Advertisement

The Road to a Europe That Protects: Civil Protection, Trust, and the Culture of Public Administration in the EU

  • Sten WidmalmEmail author
  • Charles F. Parker
  • Thomas Persson
Chapter
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)

Abstract

The EU and its member states have committed themselves to the protection of their citizens, and a Europe that protects must be able to respond effectively when disaster strikes. In this chapter the authors explain why they treat civil protection and crisis management as crucial cases for investigating which factors—such as trust, public-administration culture, and public-administration structure—facilitate or hinder effective EU cooperation. In addition to investigating the main divides and unifying patterns of cooperation that exist among the EU member states, the authors combine knowledge from crisis management studies together with insights from public and social capital studies to examine to what extent so-called ‘software factors’, such as culture and social trust, matter for achieving effective civil protection cooperation and crisis management.

Bibliography

  1. Adger, W. N. (2003). Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography, 79(4), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlbäck Öberg, S., & Widmalm, S. (2013). NPM på svenska. In M. Zaremba (Ed.), Patientens pris. Stockholm: Weyler förlag.Google Scholar
  3. Ahlbäck Öberg, S., & Widmalm, S. (2016). Om att göra rätt även när ingen ser på. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 118(1), 7–17.Google Scholar
  4. Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building Resilience. Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ansell, C., Boin, A., & Keller, A. (2010). Managing Transboundary Crises: Identifying the Building Blocks of an Effective Response System. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18(4), 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boin, A., & ‘t Hart, P. (2010). Organising for Effective Emergency Management: Lessons from Research. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69(4), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boin, A., & Lodge, M. (2016). Designing Resilient Institutions for Transboundary Crisis Management: A Time for Public Administration. Public Administration, 94(2), 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boin, A., ‘t Hart, P., & Sundelius, B. (2006). The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership Under Pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Boin, A., Comfort, L. K., & Demchak, C. C. (Eds.). (2010). Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boin, A., Ekengren, M., & Rhinard, M. (2013). The European Union as Crisis Manager: Patterns and Prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boin, A., Rhinard, M., & Ekengren, M. (2014). Managing Transboundary Crises: The Emergence of European Union Capacity. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22(3), 131–142.Google Scholar
  12. Bonadeo, A. (1973). Corruption, Conflict, and Power in the Works and Times of Niccoló Machiavelli. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: Modern Philology/University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bossong, R., & Hegemann, H. (Eds.). (2015). European Civil Security Governance: Diversity and Cooperation in Crisis and Disaster Management. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Minneapolis: Liberty Fund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cerni B., & Savic, M. (2015). Migrant Crisis Intensifies in Balkans as EU Wrangles on Solution. Bloomberg, October 26. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-26/migrant-crisis-intensifies-in-balkans-as-eu-wrangles-on-solution.
  16. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016a). Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, T., Danielsen, O. A., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. (2016b). Comparing Coordination Structures for Crisis Management in Six Countries. Public Administration, 94(2), 316–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Comfort, L., Boin, A., & Demchak, C. (2010). Designing Resilience. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erlingsson, G. Ó., Fogelgren, M., Olsson, F., Thomasson, A., & Öhrvall, R. (2015). Att bolagisera kommunal verksamhet. Implikationer för granskning, ansvarsutkrävande och demokrati? Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, 117(4), 555–585.Google Scholar
  20. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2013, December 10). New Legislation to Strengthen European Policy on Disaster Management, Memo/13/1120, Brussels.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2017a, May 23). Overview of Natural and Man-Made Disaster Risks the European Union May Face, Brussels, SWD(2017) 176 final.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. (2017b, February 17). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Progress Made and Gaps Remaining in the European Emergency Response Capacity.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission. (2017c). rescEU: European Commission Proposes to Strengthen EU Disaster Management. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-4732_en.htm?locale=en.
  25. European Commission. (2017d). rescEU: A New European System to Tackle Natural Disasters. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/echo/news/resceu_en.
  26. European Commission. (2017e). EU: A World Leader in Helping Those Affected by Crises. Retrieved from europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2661_en.pdf.
  27. European Commission. (2017f, November 23). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee of the Regions, Strengthening EU Disaster Management: rescEU Solidarity with Responsibility, Brussels, COM(2017) 773 final.Google Scholar
  28. European Commission. (2017g, November 23). Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, Brussels, COM(2017), 772 final 2017/0309 (COD).Google Scholar
  29. European Commission. (2018). EU Civil Protection Mechanism. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/civil-protection/mechanism_en.
  30. European Court of Auditors. (2016). Special Report: Union Civil Protection Mechanism. Retrieved from www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_33/SR_DISASTER_RESPONSE_EN.pdf.
  31. European Parliament and Council. (2013). Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (OJ, L 347, 20.12.2013).Google Scholar
