The coronavirus crisis—crisis communication,meaning-making,and reputation management

Abstract

This article addresses the Norwegian government’s meaning-making, crises communication and reputation management during the Corona pandemic crisis. It argues that reputation management can be seen as a combination of governance capacity and legitimacy reflected in a well performing crisis communication and meaning-making. Under the slogan “working together” the government emphasized the need for a supportive and cohesive culture in order to to balance efforts at increasing governance capacity as well as governance legitimacy, through shaping a common understanding and broad consensus on what the crisis was about and what needed to be done to deal with it. A main lesson learned from the Norwegian case is that the effectiveness of the government in controlling the pandemic was enhanced by successful meaning-making and communication with the public, and to the high level of citizens’ trust in government.     

Balancing Governance Capacity and Legitimacy: How the Norwegian Government Handled the COVID-19 Crisis as a High Performer

This essay addresses how the Norwegian government has handled the coronavirus pandemic. Compared with many other countries, Norway has performed well in handling the crisis. This must be understood in the context of competent politicians, a high-trust society with a reliable and professional bureaucracy, a strong state, a good economic situation, a big welfare state, and low population density. The Norwegian government managed to control the pandemic rather quickly by adopting a suppression strategy, followed by a control strategy, based on a collaborative and pragmatic decision-making style, successful communication with the public, a lot of resources, and a high level of citizen trust in government. The alleged success of the Norwegian case is about the relationship between crisis management capacity and legitimacy. Crisis management is most successful when it is able to combine democratic legitimacy with government capacity.     

以公共价值为基础的政府绩效治理——源起、架构与研究问题

政府绩效管理兴起二十多年来,已由西方国家应对财政和信任危机、提高行政效率的工具拓展为各国政府改革和创新的重要内容,新公共管理的实践价值和理论优势在其中都得到了充分体现。但其理论缺陷和实践中的困惑,特别是在公共价值方面的冲突使学术界的探索从未停止过。本文通过对中国、美国、日本等国的实践案例考察,从制度变迁和公共行政学术史两个层面的质性研究,提出了以公共价值为基础的政府绩效治理理论体系框架。文章首先从"公共性"、"合作生产"和"可持续"三个方面对新公共管理背景下的政府绩效管理进行了反思,认为公共价值对政府绩效合法性具有本质的规定性。其次,初步论证了以公共价值为基础的政府绩效治理的两个基本命题——政府绩效是一种社会建构、产出即绩效;认为只有来源于社会的政府绩效才能获得合法性基础,也只有根植于社会的政府绩效才能产生其可持续提升的需要,这是政府绩效管理的根本动力;而在政府绩效价值建构基础上的科学管理,才能保证政府产出与社会需求的高度一致,充分体现科学管理的价值。再次,从这两个基本命题出发,以价值管理和管理科学理论为基础,构建起了以公共价值为基础的政府绩效治理模型,并对模型中政府绩效的价值建构、组织管理和协同领导系统等主要内容进行了阐述。最后,从模型如何"落地"、政府绩效管理的价值分析和研究拓展等方面提出了未来的研究方向。     

危机状态下政府行为重整——对抗击SARS中政府行为的个案分析

在一个危机四伏的世界里,政府将面对各种不确定性。以我国政府抗击SARS过程作为分析个案,从组织设置的视角,探讨政府在面对不确定境况时,如何进行组织安排和思维转换,将个体行为与集体效率结合起来形成合力,化解各种危机和缓解不确定性;同时如何处理危机状态下政府决策中的科学发现与社会控制的关系,从而达到寻求新的社会治理模式。     

Local Government Innovation and Revealed Ideas of Political Legitimacy: a Comparative Study between the United States and China

This study constructs a typology of innovation from the winning nominations of local government innovation award programs in the US and China, two countries with histories of subnational policy innovation, to reveal what types of policy initiatives local officials believe will improve governance in each country. I argue that improving governance is important as it serves as a main source of modern political legitimacy, regardless of regime type. To analyze if ideas of good governance differ by regime type, I classify local government innovation into six thematic areas, and then examine how each of these are expected to improve governance and thus contribute to political legitimacy. In China, I find that the predominant local innovations are in the area of governance and management, which demonstrate that government officials believe that reforming the democratic governance process will solve governance problems and enhance political legitimacy. In the United States, however, economic, social, cultural, and environmental areas occupied a larger proportion of government innovation, illustrating that local officials pay more attention to enhancing political legitimacy through improving the performance and quality of government services. This analysis shows that ideas of good governance, as revealed by local government innovation awards, differ across these two regime types. Although government officials in both regimes desire improved governance as a way to enhance political legitimacy, what that means in each country differs.     

