Crisis management performance and the European Union: the case of COVID-19

A seemingly continuous stream of crises in Europe has turned scholarly agendas towards assessment of the EU's management of crises. Those assessments vary widely, depending on the analytical focus and criteria used. This paper introduces three assessment criteria drawn from crisis research that pertain to the detection of a crisis, the mobilization of necessary resources, and the nature of the public debate about critical choices made in times of crisis. We relate these crisis management insights to long-standing debates in European integration theory to help link traditional crisis management assessments with EU-focused theorizing. The article offers a framework for assessment of the EU's performance as a crisis manager. We illustrate the utility of the framework with a brief application to the EU's response to Covid-19. We assess the EU's performance in positive terms: the Union acted quickly after a somewhat slow start and was very effective in mobilizing a variety of resources. At the same time, we note that major policy choices were made without a significant public debate about potential effects on the future character of the Union. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of European Public Policy is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Divergent shifts in fear of terrorism

In this study, we examine how the two facets of the fear of terrorism—the affective and behavioural fears—shift over time. To this end, we use a unique longitudinal data set of a representative sample of 755 Dutch respondents, recruited from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences panel, in the time period between November 2017 and May 2020. We find that the reported affective fear of terrorism is significantly lower during the COVID‐19 crisis in 2020 than it was in 2017. Yet a divergent trend for behavioural fear of terrorism occurred. In spite of decreased affective fear of terrorism threats, respondents in 2020 reported increased protective and avoidance behaviours, similar to behaviours promoted to stop the spread of COVID‐19.

Divergent shifts in fear of terrorism

In this study, we examine how the two facets of the fear of terrorism—the affective and behavioural fears—shift over time. To this end, we use a unique longitudinal data set of a representative sample of 755 Dutch respondents, recruited from the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences panel, in the time period between November 2017 and May 2020. We find that the reported affective fear of terrorism is significantly lower during the COVID‐19 crisis in 2020 than it was in 2017. Yet a divergent trend for behavioural fear of terrorism occurred. In spite of decreased affective fear of terrorism threats, respondents in 2020 reported increased protective and avoidance behaviours, similar to behaviours promoted to stop the spread of COVID‐19. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Beyond COVID-19: Five commentaries on expert knowledge, executive action, and accountability in governance and public administration

Several Canadian and international scholars offer commentaries on the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for governments and public service institutions, and fruitful directions for public administration research and practice. This first suite of commentaries focuses on the executive branch, variously considering: the challenge for governments to balance demands for accountability and learning while rethinking policy mixes as social solidarity and expert knowledge increasingly get challenged;how the policy-advisory systems of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and United Kingdom were structured and performed in response to the COVID-19 crisis;whether there are better ways to suspend the accountability repertoires of Parliamentary systems than the multiparty agreement struck by the minority Liberal government with several opposition parties;comparing the Canadian government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Global Financial Crisis and how each has brought the challenge of inequality to the fore;and whether the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated or disrupted digital government initiatives, reinforced traditional public administration values or more open government.

Hiding in Plain Sight: Conceptualizing the Creeping Crisis.

The COVID-19 crisis is a stark reminder that modern society is vulnerable to a special species of trouble: the creeping crisis. The creeping crisis poses a deep challenge to both academics and practitioners. In the crisis literature, it remains ill-defined and understudied. It is even harder to manage. As a threat, it carries a potential for societal disruption-but that potential is not fully understood. An accumulation of these creeping crises can erode public trust in institutions. This paper proposes a definition of a creeping crisis, formulates research questions, and identifies the most relevant theoretical approaches. It provides the building blocks for the systematic study of creeping crises.

La crisis de COVID­19 es un claro recordatorio de que la sociedad moderna es vulnerable a una especie especial de problemas: la crisis progresiva. La progresiva crisis plantea un profundo desafío tanto para los académicos como para los profesionales. En la literatura, permanece mal definida y poco estudiada. Es aún más difícil de manejar. Como amenaza, conlleva un potencial de disrupción social, pero ese potencial no se comprende completamente. La acumulación de estas crisis progresivas puede erosionar la confianza pública en las instituciones. Este artículo propone una definición de crisis progresiva, formula preguntas de investigación e identifica los enfoques teóricos más relevantes. Proporciona los componentes básicos para el estudio sistemático de las crisis progresivas.