Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy

• Author: Tom Christensen,Lise H. Rykkja,Per Lægreid
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12558
• Published date: 01 November 2016
• Date: 01 November 2016

Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy 887

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 76, Iss. 6, pp. 887–897. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12558.

Lise H. Rykkja is senior researcher

at Uni Research Rokkan Centre, Bergen,

Norway. Her research concentrates on

the development of public administration,

governance, and public policies,

oriented toward governance capacity

and organization for internal security

and crisis management. Her recent

publications include the coedited book

Organizing for Coordination in the

Public Sector

(Palgrave Macmillan) and

articles in

Public Administration, Public

Policy and Administration, International

Review of Administrative Sciences, Public

Management Review,

and

Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management.

E-mail: lise.rykkja@uni.no

Per Lægreid is professor in the

Department of Administration and

Organization Theory, University of Bergen,

Norway. He has published extensively on

public sector reform, public management

policy, and institutional change from a

comparative perspective, applying an

organization theory–based institutional

perspective. His latest publications

include articles in

Governance, Public

Administration, International Review

of Administrative Science, Public

Administration Review, Public Management

Review, Administration & Society,

and

Financial Accountability and Management.

E-mail: per.lagreid@uib.no

Tom Christensen is professor in the

Department of Political Science, University

of Oslo, Norway. He is also affiliated with

University of Bergen, Norway and Renmin

University, China. His main research

interests deal with studies of central civil

service and public sector reforms, both

nationally and comparatively. His research

is theoretically based in organization

theory. He has published extensively in all

the major public administration journals

and has coauthored several textbooks and

international edited volumes in the field.

E-mail: tom.christensen@stv.uio.no

Abstract : What makes a well-functioning governmental crisis management system, and how can this be studied using

an organization theory–based approach? A core argument is that such a system needs both governance capacity and

governance legitimacy. Organizational arrangements as well as the legitimacy of government authorities will affect

crisis management performance. A central argument is that both structural features and cultural context matter, as

does the nature of the crisis. Is it a transboundary crisis? How unique is it, and how much uncertainty is associated

with it? The arguments are substantiated with empirical examples and supported by a literature synthesis, focusing

on public administration research. A main conclusion is that there is no optimal formula for harmonizing competing

interests and tensions or for overcoming uncertainty and ambiguous government structures. Flexibility and adaptation

are key assets, which are constrained by the political, administrative, and situational context. Furthermore, a future

research agenda is indicated.

Practitioner Points

• Both governance capacity and governance legitimacy are needed to make a well-functioning governmental

crisis management system.

• Organizational arrangements as well as the legitimacy of government bodies affect the performance of crisis

management.

• Both structural and cultural contexts matter for a well-performing crisis management system.

• There are great variations across different types of crises, and one best system that can be applied to all types

of crises does not exist.

• Hybrid arrangements combining hierarchy and networks might be a promising way forward.

Tom Christensen

University of Oslo, Norway

Per Lægreid

University of Bergen, Norway

Lise H. Rykkja

Uni Research Rokkan Centre, Norway

Organizing for Crisis Management:

Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy

M ajor crises, whether they are caused by

a hurricane, a tsunami, or a terrorist

attack, have impacts on and constrain

public administration. Crisis management is a core

government responsibility that is difficult to fulfill

(Boin et al. 2005 ; Boin and ‘t Hart 2003 ). What

is more, major crises strike at the core of both

democracy and governance and hence constitute

challenges not only for capacity but also for

accountability, legitimacy, representation, and citizens’

ability to get their demands met effectively (Dahl

and Tufte 1973 ). Intriguingly, government capacity

for dealing with major crises is a subject that public

administration scholars have yet to explore at length

(Boin and Lodge 2013 ). We argue in this article that

the links between governance capacity and governance

legitimacy have received even less attention.

This article addresses the broad research question of

what makes government crisis management function

well. Our core argument is that a robust and well-

functioning crisis management system needs both

governance capacity and governance legitimacy. We

highlight the importance of building organizational

capacity by focusing on the coordination of public

resources, decision-making systems, and governance

tools, and we underscore the relevance of legitimacy

by emphasizing the importance of public perceptions,

attitudes, and trust vis-à-vis government arrangements

for crisis management. Major crises may sound a

“democracy alarm” and often result in a crisis for

democracy. A well-functioning democracy, therefore,

needs an effective administrative apparatus as well

as high levels of trust in government (Olsen 2013 ).

While crises always require government capacity, this

must stand in a dynamic relationship with legitimacy

and trust.

Furthermore, we argue that in order to understand

how government arrangements for crisis management

evolve, how well they perform, and what the

limitations and potential of such arrangements are,

we need to take into account both structural and

institutional elements (Christensen et al. 2007 ; Olsen