Challenges to Coordination: Understanding Intergovernmental Friction During Disasters

Abstract

While idealized crisis response involves smooth coordination between relevant actors, friction between levels of government and between the state and civil society in responding to catastrophe may be more common. This article builds a theory of cross-level friction during and after crisis by analyzing the conditions when discord is most likely. With a medium-N dataset (N = 18) of disaster responses from, among other countries, Chile, Haiti, Japan, North America, the Philippines, and Somalia, I carry out quantitative and qualitative analysis of cases with a variety of levels of friction to investigate the conditions that lead to misalignment. Tobit regression, qualitative comparative analysis, and case studies that take into account levels of economic development, government structure, nongovernmental organization density, and levels of damage demonstrate that low levels of development, lower levels of economic costs from the crisis, and poor planning and logistical infrastructure correlate with a higher likelihood of friction between disaster response stakeholders. Although not definitive, these findings come with theoretical and practical implications as climate change makes extreme weather events and future disasters more likely and more powerful.

Advancing the Field of Disaster Response Management: Toward a Design Science Approach

“…The assumption that goal alignment improves emergency and disaster response management, and that goal alignment interventions therefore become implemented in national frameworks, seemed reasonable, given some of the current research (Narayanan and Raman 2004;Aldrich 2019). However, our results suggest that this hypothesis could be wrong, which in turn points to other strands of literature (Rosenthal et al 1991).…”

“…Both direction and coordination are tightly linked to goals, because without goals, response efforts lack purpose. In a multiorganizational response operation where interand intraorganizational goals coexist, goal alignment is expected to improve outcomes (Aldrich 2019). In that case, efforts must be made not only to articulate goals, but also to harmonize them and address potential conflicts.…”

Stakeholder Involvement in the Civil Security Systems: How (Dis)Similar are the CEE Countries Compared to the Rest of Europe ?

“…Although no universal list of stakeholders exists, the literature dealing with civil security governance typically addresses the state at the national but also low-er levels of administration (Wolensky and Wolensky 1990;Krahmann 2003;Field 2012;Zurita et al 2015;Bae et al 2016;Lane and Hesselman 2017); civil society organizations (CSOs) (Coppola 2006;Roberts 2010;Joachim and Dembinski 2011;Zurita et al 2015); and the private (for-profi t) sector (Lethbridge 2009;Roberts 2010;Tierney 2012;Zurita et al 2015). A large body of the literature also stresses the active engagement of the military forces as a distinct actor (Wentz 2006;Coppola 2006;Roberts 2010;Tierney 2012;Zurita et al 2015;Bae et al 2016) and the role of individual citizens as active participants in disaster preparedness and mitigation (Zhang and Kumaraswamy 2012;Wehn et al 2015;Zurita et al 2015;Aldrich 2019;OECD 2017;Lane and Hesselman 2017). Finally, at the international level, the role of transboundary assistance and coordinated international eff ort is stressed as an important element of the governance framework (Coppola 2006;Gopalakrishnan and Okada 2007;Roberts 2010;Ha 2015;Driessen et al 2016;OECD 2017;Lane and Hesselman 2017).…”

“…Focusing on effectiveness, a comparative study among European national security systems undertaken by Kuipers et al (2015) touched upon diff erent analytical dimensions, such as perceptions of the role of government, procedures, and quality in terms of absence of controversies; yet the stakeholder involvement was not the focus of the study. Another large comparative study by Aldrich (2019) compared the level of governance in disaster responses in eighteen countries in the Americas, Asia, and East Africa and showed that democratic societies fi nd collaboration of diff erent stakeholders easier and value civil society and its voluntary organizations as active participants.…”

“…Although several studies in the fi eld concluded with a call for a comparative research across a larger number of countries (Roberts 2010;Zurita et al 2015), such an approach remains under-explored. One exception here is an OECD (2017) study on risk governance in Austria, France and Switzerland, which devoted only a brief attention to the participation of other actors than the state institutions; a study by Aldrich (2019) concentrating on frictions in cooperation aft er disasters across the globe; and a comparative work by Driessen et al (2016), which focuses on the narrower issue of fl oods. An analysis which would systematically present and assess the diff erences and similarities across a larger number of countries is lacking.…”