Transboundary Crisis Management Research Articles

Crisis management from a relational perspective: an analysis of interorganizational transboundary crisis networks

Abstract Although transboundary crises have gained relevance in an increasingly interdependent world, our understanding of the relational dynamics governing these phenomena remains limited. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by identifying common characteristics across interorganizational transboundary crisis networks and drivers of tie formation in successful structures. For this purpose, it applies descriptive Social Network Analysis and Exponential Random Graph Models to an original dataset of three networks. Results show that these structures combine elements of issue networks and policy communities. Common features include moderately high centralization, reciprocated ties, core-periphery structures, and the popularity of international organizations. Additionally, successful networks display smooth communication between NGOs and international organizations, whereas unsuccessful networks have fewer heterophilous interactions. Transitivity seems to play a role in network success too. These findings suggest that crisis networks are robust structures that reconcile bridging and bonding dynamics, thereby highlighting how evidence from relational studies could guide transboundary crisis management.

Rethinking legislation to cope with transboundary crises

AbstractSocieties are increasingly subject to transboundary crises that pose new challenges to crisis management and require a structural rethinking of longstanding arrangements. This study explores which governance aspects could be embedded in legislation to facilitate the organization of such transboundary crisis management. It builds upon research findings from the comprehensive 2020 governmental evaluation study of the Safety Regions Act in the Netherlands and the relevant literature. First, we provide a framework for a systematic study of the relationship between law and practice. Second, we present a model on how legislation for crisis management could be adapted to better fit with transboundary crises. This consists of a set of 10 key aspects categorized into five pillars: the interconnectedness of the various phases of crisis management and risk assessments as a starting point; flexible crisis management organization and network collaboration; allocated facilitator and exceptional decision‐making power; professional competences and netcentric information management; and learning capacities and democratic feedback. This model provides a point of departure for researchers and policymakers alike for rethinking the role that legislation can play in preparing for the crises of the future.

Un-solvable crises? Differential implementation and transboundary crisis management in the EU

Much has been said about how crises in the EU create disintegration or differentiation pressures. Considerable attention has been paid to EU crisis governance mechanisms. Yet, less attention has been paid to the anticipation of effects of differentiated implementation on transboundary crisis management regimes. This article asks how differential policy integration accommodates the anticipation of differential implementation through institutional choices in transboundary crisis management regimes. Concerns about the consequences of national customisation influence the way in which transboundary crisis management regimes develop in terms of allocation of authority and constraints on member state discretion. The paper compares EU transboundary crisis regimes in four sectors: banking, electricity, youth unemployment, and invasive alien species. Concerns with ongoing differential implementation of transboundary crisis management generate further inevitable tensions in governance systems, leading to continued contestation over institutional arrangements.

A systematic review of 20 years of crisis and disaster research: Trends and progress

AbstractThe field of crisis and disaster studies has proliferated over the past two decades. Attention is bound to grow further as the world negotiates the prolonged challenges of the Covid‐19 pandemic. In this review, we provide an overview of the main foci, methods, and research designs employed in the crisis and disaster research fields in the period of 2001–2020. The review documents that the focus and methods used have not changed much over time. Single case studies and exploratory research prevail, the focus has shifted from preparedness to response, and methodological diversity is limited, but gradually increasing. Future challenges are to understand transboundary crisis management and creeping crises. Advancing the field calls for our community to put more effort in drawing lessons beyond the single case to uncover comparable and universal patterns that connect between events or phases, which help to theorize the multifaceted nature of crisis and disaster management.

COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of cross-cultural differences on crisis management: A conceptual model of transcultural crisis management

In this paper, leadership tasks and stakeholder response during transboundary crisis management are analyzed based on findings from Hofstede’s study, GLOBE Project, and theoretical concepts in cross-cultural management. Accordingly, a conceptual model of transcultural crisis management is proposed. Seven propositions (P) and sixteen sub-propositions (SP) are developed and then tested using the case method. The case of the COVID-19 pandemic is studied to note the effects of cross-cultural differences and intercultural communication in the pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis stages. Cross-cultural differences are found to affect sense-making, decision-making, sense-giving and meaning-making during pre-crisis and crisis management stages. Implications of these findings and further research agenda are discussed.

