TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Bouckaert, Geert A1 - Galli, Davide A1 - Reiter, Renate A1 - van Hecke, Steven T1 - Opportunity management of the COVID-19 pandemic BT - testing the crisis from a global perspective JF - International review of administrative sciences N2 - This article provides a conceptual framework for the analysis of COVID-19 crisis governance in the first half of 2020 from a cross-country comparative perspective. It focuses on the issue of opportunity management, that is, how the crisis was used by relevant actors of distinctly different administrative cultures as a window of opportunity. We started from an overall interest in the factors that have influenced the national politics of crisis management to answer the question of whether and how political and administrative actors in various countries have used the crisis as an opportunity to facilitate, accelerate or prevent changes in institutional settings. The objective is to study the institutional settings and governance structures, (alleged) solutions and remedies, and constellations of actors and preferences that have influenced the mode of crisis and opportunity management. Finally, the article summarizes some major comparative findings drawn from the country studies of this Special Issue, focusing on similarities and differences in crisis responses and patterns of opportunity management. KW - administrative culture KW - comparison KW - COVID-19 KW - crisis management KW - governance KW - opportunity management KW - pandemic KW - window of opportunity Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852321992102 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 497 EP - 517 PB - Sage CY - Los Angeles, California ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Hellström, Mikael A1 - Ramberg, Ulf A1 - Reiter, Renate T1 - Tracing divergence in crisis governance BT - responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared JF - International review of administrative sciences N2 - This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of ‘normal governance’ and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less – as in Germany and France – on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures. KW - administrative culture KW - containment KW - crisis KW - governance KW - multi-level system KW - policy advice KW - public health KW - window of opportunity Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320979359 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 556 EP - 575 PB - Sage CY - Los Angeles, California ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kuhlmann, Sabine A1 - Hellstrom, Mikael A1 - Ramberg, Ulf A1 - Reiter, Renate T1 - Tracing divergence in crisis governance BT - responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden compared JF - International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration N2 - This cross-country comparison of administrative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in France, Germany and Sweden is aimed at exploring how institutional contexts and administrative cultures have shaped strategies of problem-solving and governance modes during the pandemic, and to what extent the crisis has been used for opportunity management. The article shows that in France, the central government reacted determinedly and hierarchically, with tough containment measures. By contrast, the response in Germany was characterized by an initial bottom-up approach that gave way to remarkable federal unity in the further course of the crisis, followed again by a return to regional variance and local discretion. In Sweden, there was a continuation of 'normal governance' and a strategy of relying on voluntary compliance largely based on recommendations and less - as in Germany and France - on a strategy of imposing legally binding regulations. The comparative analysis also reveals that relevant stakeholders in all three countries have used the crisis as an opportunity for changes in the institutional settings and administrative procedures. Points for practitioners COVID-19 has shown that national political and administrative standard operating procedures in preparation for crises are, at best, partially helpful. Notwithstanding the fact that dealing with the unpredictable is a necessary part of crisis management, a need to further improve the institutional preparedness for pandemic crises in all three countries examined here has also become clear. This should be done particularly by way of shifting resources to the health and care sectors, strengthening the decentralized management of health emergencies, stocking and/or self-producing protection material, assessing the effects of crisis measures, and opening the scientific discourse to broader arenas of experts. KW - administrative culture KW - containment KW - crisis KW - governance KW - multi-level system KW - policy advice KW - public health KW - window of opportunity Y1 - 2021 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852320979359 SN - 0020-8523 SN - 1461-7226 VL - 87 IS - 3 SP - 556 EP - 575 PB - Sage Publ. CY - London ER -