Guest editorial: Understanding how to react to crises: public management and administration amidst stability, adaptation and transformation
Year: 2025
Type: editorial
Abstract: Crises are times when governments and public administrations can and must demonstrate how effective they are. Citizens, businesses and third-sector organisations expect governments and public administrations to provide protection, coordination and emergency assistance. Even constituencies that are usually skeptical of the state and demand “less government” in normal times are likely to demand greater interventions and support from public authorities during times of crisis. While crises can create a “rally round the flag effect” in the short term (Kritzinger et al., 2021), trust can also decline dramatically when it becomes clear that the government is not performing well (Aassve et al., 2024; Abdelzadeh and Sedelius, 2024). Also, crises impact public administration and governance systems, potentially destabilising them and creating a window of opportunity for learning and transformative adaptation (Novalia and Malekpour, 2020).The last decade has seen deep crises—which is a situation quite common for a large number of countries, especially in Asia and Africa (Ruwanpura et al., 2025)—return to economically highly developed countries. There is also evidence that the rational, evidence-based crisis management that contributed to the stability of these countries has been undermined by radicalised partisanship (Gollwitzer et al., 2020). The current situation is now referred to as a polycrisis, in which political, ecological, economic and social problems converge, creating complex, interlocking challenges for public governance (Helleiner, 2024; Hoeffler et al., 2024; Lawrence, 2024). The policy relevance of this framing lies less in its novelty than in its emphasis on cross-domain interdependence and temporal overlap, complicating coordination and stressing administrative capacity. Clearly, polycrises has magnified the importance of building capacities to deal with turbulence (Toshkov et al., 2022; Lund-Tønnesen and Christensen, 2023).These observations motivate the agenda of this special issue, Understanding how to react to crises: Public Management and Administration amidst stability, adaptation and transformation, which originated from a panel at the 2024 conference of the International Research Society of Public Management (IRSPM) in Tampere, Finland. The contributions offer a twofold perspective: From an analytical-empirical standpoint, transformations of governments due to crises are analysed, while a conceptual framework asks what can be learned from experiences with recent crises. The discussion revolves around the question of how public organisations, which typically derive their strength from bureaucratic structures, can implement rapid, flexible and effective crisis adjustments. Robustness (Ansell et al., 2024; Capano and Toth, 2023) and resilience (Boin and McConnell, 2007; Williams et al., 2017) as key terms in the current discussion highlight the need for what might be called the paradox of public crisis management: While public organisations are expected to ensure ultimate stability, they are challenged to react to uncertainty with tremendous flexibility.We start with analytical-empirical contributions that discuss how governments have reacted to crises and what can be learnt from them. In their contribution entitled Policy advisory systems and crisis governance: the advisory committee architecture within different politicization settings, Staronova et al. (2026) analyse the impact of politicisation on the work of advisory committees (ACs). The comparative case study examines ACs in Ireland, as a case of a meritocratic advisory system with a low degree of politicisation, and in Slovakia, as a case of a patronage system in a highly politicised setting. Based on analysis of statistical data, government documents and media coverage, as well as interviews, the authors evaluate the work of ACs in both countries. It is shown that despite pre-existing structures and procedures for crisis management, advisory systems in both cases were changed at the beginning of the crises, leading to a centralization of decision-making. While the professional quality of ACs in Ireland was maintained by focusing on professional standards for the appointment of experts, the selection of experts by the Slovakian prime minister was based on political loyalty and values. Results also show differences in agenda-setting, decision-making and communication. It is argued that politicisation leads not only to worse advisory systems but also to obstacles in learning, because blame-shifting becomes more important than improving public services.In their article Navigating the aftermath: evaluating COVID-19's lasting effects — multiple case studies from Slovenian public administration, Vrbek and Jukić (2026) examine in more detail how public administration has reacted to crisis. Based on an upgraded Leavitt diamond model, this contribution shows what triggered change in public organisations during the COVID-19 crisis and which innovations can be expected to remain. Results of the broad qualitative research on Slovenian administration converge on digitisation: While “people” is identified as the factor triggering change, the use of digital technologies, especially of video conferencing enabling work from home at a large scale, lies at the core of the observed changes. However, while the use of these technologies will continue, the authors notice a partial return to the traditional organisation of work and development of hybrid organisational structures. “The fundamental nature of the organisations”, they conclude, “remained unchanged”.Ravazzi et al. (2026) dive deeper into the paradox of stable flexibility. Their contribution: Stability or instability in crisis policymaking? From the emergency management perspective to the robustness perspective, analyses when and how policymakers choose flexibility over following rules in crisis management. The comparative study is based on data from document analysis and interviews questioning the use and development of incident management systems (IMS) in Denmark, Italy and Spain. The study identifies the use of practical knowledge and feedback loops as practices that helped to improve crisis management in highly demanding situations. The authors argue that in crisis-specific networks of government actors, private enterprises and non-government organisations, pragmatic approaches of working with analogies to everyday problem-solving and incrementalistic adaptations are a valuable part of robust crisis management.Plaček et al. (2026) analyse changes in public organisations from a comparative perspective in their article entitled Resilience strategies of public organizations and social enterprises: evidence from Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The article focuses on the delivery of social services by public organisations and social enterprises in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, comparing their resilience strategies. Based on interviews with representatives of 28 organisations in 2023, it is shown that social enterprises tend to react to crises by developing proactive, “offensive” resilience strategies, such as creating new opportunities to generate revenue, while public organisations follow defensive resilience strategies, focusing, for example, on the adaptation and implementation of emergency and risk plans. Thus, the authors propose an effective division of labour between social enterprises, which provide the necessary flexibility, and public organisations, which ensure stability during times of crisis.The contribution What can we learn about