Development and humanitarian agencies have rapidly embraced the concept of resilience since the 2008 global financial and food price crises. We report the results of a formal scoping review of the literature on development resilience over the ensuing period. The review identifies the theoretical and methodological underpinnings and empirical applications of resilience as the concept has been applied to individual or household well-being in low-and middle-income countries. From 9,558 search records spanning 2008–20, 301 studies met our pre-registered inclusion criteria. Among these, we identify three broad conceptualizations employed – resilience as capacity, as a normative condition, or as return to equilibrium – and explain how the resulting variation in framing leads to marked differences in empirical methods and findings. We study in greater depth a set of 45 studies that met five key criteria for empirical studies of resilience. The larger, more established, qualitative empirical literature yields insights suggestive that the concept of resilience can add value. The quantitative literature is thinner and divided among methods that limit cross-study comparability of findings. Overall, we find that development resilience remains inconsistently theorized and reliant on methods that have not been adequately reconciled to identify which tools are best suited to which questions. Despite much published evidence, most findings concentrate on just a few countries and natural shocks, and rely on cross-sectional data at just one scale of analysis. The result is a dearth of generalizable evidence, especially of rigorous impact evaluations, to guide whether or how agencies might build resilience among target populations.

自 2008 年全球金融和粮食价格危机以来，发展和人道主义机构迅速接受了复原力的概念。我们报告了对随后一段时间内发展弹性相关文献的正式范围界定审查的结果。该评论确定了弹性的理论和方法基础以及实证应用，因为该概念已应用于中低收入国家的个人或家庭福祉。从 2008-20 年的 9,558 条检索记录中，301 项研究符合我们预先注册的纳入标准。其中，我们确定了所采用的三个广泛的概念——作为能力、作为规范条件或作为恢复平衡的弹性——并解释了由此产生的框架变化如何导致经验方法和发现的显着差异。我们更深入地研究了一组 45 项研究，这些研究满足韧性实证研究的五个关键标准。更大的、更成熟的、定性的实证文献产生的见解表明弹性的概念可以增加价值。定量文献较少，并且分为限制交叉研究结果可比性的方法。总体而言，我们发现发展弹性的理论化仍然不一致，并且依赖于尚未充分协调以确定哪些工具最适合哪些问题的方法。尽管已发表大量证据，但大多数发现仅集中在少数几个国家和自然冲击上，并且仅依赖于一种分析尺度的横截面数据。结果是缺乏可概括的证据，尤其是严格的影响评估，