Public Organizations' Crisis Preparedness
In: Risk, hazards & crisis in public policy, Band 9, Heft 3, S. 248-257
ISSN: 1944-4079
In: Risk, hazards & crisis in public policy, Band 9, Heft 3, S. 248-257
ISSN: 1944-4079
In: Risk, hazards & crisis in public policy, Band 9, Heft 4, S. 384-396
ISSN: 1944-4079
AbstractThis review article maps the shifts and trends in the risk literature regarding particular risk types across the past 30+ years. Not only does it address which hazards and risks receive scholarly attention, but also from which perspective. A similar review on crisis literature (Kuipers & Welsh, ) reported that on average only 14 percent of the articles in three crisis and disaster journals pertained explicitly to risk research. Does risk research perhaps pay more attention to crises than the other way around? Our multivariate regression analysis of the different types and themes reveals how some risk types are researched and discussed almost exclusively from a particular angle. Also, the large majority of articles from some perspectives only take a limited variety of risks into account. Mapping risk research indicates not only which topics and themes have received increasing or structural attention but also which ones, or which combination of risk types and perspectives, perhaps deserve more study than they currently receive.
In: van Witteloostuijn , A , Boin , A , Kofman , C , Kuilman , J & Kuipers , S 2018 , ' Explaining the survival of public organizations : Applying density dependence theory to a population of US federal agencies ' , Public Administration , vol. 96 , no. 4 , pp. 633-650 . https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12524
Why do some public organizations survive for many decades, whereas others are terminated within a few years? This question of organizational survival has long intrigued public administration scholars. To explain longevity, public administration research has focused on organizational design features and adaptive capacities. The results have been inconclusive. This article explores an additional explanation for survival and demise: the density dependence theory as formulated in the field of organizational ecology. The underlying premise of this theory is that certain environments can only sustain a certain number of similar-type organizations. A rising number of organizations fuels competition for scarce resources, which inevitably leads to the demise of organizations. Density theory has often been tested in the business literature, but has been rarely applied to public sector organizations. In this article, we test whether this theory can help explain organizational survival in a population of US federal independent public agencies (n =142). Our results show that density matters. This is good news for public administration research: the inclusion of density boosts the explanatory power of traditional variables such as design and adaptation.
BASE
In: Public administration: an international journal, Band 96, Heft 4, S. 633-650
ISSN: 1467-9299
Why do some public organizations survive for many decades, whereas others are terminated within a few years? This question of organizational survival has long intrigued public administration scholars. To explain longevity, public administration research has focused on organizational design features and adaptive capacities. The results have been inconclusive. This article explores an additional explanation for survival and demise: the density dependence theory as formulated in the field of organizational ecology. The underlying premise of this theory is that certain environments can only sustain a certain number of similar‐type organizations. A rising number of organizations fuels competition for scarce resources, which inevitably leads to the demise of organizations. Density theory has often been tested in the business literature, but has been rarely applied to public sector organizations. In this article, we test whether this theory can help explain organizational survival in a population of US federal independent public agencies (n = 142). Our results show that density matters. This is good news for public administration research: the inclusion of density boosts the explanatory power of traditional variables such as design and adaptation.
In: Risk, hazards & crisis in public policy, Band 8, Heft 4, S. 272-283
ISSN: 1944-4079
This survey of the literature on crises and disasters reveals that crisis and disaster scholars remain focused on 'classic' natural disaster types and on our ability to prepare and respond to the threat they pose. The prevalence of natural disasters as a crisis type and the dominance of preparedness as a crisis theme indicates that the literature remains firmly linked to the world of practice, examining how best practices may be shared to prepare for future incidents. Yet interestingly, the three journals studied demonstrate modest interest in a number of issues that are only likely to increase in the coming years, all of which relate directly to an increasingly interconnected world. Most notably, the lack of attention on system interconnectedness or on advances in communication and cyber dependence (despite the rise of social media and internet use) is a surprising result, given how such systems and methods of communication are becoming so integrated into daily life. Such studies could help scholars and policymakers understand the unexpected turns crises can take and provide practitioners with a range of tools when preparing for or handling future crises.
In: Governance: an international journal of policy and administration, Band 30, Heft 4, S. 663-686
ISSN: 1468-0491
AbstractPublic administration scholars tend to take for granted that organizational adaptation is important. This common notion that public organizations must adapt to stay alive has not been put to the test in the field of public administration, however. Intriguingly, organization ecologists find that adaptation does not matter and might even be counterproductive for individual organizations. They argue that the absence of adaptation—which they refer to as structural inertia—actually enhances the likelihood of survival. But organization ecologists focus mostly on nonpublic organizations. This prompts the question whether adaptation in public organizations really matters. In this article, we test these contrasting claims (while controlling for design features) on a population of U.S. federal independent public agencies (n = 142). Our findings suggest a subtle narrative. We conclude that proactive adaptation increases termination hazards. But inertia does not seem to significantly enhance survival chances.
In: Risk, hazards & crisis in public policy, Band 6, Heft 1, S. 1-21
ISSN: 1944-4079