The Role of European Agencies in Transboundary Crises: Perspectives in the Post COVID-19 Era

European Agencies (EAs) have a significant influence on policy-making and decision-making in key areas, whether we are talking about the daily lives of the citizens or about crisis management. The emergence of EAs was an institutional response to the need for policy coordination in the EU΄s system of governance. The last decade has created a new reality for the European Union, characterized by successive external transboundary crises. The increasingly urgent need for a European crisis response could signal a more active role for European agencies. During the global financial and public debt crisis, part of the EU's response was to set up three new European Agencies. The refugee crisis further strengthened existing agencies, such as EASO and FRONTEX. EU agencies are already playing an increasingly important role in shaping European policies as solutions to crises. Through the experience of the ongoing pandemic crisis of COVD-19, this policy brief seeks to highlight the importance of European Agencies in an effective European response to crises and to contribute to the discussion about the future role of EAs in transboundary crisis management.

Beyond Ones and Zeros: Conceptualizing Cyber Crises

The parallel universe of cyberspace, created by computer networks, ones, and zeros, has changed the rules of the game. It would be inevitable for crisis management research to remain unaffected by the new challenges arising. The present article delves into the underexplored concept of cyber crises, by initiating an academic problematization of crisis conceptualization. Drawing from transboundary crisis management theory, it examines two major cyberattacks, the 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack and the 2016 hacking of the DNC, and explores an empirical puzzle: why are these cases not characterized as crises even though they fit already existing definitions? The article contributes to the theory of transboundary crises by shedding light on previously overlooked cyber crisis characteristics and attempting to propose a definition of cyber crises. The way we perceive crises has a direct impact on how we manage them. Broadening the research agenda and understanding the concept of a cyber crisis could pave the way for a more effective and proactive response to new threats, which is what the following pages attempt to demonstrate.

Drivers of integration? EU agency board members on transboundary crises

The European Union continuously faces transboundary crises (TBCs), such as the 1996 and 2000 outbreaks of ‘mad cow disease’, or the 2015 refugee crisis. Within this context, European Union agencies (EAs) have emerged as technical repositories that are capable of addressing such crises more efficiently than intergovernmental cooperation. However, their effective implication in transboundary crisis management largely varies, as different degrees of involvement can be observed. Different angles can be adopted to make sense of variation in the response of agencies to TBCs; hence, this study focuses on the role of EA management boards. These boards epitomize the unique nature of EU institutions, in that they represent the Member States and integrate their network capabilities into a single entity. Our study assesses perceptions of board members concerning three aspects related to the capacity of agencies to respond to TBCs: decision-making, coordination, and resources, based on a survey distributed among board members and a biographical database.

Transboundary crisis management under the volcano: The case of the Icelandic ash cloud

AbstractThis paper discusses the intricacies of external transboundary crises, namely those cross‐border threats whose management requires coordination among EU and non‐EU countries. Specifically, it explores the extent to which European integration theories shed light on the coordination of external transboundary crisis responses by assessing the weight and role of the actor constellations involved in the civil aviation response to the 2010 Icelandic ash cloud crisis. The use of social network analysis as a methodological tool generates novel empirical evidence on the configuration of crisis management structures. The analysis shows that many EU Member States led decision‐making, whereas supranational organizations were instrumental in the coordination of the ash cloud crisis response. The centrality of these bodies contrasts with the peripheral position of most interest groups. This paper also suggests that external transboundary crises present complex management dynamics that distinguish them from generic transboundary threats. For example, the response to the ash cloud crisis was not commanded by the European Economic Area/European Free Trade Association countries where its epicentre was located. The empirical analysis was based on information extracted from a survey to experts involved in the management of this episode, as well as from ten semi‐structured elite interviews.

Organizational synthesis in transboundary crises: Three principles for managing centralization and coordination in the corona virus crisis response

Boin (2019) argues that in transboundary crisis management it is almost impossible to achieve centralization and coordination. This article identifies three principles through which actors in a transboundary crisis can balance centralization with autonomy while shaping coordination along the way. We reanalysed three transboundary cases: the Dutch military mission in Afghanistan, the downing of MH17 and hurricane Irma striking Sint‐Maarten. The principles we found are as follows: (a) reformulating key strategic priorities, (b) flexible adaptation of crisis management protocols and (c) the emergence of multifunctional units. With these three principles, we reflect on challenges in the Dutch crisis response to the corona outbreak and propose improvements for progressing current crisis management efforts.

Cooperation in the Face of Transboundary Crisis: A Framework for Analysis

AbstractThe nation state is discovering the limits of its crisis management capacities. The Ebola and Zika outbreaks, the financial crisis, the downing of flight MH17 over Ukraine, sinking ships overfilled with refugees, cyber-attacks, urban terrorism and existential environmental threats serve as strong reminders of the complex origins and transboundary dimensions of many contemporary crises and disasters. As these transboundary aspects of modern crises become increasingly manifest, the need for international, collaborative responses appears ever clearer. But that collaboration does not always emerge in time (or at all). Even in the European Union, which has various transboundary crisis management mechanisms in place, the willingness to initiate joint crisis responses varies. This observation prompted our research question: Why do states collaborate in response to some transboundary crises but not others? We bring together the crisis and collective action literatures to formulate a theoretical framework that can help answer this question. This article identifies crucial factors that facilitate a possible pathway toward a joint response.

