No abstract

This paper analyzes the voluntary involvement of two Red Cross organizations engaged in post-disaster cross-sector collaborative efforts for the 2004 Asian Tsunami and the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake. Using Bryson, Crosby, and Stone's expanded model for nonprofit collaboration as a framework, I compare and contrast the disaster management collaborated by both voluntary organizations. The findings illuminate the strengths of voluntary involvement in disaster collaborative management, as well as its limitations during extreme events. Implications of the findings for cross-border voluntary contributions are discussed.

Despite the emphasis placed on agility in uncertain situations such as extreme events, no comparative data exist to look into the determinants that drive agility. For crisis response managers, the failure to develop agility threatens organizations' survival amid uncertainties. This paper investigates the development of agility and explains the emergence of agility against the fight of influenza A/H1N1 pandemics in Singapore and Taiwan in 2009. This paper further provides empirically grounded evidence to identify prerequisites for agility development in response to public health crises in East Asia.

Response, Training, Logistics, Southeast Asia, Disaster management, Disaster relief, N25, O54,

Rapid worldwide growth in public policy education now offers excellent opportunities to assess the development of the field from a comparative perspective. Our analysis, which examines recent trends in public policy education by comparing public policy analysis courses taught in professional degree programs in China and in the United States, reveals considerable disparities in these curricula as taught in the two countries. Surprisingly, these differences have emerged primarily through disciplinary foci, expertise in policy analysis, and practical experience among instructors, rather than through the distinctive social, political, institutional, and historical characteristics of the two countries. Our findings also suggest that a positivist approach to policy analysis continues to dominate classroom discussions in US programs, despite intense debates in the literature regarding the utility of that approach in guiding actual practice.