across regime types. Social Democratic regimes, characterised by universalism and substantial public investment, scored highest on adaptation readiness. Notably, the data also revealed that Selective Rudimentary regimes, which may lack the wealth or expansiveness of their Northern counterparts but provide targeted protections, exhibited lower climate vulnerability than regimes that suppress welfare or lack structured support.

This finding is particularly significant for the Global South. It suggests that resilience does not necessarily require the wealth of OECD nations; rather, institutional choices are critical. Modest yet well-targeted welfare arrangements can buffer populations from climate risk. In contrast, nations that implement anti-welfare or exclusionary policies may undermine their own capacity to address the climate crisis.

Rethinking Climate Finance and Policy

What does this mean for policymakers and the international community?

First, this requires reconsidering the definition of adaptation finance. Historically, climate funds have prioritised tangible, technical projects. However, if social welfare and inclusion are linked to adaptation readiness, then investments in social protection systems — such as unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, and community-led governance — should be central to climate financing. International actors should regard the expansion of inclusive welfare states as a fundamental component of climate action rather than a separate development objective.

Second, this challenges the prevailing narrative that economic growth alone is sufficient to secure adaptation. The study identified a curvilinear relationship between GDP and adaptation readiness: growth seems to contribute to readiness up to a certain threshold, after which gains plateau. At this stage, the distribution of resources may become more critical than their absolute quantity. Wealthy nations that exclude minorities, migrants, or low-income populations from the social contract remain structurally vulnerable to climate risk.

A Call for Inclusive Resilience

The world is entering an era of polycrisis, characterised by the convergence of climate shocks with social and economic instability. In this context, the social contract serves as the primary line of defence.

The data indicate that exclusion is associated with heightened climate risk. Countries that systematically marginalise groups based on race, class, gender, religion, or migration status are less prepared to adapt to a warming world. Conversely, institutionalised inclusion, in which the state actively incorporates all residents into political and economic systems, appears to drive resilience.

In future UN Climate Change Conferences and national policy planning, it is essential to broaden the scope of intervention. Social policy and climate policy should no longer be treated as separate domains; instead, coherent ecosocial policy is necessary to achieve effective adaptation. Building a resilient future requires not only reinforcing physical infrastructure but also strengthening communities. Embedding care and inclusion at the centre of adaptation planning does more than advance equity; it defines resilience for all of us.

Reference

Brown, Christopher Taylor. 2026. “Social Inclusion, Welfare States, and Ecosocial Adaptation: A Global Analysis.” Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy: 1–20. doi: 10.1017/ics.2026.10090.

About the Authors

Christopher Taylor Brown is a PhD Candidate in Social Welfare at University of California Berkeley, USA.