Electronic Systems of Information Exchange as a Key Tool in EU Health Crisis and Disaster Management

Decision 1082/2013 on Serious Cross-border Health Threats (Health Threats Decision) was adopted in 2013 with the aim of preparing for and responding to serious health threats. In this legislation, the European Union adopts an “all-hazards” approach which strongly relies on the exchange of information as a driver of regulatory activities. This article first demonstrates that the electronic systems of information exchange constitute a key tool in EU Health Crisis and Disaster Management (“EHCDM”). Second, it identifies the distinctive features of these mechanisms in the EU context: the reinforcement of a statutory policy shift towards securitisation of public health, the peculiarity of the EU composite administrative procedures as well as the facilitation of the quality of the sense-making activities. Finally, the article uncovers the possible problems which may affect the adequate functioning of EHCDM and argues the routes for further research. The piece links legal analysis with the interdisciplinary conceptual lens to offer an important contribution to closer characterisation of the EHCDM as a field in its own right together with a better understanding of the EU public health law and administration in the context of transboundary crisis management and health security governance.

Building Joint Crisis Management Capacity? Comparing Civil Security Systems in 22 European Countries

A series of transboundary crises and disasters has increased pressure on European states to cooperate in the realm of crisis and disaster management. The European Union has taken an active role to connect national capacities of member states. Little is known, however, about the compatibilities of national civil protection systems. This article attempts to fill that void. We draw on a comparative study on 22 European states and highlight similarities as well as patterns of variation. We explore how different states define the role of government during crises and disasters; we map the administrative structures and procedures in place to provide civil security. We also assess the quality of these systems. Our findings reveal that administrative responsibilities, legal frameworks and operational practices differ markedly, as the national systems are rooted in national contexts and historical experiences. In the light of our findings, we contemplate what role the EU can play to build joint transboundary crisis management capacity.

Managing Transboundary Crises: The Emergence ofEuropeanUnion Capacity

TheEuropeanUnion (EU) has modest but promising capacities to assist member states overwhelmed by disaster through itsCivilProtectionMechanism. TheEUalso routinely sends civil and military missions to hotspots outsideEUterritory. But these capacities do not suffice in the face of transboundary crises: threats that cross geographical and policy borders within theUnion. Examples include epidemics, financial crises, floods, and cyber terrorism. Nation states cannot cope with these threats without international collaboration. In this article, we explore theEU's efforts to develop transboundary crisis management capacities. We describe these budding capacities, explain their policy origins, and explore their future potential.

Building European Union capacity to manage transboundary crises: Network or lead‐agency model?

AbstractIn recent years, the European continent has witnessed a substantial number of “transboundary crises” – crises that cross geographical borders and affect multiple policy domains. Nation states find it hard to deal with such crises by themselves. International cooperation, thus, becomes increasingly important, but it is not clear what shape or form that cooperation should take. This article explores the growing role of the European Union (EU) in managing transboundary crises. More specifically, it reflects on the different ways in which the expanding contours of the EU's emerging crisis capacity can be organized. Using three “performative dimensions” – sense‐making, coordination, and legitimacy – the article discusses the possible advantages and disadvantages of a decentralized, network model and compares it with a more centralized, lead‐agency model. It concludes that the current network model is a logical outcome of the punctuated and fragmentary process through which EU crisis management capacities have been created. It also notes that the shortcomings of this model may necessitate elements of a lead‐agency model. Such “agencification” of networks for transboundary crisis management may well lead to a hybrid model that is uniquely suited for the peculiar organizational and political creature that the EU is.

Trans-boundary Crisis Management: Leadership Challenges of Cultural Variance

As organizations cross cultural boundaries, they encounter values and assumptions that differ from their own. Some differences have little effect on crisis management, while most differences fundamentally challenge crisis management assumptions, theories and practices. Although globalization is pervasive, little attention has addressed leadership challenges of trans-boundary crisis management. To address this research gap, we propose five tenets of crisis management. We discuss dimensions of cultural variance that are most relevant to crisis management. Next, we synthesize value differences inherent across cultures and crisis management that can disrupt effective leadership. Finally, we provide suggestions for future research and practice.