  32. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  33. Greve, C., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Nordic Administrative Reforms: Lessons for Public Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Griffith, A. I., & Smith, D. E. (Eds.). (2014). Under New Public Management—Institutional Ethnographies of Changing Front-Line Work. Toronto, Buffalo, NY, and London: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gruening, G. (2001). Origin and Theoretical Basis of New Public Management. International Public Management Journal, 4(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hall, P. (2012). Managemenbyråkrati—Organisationspolitisk makt i svensk offentlig förvaltning. Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  37. Hammerschmid, G., Van de Walle, S., Andrews, R., & Bezes, P. (Eds.). (2016). Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Hardin, R. (2004). Distrust, Volume III in the Russel Sage Foundation Series on Trust. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  39. Hayek, F. A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kaufman, H. (2006). The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. New York: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  41. Kirchner, E. J., Fanoulis, E., & Dorussen, H. (2015). Civil Security in the EU: National Persistence Versus EU Ambitions? European Security, 24(2), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and Distrust in Organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kramer, R. (2004). Collective Paranoia: Distrust between Social Groups. In R. Hardin (Ed.), Distrust (pp. 136–166). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  44. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kuipers, S., Boin, A., Bossong, R., & Hegemann, H. (2015). Building Joint Crisis Management Capacity? Comparing Civil Security Systems in 22 European Countries. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 6(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lapuente, V., & Nistotskaya, M. (2009). To the Short-Sighted Victor Belong the Spoils: Politics and Merit Adoption in Comparative Perspective. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 22(3), 431–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lilla, M. (2017). The Once and Future Liberal—After Identity Politics. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  48. Lindgren, L. (2014). Nya utvärderingsmonstret: Om kvalitetsmätning i den offentliga sektorn. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  49. Macmullen, R. (1988). Corruption and the Decline of Rome. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mital, S. N. (2000). Kautiliya Arthasastra, 11 vols. Vol. 11, PHISPC Monograph Series on History of Philosophy, Science and Culture in India. New Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilization.Google Scholar
  51. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). Combining Structural Forms in the Search for Policy Tools: Incident Command Systems in U.S. Crisis Management. Governance, 21(2), 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1971). Public Choice: A Different Approach to the Study of Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 31(2), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Painter, M., & Peters, G. B. (Eds.). (2010). Tradition and Public Administration. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Parker, C. F. (2015). Complex Negative Events and the Diffusion of Crisis: Lessons from the 2010 and 2011 Icelandic Volcanic Ash Cloud Events. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, 97(1), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parker, C. F., & Stern, E. K. (2002). Blindsided? September 11 and the Origins of Strategic Surprise. Political Psychology, 23(3), 601–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parker, C. F., Stern, E., Paglia, E., & Brown, C. (2009). Preventable Catastrophe? The Hurricane Katrina Disaster Revisited. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(4), 206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Persson, T., Parker, C., & Widmalm, S. (2017). Social Trust, Impartial Administration and Public Confidence in EU Crisis Management Institutions. Public Administration, 95(1), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peters, G. (2000). Governance and Public Sector Management: Four Main Administrative Traditions. Retrieved May 31, 2017, from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/0,contentMDK:20134002~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:286305,00.html#1.
  59. Peters, B. G. (2010). The Politics of Bureaucracy—An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration (6th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Public Administration. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  61. Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  62. Power, M. (1997). The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  65. Rondinelli, D. A. (1981). Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective—Theory and Practice. International Review of Administrative Science, 47(2), 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1999). Corruption and Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rothstein, B. (2011). The Quality of Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. (2005). All for All. Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust. World Politics, 58(1), 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tarschys, D. (1983). Den offentliga revolutionen (2nd ed.). Stockholm: Liber förlag.Google Scholar
  70. Widmalm, S. (2008). Decentralisation, Corruption and Social Capita: From India to the West. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Widmalm, S. (2016). After NPM, Curb Your Enthusiasm Over the Principal Agent Theory. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 118(1), 127–143.Google Scholar
  72. Widmalm, S., Persson, T., & Parker, C. F. (2018). The EU’s Civilian Crisis Management Capacity and the Challenge of Trust. In A. Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, A. Michalski, N. Nilsson, & L. Oxelheim (Eds.), The European Union: Facing the Challenge of Multiple Security Threats. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  73. Wilkinson, A. (2016). The Brexit Vote Is Really About Just One Thing. New Republic, June 21. Retrieved June 29, 2018, from https://newrepublic.com/article/134507/brexit-vote-really-just-one-thing.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sten Widmalm
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles F. Parker
    • 2
  • Thomas Persson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GovernmentUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Government Centre of Natural Hazards and Disaster Science (CNDS)Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations