Suchergebnisse

Accountability processes after crisis events sometimes entail harsh criticism from public and political players alike, forcing cabinet ministers to be on top of the political game and sometimes even resign. However, harsh accountability processes are just as likely to leave ministers undamaged. This article combines two existing theories that propose different factors to account for variation in outcomes: ministerial resignations as a consequence of cabinet formation and individual positions; or resignations as a result of blame management strategies involving individual actors within the cabinet and beyond. Ten crisis episodes in Sweden are analysed and compared. The findings suggest that individual political power bases and experience matter to how well blame management strategies can be employed, while the composition of the government gives structural constraints. The dynamic interplay and framing battle between incumbent decision makers, and external arenas and the skill with which individual ministers engage and frame responsibility, play a key role in determining their post-crisis careers. Adapted from the source document.

The framing strategies used by political actors to redirect blame for critical incidents that become highly politicized are examined. Military actions involving the failure of the Swedish Navy's submarine detection system in 1994 & the Dutch military's inability to prevent the massacre of thousands of Bosnian Muslims near the Srebrenica region in 1995 are analyzed to determine which strategies European political actors used to deflect accountability for these incidents. Informed by crisis management theory, the extent to which these events were portrayed as violations of core values, products of endemic problems, or results of poor decision making by networks or certain powerful individuals is determined. A framework using multiple decision trees is subsequently presented to illustrate the various paths available to political actors who attempt to redirect blame for politicized incidents. Future research is urged to perform additional studies to demonstrate the strength of connection between political framing & accountability processes. 1 Figure. J. W. Parker

This article offers a conceptual framework that broadens & enhances our understanding of the role of "history" in contemporary governance & the attempts by policy-makers to "manage" critical issues. Building upon the literature on historical analogies in policy-making, we distinguish three dimensions that clarify how the past may emerge in & affect the current deliberations, choices, & rhetoric of policy-makers. We apply this in a comparative examination of two cases of crisis management where historical analogies played an important part: the Swedish response to (alleged) submarine intrusions in 1982, & the European Union sanctions against Austria in 1999. We induce from the case comparison new concepts & hypotheses for understanding the role of historical analogies in public policy-making & crisis management. 1 Table, 61 References. Adapted from the source document.