Suchergebnisse

Why do some public organizations grow old and others die young? Since Herbert Kaufman first posed this question, considerable research has been devoted to answering it. The findings of that research suggest that the design of new public organizations affects, to a significant degree, their survival chances. In this article, we test whether and how "design factors" affected the durability of the so‐called New Deal organizations initiated under FDR's first term. Our findings confirm that design factors do matter, but their effects change over time. We draw out some potential implications for institutional design and sketch a renewed research agenda to determine why some public organizations survive environmental pressure whereas others succumb to it.

Why do some public organizations grow old and others die young? Since Herbert Kaufman first posed this question, considerable research has been devoted to answering it. The findings of that research suggest that the design of new public organizations affects, to a significant degree, their survival chances. In this article, we test whether and how "design factors" affected the durability of the so-called New Deal organizations initiated under FDR's first term. Our findings confirm that design factors do matter, but their effects change over time. We draw out some potential implications for institutional design and sketch a renewed research agenda to determine why some public organizations survive environmental pressure whereas others succumb to it. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractCommunication has always been key to crisis management research, but even more so in recent years, from multiple disciplinary angles. In this bibliometric study and review of the literature, we aim to identify different clusters of crisis communication research in the literature and whether and how much these crisis communication research clusters overlap. With different fields taking an interest in crisis communication, we ask ourselves where the interests of these fields overlap, and to what extent the different communities are aware of each other's work. Apart from offering an overview of topical clusters in crisis communication research and connections between those clusters of studies on crisis communication, we identify and explain two main approaches to crisis communication: a political or accusatory approach, and a functional or assistory approach. We conclude in our study and discussion that these approaches may need to broaden their research horizons to ensure the applicability of crisis communication strategies beyond the countries, media platforms, and audience orientations that have predominantly shaped the existing research landscape.

AbstractIconic events have traditionally instigated progression in the fields of crisis and disaster science. In the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic, the pressing question is how this global health emergency impacted the research agendas of our field. We reviewed contributions in ten important crisis and disaster journals in the two and a half years following the COVID‐19 outbreak from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2022. Specifically, we conducted a bibliometric review using thematic mapping analysis to distill the major themes covered by the emerging COVID‐19 literature within crisis and disaster science (N = 239 articles). Our results indicate that several well‐known topics are applied to the COVID‐19 pandemic, such as risk, crisis communication, governance, resilience and vulnerability. The pandemic also gave rise to new topics, such as citizen behavior, state power, and the business and mental health impact of crisis measures. Several studies are already looking ahead by identifying lessons for preparedness and mitigation of future pandemics. By taking stock of the surge of COVID‐19 studies while this academic literature is still taking shape, this review sets the stage for future contributions to the crisis and disaster literatures. It provides valuable lessons for what topics are studied and what themes need more attention. The COVID‐19 pandemic is destined to become an iconic event for our literature that not only strengthens and deepens existing debates, but also clearly offers the opportunity to draw in new perspectives and broaden the horizon of crisis and disaster science.

AbstractIn this study, we examine how the two facets of the fear of terrorism—the affective and behavioural fears—shift over time. To this end, we use a unique longitudinal data set of a representative sample of 755 Dutch respondents, recruited from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences panel, in the time period between November 2017 and May 2020. We find that the reported affective fear of terrorism is significantly lower during the COVID‐19 crisis in 2020 than it was in 2017. Yet a divergent trend for behavioural fear of terrorism occurred. In spite of decreased affective fear of terrorism threats, respondents in 2020 reported increased protective and avoidance behaviours, similar to behaviours promoted to stop the spread of COVID‐19.

Terrorism only poses a small risk to people but tends to be a major source of public fear. Through fear, terrorism has far-reaching implications for public governance. In this paper we look at trust in government as a potential mitigating factor of fear of terrorism. We discern between calculative trust, based on analytical assessment of previous and expected future actions, and relational trust, based on emotions and perceived value similarity with government. We find that relational trust decreases fear of terrorism. A similar but less robust negative relationship exists between calculative trust and fear. However, our regression analyses suggest that relational trust, in fact, may mediate the relationship between calculative trust and fear of terrorism. In other words, the more citizens think government is able to prevent terrorist attacks and feel that authorities are doing enough, the more they, in turn, feel that their government shares their values, and the less fearful they are of future terrorist attacks.

Terrorism only poses a small risk to people but tends to be a major source of public fear. Through fear, terrorism has far-reaching implications for public governance. In this paper we look at trust in government as a potential mitigating factor of fear of terrorism. We discern between calculative trust, based on analytical assessment of previous and expected future actions, and relational trust, based on emotions and perceived value similarity with government. We find that relational trust decreases fear of terrorism. A similar but less robust negative relationship exists between calculative trust and fear. However, our regression analyses suggest that relational trust, in fact, may mediate the relationship between calculative trust and fear of terrorism. In other words, the more citizens think government is able to prevent terrorist attacks and feel that authorities are doing enough, the more they, in turn, feel that their government shares their values, and the less fearful they are of future terrorist attacks.

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.

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.

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.

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.