Crisis decision-making inside the core executive: Rationality, bureaucratic politics, standard procedures and the COVID-19 lockdown

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public Policy and Administration Pub Date : 2022-10-21 DOI:10.1177/09520767221129676
Jostein Askim, Tom Christensen
{"title":"Crisis decision-making inside the core executive: Rationality, bureaucratic politics, standard procedures and the COVID-19 lockdown","authors":"Jostein Askim, Tom Christensen","doi":"10.1177/09520767221129676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article explains how the unprecedented pandemic management decision to lock down the country came about, using the case of Norway and drawing on unique interview material from political and administrative executives. Urgency and precaution were the government’s primary considerations in March 2020, with proportionality and due process only peripheral decision premises. Voices of moderation were drowned out at critical moments to pave the way for a lockdown. Moreover, Norway’s lockdown decision lacked distinct and official agency, with none of the key actors able to say precisely when, where and by whom this decision of unprecedented size and scope had been taken. An interpretation using Graham Allison’s analytical models shows that the rational policy model most accurately captures the case. The suggested implication is that when senior political executives take active control of an ultra-high-stakes process, decisions are unlikely to be the product of political resultants or organisational output.","PeriodicalId":47076,"journal":{"name":"Public Policy and Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Policy and Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767221129676","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article explains how the unprecedented pandemic management decision to lock down the country came about, using the case of Norway and drawing on unique interview material from political and administrative executives. Urgency and precaution were the government’s primary considerations in March 2020, with proportionality and due process only peripheral decision premises. Voices of moderation were drowned out at critical moments to pave the way for a lockdown. Moreover, Norway’s lockdown decision lacked distinct and official agency, with none of the key actors able to say precisely when, where and by whom this decision of unprecedented size and scope had been taken. An interpretation using Graham Allison’s analytical models shows that the rational policy model most accurately captures the case. The suggested implication is that when senior political executives take active control of an ultra-high-stakes process, decisions are unlikely to be the product of political resultants or organisational output.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
核心高管内部的危机决策:理性、官僚政治、标准程序和新冠肺炎封锁
这篇文章以挪威为例,借鉴了政治和行政高管的独特采访材料,解释了前所未有的疫情管理部门封锁该国的决定是如何产生的。紧急性和预防性是政府在2020年3月的首要考虑因素,相称性和正当程序只是外围决策前提。在为封锁铺平道路的关键时刻,温和的声音被淹没了。此外,挪威的封锁决定缺乏明确的官方机构,没有一个关键参与者能够准确地说出这一规模和范围前所未有的决定是在何时、何地以及由谁做出的。使用Graham Allison的分析模型进行的解释表明,理性政策模型最准确地捕捉到了这种情况。这意味着,当高级政治高管积极控制一个超高风险的过程时,决策不太可能是政治结果或组织产出的产物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Policy and Administration
Public Policy and Administration PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
18
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Policy and Administration is the journal of the UK Joint University Council (JUC) Public Administration Committee (PAC). The journal aims to publish original peer-reviewed material within the broad field of public policy and administration. This includes recent developments in research, scholarship and practice within public policy, public administration, government, public management, administrative theory, administrative history, and administrative politics. The journal seeks to foster a pluralistic approach to the study of public policy and administration. International in readership, Public Policy and Administration welcomes submissions for anywhere in the world, from both academic and practitioner communities.
期刊最新文献
Promoting public sector innovation: who does what, when and how? Contours of a research programme for the study of the relationship of religion and public administration Artificial intelligence and public administration: Understanding actors, governance, and policy from micro, meso, and macro perspectives Sustainable urban development: A scoping review of barriers to the public policy and administration Theoretical-methodological aspects of researching the area of religion and public administration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1