Navigating collaborative governance in Florida: An analysis of local governments resilience amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

This study investigates the effectiveness of collaborative governance in the context of state and local government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in Florida. Our analysis uncovers how local authorities have successfully adapted to implement policies to increase resilience and address the crisis, despite facing challenges, constraints, and limitations. Our findings underscore the significance of considering unique local characteristics when addressing pandemics and shed light on the potential influences of state-level actors on Home Rule. Notably, research examining the interplay between state decisions and Home Rule during a pandemic is scarce. We utilize Florida as a case study to examine local government responses to COVID-19, employing a qualitative analysis of data from webinars hosted by the Florida League of Cities and media reports on local government actions. To substantiate our findings and encourage further research, we apply the collaborative governance framework in the context of local government administrative responsibilities.     

Standing apart and sitting together: Enforcing coalition agreements in multiparty systems

Abstract.  One of the most obvious questions to be asked about coalition governments is what these governments do, but this question has received little systematic attention from coalition researchers. A key element of coalition governance that may inform our empirical knowledge of the actions of government – their origin, organization and results – is coalition agreements. Party leaders negotiating a new government invest time in writing coalition agreements, and they do this because they expect beneficial effects: more efficiency in coalition policy making, and more peace in the government. Written coalition agreements are considered to reduce uncertainty and mistrust, and this is why they have become institutionalized in countries with coalition governments. This article presents an approach to the comparative study of coalition conflicts as they emerge during government formation, the management of this conflict through drafting coalition agreements and the effects of this during coalition life. The article sets out a number of expectations about the effects of types of deals that parties make; and asks what types of conflict management are most effective and what are the conditions for enforcement – structural and strategic? In recent comparative work, the features of coalition agreements and mechanisms of coalition governance in Western Europe have received attention. This article sets out, with empirical material, how further comparative research on coalition governance may be developed.     

‘Bumps in the Road Ahead’: How External Actors Defuse Power-Sharing Crises

ABSTRACT

Power-sharing is a governance approach favoured by external actors for building state capacity and legitimacy in post-conflict societies. Yet it can be unstable and crisis-prone, compelling external actors to guide cross-community cooperation. Why and how do external actors seek to maintain power-sharing and prevent its collapse when operational difficulties emerge? We explore the distinction between ‘light touch’ and ‘heavy hand’ techniques and the motivations of external actors in defusing power-sharing crises. We find a trade-off between the short-term value of crisis management (‘putting out fires’) and the long-term objectives of sustainable local arrangements and external exit (local actors ‘going it alone’).     

For Whose Benefit? Fear and Loathing in the Welfare State

This article contributes to the debate on the relationship between marketing and propaganda through an analysis of social marketing as a mode of governing in permanent campaigning. The working hypothesis is that social marketing operations are agitational rather than propagandistic. The conceptual approach stems from a comparison of propaganda and marketing with Fordist and post-Fordist modes of production and governance. The research into the role of agitation involves an empirical study of the UK government campaign against benefit fraud, the most expensive of its kind. Using a combination of methodologies, the political context is framed through a discourse analysis that charts the historical emergence of the problem of benefit fraud and the material effects of this discourse on welfare spending allocation, content analysis is used to identify correspondences between different newspapers’ rhetoric and policy under different governments, and semiotic analysis helps to decode the message of the campaign against benefit fraud, as it relates to the overall government's strategy on this issue. The study offers insights into the political strategy of the government of New Labour between 1997 and 2010 and its resort to agitational techniques, exposing the limitations of government marketing and public relations in the context of an overall crisis of its political legitimacy, in both economic and political terms.     

