Why do similar countries facing the same threat respond differently? To throw light on this question, this article analyses Dutch and Danish vaccinations against the 2009 H1N1 ‘swine’ influenza pandemic (most‐similar cases with different outcomes). Policy‐making in the cases intersected the politics of crisis management (including risk management and disaster management), pharmaceuticals and epidemic response. Uncertainty and urgency were basic conditions and reduced the potential for evidence‐based policy. Public health specialists, elected leaders, and organizations in the economy and society contributed to each national response. Related literatures show that such decision‐making can turn on politicians' blame avoidance (A1) or demonstrations of value to swing voters (A2), stakeholders seeking gains (B), or experts following national standards (i.e. norms) for appropriate response (C). While each of these four logics is in evidence to some degree, differences in norms used by national experts advising their governments on pandemic responses best answer the question in the extant cases.
Transaction cost attributes, such as the complexity of the product being purchased, shape the risk that government contracts will fail. When transaction cost risks are particularly strong, a common prescription is to avoid contracting altogether or, if it is unavoidable, to spend additional resources on contract management activities. This article presents evidence on the size and variability of governments' ex ante transaction cost spending, using original data from 72 contracts issued by 47 Danish local governments. Ex ante transaction costs average 2.7 percent per contract and are relatively higher when services are more complex and lower when governments have prior contracting experience and contracts were larger. The analyses suggest the importance of distinguishing between transaction cost attributes and governments' choices to spend resources in response to them. Effective management spending in the face of transaction costs can help governments organize and capture value from contracting with private businesses.
Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to show that 2009 H1N1 "swine" influenza pandemic vaccination policies deviated from predictions established in the theory of political survival, and to propose that pandemic response deviated because it was ruled by bureaucratized experts rather than by elected politicians. Design/methodology/approach -Focussing on the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the paper employs descriptive statistical analysis of vaccination policies in nine western democracies. To probe the plausibility of the novel explanation, it uses quantitative and qualitative content analyses of media attention and coverage in two deviant cases, the USA and Denmark. Findings -Theories linking political survival to disaster responses find little empirical support in the substantial cross-country variations of vaccination responses during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Rather than following a political logic, the case studies of media coverage in the USA and Denmark demonstrate that the response was bureaucratized in the public health agencies (CDC and DMHA, respectively). Hence, while natural disaster responses appear to follow a political logic, the response to pandemics appears to be more strongly instituted in the hands of bureaucratic experts. Research limitations/implications -There is an added value of encompassing bureaucratic dynamics in political theories of disaster response; bureaucratized expertise proved to constitute a strong plausible explanation of the 2009 pandemic vaccination response. Practical implications -Pandemic preparedness and response depends critically on understanding the lessons of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic; a key lesson supported by this paper is that expert-based agencies rather than political leaders are the pivotal actors. Originality/value -This paper is the first to pinpoint the limitations of political survival theories of disaster responses with respect to the 2009 pandemic. Further, it is among the few to analyze the causes of variations in cross-country pandemic vaccination policies during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.
In this article, we utilize the Collaborative Governance Databank to empirically explore core theoretical assumptions about collaborative governance in the context of crisis management. By selecting a subset of cases involving episodes or situations characterized by the combination of urgency, threat, and uncertainty, we conduct a plausibility probe to garner insights into a number of central assumptions and dynamics fundamental to understanding collaborative crisis management. Although there is broad agreement among academics and practitioners that collaboration is essential for managing complex risks and events that no single actor can handle alone, in the literature, there are several unresolved claims and uncertainties regarding many critical aspects of collaborative crisis management. Assumptions investigated in the article relate to starting-points and triggers for collaboration, level of collaboration, goal-formulation, adaptation, involvement and role of non-state actors, and the prevalence and impact of political infighting. The results confirm that crises represent rapidly moving and dynamic events that raise the need for adaptation, adjustment, and innovation by diverse sets of participants. We also find examples of successful behaviours where actors managed, despite challenging conditions, to effectively contain conflict, formulate and achieve shared goals, adapt to rapidly changing situations and emergent structures, and innovate in response to unforeseen problems.
When important public issues are debated, many options for government action should be subjected to serious reflection. Constrained discussions over policy options may hamper democratic legitimacy and accountability, and produce decisions that ignore relevant reasons and facts. Hence, constrained deliberation has important consequences for knowledge construction and utilization. We advance theory on 'epistemic policy learning' by showing mechanisms that promote expert consensus in external arenas, and that these can hamper deliberation on public policy. Government-appointed experts, in combination with mass media, can 'freeze' deliberation by presenting one unified front. Comparison of national print media coverage in Sweden and Denmark during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic offers support. The similar polities enacted different policies: Sweden sought to vaccinate its full population while neighbouring Denmark targeted small groups. Yet experts dominated both public discourses and echoed each other's support of national policy. In turn, public policy debates were scant in both contexts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.