crisis management in the polycrisis era? Insights from Finland's international public policy network by Keinänen et al. (2026) further deepen the analysis of the importance of networks for crisis management. Based on interviews, the authors analyse how Team Finland, an inter-sectoral network promoting economic development through public internationalisation services, reacted to polycrises and built resilience. It is shown how network actors perceive polycrises, adapt through reorganisation and redefine regions for their activities. Network governance helps to disseminate information quickly and thus to manage the uncertainty of future developments. It also fosters organisational learning and strengthens crisis resilience.Another approach to how networks deal with polycrises, or, as they put it, with transboundary crises, is identified by von Zahn et al. (2026) in their contribution: Sharing is caring: effective local crisis management through practice sharing a case study from Germany. Based on the concept of practice switching, they develop the concept of practice sharing as an important element of inter-organisational learning. They argue that in the empirical case of COVID-19 management in German local government, practice sharing stabilised crisis management, as it became increasingly difficult for administrations to continue operating in crisis management mode after the onset of the crisis. They argue that the practice sharing that has emerged in emergency situations can be a learning arena that helps to develop new concepts for crisis management. This would be especially relevant for hybrid networks, in which public administrations, first responders, non-governmental organisations and private entities must collaborate during times of crisis.The article by Torfing et al. (2026), Understanding the role of multi-level societal intelligence for ensuring robust governance of schools during turbulence, further consolidates and emphasises the importance of learning in networks for crisis management. The authors analyse how multi-level societal intelligence, as a practice of knowledge sharing, coordination and collaboration between actors from multiple levels and sectors, can enhance robust governance in polycrises. The comparison of governance around school openings during the COVID-19 crisis in Denmark and Spain, using data from document analysis and interviews, shows how multi-level societal intelligence can generate innovative ideas for crisis management, but also how rigid top-down governing blocks this option.This points to the relevance of lawmakers and politicians, which has already been emphasised in the article by Staronova et al. (2026). In their contribution entitled Gender, trust and empathy: a systematic review of factors influencing successful political leadership in the COVID-19 crisis, Rodriguez Fraga et al. (2026) synthesise evidence on success factors of political leadership during crises. Based on a systematic literature review, they analyse how successful political leadership is understood and what factors influencing it are discussed in literature related to COVID-19. Three key lessons are highlighted: the relevance of empathy to leading under uncertainty, the mixed findings on gender-related or gender-role-related impact on leadership success and the striking lack of knowledge about how trust is generated or lost—even though the importance of trust is undisputed.The special issue concludes with a look at the material foundations of good crisis management: healthy public budgets. The article Spending and strategic reviews: how do crises matter? By Lindquist and Shepherd (2026), a conceptual map is developed of whether the effects of crises on government budgets and future spending are systematically evaluated, whether the results of these reviews are transformed into policies and whether these policies are successfully implemented. The conceptual framework clearly shows a research gap regarding the question of under which circumstances the effects of crisis on government budgets and future spending are systematically evaluated, if the results of these reviews become transformed into policies and if these policies are successfully implemented.Taken together, the contributions to this special issue shed light on various forms of stability, adaptation and transformation in crisis governance. The enduring resilience of existing administrative structures against change may sometimes be frustrating but can also be seen as a necessary consequence of the stabilising power of the public administrations that modern societies are based on. Keeping organisational cores largely intact even under intense pressure is the foundation of robust crisis management. Whether minor adjustments then enable governments and public organisations to address immediate challenges—or whether far-reaching shifts in coordination mechanisms, advisory structures and network relations take place—seems to be the consequence of governance structures that can be shaped to only a limited extent by conscious political or administrative action. However, crisis governance in contemporary states is characterised less by abrupt ruptures than by layered combinations of stability, controlled adaptation and selective transformation.Crises are an opportunity for learning, but learning from crises is not guaranteed and may even be challenging (Birkland, 2009). What is today described as a polycrisis obviously shatters conventional paradigms of crisis management and thus creates pressure for double-loop learning that changes organisational norms and strategies (Boin et al., 2017). Regarding public sector management, there are three major lessons offered by the contributions to this special issue:For public administration scholars, three other essential tasks follow: First, to help politicians understand this perspective on crisis governance in order to provide the necessary resources to develop such governance and to prevent counterproductive actions; second, to anchor an understanding of this governance perspective in public perception; and third, to train employees for governance tasks in these networks.The cases examined in this special issue primarily originate from relatively capable states that have democratic political systems, long-standing administrative systems, extensive policy networks and relatively high levels of institutionalised expertise. While this focus enables a nuanced understanding of how such systems respond to crises and polycrises, it also implies limitations in terms of the generalisability of the findings. Future research must explore whether similar dynamics can be observed in the Global South, in hybrid or authoritarian regimes, and in settings with fewer fiscal or institutional resources.Finally, this special issue also highlights a broader research agenda for public administration scholarship. More longitudinal and quantitative studies are needed to trace learning processes across multiple crises. Comparative work should systematically contrast crisis responses across levels of government and political-administrative systems. Mixed-methods designs should integrate in-depth process analyses with robust assessments of outcomes. Further research should pay particular attention to how trust is built, eroded and potentially restored in crisis governance; how fiscal and budgetary dynamics affect the potential for adaptation and transformation; and how different forms of knowledge—scientific, professional and experiential—are utilised, politicised or disregarded during crisis management.
Authors: David Spacek, Jens Weiss
Institutions: Masaryk University, Harz University of Applied Sciences
Language: English
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W7117759031