Abstract
A financial crisis, or any crisis, is likely to produce a variety of responses from governments. This article discusses the range of responses that may be possible, pointing out that diametrically opposite answers may be made to the common problem. The analysis points to the persistence of many dichotomies in our thinking about public administration and public policy. These varied responses to crises are investigated in several political systems including the Baltic States and the European Union.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although not related per se to the macro-level failures of economic management, the failures of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US to monitor Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme were indicative of these problems. The SEC had all the information needed to detect the fraud that was going on, but it was held in different divisions of the home office and in different field offices, and the picture was never brought together prior to the abject failure of this financial pyramid.
Perhaps the only really comparable period was the New Deal in another, and even greater, crisis: see Calmes and Zelenes (2008).
The crisis may amount to a “policy window” opening, permitting more innovative policy making: see Kingdon and Thurber (2003).
References
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boin, A., McConnell, A., & ‘t Hart, P. (2008). Governing after crisis: The politics of investigation, accountability and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braun, D., & Busch, A. (1999). Political ideas and public policies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Calmes J, Zelenes J (2008) Obama vows swift action on vast stimulus program. The New York Times, 22 November.
Fleischer, J. (2010). Steering from the German center: More policy coordination and fewer policy initiatives. In C. Dahlström, B. G. Peters, & J. Pierre (Eds.), Steering from the center. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hood, C. (2010). Blame avoidance in government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kattel, R. (2009). The rise and fall of the Baltic states. Development & Transition, 13, 11–13.
Kingdon, J. W., & Thurber, J. A. (2003). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.
Light, P. C. (1995). Thickening government. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.
Painter, M. A., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2010). Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Peters, B. G. (1998). What works? The antiphons of administrative reform. In B. G. Peters & D. J. Savoie (Eds.), Taking stock: Assessing public sector reforms. Montreal: McGill/Queens University Press.
Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (2004). Politicization of the civil service: The quest for control. London: Routledge.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251–67.
Simon, H. A. (1947). Administratve behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weaver, R. K., & Rockman, B. A. (1993). Do institutions matter? Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Wildavsky, A. (1984). The politics of the budgetary process (4th ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peters, B.G., Pierre, J. & Randma-Liiv, T. Global Financial Crisis, Public Administration and Governance: Do New Problems Require New Solutions?. Public Organiz Rev 11, 13–27 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0148-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0148-x