Polycrisis, systemic risk, and resilience: Novel analytical insights and evidence needed to turn crisis into opportunity

The concept of a Polycrisis – a system of interconnected and compounding crises – is receiving increasing attention. In our dynamic and complex world, multiple crises often interact, potentially leading to global tipping points and local adaptation limits. While not entirely a new concept, it has risen to enhanced prominence, as the global landscape of the twenty-first century is increasingly defined by such mutual amplification of nested and intertwined systemic risks. This reality demands new approaches to analysis, assessment, and governance in general. IIASA is undertaking and hosting such efforts.

Conference and special issue

A special issue of the International Journal of Disaster Risk Science presents novel conceptualizations, diagnostic tools, and governance insights for this salient risk domain. The special issue is an outcome of the International Symposium on “Polycrises and Systemic Risks,” co-organized by IIASA and Beijing Normal University in Beijing in May 2024. The symposium provided a valuable platform for leading experts from diverse disciplines to engage with the multifaceted nature of polycrises. Through intensive discussion and knowledge exchange, participants explored cutting-edge developments in risk analysis and governance frameworks. The resulting special issue captures these efforts, offering both academic rigor and practical guidance for navigating complex risk environments. The collection provides a review of state-of-the-art literature on polycrises and systemic risks, highlights foundational theories and emerging trends, presents innovative methods and tools, showcases case studies, and outlines policy recommendations for fostering resilience. It emphasizes the need for ethically defensible trade-offs and strategies to address conflicting societal goals.

In the foreword, IIASA Director General, Hans Joachim (John) Schellnhuber, discusses the epistemological and methodological challenges of the polycrisis syndrome. He emphasizes the cascading and compounding nature of polycrises, where seemingly unrelated crises amplify each other, resulting in impacts far greater than the sum of their parts. From pandemics and climate disasters to economic shocks and geopolitical disruptions, these overlapping challenges overwhelm traditional governance models and demand integrated, interdisciplinary response strategies.

Schellnhuber underlines the urgent need for interdisciplinary scholarship and inclusive governance. Traditional cause-and-effect models are insufficient in a hyperconnected and interdependent world. Effective responses must adopt systemic approaches that embrace complexity and acknowledge the interrelated nature of risks across domains. Looking forward, he suggests that the insights presented in this special issue lay a foundation for future research and innovation in systemic risk governance. He calls for developing integrated models to better capture the dynamics of polycrises and investing in capacity-building initiatives that equip policymakers and stakeholders with the tools to respond effectively. Just as importantly, fostering cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration will be critical for advancing our collective understanding and preparedness for polycrisis risks and impacts.

Polycrises demand further exploration, including greater focus on how interconnected risks can be addressed to yield multiple, overlapping resilience benefits. A contribution by a team of IIASA researchers, Reinhard Mechler, Piotr Żebrowski, Romain Clercq-Roques, Patik Patil, and Stefan Hochrainer-Stigler on “Polycrises and Positive Externalities” highlights that polycrises are at least partially driven by negative externalities such as climate change, public health issues, and income inequality. However, there has been very limited analysis of whether and how positive externalities may contribute to fostering resilience systemically and help precipitate positive transformations.

Positive externalities – societal benefits arising directly or indirectly from targeted interventions – may help "unlock" effective and acceptable pathways to sustainable development. For example, investments in universal health coverage not only improve health outcomes for a wide range of diseases, but also enhance resilience to increasingly climate-driven health risks (such as heat-related illnesses), reduce healthcare costs, and boost productivity of a healthier workforce. Research shows that such positive gains can strengthen health systems overall, create multiplier effects through reducing health burdens, improving productivity, and freeing resources to reinvest in risk reduction and other resilience measures.

Although international frameworks like the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Paris Agreement, and the Sustainable Development Goals a decade back have explicitly or implicitly promoted such developmental transformation through the idea of “multiple” or “triple resilience dividends,” actual evidence and understanding of these benefits remain sparse, particularly in disaster and climate risk domains. The IIASA researchers argue that this gap is due in part to conceptual ambiguity around the notion of “unlocking dividends,” lack of consistent reporting, insufficient awareness of positive externalities, and a limited understanding of how dividends evolve across time and space. Their review reveals that there are indeed significant (co-)benefits and positive externalities in both implemented and planned risk management and adaptation projects, as well as in model-based simulations used to support policy design across scales. Advancing research on systemic risk and resilience can help to surface these benefits, improve decision-making, and strengthen governance, which is so crucial for building resilience to escalating disaster and climate risks in a polycrisis context.

Transformative approaches and frameworks for navigating the polycrisis

Beyond methods and models, it is clear that in the polycrisis, traditional (risk) governance frameworks may be both structurally inadequate and, in some cases, counterproductive. Traditional governance paradigms, which legitimize state authority through mechanisms such as sustained economic growth and, as increasingly the case, military dominance, may be ill-suited to address the systemic and cross-scalar complexities of polycrisis dynamics.

A clear illustration of this inadequacy is observed in the domain of climate change mitigation. Despite broad international commitments, including the Paris Agreement, the vast majority of nation-states remain off-track in meeting their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Moreover, decarbonization policies – though scientifically necessary – are increasingly triggering socio-political resistance, often characterized as “green backlash”. Simultaneously, the transition to low-carbon economies is engendering new security dilemmas, particularly in the context of geopolitical competition over critical minerals and energy infrastructures – phenomena that have been described as contributing to a nascent “Green Cold War.” In this context, polycrisis research offers a critical opportunity to harness the inter-and trans-disciplinary and integrative capacities of institutions such as IIASA.

To this effect, a publication by IIASA researchers identified a need for “simultaneous and mutually complementary transformations in political and economic goals (shifting from a sole emphasis on economic growth to prioritizing sustainable wellbeing for all); human agency (with changes in values, increased cooperation, improved information processing, the deployment of humane technologies); and the intentional reformation of social structures and institutions”.

Together, these approaches aim to transcend the limitations of current governance models by embedding systemic foresight, transdisciplinary knowledge integration, and resilience thinking at the core of policymaking for a rapidly transforming global order.

Next steps for polycrisis research: Advancing concepts and methods – convening key players

Future work at IIASA will focus on deepening the theoretical and evidence base around polycrisis dynamics and providing actionable guidance for addressing their impacts.

Advancement of systems-based modeling techniques and methods for diagnosing and simulating the interdependencies and feedback loops characteristic of polycrisis dynamics. Tools from system dynamics and integrated assessment modeling are particularly well-positioned to illuminate emergent risks and leverage points. IIASA continues to advance methodological work and guidance on systemic risk in the context of disaster and climate risk (see Hochrainer-Stigler et al., 2024; Hochrainer-Stigler, Sakic et al., 2023).

Development of novel, science-informed policy frameworks capable of guiding global and regional decision-making under conditions of uncertainty and complexity. Promising approaches include science diplomacy initiatives tailored to polycrisis contexts, and the application of conceptual tools such as the Triple Dividend of Resilience framework, which seeks to align risk reduction, development co-benefits, and systemic transformation (see: Science Diplomacy in the Polycrisis).

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the Nexus blog, nor of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.