Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance

Living Edition
| Editors: Ali Farazmand

Butterfly Theory of Crisis Management

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_883-1
How to cite

Synonyms

Chaos theory; Dynamic systems; Non-linear systems;

Introduction

The single flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil generates a minor atmospheric disturbance continuously expanding to produce a tornado in Texas a month later. This butterfly effect, often attributed to Lorenz (1963), and sometimes called butterfly theory, suggests small events may generate large consequences. Butterfly theory was initially applied to meteorology, but in recent years, the theory has been applied to other fields including mathematics, physics, and economics. This paper applies butterfly theory to matters of crisis management in public administration.

Butterfly Theory

“Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set a tornado in Brazil?” was the question posed by meteorologist Edward N. Lorenz at a national meeting of scientists in 1972. In asking the question, Lorenz challenged conventional notions of science, such as deterministic and linear systems.

Butterfly theory contends a small input may...

Keywords

Minimum Wage Crisis Management Chaos Theory Black Swan Public Pension Fund 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Booth S (1993) Crisis management strategy. Competition and change in modern enterprises. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):368–405Google Scholar
  3. Farazmand A (2009) Hurricane Katrina, the crisis of leadership, and chaos management: time for trying the ‘surprise management theory in action’. Public Organ Rev 9:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gladwell M (2002) The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. Back Bay Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Gonzáles-Herrero A, Pratt CB (1995) How to manage a crisis before – or whenever – it hits. Public Relat Q 40(1):25–29Google Scholar
  6. Hong ZH, Sun Y (2000) The butterfly effect and the making of ‘ping pong diplomacy’. J Contemp China 9(25):429–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lifsher M (2015) CalPERS a big winner from S&P settlement; fund recovers $301 million, but has yet to recoup all losses from mortgage meltdown. Los Angeles Times (C2). Tribune Direct, LAGoogle Scholar
  8. Lorenz EN (1963) Deterministic non-periodic flow. J Atmos Sci 20:130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ludwig MS (1995) What went sour in Bob Citron’s Orange County portfolio. Corp Cashflow 16(2):37Google Scholar
  10. Malkiel B (1973) A random walk down wall street. W. W. Norton & Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Puzder A (2015) A post-labor day, minimum-wage hangover. Wall Street J, A13Google Scholar
  12. Taleb N (2007) The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Vastveit KR, Eriksson K, Nja O (2014) Critical reflections on municipal risk and vulnerability analyses as decision support tools: the role of regulation regimes. Environ Syst Decis 34:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Venette S (2003) Risk communication in a high reliability organization: APHIS PPQ’s inclusion of risk in decision making. UMI Proquest Information and Learning, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Azusa Pacific UniversityAzusaUSA