Introduction
This book is about how governments deal with crises. Our world is a turbulent one full of intractable problems. Threats such as terrorism and natural disasters have increased the ‘fear factor’ in recent years, making crisis management a high priority for political leaders (Ansell et al. 2016; Olsen 2017). Recent research has increasingly focused on complex, transboundary crises and the challenges they pose for governments, public administrations and political leaderships (Ansell 2010; Blondin and Boin 2018; Lagadec 2009). Dealing with crises is a core responsibility of governments and public sector executives. Because crises are often unpredictable, they demand a rapid response and they are frequently followed by considerable criticism and debate. Planning and preparing for the unexpected and unknown, dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty and responding to urgency at the same time as meeting citizens’ expectations is a difficult task for the political leadership and the public administration (Boin et al. 2013a; Taleb 2007). Crises challenge governance capacity and may strike at the core of democratic governance. They not only necessitate a structured use of available resources but also raise issues of governance legitimacy, related to accountability, trust and citizens’ expectations.
Academic research on how to design public administrations to protect citizens against transboundary threats and the collapse of critical infrastructure is limited (Boin and Lodge 2016). The focus on public administration research has generally been on stable and routine situations rather than times of uncertainty and crisis (Olsen 2017). There is a growing demand for more research on organizational responses to crises and extreme events (Zhang et al. 2018). This book aims to fill this gap by examining how crisis management is organized. It examines the relationships between different types of crisis, how public organizations prepare for and handle crises, what the effects are and what lessons are learned, how crises affect citizens’ trust in government and the legitimacy of crisis management organizations.
The book looks at governance capacity and governance legitimacy for societal security and crisis management. A core argument is that the dynamic and potentially reinforcing relationship between organizational capacity and legitimacy is crucial and therefore warrants attention (Christensen et al. 2016). The book highlights the importance of building organizational capacity, focusing on the coordination of public resources. It looks at the importance of public perceptions, attitudes, support and trust in government arrangements for crisis management as sources of legitimacy. It examines several specific cases of crisis management and identifies the relevant dimensions concerning capacity and legitimacy across different countries. The overall aim is to strengthen the knowledge base concerning pressing cross-country governance dilemmas in order to enhance crisis management and societal security more generally.
Societal security and crisis management pose ‘wicked problems’ where coordination and collaboration between actors and organizations with different tasks and perceptions is crucial but difficult and often encounters resistance. Wicked problems transcend organizational boundaries, policy areas and administrative levels, from the local to the supranational. They are typically complex, involving multi-level and multi-sectoral actors; the knowledge base is uncertain and contested; and goals and priorities are ambiguous and conflictual (Head 2008). Thus, crisis management pertains to unsettled situations that are different from the routine or ‘business as usual’ of day-to-day government (Christensen and Lægreid 2016; Olsen 2017). Public organizations face important constraints in their efforts to handle these complexities, with major demands often made on governance capacity as well as on legitimacy and representativeness.
Crises typically challenge existing patterns of organization and management. They do not fit easily into established organizational contexts and are constantly being framed and reframed (Christensen and Lægreid 2016). Decisions on how to organize, coordinate, regulate and respond to crises ultimately concern values and are therefore not only technical but also inherently political (Boin and ’t Hart 2012). Working across existing organizational boundaries and taking into account multi-level governance relations and a need for collaboration in addition to legitimacy concerns are crucial. Other central aspects of crisis management policy are making sense of a crisis situation, making decisions, coordination, accountability and learning (Boin et al. 2016), and the effectiveness and legitimacy of crisis management may be enhanced if such processes function well.
Organizing for societal security and crisis management within the public sector implies possible conflicts between different sets of administrative norms and values. Economy and frugality are important values within the public sector, but so are fairness and organizational resilience. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA, many countries introduced new security measures to combat terrorism. This fuelled debates about the balance between democratic and societal values on the one hand and a need for increased protection on the other (Etzioni 2004; Kettl 2003). This book also examines these dilemmas and tensions in a variety of settings.
Given the book’s special focus on public administration and government arrangements for crisis management, a central argument is that societal security and crisis management are framed in specific institutional, political and organizational settings or contexts. Crises are handled within and across organizations, ministerial areas and administrative levels with specific characteristics influenced by accountability and legitimacy issues (Christensen et al. 2016). Thus, the organizational layout of the societal security and crisis management field matters. Organizational variables, such as degree and type of fragmentation/integration, degree of centralization/decentralization and coordination/specialization, shape crisis management. It follows from this that organizational and institutional contexts are important. Organizations are embedded in institutional contexts that provi...