Pathways to Institutional Legitimacy in Postconflict Societies: Perceptions of Process and Performance in Nepal

Rebuilding institutional legitimacy is considered essential for stability in postconflict societies, yet the factors that influence citizen perceptions of legitimacy in this context remain underresearched. In this article, we examine citizen evaluations of government legitimacy in terms of instrumental antecedents (service delivery, distributive justice) and procedural antecedents (procedural justice, voice), using data collected in the context of a nationwide study of postconflict governance in Nepal. We find that procedural justice is more strongly associated with citizen perceptions of institutional legitimacy than instrumental outcomes such as service delivery, distributive justice, and outcome favorability. Results indicate that the relationship between service delivery and legitimacy is not as simple as previously assumed. We conclude that procedural justice is crucial for building perceptions of government legitimacy in postconflict societies and discuss implications for policy and practice relating to postconflict governance and institutional trust building.     

Counting on codes: An examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies

This article examines the rise of nanotechnology‐specific codes of conduct (nano‐codes) as a private governance mechanism to manage potential risks and promote the technology. It examines their effectiveness as well as their legitimacy as regulatory instruments in the public domain. The study first maps the rise of voluntary nano‐codes and the roles played by different actors. Focusing on five specific nano‐codes, the article then discusses their adequacy in terms of scientific uncertainty, gaps in existing regulatory regimes, and broader societal concerns. It concludes that these voluntary nano‐codes have weaknesses including a lack of explicit standards on which to base independent monitoring, as well as no sanctions for poor compliance. At the same time it also highlights the potential power of these governance mechanisms under conditions of uncertainty and co‐regulation with government. It is likely that nano‐codes will become the “first cut” of a new governance regime for nanotechnologies.     

当代西方政府信任危机透析

民众对于政府的支持与信任是任何政权合法性的重要基础,也是任何政体正常运转的重要保障。20世纪末以来,西方民主国家中政府的公信力下降已经演化为一股国际性的趋势,成为各国政府面临的严峻问题。西方人民对政府的不信任是众多因素长期混合和交互作用的结果,包括政治选举、政府本身、利益集团、社会文化以及大众传媒等方面的原因。为了提高公民对政府的信心和满意度,巩固政权的正当性和合法性,西方国家采取了多样的手段,开始了塑造“公民性政府”的历程。我国在社会经济改革加速前进的过程中也伴生了一些严重影响政府信任的现象,在这方面,西方国家政府信任危机的内在症结及其解救的经验措施,对于我们提高政府公信力无疑具有重要的启示和借鉴意义。     

Recovering,Restoring, and Renewing the Foundations of American Public Administration: The Contributions of Herbert J. Storing

Public administration continues to face an identity crisis that turns on the question of whether the animating principles of the discipline are to be discovered in the political foundations of a given regime, or whether they are to be found in more universal and transcendent principles of scientific management. Herbert J. Storing reframed the identity crisis as a problem arising from America’s constitutional system of governance. In doing so, he created an important role for public administration in democratic governance. This role took the form of “closet statesmanship” and, in practice, requires the exercise of prudential judgment that looks more like judicial decision making than scientific management. In summarizing Storing’s writings, the authors convincingly argue that he has much to teach us about the ongoing debate regarding the role of the bureaucracy within America’s 87,576 systems of government.     

Managing the EU Crises: Another Way of Integration by Stealth?

Europe has been hit hard by the financial and economic crisis, and there is no fast solution in view. The problem facing the EU is a problem of governance both technically and politically. Most actors, with the possible exception of the ECB, are in disarray because they are caught between the necessity to act and the political reluctance to acknowledge fully the consequences of a multi-level governance system, notably democratic legitimacy and accountability. The discrepancy between political rhetoric and actual practices during the crisis appears as a new form of government by stealth. There is not yet an obvious way out of this morass. The first one seems the easiest as it would be nothing more than ‘muddling through’ as usual, whereas the second option, a two-speed Europe, though more politically attractive, is technically very difficult to implement institutionally. The third possible solution is paradoxically the one that surreptitiously persists at present: a ‘federalism of executives’ that is both unmanageable in the long run and unacceptable from a democratic point of view.     

Bureaucratic discretion,social equity,and the administrative legitimacy dilemma: Complications of New Public Service

Bureaucratic discretion continues to be one of a public administrator's primary powers while at the same time being one of their most controversial. Used in a positive way, bureaucratic discretion can enhance social equity; however, this practice can create administrative legitimacy dilemmas. As such, this paper conceptually discusses the theoretical position of public administrators that contributes to their engagement in legitimacy dilemmas, which is further complicated by the tenets of New Public Service. We argue that if public administrators are engaged in authentic interactions with the public and use their discretion to reflect the interests of the public, then they are engaged in truly democratic governance. We place this argument in the context of achieving social equity and highlight an avoided question in public administration. Finally, recommendations for future research are offered as a means progressing the social equity agenda in public administration.     

