本文關注災後重建期間，不同的政治體制如何塑造社會不平等，理論上，民主體制保障了言論自由與結社自由，公民社會透過社會網絡的資源動員與媒體監督限制國家分配救災資源時所造成的委託代理問題；反之威權體制限縮了言論自由與結社自由，在災後重建過程中，國家幹部將會取得更多的資源與權力，並且壓制公眾或災民對制度重建的參與以及對政治責任的追究，非但無法減輕災區內的社會不平等、甚至可能擴大貧富差距。以中國512地震災與臺灣921地震災重建的經驗為例，透過兩岸不同政權型態下的民間捐款分配、房地產權利配置與重建財政分配、還有損害賠償責任等多方面的比較，本文證實了與民主體制相比，威權體制較容易導致災區的社會不平等與災民的抗爭。

The author argues that regime type determines resource distribution tied to post-disaster reconstruction. In a democratic regime, when societal resource mobilization capacity is strong and administrative principal-agent problems are few, it is possible to adequately manage the deterioration of social inequality after a disaster. In contrast, in an authoritarian regime marked by limited freedoms of speech and association, politicians and administrators tend toward corruption, social inequalities worsen, and social protests suffer.I use two earthquakes (1999 in Taiwan and 2008 in Sichuan province) to investigate hypotheses regarding reconstruction politics. According to my findings, the Chinese communist regime suppressed civil association and mass media freedoms, resulting in greater inequalities in land/housing redistribution and increased collective action on the part of Chinese citizens.