The limits and variety of risk‐based governance: The case of flood management in Germany and England

Risk‐based governance is argued by many to hold the promise of a more rational and efficient state, by making explicit the limitations of state interventions and focusing finite resources on those targets where probable damage is greatest. This paper challenges the assumption that risk‐based governance has the potential for universal and uniform application, by comparing contemporary flood management in Germany and England. On first inspection, flooding appears to be a paradigmatic case of risk colonizing European policy discourses, with the traditional notion of flood defense giving way to flood risk management in the context of climate change, increasingly frequent flood disasters, political and cost pressures on flood protection, and publicly available European‐wide flood assessments. Drawing on in‐depth empirical research, this paper shows how the role, and even the definition, of “risk” is institutionally shaped, and how the respective institutional environments of German and English flood management practices impede and promote risk colonization. In particular, the use and conceptualizations of risk in governance are variously promoted, filtered, or constrained by the administrative procedures, structures, and political expectations embedded within flood management and wider polities of each country. The findings of this research are important for the design and implementation of supranational policies and regulations that endorse risk‐based approaches, such as the recent EU Flood Directive, as well as scholarly debate as to how to legitimately define the limits of governance in the face of uncertainty and accountability pressures.     

Political legitimacy and china’s transition

This study reveals a distinctive Chinese cognitive model of political legitimacy, and analyzes how political leaders in Beijing have maintained its legitimacy through cultivating different elements of this traditional model. The central argument developed in this study is that so far the government in Beijing has shown remarkable adaptability to a changing political environment. However, the transition towards a market economy has redefined the meanings of the century-old cognitive model. Consequently, the existing system of legitimization is being seriously challenged. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Brandies University. His recent articles appeared onAsian Survey, Modern China Studies, Twenty First Century (Hong Kong), andAmerican Review of China Studies. The author wishes to thank for the helpful comments made on earlier drafts of this paper by Yang Zhong, A. Jack Waskey, He Li, Jim Stevenson, John Hebestreet, Tang Wei, and anonymous reviewers.     

Fairness matters when responding to disasters: An experimental study of government legitimacy

Governments worldwide are regularly faced with severe weather conditions and disasters caused by natural hazards. Does the way in which governments respond to disasters affect their legitimacy? The current study investigated how evaluations of authorities were influenced by four aspects of a governmental response to a hypothetical disaster. In a survey experiment participants read a scenario in which a government distributed aid in the aftermath of a flooding. Data were collected from the Netherlands, France, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia (N = 2,677). Results showed that the government was seen as more legitimate when it was described as distributing resources fairly, following fair procedures, and providing a material benefit to the participant. However, in contrast to predictions derived from system‐justification theory, results showed that outcome dependence was associated with reduced legitimacy. These findings suggest that response policies that address both instrumental and fairness concerns might help maintain positive evaluations of governments.     

Understanding Business Improvement Districts: A New Governance Framework

What is the current state of research on business improvement districts (BIDs)? What is an appropriate framework for analysis? What are key questions for advancing future BID research? BIDs can be understood best within a network governance framework. The research shows, first, a blurring of the line between the public and private spheres as a result of BIDs; second, BIDs are increasingly important actors in urban governance; third, BIDs engage in collaborative, conflictual, and co‐optative relations with local and state governments; and fourth, difficult accountability and management problems are created by their interdependent relationships with local governments. Future research needs to focus on understanding the role of BIDs in urban governance and assessing their impacts on metropolitan areas, as well as their inherently complicated public accountability and management challenges.     

Evidence for Tackling the Complexities of Water Governance

Water policy and management decisions are increasingly challenged by uncertainties associated with climate change, changing demographics, and social values. This article discusses how research by water governance scholars supports and complements Rob M. Skinner's arguments about the complexities of water planning and policy making and the importance of stakeholder engagement. Specifically, it focuses on how this decision‐making context shapes the ways in which evidence is used and understood in water governance. To conclude, this article draws lessons for practitioners about the limitations of using evidence in water governance.